BAe Tempest and other pre-GCAP studies

The rest of that twitter post ran something along the lines of "Tempest is not being considered because the Japanese are worried about Trumps's reaction to them ditching the US".

Not exactly technical.
 
mrmalaya said:
The rest of that twitter post ran something along the lines of "Tempest is not being considered because the Japanese are worried about Trumps's reaction to them ditching the US".

Not exactly technical.
Click to expand...
Tempest and Japan's next-gen fighter are gonna be much longer programs than any single (legal) Administration. Seems like they might be hedging while they wait to see what the longer-term trend in US politics is.
 
3 squadrons of each?

https://www.janes.com/article/84058/raf-looks-to-typhoon-lightning-tempest-force-in-2030s
 
Harrier said:
3 squadrons of each?

https://www.janes.com/article/84058/raf-looks-to-typhoon-lightning-tempest-force-in-2030s
Click to expand...

Very little information in the article and certainly no mention of squadron numbers.

Doubt anyone surprised by the fact that that the Typhoon’s service will overlap with what ever replaces it.

The interesting point is if it will be the tailend of the F-35 order or that ultimate Typhoon replacement that will replace the Tranche 1 Typhoons and if that replacement (the Tempest or an international, most likely pan-European project that emerges from the Tempest and parallel work in other European countries) can really be realized (technically, politically and financially) in time for the Tranch 1 replacement while likely being concurrent with the tailend of the F-35 procurement.

May be the case that the aim right now is for the Tranche 1’s knowing that if the Typhoon replacement is delayed (which is highly likely) it should still hopefully be in place to replace the Tranch 2’s & 3’s (with F-35 order to fill the gap).
 
When exactly is the Typhoon's out of service date? This has been annoying me for some time. :-\
 
How come Typhoon gets to retire before I do? :'( Life just ain't fair.
On the bright side, I might get to see Tempest in service before I'm too old and addled to remember what an aircraft is.

I guess the OSD for the later Tranches might change depending on availability of F-35s and new Tempests. Much will depend on the future structure of the RAF.
The RAF in 22 years time might look as different from today as it looked in 1996 from today in terms of size and manpower. If the number of squadrons goes up or down then the demand for airframes will change. If it continues to shrink then a two-type frontline fast jet mix may well look totally uneconomic.
 
I doubt that Typhoon OSD will move much. There will have been very careful calculations about fleet size, flying hours and likely attrition, as well as lifetime buys of particular spares that may otherwise be subject to DMR or obsolescence, and this will effectively place a fairly hard limit on how long the aircraft can last. It's not just about fatigue life consumption. A few years before OSD (perhaps as much as a decade) the RAF will start making decisions on support contracts that will then make the OSD absolutely 'set in stone'.

That's why the Jaguar left service when it did. The fleet still had unused fatigue life, but the support contracts for engines, ejection seats and a host of other systems all ran out at a particular point, and extending them would have been impossible in some cases, and prohibitively expensive in others.

Extending the Nimrod R1 in service by a few months was a really big deal - and it was not possible to stretch that aircraft's life sufficiently to bridge the gap between its planned retirement and the in service date of the Rivet Joint, despite a pressing operational need.
 
Jackonicko said:
I doubt that Typhoon OSD will move much. There will have been very careful calculations about fleet size, flying hours and likely attrition, as well as lifetime buys of particular spares that may otherwise be subject to DMR or obsolescence, and this will effectively place a fairly hard limit on how long the aircraft can last. It's not just about fatigue life consumption. A few years before OSD (perhaps as much as a decade) the RAF will start making decisions on support contracts that will then make the OSD absolutely 'set in stone'.

That's why the Jaguar left service when it did. The fleet still had unused fatigue life, but the support contracts for engines, ejection seats and a host of other systems all ran out at a particular point, and extending them would have been impossible in some cases, and prohibitively expensive in others.

Extending the Nimrod R1 in service by a few months was a really big deal - and it was not possible to stretch that aircraft's life sufficiently to bridge the gap between its planned retirement and the in service date of the Rivet Joint, despite a pressing operational need.
Click to expand...

Not sure I quite agree with you; there is likely to be substantial “give” for extension for the Tier 2 & 3 Typhoons (obviously at a cost).

The Jaguar left service when it did as prumarily as a budget measure (ahead of its planned Typhoon replacement) while the Nimrod had become a dangerous museum piece prior to its final withdrawal (the airframe a victim of being kept going too long with some bad planning, engineering and decisions made).
 
How interesting. This does support the idea that the UK intends this aircraft to go into service (and appears to be calling it Tempest).

If they are planning for it, then surely they are confident of it progressing beyond the mock-up stage (contrary to many an opinion on the web).
 
mrmalaya said:
How interesting. This does support the idea that the UK intends this aircraft to go into service (and appears to be calling it Tempest).

If they are planning for it, then surely they are confident of it progressing beyond the mock-up stage (contrary to many an opinion on the web).
Click to expand...

The UK is clearly interested in their efforts being seen as “credible” re: potential future partners.
However as a project it is being born at an inauspicious and somewhat “unreal” time (unclear Brexit deal of yet unknown “hardness”, a weak minority government, etc.).
And that’s before considering if the UK really has the capacity and will (financial, technical and political) to really go it alone when all remotely recent experience suggests they don’t.
The Tempest may prove to only be an important way-point to something similar but different.
 
Tempest is the latest folder of a cross-administration continuously funded effort. It's not something dropped one day on a stand, it's the real deal as we know any major program today: read money, real R&D, real sustained technology, real demonstrators being test flown... and now we are introduced to the beginning of an architecture of systems. I know that at the age of fancy GCI this could look as an old fashioned classicism but still, those are flesh and spinal for any serious project.
 
This RUSI discussion is interesting:

https://youtu.be/edsHFIskKUc

Senior figures say a number of things that clarify the situation. Tempest is a team, not the concept plane.

Most of the technology talked about is of open systems rather than fighter planes - indeed it is said it is wrong to even use that term.

If the outcome is UK sovereign software that does the job then the aeroplane it is in hardly seems to matter to several of the speakers.
 
Harrier said:
This RUSI discussion is interesting:

https://youtu.be/edsHFIskKUc

Senior figures say a number of things that clarify the situation. Tempest is a team, not the concept plane.

Most of the technology talked about is of open systems rather than fighter planes - indeed it is said it is wrong to even use that term.

If the outcome is UK sovereign software that does the job then the aeroplane it is in hardly seems to matter to several of the speakers.
Click to expand...

Agreed; at this stage probably best seen a technology development project to keep up to date (and remain a potentially “worthy” project partner) rather than a “traditional” aircraft project.
 
kaiserd said:
Agreed; at this stage probably best seen a technology development project to keep up to date (and remain a potentially “worthy” project partner) rather than a “traditional” aircraft project.
Click to expand...

Yes, but as Richard Berthon pointed out, the decision to do "something" in the future has been made, and a proper acquisition programme is being launched this year.
 
OK, never in the history of British fighter design was so much hidden from so many, by so few.

Well maybe not. Are you saying that Tempest is a team developing some software to put in an aircraft? What software and what does that mean?

There seems to be a clear divide here between the more academically minded who are fighting shy of attaching the name to an aircraft, and those who are using "Tempest" as shorthand for the development of the RAF Typhoon replacement.

Perhaps the confusion is deliberate.

From the talk, they are still clearly referencing an airframe being built and whilst they aren't calling it a fighter (that is too prescriptive), it is being worked on by Team Tempest in the same way as Team Typhoon are delivering future Typhoon capabilities. I think the aircraft is being called Tempest and the addition of "Team" just helps illustrate it is a wider effort designed at providing much better value than if one prime contractor was in charge.
 
Team Tempest exists.

An aspiration to build an airframe also exists, but no more than that.

That airframe is unlikely to look much like the model being trucked around various air shows, and that many people are getting excited about and calling 'Tempest'.

I'm not sure that 'Team Typhoon' exists in anything like the way that you suggest.
 
Agree that Tempest in its model form is not representative of any aircraft that will fly. As to Team Typhoon, I got that from the RAF AM Atha, who opened that RUSI talk (around 12 mins in).
 
Based on all the talk of increased combat mass from the RUSI talk and paper, "loyal wingman" based on lessons learnt from Taranis for the UK then?
 
from rusi.org linked above
Unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) offer a number of key advantages in high-intensity conflict scenarios, including expendability, comparative simplicity of manufacture, and combat endurance. Since UCAVs do not have to be flown regularly and in large numbers to maintain an aircrew cadre, they can be produced in relatively small numbers and regularly upgraded and iteratively improved as the threat picture changes over time, while still representing a potent combat asset.[...]
A mix of next generation manned combat aircraft limited to a modest level of technological ambition beyond the capabilities offered by current fifth-generation fighters like the F-35 and F-22, coupled with a stable of regularly evolving UCAVs in low-rate production, could offer both a way to rapidly expand NATO airpower if a crisis appeared imminent, and in a worst-case scenario at least offer a latent capability to replace losses and draw the worst attrition away from scarce manned assets in a high-intensity conflict. [...]
Click to expand...
More importantly, an UCAS offers operational readiness with peer aggressors at a lower budget. Drones doesn't need to be trained. Systems only require continuous upgrades and development while only their interactions with humans necessitate regular training and OP refining. You then can own a large fleet of UCAS and regularly use only a fraction of the fleet produced. This is a clear path for the 5th and beyond generation of warfighters. Then your budget can be recapitalized upon preventing armed conflict to degenerate in a large confrontation (OP readiness, deployment of assets...).

Instead of focusing on a 1980 2.0 scenario, Europeans that have for their intends to be taken seriously, should refocus on improving their logistics and in-theater deterrence. The real 6th generation manned EU airframe will be the platoon soldier.
 
I have an article in the December 2018 RAeS Aerospace magazine:

'Thirty Years of Hurt?'

https://www.aerosociety.com/publications/aerospace-magazine-december-2018/

Basically it is asking if there is a future for UK combat air design.

I did not want a TSR.2 picture, but they seem mandatory!

It is an edited version of the '1985' paper here:

https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/about/cds/low-cost-by-design

It may go up on the RAeS Insight blog next week.
 
Italy and Netherlands join Team Tempest, pretendidamente:

Google Translate of http://www.defensa.gob.es/gabinete/notasPrensa/2018/12/DGC-181203-caza-europeo-ngws.html
------------------------------------------------
Spain urges its participation as a full partner in the future European hunting
12/03/2018Twitter
The Minister of Defense, Margarita Robles, has transferred by letter to her French and German counterparts, Florence Parly and Ursula von der Leyen, the Government's firm interest in being part of the future European fighter of the 21st century, better known as the Armed Forces System. New Generation (NGWS) that drive France and Germany.

In his missives, Robles requests that the Spanish incorporation be formalized, through the signing of a Letter of Intentions (LOI, in its English acronym) or a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The cost of being a member of the program is estimated at around 25 million euros for the next two years.

The NGWS aims to be the fifth-generation fighter aircraft that will replace European fighters in service, such as the Eurofighter and the Rafale, starting in 2040.

Currently there are two projects that aspire to be the eurocaza of the 21st century: the Franco-German program and the British Tempest, to which the Netherlands and Italy have joined. From the Ministry of Defense is convinced that both programs will eventually merge, given the huge investment that requires its development.

Despite this, and with the interest to participate in the project from its initial phase, Spain has decided to join the project of Paris and Berlin.

The NGWS is conceived as a fighter aircraft with a pilot developed to operate in conjunction with a swarm of drones that will make weapons platforms and advanced sensors. In turn, the NGWS will be integrated into a panoply (the Future Air Combat System or FCAS) of which the mid-altitude and long-range drone (MALE, in which Spain participates with 23%) are part, satellites or cruise missiles.

In the next few years, before 2025, the Air Force must replace the 20 US F-18 fighters deployed in the base of Gando (Canary Islands); and by 2030, the remaining 65.
----------------------------------------------

In a two horse race expect some 'jockey swapping' as things progress!
 

Attachments

  • horses.jpeg
    horses.jpeg
    108.1 KB · Views: 336
Re: the article above I am finding no other public reference to any Netherlands national involvement or interest in “Team Tempest”. As a participant in the F-35 programmer and with no Typhoons or Rafael’s to replace unlikely Netherlands will have any interest in any potential procurement until decades in the future.

Similarly while there is Italian industrial involvement (Leonardo) not yet any clear indication of any Italian national interest or involvement (particularly given its current government).

Hence any claims re: these countries (or Spain) in the article should be taken with a big pinch of salt.
But a forecast of all of these European programmes ending up as the one combined project does not appear far-fetched subject to Brexit being resolved in manner that doesn’t leave all bridges burnt (by the UK).
 
I think you mean all bridges being burned by the eu.......
 
Sounds a little like journalistic flair.
Just because Leonardo is involved in Team Tempest, that doesn't indicate Italy will automatically join the Tempest club. It's making strides with the F-35 fleet, looks to be settling on that as their main combat aircraft and it has given them a manufacturing boost with the F-35 Final Assembly and Checkout Facility which will keep them in work for a long time.
The Netherlands is an odd choice, but they may be looking a longer-term options.

As for a future single European project, I have to admit scepticism. The Franco-German agreement has handed top shares and leadership to Dassault and Safran for the airframe and engine and time will tell if Thales will take a lead on some of the systems. The French industry has cornered a good slice of the industrial pie for themselves and can assert French requirements and objectives. Are they likely to relinquish a slice of that to BAE Systems, Leonardo or SAAB or Rolls-Royce? Is Airbus going to be keen on losing a slice of its sub-contractor status when Enders stated goal has been to dominate the European military manufacturing segment? I suspect as FCAS/SCAF matures, more emphasis will fall on buying a complete integrated combat system. The UK won't even be part of Galileo, just one basic building block, and the RAF may well rely on US UCAVs for some time. How compatible will they be?
A lot of questions, and none of them have easy answers.
 
Hood said:
The UK won't even be part of Galileo, just one basic building block, and the RAF may well rely on US UCAVs for some time. How compatible will they be?
Click to expand...
I am sure we will see a competing team on the EU (geo) UCAV market. We have so much dynamism on the peripheral EU nations and so much uncommitted talents among some of of the traditional airframer.

Boeing could have a prime interested to capitalize on the situation with its MQ-25 project and diversify this product into a dual role UCAS. It might even be a low cost move that could open great returns. Especially if they open a cooperation with some systems and airframe manufacturer in EU (geo). By offering an airframe already tuned for stealth this would offer a drastic cost reduction on the finalized products, still use a lot of the Stealth ressources of the partner nations and produces synchronicity for any future adaptation requested by the USN. Think F-18L.

On the geo-strategic terms, this would fix sensitive knowledge and reduces unwanted bridges with peer opponents (IMOHO one the the main reason why the Trump administration wants to see defense spending increases in Europe).
 
Remember Team Tempest is not about developing the model shown at Farnborough, but looking at technologies that may apply to Typhoon and F-35 as well as a possible future air combat vehicle/platform/system/capability.....

On that basis Italy and the Netherlands might have an interest in it, although there is nothing except this article that says that. It is an interesting snippet, but not actual news unless confirmed.
 
Seems to be hard truth for the Spanish MoD:

Currently there are two projects that aspire to be the eurocaza of the 21st century: the Franco-German program and the British Tempest, to which the Netherlands and Italy have joined. From the Ministry of Defense is convinced that both programs will eventually merge, given the huge investment that requires its development.

Despite this, and with the interest to participate in the project from its initial phase, Spain has decided to join the project of Paris and Berlin.
Click to expand...

From KeyPub (original link from user Sintra here: http://www.defensa.gob.es/gabinete/notasPrensa/2018/12/DGC-181203-caza-europeo-ngws.html )
 
The Spanish decision is pukka gen.

As for the Netherlands: don't forget that most of the Cloggies' industrial participation in F-35 is now British-owned, since GKN bought Fokker Technologies.
 
Lucky Fokkers!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/01/gkn-stripped-sold-for-parts-miller-hanson
 
Tempest updates:

In IOC of F-35 press release:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-sets-sights-on-next-century-of-british-air-power

IOC stated as being hoped for in 2035, although related graphic shows it may slide right (see attached, although it also seems to indicate Typhoon in service since 1980s!)

Also, statement on full range of FCAS TI projects (and much else too - only 40 Typhoons with E-Scan, Canada pinching shipyard workers for Type 26 etc.):

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/defence-committee/work-of-des/written/93913.html

"A nine-year funded programme of record exists for the FCAS TI, of which the Team Tempest project is a subset. This programme consists of three main elements; PYRAMID (an Open Mission Systems Initiative); National Projects; and International Projects. Team Tempest is a part of the National Projects element and is jointly funded by the MOD and industry. All other FCAS TI activities are currently solely funded by the MOD. The MOD is contributing c.£2 billion to the FCAS TI programme."

Note that it is not the case that £2 billion is being paid by MoD for a plane called Tempest.
 

Attachments

  • UKCA-timeline.jpg
    UKCA-timeline.jpg
    70 KB · Views: 1,000
Another picture from today.

Emphasises just how low slung the model is.

For weapons loading presumably 'robots' is the answer! :eek:
 

Attachments

  • DwjmOboWwAQl7O-.jpg
    DwjmOboWwAQl7O-.jpg
    218.4 KB · Views: 1,007
Harrier said:
Another picture from today.

Emphasises just how low slung the model is.

For weapons loading presumably 'robots' is the answer! :eek:
Click to expand...

Really short robots.... something else for them to inevitably hold against us...
 
RAF. Marham, January 2019 ... http://www.joint-forces.com/uk-news/20790-new-facility-opened-at-raf-marham
 

Attachments

  • Marham-Tempest.jpg
    Marham-Tempest.jpg
    66.7 KB · Views: 943
Harrier said:
Tempest updates:

In IOC of F-35 press release:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-sets-sights-on-next-century-of-british-air-power

IOC stated as being hoped for in 2035, although related graphic shows it may slide right (see attached, although it also seems to indicate Typhoon in service since 1980s!)
Click to expand...

Is it just me or is that Tempest silhouette in fact Replica?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom