BAe Tempest and other pre-GCAP studies

GARGEAN said:
Is it me or Tempest is by far the most clouded by buzzwords and bragging desighn out of all modern aircrafts? "It has mind-blowing radar!" when work on radar isn' even properly begun. "Production of Loyal Wingman is set to start!" when only 30 mil invested into draft project noone knows what (if anything) will come from. And so much more...
Click to expand...
This current government attaches this kind of hot air to anything technological even vaccines where it’s particularly inappropriate in my view.
 
Especially with the current extraction being completed, there are certain tactics the government will use to be more positive regarding the UK and our policies/development so the buzz words will be earlier than perhaps other projects.
 
TomcatViP said:
Someone should open a thread for team Mosquito
Click to expand...
There is, here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/uk-mod-project-lanca-raf-loyal-wingman.30656/

The Daily Mail is not an aviation journal, everything they write is hyperbole and hubris.

The £30 million is not for production, its for a full-scale flying prototype to fly in 2023 to prove the LANCA concept. (Let's hope they don't bugger it up and crash the bloody thing).
If it works and pleases the MoD and RAF, then I suspect we will either see an operational version ready for the late 2027-2030 timeframe to work with F-35 until Tempest arrives in 2035. Of course they might open up a new tender but that's probably unlikely if they want to keep Warton and Belfast open and two teams is better than one.

I find the reuse of WW2 names a little wearing, they are becoming brands and can be incongruous - note the Avenger is currently a humble King Air 350... and why do we call our Texan IIs Texans when Canada calls theirs Harvards?
 
@Hood : I share your opinion with name being re-used. That's really boring indeed.

Regarding the amount dedicated for "production", I wanted only to oppose that to an R&D program as too often in neighboring countries understood for money paid in advance for a bunch guys to accepts seating around a table and start discussing a problem.

The financial aspect is part of the fight more even today and matters to the utmost.
 
And more of the same from the 'horse's mouth'...
www.gov.uk

£30-million injection for UK’s first uncrewed fighter aircraft

The UK’s first fleet of uncrewed fighter aircraft is one step closer to reality following a £30-million contract to design and manufacture a prototype in a three-year deal supporting more than 100 jobs in Belfast.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
 
Good to see Short's pulling through, even if under new ownership. I don't suppose BAE would let Spirit call it the Spitfire, I can't help wondering if they will call it the Aedes.
 
FighterJock said:
c
CJGibson said:
I bet they don't re-use Spitfire. Or have I just started another conspiracy theory.

View attachment 649416

How I miss Larson.


Chris
Click to expand...

Same here Chris, naming the Aedes after the Spitfire would just be too obvious, after all they have used the Typhoon and Tempest names again.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the reason for using 'Typhoon' is that it's basically the same word in all the languages of the Eurofighter consortium? Typhoon/Taifun/Tifone? I believe the original word is from Asia . . .
Also, 'Tornado' . . . isn't it originally Spanish?
'Tempest' just follows the sequence . . .


cheers,
Robin.
 
The Tornado was meant to be Panther (Panavia Panther - snazzy) but the partners couldn't agree so it became Tornado.
Tornado - Typhoon - Tempest = Hawker's ultimate piston prop series exactly in sequence. Is this coincidence? Perhaps, perhaps not. Its hard to believe that some wag didn't see the link when they chose the name for Tempest.

Renaming the LANCA work as Project Mosquito is less ambiguous, recalls a jack of all trades and creates a Tempest/Mosquito duet.

When they get to recycling names like Bagshot, Hyena, Vivid and Vincent then we can have some real fun.
I don't think anyone would dare bring back Spitfire or Lancaster, Spitfire is too iconic and place names have long been off the MoD naming list.
 
They could have made a poll and ended up calling it "floaty Mc'airhead" or some such.
 
Without wishing to stray too far OT, are the rights to the Beardmore name available? The 'Inflexible' really should be brought back. Aaaand bringing it back on topic, it would be a great name for something resulting from the current DSTL call relating to composite structures. (Phew! Shoehorned that one in at the last moment... ;) )
 
I wonder if the RAF are hoping to get some CTOL F35s instead when Tempest does a Dido Harding ( of the UK's "world beating" test,trace and isolate programme).
 
Promising Union-Jack-labeled Jam tomorrow (with that tomorrow far enough away that it may or may not happen, or evolve, or can potentially be variously delayed) when cancelling Jam today, while loudly telling everyone how you’re really into and serious about Jam you are, is certainly one potential way to go.
 
bob225 said:
Could prove interesting:

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

UK reportedly to cut F-35B order by 65 percent

The Sunday Times has reported that the UK is likely only to purchase 48 F-35B jets.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk
Click to expand...
Correct me if incorrect but the UK was the largest factor in the 35B, which the 35B was the reason why the 35 was designed without a central weapons bay that caused everything to be stuffed in those bulbous side bays that hurt aerodynamics not to mention was the reason why the fuselage was made so short to keep center of mass optimized for stovl.
 
rooster said:
bob225 said:
Could prove interesting:

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

UK reportedly to cut F-35B order by 65 percent

The Sunday Times has reported that the UK is likely only to purchase 48 F-35B jets.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk
Click to expand...
Correct me if incorrect but the UK was the largest factor in the 35B, which the 35B was the reason why the 35 was designed without a central weapons bay that caused everything to be stuffed in those bulbous side bays that hurt aerodynamics not to mention was the reason why the fuselage was made so short to keep center of mass optimized for stovl.
Click to expand...
Yes because our Navy cant operate nuclear carriers so they needed VSTOL.
The RAF were persuaded to join in if they wanted a Tornado replacement that was nt
Typhoon.
The politicians tried to get the carriers changed to CTOL but the electric cats were too expensive.
 
uk 75 said:
rooster said:
bob225 said:
Could prove interesting:

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

UK reportedly to cut F-35B order by 65 percent

The Sunday Times has reported that the UK is likely only to purchase 48 F-35B jets.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk
Click to expand...
Correct me if incorrect but the UK was the largest factor in the 35B, which the 35B was the reason why the 35 was designed without a central weapons bay that caused everything to be stuffed in those bulbous side bays that hurt aerodynamics not to mention was the reason why the fuselage was made so short to keep center of mass optimized for stovl.
Click to expand...
Yes because our Navy cant operate nuclear carriers so they needed VSTOL.
The RAF were persuaded to join in if they wanted a Tornado replacement that was nt
Typhoon.
The politicians tried to get the carriers changed to CTOL but the electric cats were too expensive.
Click to expand...
correct me if I'm wrong..
but someone somewhere screwed up on the cost estimates and the ease of converting the ships to CTOL. it wasn't quite as modular as claimed

that said I'm not necessarily against VSTOL either. I hear its easier to get pilots carrier qualified for VSTOL landings on ships than arrested ones (helps RAF).
less fatigue on airframe life due to less deck slamming. 35B makes landing a lot easier than the Harrier did. quick successions of launches via line up.

now if only they can get AWACs on the Osprey (is this a dead end project now?).
not as good as an E-2C (range would still be less). but a lot better than a helicopter.
 
It wasn't just changing CVF to CTOL that was expensive, it was running CTOL operations compared to STOVL.

48 is a hard reality for the future. This effectively means the QEs will only ever use their full capacity with some of the USMC F35s onboard.

There is a possibility the F35Bs will all be FAA, freeing the RAF to focus on Typhoon and........?

It's also a possible casualty of Radar No.2 funding for Typhoon. A lot of Tempest work is potentially retrofit-able to existing Typhoon or new production.

However the shoot yourself in the foot syndrome means funding for UK weapons integration to F35 could be cut, which will hamper exports of such weapons.
 
rooster said:
bob225 said:
Could prove interesting:

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

UK reportedly to cut F-35B order by 65 percent

The Sunday Times has reported that the UK is likely only to purchase 48 F-35B jets.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk
Click to expand...
Correct me if incorrect but the UK was the largest factor in the 35B, which the 35B was the reason why the 35 was designed without a central weapons bay that caused everything to be stuffed in those bulbous side bays that hurt aerodynamics not to mention was the reason why the fuselage was made so short to keep center of mass optimized for stovl.
Click to expand...
The US Marine Corp were and are the primary drivers (and users) of the F-35B.
 
Don't forget that the UK joint JAST to replace the Harrier, that's why they insisted on V/STOL and being big Harrier users the USMC jumped on that - from the view of the 1990 it probably looked like there would be a big Harrier community replace by 2000 with the RAF, FAA and USMC.
FOAS was to replace Tornado but died circa 2005.
British Harrier died in 2010 and suddenly the RAF found itself without the need for a V/STOL fighter and tornado GR.4 was rapidly approaching retirement with no replacement in sight. Naturally due to its sensor capabilities F-35B became a de-facto Tornado GR.4 replacement and at that time Tranche 3 Typhoon was still swinging into ground-attack.

The main use will be aboard the carriers as an RAF/RN joint group, and given both carriers are unlikely to be in commission together and with UMSC F-35Bs likely to bulk out the air group for the forseeable I would argue that having more than 48 F-35Bs at this time makes little sense if just naval requirements are considered.

However, if you have 9-18 of them at sea and a dozen at the OCU plus a few in storage it only leaves you with a Tornado replacement force of a dozen or so Lightings you could spare for a coalition force if an emergency arose and the fleet suddenly feels rather thin without adding more time onto the Typhoon airframes which have to last out until the early 2040s.

I don't think that more than 48 were expected before 2025 anyway as the last of the first batch is due for delivery in 2025. Another 90 would probably stretch potential RAF deliveries well into the 2030s. Tempest is scheduled to enter service in 2035 (a big if). That means a 10-year gap.
Saying that, it could be an accountant's trick and we might see a smaller top-up order around 2027-30, defence budgets flip-flop like mad and by then there might be cash for some more.

I suspect that the current goal is to try and get down to a single-fighter fleet; Tempest replacing Typhoons first from 2035-45 and then the F-35Bs would be 20-25 years old and could also be replaced by another Tempest buy or something more suited to carrier use. By the late 2040s/early 2050s HMS QE & PoW will be heading to the breakers and we'll be on CVF Mk.2 and then we can design a closer ship-aircraft interface and go for EMALS etc.
 
zen said:
It wasn't just changing CVF to CTOL that was expensive, it was running CTOL operations compared to STOVL.
Click to expand...

helmutkohl said:
correct me if I'm wrong..
but someone somewhere screwed up on the cost estimates and the ease of converting the ships to CTOL. it wasn't quite as modular as claimed
Click to expand...
Firstly people are confusing CTOL and CATOBAR. BAE were asked to produce a flexible carrier that could easily be changed from STOVL to CATOBAR, BAE actually produced a carrier that cost as much as a new carrier to convert from STOVL to CATOBAR and this saga played out early last decade.
 
CTOL to CATOBAR.....give over!
So some of us labour under acronym overload and struggle to remember our CFC from CFC and RCS from RCS. GOYH on your OCD as GSoH isn't a NATO OR let alone AFAIK FWIW CTOL is a reasonable SH for CATOBAR when discussing JSF on CVF.
 
Forest Green said:
zen said:
It wasn't just changing CVF to CTOL that was expensive, it was running CTOL operations compared to STOVL.
Click to expand...

helmutkohl said:
correct me if I'm wrong..
but someone somewhere screwed up on the cost estimates and the ease of converting the ships to CTOL. it wasn't quite as modular as claimed
Click to expand...
Firstly people are confusing CTOL and CATOBAR. BAE were asked to produce a flexible carrier that could easily be changed from STOVL to CATOBAR, BAE actually produced a carrier that cost as much as a new carrier to convert from STOVL to CATOBAR and this saga played out early last decade.
Click to expand...
BAE didn't, ACA actually did a dirty deal with Gordon Brown when he was manipulating the order as a result of the 2008 economic crisis, the official line in the MOD was the that final selection for F-35 and this the carriers was 2011, which is why it was switched from STOVL to CATOBAR and the F-35C as Rumsfeld was about to can the F-35B. The problem was ACA did a an unannounced backhand deal with Gordon Brown the then PM to design and build STOVL to get the carriers built quicker and boost the economy whilst the F-35B was unproven. Thus when the 2010 SDSR was announced the ACA had to step forward and admit they had dropped the assigned spaces from the design and that to reimplement them would delay the build by a couple of years whilst the govt would carry the cost as it was the govt that had authorised the quiet dropping of the functionality and set the contract so strict by using the CVF program as a carrot and cancelling other warship projects as a stick to force an unwanted alliance that has led to a virtual monopoly and left RN short on ships and put the next generation a decade behind creating much of the current chaos.
 
Not sure we will be able to build the Tempest, should we cap the F-35B at 48 those orders come to an end in a couple of years, The US and LM may well decide to reassign the UK workshare of the F-35 programme to others leaving BAE at Salmesbury and Warton with sod all to work on in the meantime whilst hoping that the Tempest actually materialises. They were happy to stop Typhoon orders as the F-35 was a steady stream of business, but if we cancel F-35 after batch 1 and the USAF are looking at alternatives that cash cow will soon run dry.
 
Thorvic said:
Not sure we will be able to build the Tempest, should we cap the F-35B at 48 those orders come to an end in a couple of years, The US and LM may well decide to reassign the UK workshare of the F-35 programme to others leaving BAE at Salmesbury and Warton with sod all to work on in the meantime whilst hoping that the Tempest actually materialises. They were happy to stop Typhoon orders as the F-35 was a steady stream of business, but if we cancel F-35 after batch 1 and the USAF are looking at alternatives that cash cow will soon run dry.
Click to expand...
The silver lining is that we are the only Tier 1 partner nation, so it wouldn't be easy to pull BAE's workshare away given its a 15% share of every F-35 (estimates reckon 30% of a F-35 is British-built kit of some form) and is apparently keeping 21,000 people employed in the UK among BAE and 21 sub-contractors. Those jobs have been supported by £3.6bn of knowledge transfer and training, including stealth technologies and digital manufacturing as well as a capital investment programme over £600mil.

The two F-35B's ordered from LRIP Lot 11 were $115mil each, about 24% cheaper than the initial ones cost and the MoD not that long ago seemed pretty happy about that.

The MoD seems coy on the real costs, but a 2017 defence select committee report said that the programme cost to 2026 for 48 aircraft including spares and support etc. would be £9.1bn.
But the committee's main point at the time was that the MoD had no idea what the final price would be as it was still negotiating the price of the final 17 of the 48 aircraft. The MoD basically told the committee that they couldn't estimate how much all 138 would cost until all 138 has been purchased.
So the question is how come 4 years later the MoD seems to know how much it might save from not buying more?

Even today there are still 6 jets yet to be ordered from Lots 16 onward with delivery in 2023-25.
So the question is how come 4 years later the MoD seems to know how much it might save from not buying more?

With hindsight, paying up to 10% of the development costs as the fee for Tier 1 status in return for four-dozen fighters must be one of the worst deals £-per aircraft in British military aircraft history. The payback on the profits made from the 15% workshare will more than compensate for the military costs, I can't help but wonder if a risk-benefits analysis has really been done?
Why endanger such a large industrial vale worth literally billons? Tempest is never going to offer as much industrial reward per £ invested.
 
The RAF now has ground attack capability on its Typhoons. If the Saudi orders fall through (quite likely given the new line from Washington) BAe will look to the RAF to take them on.
48 F35B for the RN (who are like the US Marines wedded to STOVL) makes sense as the RAF can then have an all Typhoon fleet.
That pushes a new generation into the 2030-40 period.
Tempest looks like another TSR2 in the making. F35 or a future US design is likely to be cheaper and keep BAe involved.
This time round unlike the 60s to the 80s the European option wont have any political impetus, though if it is competitive on price and capability it might be chosen.
 
Thorvic said:
BAE didn't, ACA actually did a dirty deal with Gordon Brown when he was manipulating the order as a result of the 2008 economic crisis, the official line in the MOD was the that final selection for F-35 and this the carriers was 2011, which is why it was switched from STOVL to CATOBAR and the F-35C as Rumsfeld was about to can the F-35B. The problem was ACA did a an unannounced backhand deal with Gordon Brown the then PM to design and build STOVL to get the carriers built quicker and boost the economy whilst the F-35B was unproven. Thus when the 2010 SDSR was announced the ACA had to step forward and admit they had dropped the assigned spaces from the design and that to reimplement them would delay the build by a couple of years whilst the govt would carry the cost as it was the govt that had authorised the quiet dropping of the functionality and set the contract so strict by using the CVF program as a carrot and cancelling other warship projects as a stick to force an unwanted alliance that has led to a virtual monopoly and left RN short on ships and put the next generation a decade behind creating much of the current chaos.
Click to expand...
Interesting, I hadn't heard that. What does ACA stand for?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thorvic said:
Forest Green said:
zen said:
It wasn't just changing CVF to CTOL that was expensive, it was running CTOL operations compared to STOVL.
Click to expand...

helmutkohl said:
correct me if I'm wrong..
but someone somewhere screwed up on the cost estimates and the ease of converting the ships to CTOL. it wasn't quite as modular as claimed
Click to expand...
Firstly people are confusing CTOL and CATOBAR. BAE were asked to produce a flexible carrier that could easily be changed from STOVL to CATOBAR, BAE actually produced a carrier that cost as much as a new carrier to convert from STOVL to CATOBAR and this saga played out early last decade.
Click to expand...
BAE didn't, ACA actually did a dirty deal with Gordon Brown when he was manipulating the order as a result of the 2008 economic crisis, the official line in the MOD was the that final selection for F-35 and this the carriers was 2011, which is why it was switched from STOVL to CATOBAR and the F-35C as Rumsfeld was about to can the F-35B. The problem was ACA did a an unannounced backhand deal with Gordon Brown the then PM to design and build STOVL to get the carriers built quicker and boost the economy whilst the F-35B was unproven. Thus when the 2010 SDSR was announced the ACA had to step forward and admit they had dropped the assigned spaces from the design and that to reimplement them would delay the build by a couple of years whilst the govt would carry the cost as it was the govt that had authorised the quiet dropping of the functionality and set the contract so strict by using the CVF program as a carrot and cancelling other warship projects as a stick to force an unwanted alliance that has led to a virtual monopoly and left RN short on ships and put the next generation a decade behind creating much of the current chaos.
Click to expand...
thanks it confirmed earlier rumors that the main problems that prohibited the conversion was expensive costs of the retrofit and that the design wasn't as easily convertable. not the issue of higher expenses in operating a CATOBAR
 
Thorvic said:
Forest Green said:
zen said:
It wasn't just changing CVF to CTOL that was expensive, it was running CTOL operations compared to STOVL.
Click to expand...

helmutkohl said:
correct me if I'm wrong..
but someone somewhere screwed up on the cost estimates and the ease of converting the ships to CTOL. it wasn't quite as modular as claimed
Click to expand...
Firstly people are confusing CTOL and CATOBAR. BAE were asked to produce a flexible carrier that could easily be changed from STOVL to CATOBAR, BAE actually produced a carrier that cost as much as a new carrier to convert from STOVL to CATOBAR and this saga played out early last decade.
Click to expand...
BAE didn't, ACA actually did a dirty deal with Gordon Brown when he was manipulating the order as a result of the 2008 economic crisis, the official line in the MOD was the that final selection for F-35 and this the carriers was 2011, which is why it was switched from STOVL to CATOBAR and the F-35C as Rumsfeld was about to can the F-35B. The problem was ACA did a an unannounced backhand deal with Gordon Brown the then PM to design and build STOVL to get the carriers built quicker and boost the economy whilst the F-35B was unproven. Thus when the 2010 SDSR was announced the ACA had to step forward and admit they had dropped the assigned spaces from the design and that to reimplement them would delay the build by a couple of years whilst the govt would carry the cost as it was the govt that had authorised the quiet dropping of the functionality and set the contract so strict by using the CVF program as a carrot and cancelling other warship projects as a stick to force an unwanted alliance that has led to a virtual monopoly and left RN short on ships and put the next generation a decade behind creating much of the current chaos.
Click to expand...
This sort of needs dealing with.
First off if like me you were paying close attention to the whole CVF process.....you'd notice that key decisions were put back on multiple occasions. Years wasted, and vast amounts of cost increased. But not at the time, cheaper now and someone else pays later.
Just as with the Type 45s, wasted opportunity to cut costs by large order.

Just as you'd know that study after study at MoD/industry kept producing the same result, something that wasn't a cheap Invincible like carrier. Because Invincible was never intended to run SHar ops off Yugoslavia or retake the Falklands.
SHar was extension of ships missile systems, minimal numbers, minimal capability.
To even run SHar in decent numbers and capability would drive up CV beyond Hermes size.
Yet why were they still answering those same questions for years?
Because Gordon Brown and the Treasury kept asking them.
And it was No.11 that kept kicking the can down the road on those same key decisions. Blair defered on this as on most of the economy.

The idea Brown was going to fast track this is revisionism.

Switch to CATOBAR (ocd happy now?) Was under Fox after 2010, and ran slap bang into hard reality.
That for full spec CATOBAR capability needed AWACS, training up dedicated Naval avators and far less capacity to skimp on running costs through 'peaceful years'.
STOVL was and is cheaper. Helicopter AEW
Naval component after common training.
RAF reinforcement in wartime.

Running costs, through life costs are far greater than mere purchase cost.
And it's what contributed to CVA-01 death back in the 60's.

Anyway QE was too far gone on build to stop and fit for CATOBAR, PoW was potentially but QE would have to complete as STOVL and be reworked for CATOBAR.
Cost cost and more cost before a single Cat and Trap. Then more cost to switch to F35-C and yet more cost to train up with USN to qualify.
RAF opposed the lot as it had sacrificed FOAS to be promised F35. Opposed a possible cherry picking FAA luring away RAF funded pilots.
RAF was taking ever more of ye burden on pilots and virtually the lot with fast jet FAA disbanded after Harrier II cut.
 
History has sort of repeated itself.
The RN refused to join in the P1154 vstol fighter programme and killed their version off by over-egging the specification. They did so in order to get the F4 Phantom.
The delay meant that the RAF version had been stalled long enough to get cancelled in favour of F4s and P1127s.
The RAF gets is own back by helping to knife the carriers needed to fly F4s.
It then tries to ensure that only RAF Harriers (P1127) will fly off the Through Deck Cruisers.
The RN get their own version in time for the
Falklands as the Sea Harrier.
So I expect the RAF to be as unhelpful as possible over F35B procurement and the RN in turn to oppose Tempest as being unsuitable for carriers.
 
uk 75 said:
History has sort of repeated itself.
The RN refused to join in the P1154 vstol fighter programme and killed their version off by over-egging the specification. They did so in order to get the F4 Phantom.
The delay meant that the RAF version had been stalled long enough to get cancelled in favour of F4s and P1127s.
The RAF gets is own back by helping to knife the carriers needed to fly F4s.
It then tries to ensure that only RAF Harriers (P1127) will fly off the Through Deck Cruisers.
The RN get their own version in time for the
Falklands as the Sea Harrier.
So I expect the RAF to be as unhelpful as possible over F35B procurement and the RN in turn to oppose Tempest as being unsuitable for carriers.
Click to expand...
and here I thought the US had the most bitter interservice rivalries
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom