The Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) is a new partnership and ambitious endeavour between the UK, Japan and Italy to deliver the next generation of combat air fighter jets.

Due to take to the skies by 2035, the Ministry of Defence say that the ambition is for this to be a next-generation jet enhanced by a network of capabilities such as uncrewed aircraft, advanced sensors, cutting-edge weapons and innovative data systems.

Rishi Sunak, UK Prime Minister:

“The security of the United Kingdom, both today and for future generations, will always be of paramount importance to this Government. That’s why we need to stay at the cutting-edge of advancements in defence technology – outpacing and out-manoeuvring those who seek to do us harm. The international partnership we have announced today with Italy and Japan aims to do just that, underlining that the security of the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions are indivisible. The next-generation of combat aircraft we design will protect us and our allies around the world by harnessing the strength of our world-beating defence industry – creating jobs while saving lives.”

Charles Woodburn, Chief Executive, BAE System:

“The launch of the Global Combat Air Programme firmly positions the UK, alongside Japan and Italy, as leaders in the design, development and production of next generation combat air capability. With our UK industry partners, we look forward to strengthening our ties with Japanese and Italian industries as we work together to deliver this programme of huge importance to our global defence and security. The agreement with Japan and Italy is fundamental to meeting the goals set out in the UK Combat Air Strategy and is set to create and sustain thousands of high value jobs and benefit hundreds of companies across the UK, contributing to long-term economic prosperity and safeguarding sovereign combat air capability for generations to come.”

The UK, Italy and Japan will now work to establish the core platform concept and set up the structures needed to deliver this massive defence project, ready to launch the development phase in 2025.

Ahead of the development phase, partners will also agree the cost-sharing arrangements based on a joint assessment of costs and national budgets. Alongside the development of the core future combat aircraft with Italy and Japan, the UK say it will assess needs on any additional capabilities, for example weapons and Uncrewed Air Vehicles.

According to a statement from the Ministry of Defence:

“By combining forces with Italy and Japan on the next phase of the programme, the UK will utilise their expertise, share costs and ensure the RAF remains interoperable with our closest partners. The project is expected to create high-skilled jobs in all three countries, strengthening our industrial base and driving innovation with benefits beyond pure military use. It is anticipated that more likeminded countries may buy into GCAP in due course or collaborate on wider capabilities – boosting UK exports. The combat aircraft developed through GCAP is also expected to be compatible with other NATO partners’ fighter jets.

The UK, Italy and Japan will now work intensively to establish the core platform concept and set up the structures needed to deliver this massive defence project, ready to launch the development phase in 2025. Ahead of the development phase, partners will also agree the cost-sharing arrangements based on a joint assessment of costs and national budgets. Alongside the development of the core future combat aircraft with Italy and Japan, the UK will assess our needs on any additional capabilities, for example weapons and Uncrewed Air Vehicles.”

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said:

“This international partnership with Italy and Japan to create and design the next-generation of Combat Aircraft, represents the best collaboration of cutting edge defence technology and expertise shared across our nations, providing highly skilled jobs across the sector and long-term security for Britain and our allies.”

A flying demonstrator aircraft will be unveiled within the next five years, according to previous announcements.

British ‘Tempest’ demonstrator jet to fly within five years

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

253 COMMENTS

  1. Getting Japan on board is a significant achievement for Tempest. It will greatly increase the potential production run and open up markets to which we have had limited access. Well done all round.

    • I’m really hoping this does not become a Eurofighter style boondoggle on the defence budget. Lots of talk about agile design and blah blah blah which is exactly what they said about F35. If you can’t design a single seat jet fighter for £10 billion then it’s time for the industry to disband.

      I just pray we stick with the name Tempest, it’s too good to give up. My understanding from reading the docs though is the both historic projects Tempest and F-X will cease to exist. Perhaps we should call it Tempest F-X which saves confusion over FCAS being used by the French and Germans.

      • Name is being kept; Tempest is what the RAF variant will be called while the program will be called Global Combat Air. Japanese will likely continue to call theirs F-X and then F-3 when in service.

      • We could always call it Zero a lot of the impetus to Japan was that they wanted to restore the capability to create such a legendary fighter. Likelihood to me is that the UK/Italy version may have a different name to the Japanese version especially if they vary somewhat. In which case Tempest might be used in the end though I guess if the previous Hawker inspired naming routine were followed then Fury would be the obvious choice after Hurricane, Tornado, Typhoon and Tempest. There must be a Japanese description of ‘wind’ that would be translatable surely as that’s understandably large in their culture, if one name is required. I note that the F-2 is called the Viper Zero so hope it doesn’t end as the Fury Reppū (the proposed zero replacement) or something of that follow on nature but hey Reppū does translate as strong wind so maybe I have answered my own question from earlier, the fates seem aligned there don’t they?

        • Any project that involves the French to start with is always going to turn into a complete disaster until they leave.

          Germany did its usual negotiating trick of saying we will order thousands of planes in exchange for 99% of the production to happen in Germany then once having the workshare agreement in writing reduced its order to a token one and still wanted all the production.

    • Getting Japan onboard is huge, it significantly increases the chance that it will go ahead. I don’t think the UK/Italy could really have afforded to finalise the project.

  2. NGAD is likely to be like the F22, only for the US only and not for export. So it makes absolute sense for other democracies to combine efforts, technologies and funding in a joint effort, such as GCAP. A little disappointing that Sweden isn’t fully involved, presumably they are more focussed on protecting their domestic industry.

    • I think Sweden has always been more interested in the drone/weapon add-ons than the core aircraft. The announcement does seem to talk about those separately.

      • Sweden is only just going into production with Grippen E so perhaps not surprising, though they will need to replace around 40 GrippenC/D in late 2030’s, I think they were always more interested in the drone aspects of tempest and any tech they could incorporate into grippen e at later date

        • I agree plus their capabilities in digital twinning which you can guarantee will be part of the programme if informally. And that I think will for the foreseeable their interests. The core aircraft isn’t going to match or pay strong adherence to their core requirements especially now Japan is onboard, where new strategic expediency is almost at opposite ends to those of Sweden whereas we and Italy are more in the middle between them. I suspect Sweden will cooperate on aspects to suit as you state as and where it buys into their needs but not commit at the very least till what the aircraft will truly be and costs are far more determined. They will then no doubt start to determine if it can fit in to their plans for the late thirties. From their point of view committing to it now would probably not give them much of an advantage esp if they can retain an ongoing informal cooperation.

          I also read from a single source, but to my surprise that there were talks going on with India though I would need to seed a lot more evidence of that to think it could be anything beyond understandable ground testing attempts to judge future possibilities or overlaps and cross fertilisation that no doubt will take place with many Countries. Increasingly those like India and I am reading Vietnam too, in the ‘anti’ China camp, and thus inevitably nervous of being reliant on Russia too (not to mentioning questions over their weapon quality/ availability) are looking for Western alternatives.

          • India’s currently a bit too close to Russia, for my money…

            I’d be worried about security of classified information.

          • Agree the Indians are more likely to get Sukhoi SU32-35 series aircraft on the back of purchasing vast quantities of cheap Russian oil and gas. I wouldn’t trust any classified sensitive military technology to India, Serbia, Hungary, France or Germany.

          • India wouldnt buy it, they typically only purchase big ticket items that they can then build in India itself. No chance the production of this would be outsourced to India.

          • Projects like this that India have been involved in have always been a nightmare. They’ve caused many problems in the Russian projects they were a part of only to not buy the units they had committed to.

            To a lesser degree, look at the back and forth saga they did with the Rafale.

            Also, as crabfat said, I don’t trust them with anything more than public information.

            Better off without them if you ask me.

    • The floated cost estimates by US Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall are for “multiple 100’s of $M’s” per NGAD. He added in a statement before the House Armed Services Committee, “this is a number that’s going to get your attention, it’s going to be an expensive airplane.” So even if NGAD isn’t restricted to US-only use, the cost is likely to be much higher than the strongly stated affordability goals/requirements stressed by both BAES and the RAF back in 2018 at the public launch of the Tempest program.

      Sweden isn’t really a surprise to me. I’d always expected them to only partner on a subset of the program, e.g. avionics including radar and weapon systems seems likely. Perhaps also use a license built version of the new Rolls engine being developed for Tempest in their own new platform to replace Gripen, which would meet their dispersed deployment reqs and also continue the ability to leverage conscript ground crew. This would also support any potential exports for a smaller shorter range aircraft to existing Gripen customers, including Eastern European countries. If this eventuates then there is further sharing of Tempest R&D costs so it is still a positive outcome for the program and the UK.

  3. Nice to see this progressing, even if 2035 seems a long time to wait. Good news that the technically advanced Japanese are even more involved. It’s just a shame we cannot include the Chinese people exiled on Taiwan too. They live under a permanent threat from the evil ChiComs and need help.

    • Just watch the French try and derail this with a hissy fit.

      They will recruit, the ever willing and ever useless, Von Lyeren to declare that EU competency (read French) is required in these projects.

      The Italians are pretty fed up with the French games over Horizon and other projects never mind Typhoon and are equally not very happy about how the F35 project went.

      • Even the USN must be unhappy with the USAF’s dominance of F-35 as they seem to be running a rival NGAD programme of their own.

        • Oh yes they absolutely were/are, livid over the F-22 project which pretty much ignored their needs for the benefit of the USAF and why they ended up with the compromise F-18 Super Hornet rather than a completely updated F-14 or a new aircraft of their own and then at the next opportunity get a somewhat late and to their eyes compromised F-35. They were offered a ‘strike’ version of the F-22 but it would have, apart from its stealth been a joke of an aircraft for their needs and as we now know would have been a mechanical and cost and I suspect short lived disaster on a carrier. In this instance due to that deep animosity and ‘cock ups’, and no doubt despite the money men’s efforts this time around they have got their way with their own (for now at least) separate specialist program. Whether the resistance to inevitable pressure to combine them is maintained will be interesting.

      • You cannot be serious. Why do people think this of the French, they usually go there own way. I reckon it is all down to the Daily Mail and the Sun. They must have something to blame for every thing. You are being lied to by a non dom and a Right Australian/American.

      • Maybe it is some kind of inbuilt genetic memory but I can’t bring myself to trust the French. Same with the Germans post reunification. As for the undemocratic, unaudited EU, enough said. Common Market my ..se!
        I’m naturally inclined to drift towards the Anglosphere for collaborative projects but other than the US, they do not have advanced aerospace industries. The Americans are just too big and can dominate literally everything. See F35. Hence the Japanese and Italians despite the latter being EU, seem to be a good choice. South Korean aerospace is advancing in leaps and bounds too. See the sales to Poland.

        • The UK is basically the only country on the planet that does joint aircraft development with anyone. The partners change but it’s always the UK in there. We have joint developed aircraft with the USA, France, Italy,Spain,Germany and Sweden. Japan is just the latest in a long line. I still think ultimately the Franco German FCAS will fail. France will end up with an upgraded Rafal and Germany and Spain F35.

          • Surely all those other Countries you mention disprove the point that no one else collaborates. Japan has collaborated with the US and South Korea presently with Indonesia, Pakistan with China and India has with Russia. France would have done before if it had been able to get its way.

          • On form, the French will take over FCAS and it’ll just be whatever Dassault want to build. The Germans and Spanish will end up either buying Dassault for ‘EU solidarity’ or buying Tempest if they want the best aircraft.

        • I tend to agree the Italians of course were not allowed in to the Franco-German club because they were not cooperating with French EU intensions it’s a form of punishment that sadly Germany goes a long with through a sense of historical guilt no doubt, thus exercising its political power through the economy and vis France. We know it’s a stitch up but the new similar attempts against Poland not toeing the French line may seriously help us. France Poland were natural allies once but now anything but. Poland is intent on following its own path and especially so in defence and its indelicate distrust (mutual) with Germany surely at some point makes them a possible market for our project or even a tier two collaborator once this all solidifies. They are a growing power esp after Russias antics and of course the inherent leader of those Eastern European Countries worried about Russia and will only become more so during this decade. Why I said before we need to get as deeply into working with Poland now to gain monetary, trade and technological riches later.

          • Italy, Japan, Poland and South Korea. Sounds good to me. If I had my way, I’d add Israel to that list too. They are already up there with the best when it comes to drone technology. A sixth Gen fighter would be just what they need.

            It’s a pity Hungry is ever so slightly pro-Putin.

          • Japan & S. Korea don’t get on. To the point I don’t think it would work. Poland is not renowned for high end aircraft & related industries. They are much more a land power (army centric). Israel will limit export options.

            Sweden, to my mind, is the one they need to keep in the group, even if it’s on the sideline. They understand digital (I gather, the source of Boeing’s new found expertise) & high performance fighter jets. They may not end up with Tempest & instead utilise what they learn on their own lightweight fighter, but they know what they are doing & there is a market for a quality single engine fighter that the likes of Tempest can’t meet.

          • Can they depend on a future woke propalistian demon-rat administration, giving them F22 level advanced technology?

          • There are very few certainties left in American politics, but one candidate would be the pro-Israeli lobby. Any outcome is conceptually possible, but not necessarily an odds-on proposition.

          • Exactly, the Poles are alarmed by Russia to the east, and only somewhat less distrustful of the French and Germans to their west. The Poles believe the UK is a natural counterweight to all of the above, even though no longer part of EU. There is an entire group of eastern European countries that have a natural affinity w/ the Poles and wish to form a common cause for representation w/in EU and also have largely similar views of a potential UK economic/political/security role. Unfortunately, all of these countries have limited GDPs and populations, and no current cutting edge aircraft development capabilities. Individually, they could be easily discounted, but as a block, now and especially w/in a generation–not so much. Wise UK politicians would be advised to form common cause w/ the eastern Europeans and the Poles would not a bad place to start. 🤔

          • Yes: I see Visegrad and the Baltic States reverting to some sort of counterbalance to the Franco/German power bloc, once they get richer and more developed. I see power in Europe pivoting eastwards: very 19th century.

          • Agree Tempest will likely gain sales in Poland. Small numbers potentially for Baltic States. Norway. Canada. Core sales in Italy Japan and UK. I could also see sales to Australia and therefore the aircraft could become the defacto 6th gen jet of choice for the democratic free countries in the world. They need to deliver this aircraft at a price point below F35 whilst surpassing significantly F35s performance and reducing the cost per hour of flight time too.

        • Undemocratic EU? It’s fully democratic, we as a nation just didn’t really engage with the votes for the MEPs. In Europe people actually vote for the MEPs. A bit like local elections in the UK, most of the country doesn’t care.

          • Votes for MEPs, yes. MEPs actually running the EU, no. You have to be able to vote for the decision makers for it to be even a species of democratic. Fully democratic would mean everyone votes for the individual policies and laws. No country does that (that I’m aware of). Referenda have their own issues. MEPs have more power than they used to, but the EU still runs a democratic deficit.

          • All EU laws are voted in by the individual countries. Yes there are loads of civil servants but that’s the same for all nations. So much disinformation has been spread about the EU.

          • That’s still democratic, very similar to the US style. In England we never really bothered with the votes. No idea on turnouts but would have been low.

          • You will find the posters here are dominated by the right wing loony fringe, and that is speaking as someone right of centre myself. Loads of leavers still trying to pretend the referendum was valid on democratic grounds
            What matters is that if we are not already back in the EU by the time Tempest is delivered we will be in the process of rejoining. I am 61 and expect us to make our first attempt to get back in before I retire.

      • Would be great if we could pull Poland in, having Italy and Poland onside would really f**k up the commission. We would even be eligible for EU development funds 😀

          • Yes but they will be destitute. The war’s cost has been immense. Rebuilding Ukraine will cost probably a trillion pounds. They aren’t going to be buying a 6th gen fighter any time soon

          • True. All I am trying to see is that in the new world post-Ukraine war, the UK may find good relations in former Soviet-Bloc countries: Poland, Estonia, and Ukraine are particularly pro-British and their people highly innovative.

        • As I say above Poland is well worth courting I reckon at whatever level they could be an important market for this come the thirties and on the face of it this consortium has distinct advantages over either the Franco German or (a little less so) the US efforts as Poland wants relationship reliability, preferably some technological involvement and independence from influence all that we can offer more than the others. And over the next decade what Poland does others in its region and maybe even beyond will often follow.

    • If you will load all your tech into a ludicrously expensive F22 and then refuse to export it what do you expect.

      Something better is needed than F35 for next gen air superiority.

      The F35 project turned into a nightmare of complexity with compromises and nobody wants to repeat that.

        • And yet the richest country in the world could only afford 190 odd , and only 120 odd combat capable , always look beyond the advertised sticker price

        • F22 was IRL much much more expensive.

          The only way you get to that number is by the Typhoon including the usual costs that MOD add to the bare purchase price.

          No doubt F22 is stealthily more than a Typhoon: never suggested otherwise. Electronically F22 was more than a Typhoon but I would not be so sure once Radar2 is in Typhoon.

          • Typhoon also had more sensors, PIRATE IRST and also limited sensor fusion with Striker 2 and off bore sighting. Typhoon comes with better self protection system in the form of Pratorian as well.

            The F22 certainly started off as the best aircraft however due to its stealth nature it’s almost impossible to upgrade. Many of it’s electronics were outdated at the start and are very out of date now which is why the USAF a will soon be junking it.

            Sure there is an upgrade program now but we will see how that progresses or if it gets cancelled for NGAD. Typhoon is still in production 20 years after F22 got cancelled and their are 4 times more typhoons flying. Typhoon is on its fourth development tranche and will be flying until the second half of the century. F22 like F117 is a technological marvel but and economic and logistical basket case that will be canceled in service decades before the aircraft it was suppose to replace. F15 will be in production 20 years after F22 ceased.

            “5th generation” is a Lockheed Martin marketing terms used to trick Airforce generals and politicians into expensive dead end programs created by Lockheed Martin.

            But not being 5th generation was what was used to bash Typhoon from the start.

          • I think we all know why the F-22, B-2 and the Seawolf class subs ended up being so expensive. The primary reason is the enemy they were designed to fight (Soviet Union) disappeared which created a situation where the production run was cut well short of what was planned and effectively put each program into a death spiral. Bearing in mind that these weapons were designed in the 70’s and 80’s and even decades later are arguable still unmatched speaks volumes about how advanced they were/are.

            Note also that the USAF recently contracted LM a $10 billion dollar contract to modernize the f-22 and most likely will be used as a tech maturation and test bed for the ngad program. We might be seeing an example of this in the new coatings the f-22 have been seen with recently.

          • Spot on 👍🏻

            With the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the US went from facing a military to a lone superpower, with the then collapse of the USSR, they ended up facing a much weaker impoverished nation. Ukraine is currently showing us it was even weaker than we ever imagined.

          • Agree w/ your assessment; w/ one slight caveat. USAF was directed to initiate contract by it’s paymaster (aka US Congress). USAF saluted smartly and initiated modernization. USAF’s original plan was the gradual retirement of the fleet. There is a precedent; we still have A-10 in the inventory, approximately one generation after the originally proposed retirement. Three guesses who dictated that. 🤔

          • Spot on Jim the previous 4 generations never existed till LM retrospectively categorised them in that pr Campaign to fool the technologically challenged ie politicians and money men and enthuse the voting public. The relative costs per aircraft of any modern jet is almost impossible to determine and depends on the contract and what it covers. On paper Typhoon is the most expensive of current fighters but it’s all based on or should be through life costs. The French are notorious at pushing cocos for Rafale down the line so cheaper initially but more expensive as service life progresses but current politicians can easily stomach such calculations for obvious reasons. That’s all of course before capabilities come into consideration. Seriously though to put things into perspective whatever the initial price (manipulated or otherwise) of a F-22 v a Typhoon does anyone seriously think over its lifetime the former will be anything but many times the overall cost of the latter?

            As an aside the major reason the Japanese closed off the US offer was that not only would they not transfer tech they were intent on not even allowing the Japanese to service much of the tech on the aircraft proposal they were making. Begs the question I wonder what costs that would involve or evolve into for the Japanese to maintain those aircraft over the lifespan, while precluding their ability to build their own alternatives in the meantime while paying for the ‘honour’. Just imagine how the hell they, in light of their increasingly hostile neighbours could be confident in any conflict that they could even keep their aircraft in the air. Talk about having a potential knife to your throat.

          • Typhoon avionics are more advanced than F-22. The HMI and HMS are far superior. EW systems are different but Typhoon has some advantages there. Radar on Typhoon when it gets the upgrade will be massively more advanced, but Captor-M is still a decent set.

          • Typhoon avionics are currently more advanced than F-22. Willing to wager that status will not remain after planned investment. Practically guaranteed. No judgement re whether it is the best investment of Uncle Sugar’s gold.

          • I don’t think it will. The F-22’s upgrades are fairly minor compared to the ones Typhoon is getting. And thats not because it doesn’t need it already. No advanced helmet for F-22 planned, meanwhile Typhoon gets Striker 2, F-22 fleet might get some pods with IRST which Typhoon has integrated since the outset, add in the DASS and new radar upgrades that Typhoon is getting and it won’t really be close. The Tranche 3 Typhoon will also get the new Wide Area Display which makes the F-22’s cockpit look prehistoric in comparison.

            US could upgrade F-22 and keep it competitive for decades to come, no doubt about it, but the USAF seems to want to put it out to pasture in favour of NGAD. Nothing wrong with that approach…but if there are delays or failures in NGAD that will leave F-22 rather outdated in a lot of respects.

          • The $10B may only be a down payment on F-22 upgrades, if Congress remains unchecked. Again, USAF planned a graceful retirement, but was countermanded. Observers often comment that it is an interesting way to run a railroad. 😳

          • Your surmise that upgraded F-22 is the Congressionally mandated fallback sol’n, if NGAD derails, as well as serving as an interim testbed, is probably not far from the mark. Oh well, have to spend $700+B, in some fashion…😳

          • “ The F-22’s upgrades are fairly minor compared to the ones Typhoon is getting.”

            Really hard to say at this point since very little of what will be upgraded on the f-22 has not been disclosed.

            “add in the DASS and new radar upgrades that Typhoon is getting and it won’t really be close.”

            I would wait until they have something resembling a production model before being so sure of how good it really is.

        • F-22 is around $85,000 per hour to fly. As opposed to a best estimate of $18,000 for Typhoon.

          2006 is along time ago now… and Typhoon is a very different animal. With very different teeth.

          • Spot on. Common sense tells you a per unit price (always nebulous at best) in 2006 gives you no serious estimate of the lifetime costs of a fighter jet unless you leave both on the ground unused. I was shocked actually that the B-2 has pretty much turned out the same way as Raptor, unaffordable, horrendously expensive to operate or maintain and out of 19 remaining of a predictably cut short order, little is known about their ability to actually operate, beyond 8 crawling along a runway for a photoshoot. Pointless being fantastic on paper stats if you can only rarely exploit them, or overall you suffer through shortage of numbers of good aircraft with lesser paper stats. Let’s hope the B-21 has a better future for all our sakes.

          • “Pointless being fantastic on paper stats if you can only rarely exploit them”

            Following that logic, most of the most advanced strategic systems are rubbish as well.

            In terms of it’s ability to operate you are right that little is known as being a strategic asset, what it does and how it goes about it is a closely guarded secret. The little we do know is that it flew 6000 miles from the continental US to drop bombs on Syria back in 2017. Based on open source estimates, it’s the most stealthy of all the stealth platforms. You are right in that it is incredible expensive but considering this was designed based on an existential threat, I think most cold war strategist would say it has payed for itself several times over.

        • Clever US justification, was probably the price of the parts excluding construction, software installation, delivery, tax, paint protection and profit for the manufacturer.

          The numbers can be messed around with no end especially on such projects.

      • An absolutely moot point there Supportive bloke…

        The F35 in particular is a shining example of how not to organise a complex military programme.

        As the major players in Tempest, Japan and the UK, have the basically the same requirements and both have complimentary high technology abilities, this should all dove tail together nicely.

        A number of caveats….

        Uncle Sam will be pissed, no doubt about it, as the project has now reached a pivotal point and will rapidly move to eliminate Italy from Tempest, with a wonderful deal on future F35 orders and probably workshare.

        I don’t think that’s a showstopper even if we loose Italy.

        2025 is of course a general election year and Labour could move to cut the project, with it’s no doubt different defence priorities.

        If things are still financially difficult, then a similar offer of an advanced F35 derivative for the RAF with increased UK content, possibly UK assembly too, at a substantial cost saving, such a golden egg ‘might’ just be enough to kill Tempest.

        You can guarantee the Americans will make similar offers to Japan too as they poke and prod at Tempest looking to pull it down.

        The Americans will move very fast to kill Tempest before 2025 when it reaches the serious investment and engineering stage, after witch cancellation is far more problematic for the consortium and the Governments involved.

        I really hope Tempest can get past the next few years, let’s wait and see….

        • Very well put.

          The issue, as we all know, with F35 is that it is such a design compromise. It isn’t really what RAF wants for air superiority as a Typhoon successor.

          Then there is the issue of ITAR and technology transfer coupled with the glacial pace of UK weapons integration.

          Failing to proceed with Tempest kills the indigenous UK fast jet design capability.

          And I totally agree that the F35 project was a shining example of how not to do it!

          • Absolutely SB,

            Not what the RAF would ideally like, but that old adage comes to mind.

            All new military aircraft have four forces acting against them.

            “Thrust, Drag, Lift and the most powerful of all politics.”

        • What they could feasibly offer to Italy? they already have the only F-35 assembly outside US (the Japanese one is a smaller copy and only for themselves) also the only Upgrading and Repair Center. They also build a part of wing.

      • Hi SB,

        To be fair they said that about Typhoon as well (I did a little bit of work on Typhoon back in the day – not that I am claiming any kind of indepth insights). I just hope there is still enough corporate memory within the MoD / RAF to avoid over complicated solutions and unnecessary systems integration.

        Apparently, there were things on the Typhoon that were intergrated but turned out not to be worth the effort or cost (the inference being that in some case is might even have had a small negative impact..!).

        Sometimes less really can be more and folk need to remember that military capability is a trade off between technology and numbers.

        Cheers CR

        • Over complicated cure-all software is quite the curse.

          It makes things very hard to debug and as you say pointless integrations have issues of their own.

          Clear basic logic with sensor sharing is the way to go with fast development and avoiding bloatware problems.

          Network layering offers part of the solution so there is no need to integrate some things all the way they can just sit on different layers.

          • This is why I hope they focus on just getting the basic stealth plane that can fly and fire weapons first. Get them up and running then move onto the advanced AI that that can do everything and anything. Make that a secondary objective after production has already started as it will be mostly just software you can plug in.

          • And I know modern stealth planes are the furthest away from basic. I just mean I hope they don’t add years and years onto the development by trying to ship it with an advanced ai that would be nice but not necessary until a later date.

          • That is a good call, NorthernAlly.

            I just hope there is no software version 4 stylee hold up to capability insertions. Managing software development will be a challenge, mainly an organisational / project management challenge – that’s not a knot I would want to try and cut through…

            However, the programme turns out in the end we are at the very early stage and I bet there are plenty of very excited young engineers about to find out just how hard it is going to be – bless ’em 🙂

            Shooting of the innocent and rewarding of the uninvolved will come later.

            Cheers CR (the slightly cynical)

          • Japan will do exactly that. They will probably complete a second stealth prototype in 2024, before the main programme development even starts. By 2027, BAES will have a demonstrator (if some idiot doesn’t cancel it because “things have changed”), and by the time the two programmes fold the technologies together around the end of the decade, it could be very very good.

      • The addition of the Japanese, w/ their engineering talent and especially financial resources, virtually assures that a credible product will result. My multi -part question is which AFs will be able to afford a sixth gen fighter, and how many will be purchased over a reasonable timeframe? There will be a minimum number of orders necessary to declare success…🤔

        • If you really believe any objective conditions are required before some politician declares success, you haven’t been watching all that carefully.

          How many Air Forces will depend on pricepoint and the prevailing threat assessment fifteen to twenty years from now (and possibly how many Air Forces still exist as independent commands). F-35 is doing well because it’s top dog when the threat level is high.

          As for how many units, that’s even more complicated by the system of systems thing. Nobody has a clue what the best balance of central fighter versus drone will be. If I had to guess, I’d say 6th gen will sell fewer than 4th gen.

    • First I’ve heard of the Americans trying to stop the Japanese developing their own fighter. A prototype F-X has flown afterall.

      They have refused to sell the F-22 to Japan which pissed the Japanese off, but that’s what happens when you tie yourself to any single other country for a capability, but especially so the US (though France will also very kindly screw you over too).

      It seems the Japanese have finally fully learned that lesson there.

      • The Japanese demonstrator was part of the earlier Advanced Technology Demonstrator – X program that ran during the 2010’s rather than the F-X program. The earlier program was just to boost the design and production skills of Japanese industry so they could go on to produce their own fighter.

    • Well, it was between America and the UK to collaborate on Japan’s next-gen fighter. The Americans (Lockheed) were picked, and they still squandered the opportunity. So, they have decided to work with the UK.

      • American technology transfer controls and the shocking attitude of their defence contractors has really screwed the US long term prospects for defence exports. Once Uncle Sam starts cutting the budget companies like LM will be really screwed. Most western governments have spent the last 10 years trying to cut US components out of their weapon systems. Projects like F35 have a lot of momentum and massive R&D development from the US military but that won’t last long. The US virtually exports no ships and few land systems to anyone and I think their aircraft industry will go the same way. Obviously even after drastic cuts their budget will still be massive but companies like LM & Boeing are completely not cut out to compete on an even playing field anymore unlike back in the 70’s and 80’s when they were highly competitive.

        • Likely one of the reasons that Boeing concentrated on the Australian ‘Loyal Wingman’ project over the US equivalent (despite being picked to participate, they bailed on the US program when they couldn’t make the two line up). Boeing has worked out Australia has money, expertise & wants to work with those that want to work with them in a way that the US won’t. I gather it took them a while to work out the rules, but E7 & JDAM-ER etc showed how & what was possible. ITAR free is not Australia free, but a lot easier to navigate.

          Despite appearances, these companies are not completely stupid. They know that Uncle Sam can make or break them. BAE, Thales, SAAB, Leonardo etc, it would be painful, but not terminal.

      • Yes as I elaborated above after signing with LM the US Govt laid down a whole raft of of restrictions not only about technology transfer but aspects and technology of the aircraft that Japan would not even be able to service or remove (imagine that in a conflict. would US personnel even be allowed in theatre?). It meant that Japan would not even have been able to later replace such tech with its own I read. The Japanese deemed that unacceptable even before the threatening behaviour of China, Russia and Nth Korea around its Islands, let alone now.

        And yes there was also I’m sure once read animosity with the US over the previous F-2 program when promises made that stopped their own potential program (the new zero) were not in their view fully delivered once they were in co development on the improved F-16 that the US themselves cancelled.

  5. Another very positive step forward. But I think navigating the politics and various spending rounds over the coming years will be as big a challenge as developing the technology. Be great to see a demonstrator fly, but again expectations will have to be kept realistic. The system that enters initial service may not be leaps ahead of Typhoon or F35 but will be a platform that can be developed massively over the coming decades. For many nations upgrading F35 will be the 6th gen option, as brand new systems may well be out of the budget reach of many nations. 🇬🇧🇮🇹🇯🇵

    • Hi Robert,

      The RAF does have experience in continuously developing its platforms especially the Typhoon. Spiral Development has allowed the RAF to develop their Typhoons with new weapons (Brimstone, Meteor) and hopefully soon the new Captor-E. They adopted the approach as a hedge to delays in the Typhoon programme.

      If the same approach is adopted for Tempest might be possible to decouple some of the risks inherent in any programme this complicated.

      Cheers CR

        • Agreed.

          On another slightly positive spin I read a book (or long article) about the development of Concorde. Turns out that at various different times both the British and French government had tried to bale on the programme but the one that wished to keeping going at the time held the ‘runners’ feet to the fire. Turned out that the terms of the contract / treaty apparently required both to agree to the termination of the programme 😆 oops!

          Fingers crossed

          CR
          PS I also read a quote from a NASA

          • can’t believe that it was a normal thing to see a supersonic airliner flying above london in my childhood.
            the french were so canny to establish their aerospace industry not off the back of concorde but they would have learnt a lot off that joint project.

      • Ideally we would just be moving Captor E and upgraded EJ2000 engines with high bypass ratio into a new stealthy body for tranche 1 Tempest which is how we use to do things new aircraft old engines.

        But I doubt the Japanese will go for that approach.

        • Engines are going to be fundamentally different than the EJ-200. Third stream of air for cooling aircraft systems, Integrated electrical starter and electrical generator for aircraft systems rather than mechanical off the gearbox, 30 years of advancement gained in part from the rapid pace of civil engine efficiency improvements, large increase in power, vectored thrust.

          The demonstrator will likely fly with EJ-200 engines though as the new engine won’t be ready for serial production till around 2030.

          You may well see a modernized EJ-200 recycled for the Indian and Turkish fighter projects though and the Turkish bid includes IP transfer so the Turks will essentially own their design.

          • Wasn’t RR looking at fitting the Reaction Engines precooler technology to the Tempest engine at one stage? I’m pretty sure RR are still closely involved with Reaction Engines but haven’t heard anything else about technology exploitation for awhile now.

            Cheers CR

          • Yes, we might see something with the engine trials or alternately they might use it as a heat exchanger to reduce the aircraft as a wholes heat signature similar to the (B-2 or F-117?) ability to partially redirect exhaust heat into a thermal store for 20 minutes or so.

        • RR has been working on new gen fighter engines (partly overlapping with their new gen commercial engine tech), with various potential clients for years and aspects of these engine technologies are already undergoing bench testing. Combining and adapting these technologies to the final design of the complete ‘Tempest’ engine won’t quite be like designing a whole new engine for it, most of the complexity will have already been faced, understood and is no doubt in the process of being fully developed. Engineering in reliability and scaling its tech will likely be the major job, the building blocks themselves are mostly understood and even tested I would suggest.

          One presumes, though I have not heard about it, that they must be developing adaptive technology like GE are doing for their new fighter engine esp as they worked together on an up and running prototype for their joint F-35 alternative engine just before GE started development of it’s present new gen adaptive engines work. That might represent one of the biggest hurdle perhaps but one presumes to a degree vital for engines to be used in 30s projects to be fully competitive against US competitors. The advantage RR itself has one presumes is it’s work with Reaction Engines which in the short term is all about using its pre cooler technology on existing jet engine designs which will allow greater flexibility in performance.

          • Well that clearly hints at the adaptive engine technology I surmised they were working on and perhaps the cooling aspects too. Actually I remember reading that when it was published so might have contributed to what I had in my mind. Thanks for linking it.

    • That’s interesting. I think you are likely right but I do wonder with the complexity of the F-35 software which can only be altered not replaced how practical it will get come late 30s or how complex, limiting, costly and time consuming that might be. The big IF will be whether the lessons claimed to have learned from F-35 will actually happen in terms of software. The US and I’m sure the Tempest team too as they have great software expertise are all talking modular software that separates amongst other things flight systems from weapons and other non crucial systems. In theory this makes updating, quicker, easier and reduces re authenticating which is the biggest drag on upgrading. Whole sections of code can be updated without effecting other especially crucial stuff.

      If this works as planned (we will see) then the advantages over 15 to 20 year old F-35s with spaghetti junction software might be quite compelling when other costs of an aging and often troubled compromise airframe are dialled in, after all we have already had unexpected wear issues with the F-35 and it’s still early days. Must admit with these likely advancements and more to come before entering service and questions over next gen solving problems and perfecting technology that the present gen have suffered from often endemically and can only really ‘patch’ it will be fascinating to see what are the best options come the thirties or if these Gen 5.5/6 aircraft will in their turn simply solve some while adding new ones. Why that I respect others arguments about getting this right on inception and develop further over trying to hit impossible heights at the outset that create ongoing problems and delays that actually reduce its immediate capabilities and damage reputation. One only has to go back to the previous fighter family of this name. Tornado unusable, Typhoon problematic, Tempest excellent, (Sea) Fury World beating, all from developing an initial base design through to its full potential.

  9. This looked inevitable when the Tempest mockup suddenly switched from the UK version to an exact copy of the Japanese one! Let’s hope that the resulting fighter is something we can afford to buy in significant numbers and does what we need in twenty years time.

      • The later concept, after the X-2, the Mitsubishi F-X (now apparently called the F-3). (Looks vaguely like BAE Replica.)

        • Do you have a picture so we have the same reference? I’m getting several designs coming up. I also agree with the Tempest Pelican forward fuselage.

          • The new Tempest mockup is shown on the BAE Systems (UK only) homepage, via a news item at the top of the page. For the F-X just google “Japanese Mitsubishi F-X” and the Wikipedia article on the F-X has an image in it.

          • The new model of Tempest was shown at Farnborough as well. I posted an image responding to watchzero. This one? (Link) I still think the F-3 looks like a bigger X-2. Still a good-looking plane.

      • It did look a bit different, in a weird way, with it’s Pelican nose… I suppose you could call it purposeful. Definitely not as sleek looking as BAE replica which looked more YF-22-ish, or indeed the Franco-German FCAS.

      • To be fair, It’s only a mock-up of a concept which is subject to change. I did hear about additional ideas presented at a media day in 2018. I’m not a fan of the current mock-up with the narrow fuselage and pelican-like forebody. I do like the project replica design and the Tempest design done by an online graphics design called ‘Turbosquid’ (see attached pic) The cockpit looks more blended into the fuselage. Sadly, the cockpit has too much of a flat surface. I also like the new model that was presented at Farnborough this year.

    • I doubt significant numbers will ever be seen again in the RAF.

      This project will be hugely based around drones to boost numbers and capability.

      Only hope is economies of scale force the production number up but being realistic the project itself will have the numbers swelled by the amount of drones that will be ordered to go with them.

  10. The 3 renders that have been released today showing them flying over national landmarks also have a couple of notable design changes. The air intakes are swept forwards rather than back (as they originally did before the Farnborough model this year) and almost entirely wrap the bottom of the fuselage, the fuselage has gotten wider to the point its a borderline lifting body design (adding more internal stowage) while the wings have become considerably narrower almost stub like; however the rear profile is fundamentally unchanged.

    • There do seem to be a few designs. I have attached a design from Farnborough 2022. I guess we will see closer to the time.

          • Hey clip a bit off of it rear inboard and in that image at least, you have something close to a Lightning wing 😈. Back to the future eh.

      • Keeps the Russians, Chinese, Americans, French and Germans guessing. A very intelligent misinformation campaign…🤔😳😁

          • When I worked on a basic tech series of books in the 90s I got some great imagery from Bae for future combat aircraft concepts. Looked great but bore little similarity to anything they actually produced since. The P.1214-3 Harrier replacement was the most exotic I think, which I saw again recently.

            Seeing that there are aspects of Replica already in the Tempest, (they do love that kinked wing) and flatter wider tail planes are de rigueur anyway I can see it getting more like a modified Replica look as it progresses… unless it gets more Magma like, reflecting some of the US triangular renders. Bae has done a few renders (not Tempest specific) of concepts more akin to that I think previously but that might be too risky I suspect.

          • Yeah, I have a few books called ‘British secret projects’ that covers interesting projects that never came to fruition for obvious reasons. It is clear that Tempest has aspects of Replica. This is a great concept image with the P.1214-3.

      • That has a sniff of YF 23 about it. Not surprising as it’s reputation seems to grow by the year by not flying, as quickly as the F22 declines in reputation by… not flying much.

  11. I have my doubts. The timescale, changes in geo-politics and their influence on strategy that cannot be anticipated and the juggling required on the political industrial level to appease various national ‘interests’. By the time the first prototype flies, if it does, what will the world look like in 2027-8 in this time of accelerating technical and social transformation?

    • There is a sense of urgency now that Russia has embarked on suicidal behaviours.

      China is also throwing it weight around.

      There is a timeline here to Chinese aggression.

      Taiwan first then Japan? That is the fear?

      • And in today’s news.

        “Risk of miscalculation with Chinese warships highest it has ever been, expert warns

        China has also fitted its fleet of nuclear-powered submarines with JL-3 missiles thought to have a range of up to 6,200 miles – enough to strike the US mainland from within their own waters.”

        Currently fitted to six submarines if correct.

        https://news.sky.com/story/risk-of-miscalculation-with-chinese-warships-highest-it-has-ever-been-expert-warns-12757876

        China’s DF-17 designed to strike Pacific bases: US09 DECEMBER 2022

        “China’s Dong Feng-17 (DF-17) hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV)-powered medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) has been designed to strike foreign military bases and fleets in the Western Pacific, a US Pentagon report said.”

        https://www.janes.com/defence-news/defence/latest/chinas-df-17-designed-to-strike-pacific-bases-us

        • Who knows.

          It is easy enough to fit an enlarged outline hatch to a sub with nothing behind it.

          It is equally possible to test launch something that looks like a sub carried ICBM what would never work in that final role.

          So may or maybe not.

          So all the main players have sub launched ICBMs now (maybe) how does that change anything?

          You don’t launch an ICBM because you are having a bad day?

      • HI SB,

        Yup, I recon the timescale for that timeline is at least in part going to be determined by Xi Jinping’s age. He’s 69, apparently, so ain’t going to be around for a huge amount of time…

        So if you are right I bet the Japanese will be pushing the project along for all they are worth.

        Then there is the fat madman in North Korea..! Geographically speaking I think being an Island state of Europe is waaayyyyyyy better than being an Island state off Asia right now.

        Cheers CR

        • I think that’s going to be the main benefit of having Japan on board, this will be a true collaboration between two equal sized powers pushing each other forward. Unlike the f35 which was just an America project with other nations involved. Very much at the whim of the US no matter how much money you poured in.

      • Yeah if we worry imagine being in Japan’s shoes, Russians at its nearest occupied point in the next garden, China across the street and a totally bonkers North Korea down the road.

      • The timeline is where will China’s current massive military expansion take it in the 2030s? Will it lead to direct conflict with the West/ Aukus and Japan over Taiwan or worse a campaign of conquest by China to capture the first and second island chains for conquest? The West needs to watch China very very closely.

        • There are a few other’s in between. Very long logistic trains have their problems. Not to mention a few strategic straights in the way.

  12. Japan involved could provide the spine a project of this complexity will need. IIRC from previous (non defence) projects involving Japan, on time, on budget, and no excuses is the order of the day … Woe betide the contractor or sub-contractors that don’t deliver what has been agreed as agreed…

  13. Just a couple of questions… How much money has been thrown at this so far?

    A ‘demonstrator’ aircraft will be in the skies in 5 years… is that 5 years after the development phase starts in 2025?

    This new fighter aircraft ‘could’ then take to the skies in 2035. Why is this aircraft going to take so long?

    • Current timeline is
      anglo-japanese engine development already began Jan 2022
      Jaguar anglo-japanese radar development began April 2022
      Japan begins a joint drone/loyal wingman project with the US 2023
      National Variant designs finalized 2024, company workshare arrangements signed, and final development budget agreed. (cutoff point for additional partners to join development)
      Two Joint UK-Japan engine demonstrators built by 2025 and begin testing
      UK Flight Demonstrator constructed around 2025 and flying in 2027
      Japanese flight Demonstrator flying in 2027
      Engine development completed 2029
      First Production prototype flying 2030
      Enter regular service 2035

        • Theres a lot of ground tests that no longer need to be done in the computer age and both aircraft suffered from post-cold war development slowdown, F-22 similarly had its development budget slashed.

          This doesnt have to be the case for all aircraft, A400M for example had its first production flight in 2009 but entered service in 2013.

        • I agree it’s optimistic in the extreme, but you are forgetting about two major factors digital twinning and modular software expertise, neither of which existed when Typhoon was being developed. It’s the equivalent of the constant blue screen of death and rock solid OS today it’s a different world. I haven’t had a crash in years and I’m still on a 6 year old Mac OS. It’s symbolic of how things have changed in one let alone two decades. However all that does not exclude major set backs as you rightly highlight especially as they are arguably pushing the cutting edge more indeed, than they did Typhoon in reality, so it’s difficult to judge. However much of the delay with Typhoon was German post Cold War machinations and accordingly reduced budgets. Though I saw when a demonstrator was to take to the sky but can’t see it now. Either way late 30s would be my bet for in service.

  14. Excellent, but lets be realistic.

    Has the incoming Labour party mentioned Tempest at all? Any positive noises?

    I’d read that 9 billion of defence money is going on this this decade and that is a lot of Transport Aircraft, Ships, Helicopters, and other kit.

    What is the betting this is cancelled and much of that money vanishes into the fat cat MIC companies for little benefit to HM forces the moment Labour have their SDSR?

    I hope the involvement of Japan and Italy help solidify this but I’m not holding my breath.

    • I’d hope that the strategic importance of building and maintaining a strong presence in east Asia would make cancelling Tempest politically unviable

    • Hi Daniele,

      Quoted on the BBC:-
      John Healey, Labour’s shadow defence secretary, said his party backed the partnership but warned about training.

      “Ministers must make clear how this fits with wider plans for the RAF’s future, including how they will prevent delays in fast-jet pilot training,” he said.

      I kinda agree with that, especially the training debacle..! Also, if both parties were keen to have a nation concensus on defence Healey would already know the answers to those rather basic questions. Ho hum, one day, yeh!

      Cheers CR
      PS It was even on the BBC News front page..! Now on the politics page 🙁

      • Hi mate. Thanks for spotting that. Do they back wider Japan – UK collaboration or the aircraft…? If so, that is a positive, I’d like to see Labour back this, properly.
        Sorry, skeptical Daniele today.

    • I’m not aware of Labour reneging of matters of defence. The Labour party decided to build two aircraft carriers, not the tories!

      The Tories, upon entering power in 2010, stated they would mothball one of the aircraft carriers, not Labour!

      The Tories trashed part built Nimrod aircraft with JCB’s, not Labour!
      The Tories have cut the Army to the point where the UK could not take part in another Afghan size war, not The Labour Party!

      • Tom….Tom….if you’re playing that game you’ve picked the wrong guy.
        Shall I list the Labour defence cuts 1997 up to 2010?

        Do let me know, will be a pleasure.

        They’re all crap when it comes to defence matters. All of them.

        • 😂 therein lies the undeniable truth Mate. Poor Tom must have missed the 2004 Labour trashing of the Armed forces.

          • Hi Tom, apologies for the late reply. Let me nail my colours clearly to the mast. I’m not here to give the Tories a free pass either. However I balance this against the fact they pledged to increases defence expenditure to 2.5% of GDP. I have not seen any commentary from the opposition to support this approach. Now I may have missed an announcement to that effect (I reside in NZ). So do feel free to contradict me if that is the case .

            The relevance of the 2004 was (arguably) the final cut, do refer to DM’s well detailed documented list of the cumulative damage. Bear in mind Labour continued with further cuts to the RAF after that, a further 3 Tornado sqns stood down circa 2008- 2010 before the Tories took over. IMHO Nimrod should have been binned long ago by Labour and singed up to the P8 Poseidon project, Anyway woulda , coulda shoulda. Worthwhile noting the Tories have maintained both the carriers and sanctioned a 7th Astute sub.

            DM put it quite eloquently “BOTH parties are crap”.

          • I know mate, a lot of Labour supporters here spit their Tea out when I go off on one. Doesn’t fit their view. Maybe they’re too young to recall the sheer despondency 2004 on time frame.

          • …or the complete destruction of various defence projects back in the 60s. e.g. TSR2 completely erased off the map in a wilful act of destruction of tooling, drawings etc.

        • Game ???? Dear oh dear… I really do not care what Labour did years ago, neither do those serving in the armed forces today! Facts are facts. Everything I said was factual, and correct.

          Why you are you trying to make a drama out of nothing, is anyone’s guess.

          • Dear oh dear nothing Tom. Labour’s record is no drama or game.

            Your post which reads to me as “Labour holier than thou” compared to the wicked Tories is not correct when I’m pointing out both have previous of being equally as bad on defence cuts, the very reason for my skeptical post.

            “Why you are you trying to make a drama out of nothing, is anyone’s guess.”

            No guesses, Tom, I have facts too, and happy to state them.

            Is your response being from someone worried a poster may also have some facts to deliver that don’t tie in with your narrative?

            I can list facts too, Tom. That is not “creating a drama” just demolishing your narrative.

            BOTH parties are crap.

            Everything you said regards Tory cuts is true, no one was denying it. I’m pointing out MY SKEPTICISM at Labours record, the likely incoming government.

            “I really do not care what Labour did years ago, neither do those serving in the armed forces today!”

            That is nice for you. That is your privilege. Others like me old enough to remember might not agree.

            Army.

            4th Armoured to 4th Mechanized. Meaning Tanks, AS90s cut.
            19th Mechanized to 19th Light. Tanks, AS90s cut.
            19th Light then disbanded.
            FAS – Future Army Structures, Tanks, AS90 all cut, UK based Armoured Regiments restructured with “Medium Armoured Squadrons” with CVRT Scimitar replacing Tanks. I recall 7 squadrons of tanks went.
            No new armoured vehicle programs started, leaving us in this mess today. No investment, loss of UK armoured vehicle capability.
            Manpower survived simply due to Aghan and Helmand.
            TA cut from 56 to around 42K.

            RAF

            23 Fast Jet Squadrons reduced to 12. TWELVE.
            Bases closed.
            Harriers, Sea Harriers, Jaguars, Tornado’s all cut.
            Nimrod reduced from 21 to 9.
            Chinooks not ordered ( a previous vowed carrot from closing RAF Cottesmore and cutting 3 and 4 Squadrons RAF on Harrier GR9 )
            GBAD – Rapier Sqns of RAF Regiment cut, “absorbed” into army. Read – cut.

            RN

            35 Frigates and Destroyers reduced to 23.
            SSN from 12 to 8.
            RFA and MCMV all cut.

            I could go on listing more but cannot be bothered.

            Carriers ordered, yes, lovely! Then delayed by Labour. I had this discussion with another poster months back and he is still in hiding not having got back to me when I posted links proving it.

            Equipment programs too numerous to list scaled back, reduced, cut. Many way before the 2008 financial crisis.

            I could go on, Gabriele on UKAFC made a much better effort than me, I must find it out and list it here for your pleasure.

            My point. Labour are no angels and their coming to power does not fill me with any hope whatsoever that defence will fare any better. Especially as we have Young Labour voting against NATO, Labour membership voting against AUKUS, and Mr foresight Kier Starmer himself saying just about anything to get into power.

            Not defending the Tories at all.

            Your turn.

          • Agreed. I’m not into politics at all, though I do have “well reasoned views” according to one respected left wing poster here.

            However, I know my military matters, far better than you I suspect, and those cuts I list are fact, nothing feeble about them.

            As I said, when I’m shown to be wrong when Labour are in power come find me and I hold my hands up. Till then, my worries remain.

            Feeble? That’s a poor effort there, It is you who hasn’t answered any of my points on YL, LPM, or anything else! 😆👍

            Anyway, this convo is over, enjoy your evening.

          • That is also Mr Corbyn’s camp fire. Sit and sing Kombaya. Numerous Labour MPs still support him. Worried? Yep.

      • Labour back then is not Labour now and if Corbyn had got in, well…..

        I do like how you ignore the financial reasons why all of the things you mentioned happened and that was very much down to Labour.

        • Hi James… I merely replied to the suggestion that a Labour Government will be bad for the MOD, which is totally incorrect.

          The financial aspect… well that is another matter. Fair point regarding Corbyn. God alone knows what path, that forever ‘card carrying’ CND individual would have taken us down.

          • God alone knows what path, that forever ‘card carrying’ CND individual would have taken us down.”

            So we agree on something Tom!

            When LP do not shred the forces look me up here and I will be happy, even relieved, to say “I was wrong to be worried”

            Till then, hmmm.

    • Talking of let’s be realistic! There is something enthusiasm, money and today’s tech struggle to grapple with and that’s called tomorrows tech.

    • Tempest is the only plan so I can’t see it being cut by anyone. Scaled back by whoever is in power, maybe.
      Personally I don’t see the tories as being some great defence supporting party. The pm was saying lots of forces won’t get a Christmas break as they will be doing civilian roles.
      He then said something about the pay rises would cost every person £1000 a year. What he doesn’t realise that if a rise is below inflation it’s a pay cut. Problem with that is that’s what’s been done for ages already.
      If inflation increases prices it must surely increase the tax take?

      • “I don’t see the tories as being some great defence supporting party.”

        Neither do I, MS. I simply point out the previous record of HM opposition when posters mention Tory cuts. Tom’s “Labour did not shred the Nimrods with JCBs” does not wash with me compared to the cuts THEY DID DO.

        As usual, just trying to get a balance and facts out there.

    • The PR from BAES mentioned the program creating and sustaining thousands of jobs. Across BAES, Rolls and Leonardo plus other UK suppliers I suspect we are looking at 10’s of thousands of mostly high value, relatively highly paid, high tax generating jobs, many in the north of the country. Fast jets have been the UK success story in exports too. It will be a brave political party that kills the UK’s fast jet industry, because cancelling Tempest will do that.

      However, the Tempest program has to keep to the publicly stated requirements at the public launch in 2018 that the platform must be affordable to avoid the death spiral of ever more expensive aircraft in ever reducing numbers, that has been the trend.

      BAES recognising this at the time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogAtFy3q3xk

      • Good to see you back, GHF, I’d noted your abcense.

        You are, logically, correct, and I cling to that hope that it will be too big to cut without major damage.

    • Hopefully the contracts are drawn as such that it makes them impossible to cancel and in doing so would also cost many thousands of jobs etc so very bad PR.

    • My hope is they fully understand that if they do then you can pretty much write off both Bae and RR as major technology businesses in this Country, which considering they are a substantial part of that already long stripped back sector would be near terminal destruction of the whole sector itself with a massive outflow of talent who simply couldn’t find employment here or a future that befits their talents. There would be no coming back from this and eventually whatever clout and respect with the US would fade away. It’s that important in my mind, we would just at best be a dumping ground for foreign exploitative subsidiaries with no sovereign capability. That’s what such a decision would spark off, even if it took a generation to fully come to pass. Doesn’t bear thinking about in my mind esp when growing Countries like Australia, Poland and South Korea are headed in the opposite direction. What a sad footnote in history we would become. Under Corbyn mind I suspect that would have been a certainty, a friendship certificate with Russia and China in return to exclusive exploitation rights like a African client state being his answer to an alternative cheap security solution to replace the elimination or export of our defence technology sector.

  15. Absolutely stonking move. I can see this become a great international success drawing in other likeminded partners along the journey.

  16. Whatever they come up with for this fighter, I hope they remember to design in a “cobra” manoeuvre-type capability. This helps make the F22 and some SU fighters so deadly in toe-to-toe close combat. Alternatively some sort of 360 degree target lock and fire would be good.

    • Hi AlbertStarburst,

      I believe there are a number of pilot helmets already in-service able to prvide that capability with short range weapons, including on the Typhoon I think. A kind of Look, Shoot and Scoot capability (if the bad guys are behind you hanging around to count the score would probably be a bad idea).

      Cheers CR

      • Yep, and further to DaveyB’s good reply below, I’m suggesting a full 360-degree target acquire and shoot capability may be needed. Possibly also using reverse facing missiles to cover that rear hemisphere and outclass any F22-type peer.

        • There is a problem with reverse facing missiles compared to forward facing ones. Namely they don’t have the kinetic benefit imparted by the parent aircraft. Which means they are effectively accelerating from zero if not a negative acceleration. Which will significantly cut down the missile’s range.

          The other issue that would need working out, is how the missile’s exhaust efflux affects the aircraft’s aerodynamics and stability. Especially as it will be causing an initial braking effect until it clears the rail. Though, will this be any worse than the yawing moment a forward facing missile generates?

          However, if the missile is purely a “point defence” weapon to defend the aircraft’s rear hemisphere, it could work. As the interception will be much closer to the aircraft.

          In the blurb for Iris-T, it states that it can engage other air to air missiles. Iris-T is an out and out knife fighting missile. It has one of if not the tightest turning radiuses. However, its range is not great. Plus, it uses a similar imaging infrared (IIR) sensor to the Block 4 ASRAAM. So in theory the Block 6 ASRAAM should also be capable of engaging air to air missiles.

          The next problem to sort out is packaging. There is an aerodynamic fineness ratio that particularly affects missiles. In that you can’t make make them short and fat. As it is too draggy, especially for missile that then relies on its kinetic energy after the rocket motor has used up all its fuel. Which means for best high speed gliding, missiles are long and thin. But this then places a constraint on your seeker’s sensor size, especially if you want it gimbal mounted with high off boresight search and tracking capabilities.

          These packaging issues are not insurmountable. However, with missiles such as Iris-T and ASRAAM that do have the over the shoulder lock on after launch (LOAL) capability. Using a forward facing missile does not significantly reduce its capabilities. As the energy lost in the 180 degree wide radius turn is compensated by the aircraft’s forward momentum being imparted to the missile.

          There are other options to defend the aircraft, such a laser infrared countermeasures (LIRCM), which tries to blind and decoy the incoming infrared missile. But is no good at defeat radar guided missiles.

          The other option is to remove the seeker from the defensive missile. Whereby the aircraft directs it via datalink. Which would mean that the aircraft will need an active sensor such as radar or lidar. To get a definitive target range, bearing, velocity etc to put the defensive weapon in the path of the missile threat. Where it either uses a combination impact/proximity fuse to detonate its warhead or it is command detonated by aircraft control.

          There are plenty of kinetic options available to defend an aircraft.

          • Thanks for taking the time to do a good, considered, response DaveyB.

            For Tempest I was thinking for close-in point defence dogfighting when it is all going titties-up. i.e. Something to defend the rear 180-degree hemisphere. If rear-facing missile mounted on wing pylons then release first then activate rocket motor. At least they would be facing in roughly the right direction (even in a turn) and some sort of targetting via in-helmet rear projection from cameras/sensors.

            Broadening out there is the whole anti-SAM/AA missile defence thing. Something to defend (either kinetic, explosive, or directed energy). Again if coming from the rear, rather than turn to launch, a rear-facing solution would be of help. Even at longer ranges against S400/600-type systems.

            There is then also the bigger need to defend larger aircraft against SAMs or even the Russian long-range AWACS killer missile. OK, sadly the UK does not have proper “bombers” anymore but AWACS and transport aircraft have the same problem, so it would be interesting to see if any anti-SAM systems could be developed for them? Maybe something Brimstone-esque to lock on to incoming missiles?

    • The only good thing a cobra manoeuvre is good for is airshow demo’s, and bleeding energy. Energy is is king for within visual maneuvering. No fighter pilot wants to get slow. You want to shoot the bad guy from 30 miles away, and head home safe and sound.

      • Agreed, and that is the received wisdom. However, check out on YouTube “growling sidewinder” for some pretty accurate digital combat situation scenarios. Yes they are not real-world examples as hopefully the algorithms are based only on Public-available data. Close in dogfighting is an issue if you cannot point and shoot first.

    • It’s been reported more than once that a Raptor would be at serious risk if it ever allowed a Typhoon within close dogfight range. Equally the YF-23 was almost as manoeuvrable without it having superior aerodynamics, while by not having it gave it other advantages over F-22 but hey the extreme demonstrations apparently looked good even if they bore no relation to real air combat. All arguable I accept depending on who you listen to, but certainly raises big questions about its ultimate value in a modern design and certainly most experts now seem to question whether it just led to the wrong choice being made.

      • Very true, the combination of the Typhoon’s lower drag, helps it maintain energy in high g turns around transonic speeds especially. The other part of the combination is the marriage between the helmet mounted sight and Block 6 ASRAAM. Which gives the pilot a much better capability in lock on after launch (LOAL), ie firing at targets over the shoulder. Plus when using IRST, it allows the Typhoon to remain RF silent in an engagement. Using the helmet to designate targets for ASRAAM.

        The only downside is that the pilot cannot see below and through the aircraft, as per the F35. If this was fixed, hopefully with Praetorian 2, then Typhoon would be extremely dangerous in the within visual range (WVR) combat field.

        But as I’ve mentioned before, ASRAAM has a few distinct advantages over Sidewinder. Firstly it’s the bigger rocket motor, which generates a lot more thrust and for longer. This means it accelerates much faster and has a significantly higher terminal velocity. Secondly, having no forward flight controls does mean it can’t turn as tight, but because it’s more aerodynamically efficient, ie generates less drag, it goes significantly further as well. Regardless of not being able to turn as tightly as Sidewinder, it can still turn inside any aircraft’s turn radius.

        Then there’s the new seeker in Block 6. The blurb states that it has been designed to remove obsolescence and that it has no significant gains over the original seeker. Some of this is true, but it is also all UK made, so no more ITAR and export problems. Secondly MBDA themselves have stated that the sensor has a much higher pixel count than the original. Which in layman’s terms means the seeker is more sensitive and has a higher contrast ratio.

        So in theory the missile should be able to validate a target from much further away. Giving the pilot vital seconds to acquire, launch and get of dodge, before they can fire back at you.

  17. Excellent news. Good to have the Japanese on board. It’ll help keep our wandering politicians eye on the ball and be a big boost to international credibility for the project overall.

  18. Interesting comments so far. My observations are firstly that we don’t seem to have a Japanese press release. Secondly, lot of nonsense about Japanese leadership, forgetting that in the key aircraft technologies, stealth, radar and engines, Japan has no tier 1 operators. Thirdly, there are only two countries globally with in production 5th gen fighters with all aspect stealth, the US and U.K.
    All the other nations now throwing their hats into the ring to build 5th gen fighters are hoping to acquire the technology along the way, including the Japanese, French and Germans.

    • Few notes, firstly F-35 are being assembled in both Japan and Italy, secondly we have had a press release from Japan, it was the same text as the joint statement by UK and Italy but added they would be beginning a joint drone/loyal wingman program with the US in 2023.

    • Thirdly, there are only two countries globally with in production 5th gen fighters with all aspect stealth, the US and U.K.

      What is the 5th Gen fighter that UK produces?

      The only country that produces 5th Gen is USA, arguably you can include China J-20 and Russia Su-57 but we have to low information level for that.

      • Every single rear fuselage and vertical and horizontal tails of the F35 is built in the UK. That’s all varients. F35A, B and C.

        • So? Italy also makes some of its wings and wing box and have an assembly line.

          IP, design conception is American it is not UK.

          • I have read some years back that technology from Replica was rolled into the F-35 project which was a major reason we were made a tier1 collaborator, but hey how that gets reflected in IP and other considerations now is well beyond my pay grade and equally what happens as it’s new modified developments is desirably rolled into Tempest. No doubt similar to arm a nominally British Company exploiting originally British ideas and technology that over time has become involved with so much US IP that it can do little without US agreement including to who they can sell to. I’m sure there will be some similar issues in this project where US acquiescence will be required no doubt on a quid pro quo basis in other tech. A good reason mind why the Japanese if they don’t work with the US would only likely work with the UK who have such greater sway in such matters that the French and Germans will never have with the US. Italy too is greatly helped by so much of the crucial tech involved being uk based even if nominally Leonardo while other tech they are working on with the Japanese already will probably be generally US IP free.

          • BAe’s Replica would have presented a serious sales threat to the F35. A good way to get rid of your opposition is to either buy out their company or make them an offer that ties them tightly to you. Being a Tier 1 partner achieved that.

          • Yes it means that UK did not developed a 5th Gen fighter obviously…
            It is quite bizarre the arrogance and petulance here.

            Engine?
            Radar?
            Electronics?
            Fuselage?
            etc etc…

            Who designed that, created that in F-35? certainly USA not UK.
            And even USA had lots of difficulties to pull it off.

          • Rolls Royce builds the lift fan. Martin Baker the ejection seat, BAE Systems the defensive aids system. That’s just 3 things without looking the rest up. You can do that.

        • That’s strange, just read yesterday that Bae has renewed the contract for these tail assemblies…. with the Canadian Company that had built the previous ones.

          • Suppliers: 100+ Tier 1 with numerous additional sub-tier suppliers filtering throughout the UK economy. Jobs Supported 20,000+Value: 15% of the value of the 3,000 +F35 jets planned will be built in the UK. 🇬🇧

          • I’ll say it again. 15% of the value of every single F35 that will be built for all nations buying the aircraft will be built in the UK. And that’s all 3 varients of the F35.

      • Unless you are a believer in Chinese/Russian propaganda neither are close to 5th gen fighters, they are struggling to make 4th gen engines and neither has 4th gen radar. Only gamers seem to believe their nonsense. As for F35 the U.K. is the only tier 1 production partner in the only 5th gen fighter in serial production.

        • And to a degree you are correct there are technology reasons that has happened as well as purely that of friendship. Mind you the main reason, though not unrelated to it mind, is the UK giving up on any Super Harrier thoughts and more pertinently, our own new upgraded Harrier developments and taking the AV8B at the time to get into the F-35 as a tier 1 member. I remember it being reported it was a take it or leave it offer we couldn’t do both. We only get snippets of the real story mind.

          • Have you ever heard of the US military industrial complex doing charity? The U.K. is a tier 1 partner on F35 for a reason. The Japanese have joined the Tempest team for a reason (yeah I know it has a different name now), they have been in bed with the US before. If they didn’t think the U.K. could deliver they wouldn’t have signed up, despite intense US lobbying.

      • The U.K. is the only tier1 partner on the F35. No I wouldn’t include China or Russia, you’d have to be pretty gullible to believe they had the production technology for all aspect stealth or the radar/engine technology for 5th gen never mind 6th gen. As an aside I believe China has just flown their first wholly domestically produced commercial airliner.

    • Was going to say the same. Might then have to add an angle deck to the QE Carriers for hybrid ops with F-35Bs. There were concept designs for this.

      • That I think is totally feasible the original studies offered both with little difference in the overall design. The width of the flight deck would allow an angled deck if it were required but cost wise is it likely not sure unless the UK ( whatever form that is at the time) discovers a technological and economic money tree propelling us back up the wealth league.

    • There’s no stated requirement for any Carrier capability – it would add more costs and complexity to an already expensive and complex programme.

      • According to SAAB CEO, their Tempest participation is currently in hibernation. So they haven’t gone away. They just are currently not overly engaged. SAAB should not be ignored. They are one of only a handful of western firms that are currently producing competitive fighter jets. Regardless, they are a major defence player, everything from fighter jets, missiles, naval CMS, radars, optical sensors etc. They will have something to contribute, if they have a mind to. Sometimes though it might pay to get a third party to lean a little. Australia & Brazil come to mind.

    • I think, though the cooperation was up played overall, their main Immediate involvement was/is with Saab’s digital twinning expertise, other cooperation has been under consideration in committee and I’m sure still is, but do they want or can afford such a high performance platform when they have previously concentrated on smaller, simpler aircraft with good bang for buck. From their perspective and considering their direct influence in any such project I’m sure it best to wait and see and make decisions later when less formal cooperation is already achieved. And from our side there is less need to use them as pr to promote this (as it needs to be) a truly international project. The Italians and esp the Japanese are far better tools to achieve that, as welcome as Swedish and other collaborators indeed would be. I think over time this will expand beyond the initial tier 1 collaborators.

    • Germany (Airbus) recently caved to France’s (Dassault’s) demands to run the show, and the project should be starting back up again soon. They expect a demonstrator to be produced by 2029.

    • European squabbling Dan, that’s what. I would imagine they are somehow disheartened by our news today.

      The European project is on far less certain ground than Tempest, while the US will no doubt attempt to undermine and collapse Tempest, they will precisely the same with the European effort.

      Rock bottom F35 prices and lucrative offset deals will be offered to both Germany and Spain, to splinter the consortium and ultimately ensure FOAS is still borne.

      France will struggle on with a pared back design, always compromised in physical size and the structural weight penalties of ensuring Aircraft Carrier capability.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if it ends up just being a warmed over Rafael 2.

  23. Excellent news. With Japan onboard I now believe Tempest or GCAP will actually see production. Hopefully costs can be kept reasonable and the aircraft can deliver on its 6th generation capability. Just got to make sure the US doesn’t torpedo the programme through jealousy.

  24. I’ve been following the Japanese program for quite some time. From what I can see, most of their funding ended up on the engines. With this merge, what will happen to it? Will they scrap it, or will they combine their tech with Rolls Royce?

    From what I can see, this will probably end up as the best manned air to air fighter for some time. Just need to see what ends up being cut from the final production version.

      • I gather a lot of that cooperation was between RR & Japan’s IHI. So no great change. That, I think was one of the reasons the Japan link jelled. US did not want to play ball (except by their take it or leave it rules). UK via RR did. UK via BAE did. Italy was show me the money. Japan finally realised beating a dead horse never works. US is unlikely to voluntary change its spots. Some take longer than others to work out that the horse is dead.

        Politics is one thing, but there are some very high tech companies on board here. Japan as a softener say they want to work with US on ‘Loyal Wingman’ drones. I wonder how long before they decide to order a ‘Ghost Bat’ to play with, just like US did. No-one has a monopoly on bright ideas. In the engineering world, the term ‘now that’s interesting’, is not to be ignored.

    • IHI’s XF9-1 engines are described as low bypass, so not adaptive. I don’t think the current version was seen as the final engine for the FX, more a work in progress. Originally this next generation engine for early 2030s was going to include Rolls helping IHI with airflow, but it ended up as fully collaborative project, announced the end of last year. I imagine the joint engine they are now both working on will be closer to the Rolls-Royce prototype engines, but with as much as they can take from IHI’s ideas and material use as possible.

      • Most of the impressive stuff about that project are the materials, so that is highly probable.

        As far as I know, they don’t have a finished engine for the F-X/F-3. All the prototypes they’ve made doesn’t reach the stated requirements. Joining Rolls-Royce on the engine might be their best way of achieving it. Possibly a win-win for both sides.

        If that was the reason, joining Tempest would actually save them money on any internal redesigns required for an adaptive engine.

    • The first agreement made on the combined project was cooperation on an engine with RR some time back. From that all else eventually flowed as it meant dimensions would be similar and RR/Bae would be designing part of the engine dictated fuselage. Made a lot of sense thereafter (with cooperation on weapons and sensors for Fx already underway) to bring the two projects closer still. The question over this year was about how closely related the project it could become. This news is basically saying very close to identical it seems.

      I understand this announcement was to be made last month had it not been for ructions in the political scene in each Country at different moments ie assassination in Japan and leadership issues here.

      • Any idea how far Team Tempest has progressed on the sensors part? The Japanese has also published a lot on that part.

        I actually haven’t seen a lot of overlaps between the stuff publicly released from both sides. Though admittedly, I haven’t read stuff from the Italians. The engine was the only obvious one.

  25. Personally, the ‘mock up’ looks more like a variation of an F-35, with a little F-22 thrown in to make it look new and exciting.

  26. this is all very nice, but unlike the tempest program,if there is no VSTOL version of it then our carriers will be a waste of time and unable to carry out their function. as it is, the lack of a tempest VSTOL option could have the same impact on the capabilities of AQE and POw.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here