BAe Tempest and other pre-GCAP studies

[mrmalaya]

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.

 

[Mike Pryce]

given life with promises of cost-saving business miracles attached

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!

 

[flateric]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BnRwReoHmWF/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=19u8s9tg8jsap

 

[mrmalaya]

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).

 

[datafuser]

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.

 

[datafuser]

I wonder how much Eurofighter R&D figure was?

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.

 

[flateric]

Many thanks indeed. And proposed FCAS R&D figure I've seen is £10 bln. (where's my inflation calculator?)

 

[Mike Pryce]

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.

 

[Hood]

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).

 

[flateric]

Thank you!

 

[flateric]

Anyone around Kleine Brogel AFB for a small walkaround?

https://twitter.com/ModelingDutchmn/status/1038008878687027201?s=19

 

[Jemiba]

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.

 

[flateric]

Jens - look at the bottom view at the inlet area...
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,30547.msg335560.html#msg335560

 

[flateric]

Belgian tour

 

[Jemiba]

Jens - look at the bottom view at the inlet area...

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 !

 

[flateric]

https://twitter.com/Stoonbrace/status/1038381715390124033

 

[Sintra]

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

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

 

[flateric]

Thank you!

 

[galgot]

Jens - look at the bottom view at the inlet area...

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 !

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.

 

[TsrJoe]

some more images from Kleine-Brogel, Belgium, 8-9 September found online

 

[Jemiba]

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

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. :-\

 

[ADVANCEDBOY]

Is there at least one photo ( not CGI) with top view so I could see wings? So far I am semi convinced

 

[galgot]

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.

 

[flateric]

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)...

 

[TsrJoe]

https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/bae-raf-tempest-3d-model-1319643#

 

[jsport]

would like to believe Tempest has that much internal payload. also has vertical surfaces

 

[flateric]

another appearance of Tempest mockup went almost unnoticed by community at Duxford Battle of Britain Airshow, IWM Duxford, 22-23 Septemper, 2018

 

[mrmalaya]

No propeller, so no interest I assume ;D

 

[flateric]

...

 

[litzj]

Is there any response of UK government more than proposal from BAE?

Any good proposal cannot leave paper without political support...

 

[red admiral]

No propeller, so no interest I assume ;D

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.

 

[flateric]

definitely a video screenshot but where's original video?

 

[flateric]

https://twitter.com/AirForceDays/status/1038866785267802112

 

[bobbymike]

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.

 

[Mike Pryce]

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.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

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.

 

[Mike Pryce]

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!

 

[red admiral]

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.

 

[Hood]

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.

 

[Mike Pryce]

With Russia, North Korea and China next door I would imagine Japanese planning has a different focus from the UK. Even post-Brexit I don't think France, Belgium and Norway are quite such an immediate threat. A few Bears down the North Sea each month are not the same as potential shoals of fighters etc. coming straight at you.

The need to keep the US on side makes sense as they are the ultimate defender of Japan. Perhaps it would be via US links that the UK may stand a better chance of a joint programme.

Global partnerships and exports are fraught affairs. BAE's links to Saudi Arabia and Turkey must be concentrating a few minds at the moment. I don't think Japan would be keen on such markets in any case, and other possible partners (Sweden, Germany) have different rules over such things.

Getting requirements, budgets, work share, ethics etc. lined up was difficult enough with close (in every sense) allies in the 1980s around EFA. Establishing a new alliance, and sustaining it, would make things more interesting.