BAe Tempest and other pre-GCAP studies

zen said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's at odds with news stories from the time.

BBC - Peston's Picks: Aircraft carrier costs to rise by at least a billion (again)

The cost of Britain's controversial new aircraft carriers is set to rise by at least £1bn, and perhaps almost £2bn, as a result of the government's decision taken last October...
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
1. I'm working on memories of reading Richard Beedle's very detailed and concise reports from years ago. Sadly he gave up on that and his site seems to have faded away.
His efforts on keeping abrest of the whole CVF process is much missed.

2. Robert Peston is no defence journalist and the BBC is not a honest source of information on defence generally.
 
zen said:
1. I'm working on memories of reading Richard Beedle's very detailed and concise reports from years ago. Sadly he gave up on that and his site seems to have faded away.
His efforts on keeping abrest of the whole CVF process is much missed.

2. Robert Peston is no defence journalist and the BBC is not a honest source of information on defence generally.
Click to expand...
He is however a political journalist and the second point is very much your opinion doesn’t make it an actual fact.
 
Flyaway said:
zen said:
1. I'm working on memories of reading Richard Beedle's very detailed and concise reports from years ago. Sadly he gave up on that and his site seems to have faded away.
His efforts on keeping abrest of the whole CVF process is much missed.

2. Robert Peston is no defence journalist and the BBC is not a honest source of information on defence generally.
Click to expand...
He is however a political journalist and the second point is very much your opinion doesn’t make it an actual fact.
Click to expand...
Yes it is my view, based on experience with UK media.
Look I don't have the time to dig around, if you do, then go look at defence publications, government announcements from the 2000's onwards and read up.
I wish I could point you to some simple neatly arranged website on the matter. But that's no longer the case.
What you should recognise is that the likes of the BBC or the Guardian or the Times etc....are not very good sources on this subject.
 
As interesting as the CVF saga is, it has very little bearing on Tempest as its highly unlikely to ever be developed as a naval platform.
The idea that the MoD is suddenly going to buy F-35Cs is seriously misplaced given its needs.

We have to be honest here that the Royal Navy part of the Lightning force is a a prestige figleaf. All fixed-wing FAA pilots are trained by the RAF, they will go to the same OCU and they operate from the same base and they fly aircraft from a common pool with common support facilities and joint spares and support package from LM. Most RAF pilots in 617 Sqn will be as equally carrier-capable as their FAA counterparts.

The only difference is in the rank title, colour of their dress uniform and who pays their wage. Its a convenient way for the RN to proclaim the FAA is once again a carrier-based fixed wing outfit while the RAF Department of the MoD offsets some of the personnel and training costs from the Navy Department of the MoD (the Navy probably pays the fuel bill while they are at sea too).
Having two types of F-35 would rather bugger up that system and cause more hassle than it saves.
 
Hood said:
As interesting as the CVF saga is, it has very little bearing on Tempest as its highly unlikely to ever be developed as a naval platform.
The idea that the MoD is suddenly going to buy F-35Cs is seriously misplaced given its needs.

We have to be honest here that the Royal Navy part of the Lightning force is a a prestige figleaf. All fixed-wing FAA pilots are trained by the RAF, they will go to the same OCU and they operate from the same base and they fly aircraft from a common pool with common support facilities and joint spares and support package from LM. Most RAF pilots in 617 Sqn will be as equally carrier-capable as their FAA counterparts.

The only difference is in the rank title, colour of their dress uniform and who pays their wage. Its a convenient way for the RN to proclaim the FAA is once again a carrier-based fixed wing outfit while the RAF Department of the MoD offsets some of the personnel and training costs from the Navy Department of the MoD (the Navy probably pays the fuel bill while they are at sea too).
Having two types of F-35 would rather bugger up that system and cause more hassle than it saves.
Click to expand...

As much as I like the Tempest to be developed into a carrier based fighter, it would be better for the Royal Navy to develop its own fighter from scratch maybe using technology from Tempest to keep costs down to a minimum.
 
Hood I am grateful for your explanation of how the F35B is operated.
I am hoping that the involvement of the Swedes and Italians and possibly others (Japan?) will make Tempest less prone to the BAe management that hit Astute and CVF.
But if the politicians (the current crop seem barely out of the sandpit) screw up again. I fear the F35C will go where the F4 did.
 
It would seem to depend on the direction taken for Tempest. How much could be used in RAF and Navy requirements from a single airframe will also be a factor.
 
zen said:
1. I'm working on memories of reading Richard Beedle's very detailed and concise reports from years ago. Sadly he gave up on that and his site seems to have faded away.
His efforts on keeping abrest of the whole CVF process is much missed.

2. Robert Peston is no defence journalist and the BBC is not a honest source of information on defence generally.
Click to expand...
FighterJock said:
Hood said:
As interesting as the CVF saga is, it has very little bearing on Tempest as its highly unlikely to ever be developed as a naval platform.
The idea that the MoD is suddenly going to buy F-35Cs is seriously misplaced given its needs.

We have to be honest here that the Royal Navy part of the Lightning force is a a prestige figleaf. All fixed-wing FAA pilots are trained by the RAF, they will go to the same OCU and they operate from the same base and they fly aircraft from a common pool with common support facilities and joint spares and support package from LM. Most RAF pilots in 617 Sqn will be as equally carrier-capable as their FAA counterparts.

The only difference is in the rank title, colour of their dress uniform and who pays their wage. Its a convenient way for the RN to proclaim the FAA is once again a carrier-based fixed wing outfit while the RAF Department of the MoD offsets some of the personnel and training costs from the Navy Department of the MoD (the Navy probably pays the fuel bill while they are at sea too).
Having two types of F-35 would rather bugger up that system and cause more hassle than it saves.
Click to expand...

As much as I like the Tempest to be developed into a carrier based fighter, it would be better for the Royal Navy to develop its own fighter from scratch maybe using technology from Tempest to keep costs down to a minimum.
Click to expand...
That’s drifting off to out-right science fiction; there is absolutely zero prospect of that happening.
 
Just a little aside that might yet impact all this. A figure in the French government on working with Germany said it was much easier working with the British.

So while it's currently Speculation and Theory....it has often seemed like French and British requirements, and views are closer to each other.
 
Germany usually was needed to bring money to a programme rather than add much else. These days its not that keen on bringing money.
 
That ambition potentially got a boost in 2019 when the British MoD signed a deal with Rolls-Royce, Reaction Engines and BAE to undertake high-Mach propulsion studies in parallel with early work being conducted on the Tempest sixth-generation fighter, under development by Britain and its partners Italy and Sweden.
Updating the EJ200 engine, which powers the Typhoon fighter, with Reaction Engines’ know-how might be another option, a senior Royal Air Force officer suggested at the time of the announcement.
“The full Sabre engine design is at the end of the road map, offering a complete revolution in the way we access space. That doesn’t come online until the mid-2030s as a fully operational system,” Dissel said.
Click to expand...

www.defensenews.com

Reaction Engines chases the elusive prospect of a hypersonic fighter jet

After successful tests of three subcomponents by the British company, now comes the hardest part: putting it all together.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
Flyaway said:
That ambition potentially got a boost in 2019 when the British MoD signed a deal with Rolls-Royce, Reaction Engines and BAE to undertake high-Mach propulsion studies in parallel with early work being conducted on the Tempest sixth-generation fighter, under development by Britain and its partners Italy and Sweden.
Updating the EJ200 engine, which powers the Typhoon fighter, with Reaction Engines’ know-how might be another option, a senior Royal Air Force officer suggested at the time of the announcement.
“The full Sabre engine design is at the end of the road map, offering a complete revolution in the way we access space. That doesn’t come online until the mid-2030s as a fully operational system,” Dissel said.
Click to expand...

www.defensenews.com

Reaction Engines chases the elusive prospect of a hypersonic fighter jet

After successful tests of three subcomponents by the British company, now comes the hardest part: putting it all together.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
Unclear scope for applying hypersonic engine technology to a supersonic (max out a bit above Mach 2, if that) fighter engine.
Aren’t a lot of contemporary fighter engine technology developments (variable cycle etc.) really around trying to get them to function more efficiently (like airline engines) at sub-sonic cruise conditions without sacrificing higher speed performance.
 
Behind à Paywall but the headline is good enough given we have been debating this exact possibility in the past already.


UK actively pursues FCAS subsystem partnership with Japan | Shephard

New international partners could be added to the UK's FCAS effort, as plans to secure a subsystems partnership with Japan are revealed.
www.shephardmedia.com
 
Well, it's more Tempest and F-3 that would potentially embed some of the same systems and software lines. So that will probably not happen. Instead of having each allies developing an equivalent systems in their remote corner, what is suggested is that there would be a cross-sharing of sensitive systems to the point that many sub-systems would be developed to be platform agnostic among who is ready to share a certain level of know-how (as of today where many systems are first put into service before being adapted to another platform afterward).
In effect, UK is accelerating (2B£ is a lot of cash) IMOHO to catch-up with Japan tempo and have their products relevant for that platform.

The direct benefits for Tempest are scale effect, direct operationability and cost.
 
Last edited:
Grey Havoc said:
www.defensenews.com

Italian military chief envisions the Tempest fighter zapping missiles

Gen. Enzo Vecciarelli made the prediction at a Rome seminar on missile defense, stating that directed-energy weapons were “probably the future” when it came to stopping the hypersonic missiles now being developed around the world.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...

I would like to see the Tempest with some sort of on board laser system to zap incoming enemy missiles, the system would work better than the traditional anti-ballistic missiles that are around today, after all the missiles cannot escape from something that can travel at the speed of light.
 
HPMW are something that I wouldn't discard for a fighter jet also. Imagine that as if it had a canon that sprays bullets with a 100% hit rate inside a cone of 60 degree in front.
You won't down an adversary fighter in a single pulse but keeping it inside the engagement zone for long enough would certainly be easier than having to pass it through the pinhole of a gun reticle.
 
www.airforcemag.com

UK Planning Big Steps in Future Fighter Development, Wants to Work With USAF’s NGAD | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The United Kingdom Royal Air Force wants to work with U.S. Air Force as the RAF develops its Future Combat Air System next-generation fighter jet.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com

(...)
reaching out to the U.S. for opportunities to test and compare its progress with USAF’s Next-Generation Air Dominance platform.
(...)
$2.4 billion investment over the next four years on FCAS (...) this funding will go toward developing a demonstrator
(...)
Additionally, the RAF wants to work alongside and compete with the French and German next-generation fighter jet initiative.
“There’s an opportunity to feed off each other, to test each other,”
(...)
Click to expand...


About Tempest II's "demonstrator" six months ago :

The U.S. is already flying what Will Roper, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics, called a full-scale flight demonstrator for its planned next-generation fighter (known as NGAD, or Next Generation Air Dominance), while the French and German governments have already launched the demonstrator phase of their FCAS and aim to begin flight tests in 2026.
By contrast, Team Tempest is in no rush to fly a demonstrator, or even to lock down the design. “The sooner you lock down the design, the sooner it’s obsolete,” observed Andrew Kennedy, Strategic Campaigns Director for BAE Systems Air.
“Traditionally, the capabilities we could bring to the battlespace were restricted at an early stage by the decisions made in designing a platform,” explained Bancroft. “An aircraft would be designed and built, and then companies like Leonardo would work to equip it with useful technology. If you wanted a specific capability, but it wouldn't fit on the aircraft, then straight away you've got a costly and time-consuming problem to solve. We, as Team Tempest have recognized that this model is no longer fit for purpose.”
Instead, Team Tempest initially aims to concentrate on the technologies and capabilities required, compressing platform development by making extensive and unparalleled use of model-based systems engineering and design.
(...)
Click to expand...

www.ainonline.com

Team Tempest Reveals a Different Approach to FCAS | AIN

The team tasked with engineering the UK’s FCAS are concentrating on technology and capability development ahead of finalizing platform design.
www.ainonline.com www.ainonline.com
 
Last edited:
www.baesystems.com

The economic impact of the Tempest programme | BAE Systems | International

An independent report produced by professional services firm<em>, </em>PwC, has confirmed the economic impact of the Tempest programme will be felt in every region of the UK, supporting an average of 21,000 jobs a year, with 70% of the programme’s value generated in the North West, South West...
www.baesystems.com www.baesystems.com
 
Drawing on its expertise in advanced composite manufacturing solutions, Spirit Belfast says it will adapt its resin transfer infusion technology to produce a lightweight vehicle capable of uncrewed, high-speed flight. Benefits of using extensive composite components, compared to all-aluminium aerostructures, include both reduced maintenance and fuel consumption for aircraft operations.

“Spirit Belfast is delighted to lead the delivery of a national program enabling the development of cutting-edge technologies while maintaining critical skills in the U.K.,” says Scott McLarty, senior vice president of Spirit AeroSystems, Airbus Programs.
Click to expand...

www.compositesworld.com

Spirit AeroSystems Belfast advances LANCA project concept with resin transfer infusion

Spirit AeroSystems Belfast, Northrop Grumman and Intrepid Minds support further development of the Royal Air Force’s unmanned Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft (LANCA).
www.compositesworld.com www.compositesworld.com
 
Front section of Tempest?
Notice the double supporting SMD beams taking most of the load, the angled radar position with, below, what seems to be an opening for the FLIR.

BAE1-web-1024x744.jpg

Source:
www.aero-mag.com

BAE Systems' Factory of the Future is driving digital connectivity

BAE Systems’ Factory of the Future programme is driving digital connectivity at a first-of-a-kind facility in Warton in the North of England.
www.aero-mag.com www.aero-mag.com
 
I'm always VERY wary of staged photo opportunities like this (I'm sure the blonde lady with her long hair must be breaking H&S regulations, tying hair back is an elementary safety protocol in any engineering space).
But it does look like a genuine design rather than something made up for a PR stunt. Saying that it could be from BAE's earlier work for Turkey or an older Tempest study.
 
@Hood : It might be something else, I do agree with you. There is no incredible sciences or out of scope engineering that would need to be protected there (except the twin beams).
Regarding the lady with the long beautiful hairs, it's commune practice to let employee some extra time for presenting their best if they wish.

By the way, I like the chair's design too.
 
Last edited:
Flyaway said:
I have a suspicion that like the NGAD what Tempest will really look like has not been disclosed publicly for similar reasons.
Click to expand...
you mean they are intentionally throwing everyone off with a fake model, while the real one looks quite different?
similar to what happened in the US during hte YF-22 era?
 
helmutkohl said:
Flyaway said:
I have a suspicion that like the NGAD what Tempest will really look like has not been disclosed publicly for similar reasons.
Click to expand...
you mean they are intentionally throwing everyone off with a fake model, while the real one looks quite different?
similar to what happened in the US during hte YF-22 era?
Click to expand...
A combination of that and I suspect certain design elements are still in flux at this stage.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom