Japan will now work with the United States instead of Britain to develop a new fighter jet, according to local media.
Sankei News reports that Japan has decided to create a working group of local and U.S. aerospace companies for the development of the successor to the Japanese F-2 fighter, meaning that Japan will not participate in the Tempest project.
The report added that Britain lost the race for the joint development programme as it “wants to have the lead and Japan is unwilling to participate in joint development with other countries in the Tempest program”.
Last month, the firms involved in the Tempest programme (BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Leonardo’s UK arm and MBDA) increased the number of people working on the project from 1,000 to 2,500.
What is Tempest?
The project, named ‘Tempest’ is designed to showcase key technologies that will be important in the future. The jet, might end up looking nothing like the concept model.
BAE say that a future combat air system must be able to survive the most challenging combat environments meaning that payload-range, speed and manoeuvrability will be key.
“We expect that the system will be equipped with a range of sensors including radio frequency, active and passive electro-optical sensors and advanced electronic support measures to detect and intercept threats.”
The system say the defence giant, is likely to operate with kinetic and non-kinetic weapons.
The integration of Laser Directed Energy Weapons for self-defence and use within visual range combat is also highly likely. The use of directed energy weapons on aircraft is becoming reality as the US Air Force will shortly begin testing a laser that will be mounted on an F-15.
“We have got tests starting this summer and the flight tests next summer,” Jeff Stanley, deputy assistant secretary of the US Air Force for science, technology and engineering, told reporters.
“There are still some technical challenges that we have to overcome, mainly size, weight, power.”
The Pentagon last year awarded a $26 million contract to Lockheed Martin for a laser program called SHiELD (Self-protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator). The overall aim is to put a laser system on aircraft with an output of about 50 kw to test their ability against unmanned aircraft and missiles.
Another driver for the concept say BAE is that air forces of the future ‘will require a fighter system that is highly flexible and can be applied to a wide variety of military operations’, a multi-role aircraft then, which is not really all to different to most new aircraft today.
“Operators will have the ability to rapidly adapt the system to perform new functions or to change its performance. Depending on the mission, ‘role fit’ additions such as low observable conformal fuel tanks, weapons dispensers, air launched UAV dispensers, large modular sensors, long range oblique photography systems for reconnaissance and Laser Directed Energy Weapons could be available. Adaptability will be built into the system design, with systems architectures which support a ‘plug and play’ approach, easily integrating new algorithms and hardware.”
The system will also support ‘scalable autonomy’ say BAE, to provide a number of modes of unmanned operation and a range of pilot decisions aids when manned flight is being conducted. This concept is known to most as ‘optionally manned’.
An optionally piloted vehicle is a hybrid between a conventional aircraft and an unmanned aerial vehicle, able to fly with or without a human crew on board the aircraft. The thinking is that, unimpeded by a human’s physiological limitations, an OPV is able to operate under more adverse conditions and/or for greater endurance times.
It is understood that the fighter is being developed jointly by the UK, Italy and Sweden.
What a surprise! Not. They were always going with the US.
Never in any doubt sadly.
Good Day Gentlemen. So where to now? Sweden seems the best bet. Italy might be under pressure to bow out from the EU perspective although it was not a barrier for the UK choosing not to work with France for example on Tornado, Typhoon but with us being out of the EU will that hamper co-peration with Italy? And who is likely to buy it if the project goes ahead? It will obviously need volume The USA has huge clout and is not shy to use it in more ways than one! I merely pose these questions but honestly ont know what to think. Help please
Afternoon geoff, from a sunny Surrey.
I will pass on this one, not my area.
Thanks Daniele from Sunny Lockdown Durban with nowhere to go!
What matters who is the best at making aircraft? The US is always a better way to risk such a budget, but it does not necessarily mean you have bought the best kit? I’m very comfortable with the UK and Sweden going it alone, however, the old chestnut of having the confidence of successive governments, as both countries could see new political leadership before quantity production is achieved. As seen in the past, brittle national economies can have a significant impact on such a project reaching fruition? The other factor, is the state of the World economy post-COVID-19?
Two problems, 1st UK and Sweden can’t afford it, they need partners with lots of cash and 2nd Swedish restrictions on arms sales mean exports will be very limited.
The Euro aircraft consortium of France, Germany and Spain basically said no to Italy being a partner. So I personally believe Italy will be a full partner with Tempest. Sweden is also keen on technology transfer and being part of the project. However, does their requirement marry up with Tempest?
Historically they want a light-ish multi-role aircraft, predominately a interceptor, that can be used from their road infrastructure. Hence the development of Gripen from Viggen. But then you have to think what do we need and then what are Italy’s need. For us we require a heavy multi-role fighter, that can patrol the GIUK gap, so it needs legs. It must dominate the area, so requires a very high power to weight, with a good war load, therefore requires at least two engines. This also is a QRA requirement, so a unidentified object can be intercepted as far from the coastline as possible, which also means it would be beneficial to have Mach 2+ performance. It must have a fair chance of surviving day one of a peer conflict. It will therefore require a stealthy airframe and a tier 1 electronic warfare system. Italy has a similar requirement, for patrolling the Med, QRA and being a tier 1 multi-role aircraft.
Sweden has for over the last 10 years been at the forefront of electronic warfare development. Typhoon uses the Praetorian defensive system. This is being developed by EuroDASS under Leonardo as the prime contractor. So we would have two teams both at the front line of development designing a future defensive aid system married with electronic countermeasures. If we now include the MBDA Spear program into the equation, it makes a very potent package.
To be brutally honest I believe the Euro consortium have shot themselves in the foot, by barring both the UK and Italy from being members. But then France have prior history of throwing their teddies out of the cot, if they aren’t in the lead for everything. So it’s probably a good thing in retrospect. If you consider the history of the Typhoon program, both Germany and Spain have severely hindered the aircraft’s development by holding back funds, cancelling orders and stalling contract negotiations. The UK Project Centurion was originally vetoed by Germany, as it didn’t meet their requirement (all four partner Nations are supposed to agree any aircraft configuration or development changes, before any modification takes place). It was only with Italy’s involvement that the UK pressed on regardless, as both Nations Tornados were quickly running out of airframe hours. Italy also provided funding for the Centurion project, as it met some of their needs, specifically the stores management software upgrades and replacing obsolete parts.
So lets put all this in perspective. If Tempest does go ahead, it will have three partner Nations, who between them are ahead of the rest of Europe in aircraft and systems development, and will give any US aircraft a run for its money. The Japanese partnership would have been nice, but realistically Japan are in the USA’s pocket when it comes to defence procurement. Turkey trying to join would be wishful thinking on their part. There are a few other Nations, but with these three as the foundation, I believe Tempest will be very good aircraft and significantly better than what rolls out of France, sorry Germany and Spain…
After COVID-19 costs are factored in, Italy will be on the verge of default. They would be a partner with no money.
Wow Davey-thanks for a really comprehensive reply
I love your phrase “…history of throwing their teddies out of the cot…”. Is it your own invention or is it a British idiom that I have not encountered before?
Its a very British phrase. It’s used in the military a lot.
Thank you. Always good to learn something new.
To be fair, I’ve never heard that particular variation. I’ve heard “throwing their toys out of the pram” a fair bit though. Regional differences maybe?
Good post. I will only add that some of Sweden’s recent paper next gen studies have been twin engined which at least suggests that they are not opposed to the configuration. If so it would certainly help reaching a potential meeting point on the various partner’s preferences.
These images are from an official SAAB presentation for a next-generation fighter. It is bigger than the very compact Gripen and has two engines. It has a faceted fuselage with small internal weapon bays for air-to-air missiles. Bigger payload will be carried externally and there will be provision for tight integration with UCAVs. The general arrangement apart from the engines and stealth surfacing is similar to the flying scale demonstrator and this is a strong indication that this general design is highly considered. A V-tail has a lot of advantages for a stealth aircraft. It replaces four (twin-engine fighter jets usually have two vertical stabilizers) surfaces with two and avoids the vertically intersecting planes. It also reduces drag and if combined with vector nozzles can be also very compact.
http://robotpig.net/_images/posts/saabjet_2.jpg
Thanks Davey, really interesting analysis. I agree, there is definitely a stage where too many cooks spoil the broth- I guess we just have to hope that there’s enough funding for something decent between the 3 of us. Would be cool to get Norway, Denmark, or the Netherlands involved too- if only for some extra cash, seeing as we work quite closely with them anyway.
I’ve not thought of our need to use Tempest to cover the GIUK gap before, to be honest. Is that truly practical? That’s an awful lot of surface area that would need covering, and I kind of thought that the P-8s would do that most of the time. Russian air superiority aircraft and anti-aircraft missiles would have a hard time being an issue that far out, wouldn’t they? I’d assume you wouldn’t necessarily need a stealthy platform out that way, and the P-8s would do the job?
Looking at Sweden’s more recent Gripen models, they’re including higher end multirole systems- they’re not far short in cost to a Eurofighter (~$113M for a Gripen E). I wonder if the new Russian way of war (i.e. not the Cold War 1.0 strategy of invading the whole of western Europe) has influenced their requirements a bit, to be more in line with what we want from our aircraft?
We have been patrolling the GIUK gap properly since the mid 70’s. It was the combination of the Phantom and Victor tankers that gave us the ability to cover the vast distances. The mission was to intercept long range patrol aircraft but also bombers coming around Norway. The Tornado F3 took over this role and was well suited to the role when married to our Sentry and VC10/Tristar tankers. The Typhoon has taken this NATO tasking to a whole new level.
However, with the advent of the Su27 and its successors. These long range fighters have been escorting the Bears and bombers, therefore there must also be a tanker aircraft supporting the fighters as part of the support package. The last big intercept off Ireland that made it to the public involved two Tu160 Blackjacks, a pair of Su35s and an IL78 tanker.
I wonder if there will be three versions like the f35, can’t see it though. Would be nice to have a carrier version though, and unmanned?
It will be cheaper to convert the carriers to CATOBAR then develop three versions!
It’s Macron using F-35 participation as a blocker to joining FCAS so France can lead the project while Germany puts up the funding. However Macron will probably be one term and a French president with a better understanding of the difficulties and cost can reverse that stance. FCAS really needs to be the Eurofighter nations plus France to have a real chance of success otherwise both projects will be unaffordable and likely to fail. Macron is the problem once he’s gone lets see where we are.
Yes, but it’s not a ‘US/Japan project’ is it. It reads as a Japan project but working with some US companies. It’s not 2 countries, US and Japan, working together.
I read it as 3 projects… The inevitable US one, ours and Japan. Plus France/Germany. 4.
It always looked as if, for what ever reason, the Japanese want to build a plane of their own. 4 western projects, only the Americans will build in significant numbers. I wonder what the criteria are for this Japanese project.
On related matters,
Can a pencil like beam, I know at the speed of light, really be controlled and directed sensibly at a moving evading distant target?
Simple answer is yes. But…
1. How big is the target you are trying to hit and is it visible. If you are using the laser to dazzle sensors on a IR homing missile for example the seeker head has to be pointing at your platform, so it is a self defence only weapon i.e. not a lot of use in an escort role;
2. Even if the target is visible can you achieve the required targetting accuracy, probably not at long ranges, hence the article suggests ‘visual’ ranges (which refers to the mark one eye ball).
3. Dwell time on target. Dwell suggests continuous transmition, these lasers are usually pulsed. A better measure is energy which is measured in Joules, at which point most people get lost. A high power laser may only deliver a very small amount of energy in a tiny fraction of a second so; P (kW) = Energy (J) / time (nano or even pico seconds). If that energy arrives in a very concentrated spike it might do significant damage – it demends on the damage mechanism. It is at this point my understanding gets very limited, but suffice to say that Star Wars style ship killers these laser ain’t!
I did smile when the US was quoted as saying the main outstanding issues were mainly ‘size, weight and power’. That pretty much covers all the main variables..! Basically, delivering the required power means its too big and too heavy, so no good for an aeroplane, unless its a Hercules!
Yes it seems they have a working prototype but only works in none of the configurations that such a weapon would require to be usable. That said you have to start somewhere to get to the ultimate (Z) version and while the A version is nearly always impractical its how long to get to a letter version in-between that and the ultimate where it starts to be useable in practice.
A number of aircraft now carry directional infra-red countermeasures (DIRCM). The most basic form of this is where a small turret shines a very bright modulated light source at an incoming missile. However, missiles such as ASRAAM have a home on jam mode. The ASRAAM sensor also has automatic shuttering (blinking), so its not blinded. Missiles with this capability has led to the replacement of the light source by a multi-band laser. A number of aircraft now use these, such as the Su57 and the Queens Flight 146s. These work on a similar principle, where usually passive senors detect the incoming missile, cross refer it to its inertial navigation system to get a time of impact, flight direction information, positional reference etc, to then point the laser in the threat’s direction. Obviously, there are a number variables to contend with, such as missile movement to the target, the target’s reaction to different air pressure as it flies along and then the weather.
Leonardo have the Miysis system. It uses a turreted laser to transmit a modulated waveform that is targeted on the missile’s seeker. The waveform confuses the seeker, it hasn’t the power to blind it. Companies such as Northrop Grumman, Elbit and Thales all have competing systems that work on the same principle. The beam is quite wide when compared to signal handling lasers, to allow for movement of the target and the threat.
We are still a long way off fielding a laser of similar size to the Miysis system that can not only blind but destroy a missile’s seeker. A good comparable, is to look at the size of the Dragonfire system. This uses a combination fibre laser, to make the power output more controllable and scale-able. Its being promoted as a close in weapon system, therefore its effective range will be quite close, comparable to Phalanx, Goalkeeper etc. The system comprises of two half size isos just for the laser generation and handling. This does not include how the electrically power is generated. A Hercules could carry the system for one turret, but it would require a fifth T56 engine just for the laser’s power requirement and you’d loose quite a bit of load space.
Not good news for Global Britain post brexit and you got China in the mix so the commonwealth is not going to help either.
You seem to want to bite the hand that feeds you!
Nope I hope I’m wrong ,we can only hope in getting more done with the Canadians and Ozzies like the T26 project.
Sorry, just not in good mood tonight!
I would like the UK have better relations with Taiwan. Much more trustworthy than China! They would be a good partner for projects I think.
No worries ,on Taiwan I think the US has got Taiwan tied up like japan , I can only see Sweden, Canada, and the Ozzies coming in to the project.
Also, No one ever talks about Portugal.
Uk has had a treaty with them for hundreds of years! They were on our side in the Napoleonic Wars.
Britain’s oldest ally I read.
Doubt Portugal would want a combat aircraft of Tempests capabilities?
I think they have F16 still.
in 20 years from now they will end up knocking out F35 copies at triple the Lockheed price.
This is a political matter for Japan, they don’t want a repeat of what happened with the F2. To that end they want technology insertion not a derivative of another nations design.
Considering the deep long term relationship between the US and Japanese Aerospace industry when it comes to fighter production this was all but inevitable.
I am expecting Italy to change its mind at some point as well and join the Franco/German effort for a next generation fighter.
Undoubtably the UK government habit of killing promising aerospace projects for political reason will have influenced the Japanese. They didn’t want to invest not inconsiderable sums of time and money without some kind of guarantee they won’t be left high and dry at the end.
Can’t say I blame them, my scepticism this project will not get sacrificed has existed since day one.
Which such projects are you thinking off that would be comparable.
Which co-operative projects have we ditched out of?
The USA scrapped Skybolt. We dropped TSR2, but that was our own airplane.
I was thinking of the TSR 2 , and yes I know it was not a collaborative project but it was still an cutting edge fighter that was cancelled just at the time the major problems were ironed out.
UK has been a much better partner on Multi-National defence partnerships than the French (always trying to take over and get the lions share of the work while stealing other countries IP) and the Germans joining, then getting cold feet and trying to wiggle out of it.
Knowing some of the history behind the Typhoon development I cannot disagree with your comments regarding the French and the Germans.
I will confess when the collaboration between France and Germany on a sixth Gen fighter was announced , I had a little chuckle to myself and wished the French good luck keeping the Germans onboard.
My understanding from what I read last year is that Italy did not like the joining conditions being imposed by France. So they joined our project with the hope that they could convince the two teams to join up later on.
Given France’s nationalistic approach to multinational programmes like this I don’t see them changing their approach at anytime so it might be that Germany gets fed up and switches teams instead. That, if it happened, is a long way off as yet.
If I was leading the UK effort I’d go looking to smaller technically capable European NATO allies and possibly Commonwealth Allies as well and make a good offer to them to bring them on board. That way we’d have a chance of squeezing the Franco German project sales potential.
So, for example, Holland and Norway both have good technical capabilities so I’d start with them. With Norway and Sweden on board, you’d have a reasonable chance of selling to Finland and Denmark. So start canvasing for sales and off-sets early on.
Canada is a NATO option but they are heavily tied into the US NORAD air defence system so not easy for them to buy none US aircraft that meet the extra requirements of NORAD. So they would be a long shot unless we could meet NORAD requirements from the get go, without driving the costs up unnecessarily for ourselves and the rest of our allies and clients.
Australia might be an option, but I think they have already said they are focusing on F35 – might be wrong on that…
Part of the reason Britain didn’t want to work with Germany is its tough export controls which made exports of the Eurofighter and other British military products with German content much harder. France and Germany seem to have come to an understanding of each to his own on this project now but they had been wrangling about it for most of the last year.
Wait till you see Sweden’s export controls if you think Germany’s are tough
As things stand Italy absolutely despises both France and Germany for previous political acts as it sees it and the recent report on the EU’s lack of support for Italy during COVID is hardly going to heal the present rift. That said the gestation period on these projects is such that who knows what Govermental and political changes will take place.
To be honest, at the end of the day, I reckon with all the knowledge and experience gained with the F22 and F35, plus the technology the US effort will out class anything BAE comes up with.
Like the F-15 is superior to Typhoon?
F35 and F22 are superior to Typhoon
In what way? Stealth, maybe. It isn’t fair to compare the F35, a 5th gen fighter coming on 30 years younger than the Typhoon. The F22 is of similar age. Like I said, the F22 only truly has an edge in RCS. Tranche 3 Typhoons have an excellent avionics suite of jammers and sensors, not to mention a wide array of world leading weaponry like the Meteor. The Typhoon is a much more modernised jet compared to the F22.
By all means climb into a Typhoon and attempt to take out an F22, you’ll be dead before you know it. Having designed and built 2 x 5th generation warplanes the US currently dominates this area, with ever more evolving technology being tried and tested as they look forward to the F22 replacement.
I’m sure the eventual unveiling of the SR72 will also give the aviation world something to think about
The NATO wargames in the US where Typhoon owned the F22 would tend to point to the fallacy of that belief.
Italian, British and German aircrew have demonstrated that the F22 is not invulnerable. Both the Italians and Brits use the Typhoon’s Pirate IRST to track the F22. The German Typhoons don’t have IRST, so how they defeated the F22 during Red Flag is quite astonishing.
Indeed, the ESCAN radar developed for Typhoon is even better and has been specifically designed to hunt stealth using the sensor fusion of the aircrafts other sensor including the PIRATE system. The Typhoon doesn’t have the Stealth but war games have shown it is far from a sitting duck .
Also remember the US will not sell the F22 to foreign customers. It maintenance to flying hours are considerably higher than the Typhoon . The Typhoon is not cheap but is a good bit cheaper than the F22. The Typhoon is only at a disadvantage in BVR but is not a sitting duck. In visual range the Typhoon is more than a match. Knife fighting range the Typhoon wins.
The US is hardly renowned for producing the leading aircraft of the day its superiority is based on a far wider organisation of its forces and particular technology to cover the sometimes limited capabilities of its airframes. The F22 on paper is a great aircraft and certainly was the best in the World for many years but its capabilities came at a massive price both literally and in terms of usability that in the end got the whole project cancelled as its costs to get it and keep it in the air became almost impossible even for the US which is why it is relying for the most part on outdated aircraft to do most of the donkey work laving the F22 to be used only as and when necessary.
Equally and ironically the F35 project came along originally as a cheap alternative to the F22 (i.e. to replace all those outmoded aircraft they couldn’t replace with the F22) in an attempt to learn the lessons of that near disastrous project. Instead for the most part it has become as costly massively overdue and so compromised that though it has the relative stealth of the F22 it relies almost entirely on that and its (hopefully) amazing electronic suite to be remotely competitive as an actual fighting aircraft and without that it compares poorly to Typhoon or any equivalent fighter in many ways. So much for progress. It still has to prove that it can remain in the air more regularly than the F22 too though I expect it will in time even if its record so far has been appalling if improving.
“The US is hardly renowned for producing the leading aircraft of the day”
That is EXACTLY what the US is known for.
In some aspects, yes, but not all. The latest Typhoon leads in some aspects. The Typhoon works.
Missed my point entirely. Which is, there is zero reason top think the UK can’t build an aircraft superior to the F-22 & F-35. Why? Because they’ve done it before e.g. Typhoon being better than F-15 which was king of the hill at the time Typhoon was born.
The US binned the more technically advanced YF23 along with the GE variable cycle engines that allowed it super-cruise above Mach 1.6. So not everything that comes out of the States is the best.
The YF23 would be a very could foundation for Tempest. Its design has the promise of significantly faster speeds that the F22 due its better aerodynamics conforming to area ruling.
Some interesting reading out there that although officially YF23 was binned, it was continued in the black world in limited numbers.
It was superior in many aspects to F22.
Yes, I agree. It had a smaller all round RCS than the YF22. It was aerodynamically more efficient, i.e. long and thin rather short and stubby. The thrust deflectors gave the YF22 the edge in high alpha and short take-off. But apparently it was Lockheed business plan and presentation that won it the competition over the Northrop led team.
Very interesting!
Thanks for this info!
Yes its designers were totally shocked that they lost the competition and certainly it is rumoured that the Chinese for one didn’t fall out of love with its overall design.
Isn’t there a Chinese prototype at the moment that looks like a copy of YF23?
Don’t remember its name, just the image in my head!
Just checked. The J20.
Rubbish. All the YF-23’s ended up in museums.
Morning Ron.
Yes, the YF23 prototypes. I’m talking about a variant of that design developed further as a black world aircraft, not THE actual YF23’s.
As an American you do know you have many undisclosed aircraft don’t you?
Rumours abound. And there is no smoke without fire.
There are a lot of rumours that a YF23 type of aircraft was seen in the skies around Edwards. Was it the fabled YF23 development, only the USAF know the answer to that.
The YF23 was produced in 1989, aerodynamics, materials and stealth concepts have moved on considerably since then. As Nigel points out, SAAB have a couple of concepts, both a light weight and heavy weight aircraft, with both still using a close coupled canard/delta configuration. This shows that STOL is very much at the front of their requirements. Twin V-tails, twin engines for a greater thrust to weight ratio, leading edge root extension for providing vortices at high alphas – tick VG.
But as we have seen these last couple of years, moving control surfaces may no longer be required. The combination of a wing with morphing skin and blown air, will negate the need for gaps which are required to allow control surface movement and expansion. If this technology is linked with thrust vectoring exhausts, rudders and stabilisers will no longer be required. Removing control surface gaps, is the next evolution in developing an aircraft with significantly smaller RCS than is currently available, especially against X band frequency radars and above. It’s the use of carbon ceramic matrices that will help aircraft defeat multi-band radar, as their absorption is significantly greater across a much broader range of frequencies. Until it’s proven, a plasma field is not reliable enough to generate a stealth field around an aircraft, let alone the technical issues of powering the field and making sure it sticks around the aircraft when manoeuvring. But I do expect some advances in this area.
It is the aircraft’s engines where I expect to see the greatest developmental progress. One of the original engines for the YF22/23 aircraft was the GE120 variable cycle engine. The USAF dropped it, as they thought the technology was not advanced enough, so went for the tried and trusted Pratt and Whitney 119 engine. The technology of the GE120 was used in the F35 demonstrator engine the F136. This was a combined development with Rolls Royce. It was a variable cycle engine that had a potential dry thrust rating of over 36,000lbs, compared to the F135 which has a growth margin up to 33,000lbs. Again it was cited as being too complex using untested technology, which was BS, as the engine was a development of the F120 with elements of the EJ200.
So now we come to the Tempest requirement. It will definitely be a variable cycle engine. Variable cycle is where you can turn it from a by-pass turbofan to a turbojet, but can also control air added to different stages from the by-pass air, such as injecting it into the intermediate pressure turbine, or just in front of the high pressure turbine for example. By doing this the engine can perform much better from low altitude to high altitude, makes it more efficient and more powerful. Then if we include that little UK company just outside of Abingdon, called Reaction Engines. We could turn the engine in to a multi-mode or combination engine, i.e. turbofan/turbojet/ramjet.
If, we come out of the pandemic and are willing to develop Tempest, then with Italy and Sweden joining the party, the aircraft has the potential to not only be the best in the World, but an actual game changer.
Fascinating reading as always. Your aerospace knowledge is superb.
OK you won me over, UK, Sweden and Italy are the dream team who needs the French and Germans !
I was under the impression that the adaptive cycle engine GE was developing was being considered as a future upgrade for F-35, so not yet completely abandoned.
Apparently, from Block 6 of the F35 program, the F136 is allowed to compete again. The problem with this though, is that the F135 engine has now been in place for at least 10 years. The support infrastructure is all set up, along with maintenance and training. Will existing users of F35 want to trade the F135 for the F136? I could see the benefit if you have a F35B or C, as the engine develops more power. So if you’re operating from a carrier, you have a greater safety margin over weight vs power. For the A will a few extra 1000lbs more thrust make a significant difference? The main benefit is that the F136 engine has more growth potential over its rival.
Sounds like Trump is behind this. He was effectively threatening Japan about not using US companies and joining team tempest.
If they wanted a domestic lead program, why on earth would they involve US companies in it, The tech IP for US jets will be owned by the US government and so will only be released if the US lets it happen, which means the program would be under control of the US, which defeats the argument of not joining tempest because they didnt’ want to work with other countries.
Paranoid much?
This is exactly what Trump does, it’s all about transactions for him and screw the other guy.
Not paranoia, its just drawing a conclusion from a series of events. If Japan had been considering going with US companies, there would have been no reason for Trump to issue the threat only a few weeks ago.
Not really, this is how it works with the aircraft the Japanese are intending to replace. US owns the IP and Japan needs permission to make any changes
Personally I don’t think this had much to do with Trump at all. The JASDF has always been very closely linked to US aviation firms like LM and Boeing. It was pretty much certain that they’d choose to work with the US.
@James M
I don’t believe in coincidences, especially with this close a timing between the threat being issued and the decision happening.
What we don’t know is if the threat caused the decision, or if the decision was already made secretly, and trump issued the threat to make it look like he impacted the decision.
The Japanese where always going to go with the US, they are a far more strategically important partner. I remember Boeing being keen to get involved in Tempest, but a big risk of involving the US is they could kill export chances in favour of 100% US builds.
Italy will not be reliable they are completely broke and that was before Covid. We are likely broke too, unless we can partner with someone in the middle East to bank roll this I think it is too risky. The R&D and coding required just to make a new jet design fly takes years to perfect and costs billions. If we invested that money into additional Typhoon, F35, next gen missiles and larger surface fleet we would have a more capable armed forces.
Alas BB85, you may well be right….
Japan would have cemented the program and given it a massive injection of money and Japanese technical expertise.
Italy will likely withdraw, as moving forward in the ambitious time frame that Tempest requires significant investment right now and increasing year on year.
They haven’t got the proverbial pot to piss in now, so projects like Tempest need to be sidelined (simply can’t be justified) in favour of buying more F35’s.
Will Tempest survive, that’s an interesting question, depends how much money BAE Systems are prepared to put in to keep up the development pace as the country reels from Covid 19 and the massive economic contraction that follows in its wake, 10-15% of the economy vanishing, or more, who knows yet…
There will certainly be fresh calls of buy good enough F35A’s off the shelf, a massively expensive new fighter is going to be an incredibly difficult sell to the country after this nightmare is over, that’s for sure.
I hope it manages to survive, I really do.
The Franco German project will face the same pressure to cancel too, possibly with huge pressure placed on partners to amalgamate with Tempest, before the separate development streams go too far to make this possible.
If both projects fail, it will be gravy for the F35, as the only high end offering in town, with a Naval variant for the French too!
At least we would make some money out of that wreckage!!
But as I read it, the Japanese are not joining in with the USA, they want a plane of their own. They want to create ‘a working group’ … this does not sound like a US based project that they can co-partner in, like F35.
Agree BB.
What might be achievable is an Evolution of Typhoon – all the technical Gizmos and Engines repackaged into a dedicated Stealthy Airframe,that would still be an effective Fighter surely.
WTH do you think Tempest is????
A Concept – Nothing More Nothing Less !!!
It would be not only interesting, but also beneficial to have a prototype demonstrator, much like the EAP was prior to Typhoon. I do expect Typhoon will be used as test bed for a lot of the avionic systems, perhaps even an engine if it could fit. But a Typhoon wouldn’t be able to prove the aerodynamics or develop the flight control software. Admittedly a lot of this will be proven in the lab and on simulators, but they don’t fully represent the real world and how an aircraft reacts to it.
If and when we do get Tempest, I’d also expect us to start looking at a replacement for the Hawk. It’s ok for basic fast jet training and lead in training for the Typhoon and at a push for F35, not for the expected capabilities of Tempest though!
Hi DavyB,
I posted this article a while back.
“Leonardo contracts Tempest large-body test aircraft”
Early 20’s apparently.
https://www.janes.com/article/90044/leonardo-contracts-tempest-large-body-test-aircraft
Tempest is delusional. There is no way the combined financial, technological, and manufacturing capabilities of the UK and Sweden (and perhaps a destitute Italy) can design and build a fighter jet with the advanced capabilities BAE seeks in the program in sufficient numbers to make it financially viable, even assuming the technologies envisioned are developed. Even less viable after the costs of the coronavirus are added.
The UK has a lager economy then the french and they can make the Rafale.
The UK has the experience and skill to make Tempest but just not enough demand to export it, The US saturates that market.
What does “financially viable mean” ? Countries haven’t make profits on fighter aircraft for a long, long time.
The UK can go it alone, with or without Italy and Sweden (or Turkey).
The Tempest is a system of systems, it doesn’t need to be expensive and it doesn’t need to be exported.
The value is in the parts, not the airframe. They haven’t even decided on what this will look like, and that very smart.
So the development of hypersonic engines, laser weapons, software, logistics and robotic manufacturing and maintenance can all be developed and tested first.
Much like we are doing with future Type 26 engines, we can fly these technologies first and work out the kinks.
These would be assembled into one or likely more airframes, or systems.
As the components improve or rep replaces it’s an easy upgrade.
We don’t NEED to build them in large numbers, we can build in small batches and upgrade often. One squadron at a time.
The result of all this is that it is now cheaper and faster to develop a 6th gen system than ever before and countries like Japan and Korea are doing it, so there is no reason we can’t. Especially when we can just buy components we don’t plan on making locally.
Total program cost could be the same as the carriers, for a couple of squadrons and an efficient production line to make more.
UK can’t go it alone, we won’t have the economy of scale to make the jet cost effective.
Once again, what does “cost effective” mean when related top fighter jets? If Tempest helps to deter WW3 does that make it CE?
Very simply it means can the UK afford to buy the number it needs on the budget it has available without cutting capability.
Considering we have under-armed ships, outdated tanks/ifv, etc etc or look at the t45 and the constant cuts in numbers due to going it alone, i think its clear the answer is no unless we gain from economy of scale.
Yes Steve……..we could order 20 build 4 over 5 years but pay for 21
The problem with the airframe is it is so expensive to design and code the software to make it fly. It took over a decade to code the F35, something that can only be paid for through EOS. The advanced engines and sensors can all be developed for a Typhoon 2.0 and further F35. I’m still not convinced stealth is as effective as claimed. If we could have 2 or 3 Typhoon with the same sensor suite as Tempest it would be far more effective deterent and threat in a real war.
What the heck is EOS? The software is paid for by the taxpayer.
By the way, the expensive software wasn’t the software to enable the F-35 to fly so you’re completely wrong. It was the software to enable it to fight.
Interesting BB. When I first read about stealth – revealed to the world by Jimmy Carter fighting for his political life! – I thought at once that the likelihood would be that advances in detection would be swift and wipe out any brief advantage. I notice now the emphasis when discussing stealth seems to be ‘low observability’. I also wondered how easily it might be to programme a computer to recognise that a tennis ball or bird cannot fly that fast! Your thinking on this seems to me to be sound. Typhoon II is realistic and who knows: If it works others might buy it.
On that score, buying that is, Japan wanted to have the F22 (as did Israel I believe). The U.S. refused on national security grounds. Good luck with sixth generation tech swaps Japan!
I also wonder if this isn’t a bit like w…y waving. The much maligned Buccaneer performed well in combat years after it should have gone to the breakers. Perhaps it’s all about looks for some people (and, yes, I am looking at you, Sqn. Ldr. Mandrake …) I would like to see more getting the most from the least. I once walked around a collection of U.S. jets that had the lot, performance, matchless class and great looks, most of them used against North Vietnam. Didn’t do the trick.
Not good news for Global Britain post Brexit and you got China in the mix so the commonwealth is not going to help either.
You said this twice now!
@dave12
Dont you have anything new to say?
You don’t seem to read or analyse the other comments!
You just seem to Sprout whatever comes in your head!
Calm yourself Meirion X ,;0
This is old news as the Japanese press already announced it in March
We cannot build a plane which just competes with the US it needs to completely outclass our American cousins or we are not get any orders.
1. We need to start with a plank sheet of paper
2. List what we need from a plane in 2040,2050,2060
3. Ensure it is affordable
4. Ensure it is Flexible
If the answer looks like Tempest we should go for it otherwise perhaps we need to think again. It is good to think with the heart but we must listen to the brain
Mark B – Point 3 is the problem,to produce an Aircraft that outclasses what the US can produce is simply way beyond our financial means.
In which case the options suggest a consortium including the Americans or perhaps thinking outside the box, maybe skipping the next step and moving directly to inexpensive UAV swarms or something like that?
A lot of traditionalists might baulk at that but there is a lot of tech changes in the pipeline and we want to be involved in the winning strategy. Time to think out of the box?
Not surprising since if they had gone with Tempest they would be just 1 of many with input on a final product while with the U.S. they are the main country with the majority say in the outcome.
I think Tempest best hope for survival lies in the fact that there is every chance that Bae will become an American company in the foreseeable future without it. Equally RR which is hardly in a great financial state with its engine reliability hit which it is only just overcoming this year or was till the COVID no doubt hits its revenue stream will struggle without a similar project to inject a development and profit stream. Global Britain could soon hit the buffers certainly psychologically, if two of its major world renowned companies exit the ship in one way or another.
The French make sure they have got Stakes in their strategic industries!
Theres a bit more to the story coming out of Japan. They have rejected three licensing offers for basing the F3 on a foreign design. Lockheed Martin offered the opportunity to create a hybrid of the F-35 and F-22, Boeing offered a derivative of the F-18 and BAE offered a derivative of the Eurofighter.
They have also rejected all offers of full partnerships, the Tempest as they want to be the lead partner with a high workshare rather than a junior partner and Britain refused the Japanese offer to be a Junior in Tempest and also American joint development offers using an American airframe as they want the airframe to be an indigenous Japanese design to maximise profit. They are worried that they are losing indigenous engineering skills with no Japanese domestic fighter production since 2011.
What they have begun talks with the US government about is a technology transfer agreement allowing them to go shopping at the three US aviation companies for components such as engines and flight control systems. Though they are still worried about black box content.
I wouldn’t be surprised if theres also been some Buy US pressure exerted on Japan threatening to reduce military aid and co-operation if they didn’t use US products.
I very much doubt that we have the money or political determination to develop Tempest.
Advanced fighters are a political-industrial contest between nations seeking to be in the top industrial tier and depend on copious government finance. Only a handful of nations are prepared to invest the vast sums needed – the USA, China, Russia, Japan, and France.
The best alternative.to having to buy whatever the US is offering would have been a European successor to Typhoon, building on that very successful design. But France politically wants to lead the fast jet field, as Airbus does the civil and multi-engine fields. Can’t really blame them not wanting to be second fiddle to BAES and Rolls Royce.
If we want to remain in the top tier of fast jet design and build, the Government would need to step in and provide a large, unwavering financial commitment to seeing it through to the end. Does anyone really think that this Government is going to make that kind of major investment in public expenditure?
The best we can probably hope for is a next-generation Typhoon with a higher thrust:weight ratio, longer range etc
To afford that, we will need to scour the 2nd tier nations to get enough partners and cash in the pot. But the US will be leaning on all to avoid Tempest and buy American.
I think this project will either make or break BAES and RR, sor a very high stakes game for the UK defence sector.
Japan’s major media constantly makes misleaded article or fakenews like CNN.
Several monthes ago, Japan goverment officially decided that domestically make F-3 & a joint development a system about interoperability with the U.S. though, something else aren’t known. Most of articles aren’t truth.
Lots of folks here arguing that UK shouldn’t develop Tempest. I wonder how many are actually UK citizens.
The same thing was said about the Typhoon after the Berlin Wall came down! We didn’t need them, Russia has gone away!
Good job we didn’t listen to those anti defence voices back in the 90s, we wouldn’t have good fighter jet to defend our airspace!
May be mute point anyway, we’ll need to see what the economic fall out from the current crisis looks like before we continue to commit to continuing a future fighter programme. We all know defence is the sacrificial lamb when budgets are stretched. btw it not my opinion that defence spending should be cut just pointing out what I think may be the outcome.
If tempest gives us capabilities that will stay relevant for a number of decades, then we should build it. However, my thinking is that maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this in regards to selling them as whole planes. Unlikely we will sell many. If we can get an edge on some of the high tech parts – It’s all the components built into the plane that could be good earners for others to use on different platforms maybe? Ie the engines, especially if reaction engines get involved, the drone swarms the lasers etc.
That was obvious considering how many Japanese/USA millitary projects they share. Can’t compete with a superpower but we should give them a run for their money hopefully with tempest. I wonder what country japan didnt want to work with in the tempest group?
No they won’t due to their strategic location! Come on son make an effort to know some subject matter knowledge.
The UK has a larger economy than Russia twice the size in fact and it is much more diverse Haroldski!!! enjoy the cheap Russian oil it depends on for export lol!!
Japan will never cut back on defence spending especially now that China have two carriers and two large LHDs, complete with supporting LPDs and a fully functioning escort group. The third Type 075 LHD is more than 2/3 through its build and they’ve already started on their CATOBAR carrier. The J20 aircraft is being developed to be flown of their carriers and will be a significant threat to Japan’s 4th gen aircraft.
Then there’s the minor issue over the Senkaku Islands, where oil has been found. The Chinese have been using fishing boats and their coastguard vessels to harass Japanese fishing and naval vessels and have made claims to the island chain just north of Taiwan. The Chinese, much like the Pre-war Japan, are short on resources to sustain their economy, not to mention food for their population. There will come a point where Chinese harassment will stop and they become more belligerent, especially with their neighbours around the South China Sea.
Harold never ceases to amaze us all with his consistent lack of knowledge mate!