The UK has begun manufacturing and assembling the main structure of its first crewed combat air demonstrator in four decades, according to BAE Systems.
This initiative, in collaboration with Rolls-Royce, MBDA UK, and the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD), is a significant advancement in developing a piloted supersonic aircraft designed to test new technologies, including stealth features.
This project is a pivotal part of the Tempest programme, announced by the UK Government in July 2022, and aims to have the aircraft ready for flight within the next three years.
The Tempest initiative is expected to produce a new combat aircraft by 2035. The ongoing work, which already includes more than half of the aircraft’s weight in build, leverages the expertise of the UK’s defence industry and innovative digital techniques, such as advanced manufacturing technologies, virtual simulators, and digital rigs.
Paul Wilde, Head of Tempest at BAE Systems, spoke of the initiative’s importance for maintaining the UK’s leadership in combat aircraft design and production.
“The flying technology demonstrator is a vital initiative for developing national skills and advanced technology, ensuring the UK remains a world leader in the design, production, test and certification of combat aircraft. Partnering with around 100 UK suppliers, including our Team Tempest partners, we’re combining engineering expertise with innovative methods to enhance and refresh crucial industrial skills which is so important as we get ready to deliver the Tempest programme. The demonstrator is a ground-breaking initiative which will showcase the best of British engineering, supporting apprentices and graduates who learn from our best engineers, keeping the UK at the forefront of defence and aerospace.”
The demonstrator will offer valuable data and lessons to support the development of the new combat aircraft. BAE Systems is utilising additive manufacturing processes, including 3D printing and Hot Isostatic Press (HIP) technology, to produce significant structural parts of the aircraft efficiently and cost-effectively.
In Warton, Lancashire, test pilots from BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, and the Royal Air Force (RAF) have conducted over 215 hours of simulation flights. This extensive simulator testing provides critical insights to support the aircraft’s design and future flight trials, allowing pilots to become familiar with the aircraft years before its maiden flight.
Additionally, digital simulators and rigs are being used to test cockpit conditions without the need for physical environmental rigs.
MBDA is collaborating with BAE Systems to trial digital weapon integration processes for the demonstrator. This early-stage collaboration aims to prove that these digital techniques can reduce the time and cost associated with weapons integration. Rolls-Royce is preparing to deliver two EJ200 engines, donated by the MOD, for installation into the demonstrator following successful integration testing last year.
Air Commodore Martin Lowe, Future Combat Air Systems Programme Director for UK Ministry of Defence, said:
“The demonstrator is helping us understand more about the advanced technology that is required to deliver a sixth-generation fighter jet. The progress we have made together – MOD and industry – in such a short space of time has been remarkable. A large part of this is down to a new generation of engineering specialists who are using innovative manufacturing solutions to deliver this demonstrator aircraft.”
The flying technology demonstrator represents a significant milestone in the Tempest programme, which will eventually be delivered through the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) involving the UK, Italy, and Japan.
Earlier this month, the three nations of the Global Combat Air Programme unveiled a new concept model of their next-generation fighter aircraft at the Farnborough International Airshow 2024.
The new concept model displayed in Hall 5 features an evolved design with a larger wingspan to enhance the aircraft’s aerodynamics.
Herman Claesen, Managing Director of Future Combat Air Systems at BAE Systems, highlighted the progress made since the programme’s launch:
“In the 18 months since the launch of the Global Combat Air Programme, we’ve been working closely with our industrial partners in Italy and Japan under the collaboration agreement, and also with the three governments, to understand and align requirements for a next-generation combat aircraft. The new model, unveiled at Farnborough International Airshow, shows notable progress in the design and concepting of this future fighter jet. We’ll continue to test and evolve the design as we move closer towards the next phase of the programme.”
Guglielmo Maviglia, Chief Global Combat Air Programme Officer at Leonardo, emphasised the programme’s rapid pace and strong commitment:
“The pace of the programme is extraordinary, building on a solid foundation and industrial legacy in each country and government-led partnership. Since the treaty was signed in December 2023, the programme has seen strong commitment from each partner. Each brings different, but complementary, qualities and requirements. We are now working closely together to exchange knowledge, address common challenges, and achieve common goals.”
Hitoshi Shiraishi, Senior Fellow at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, expressed the collaborative benefits:
“MHI considers any project to be a valuable opportunity to deepen our knowledge. In particular, since GCAP is a three-country joint development programme between Japan, the UK, and Italy, we expect to obtain better results and deeper knowledge than ever before by combining the different cultures, experiences, and knowledge of the three industries involved.”
Well we guessed right that it would be EJ200 powered.
Given it is in build then it will use a lot of other Typhoon bits.
The radar and weapons systems will be Blue Circle evolved systems in the demonstrator.
EJ200 is the most logical engine for this prototype but not the actual engine being developed for the eventual aircraft though. Yes it will have other Typhoon bits but this is just early days and nothing like the eventual iteration.
Yes indeed, it is analogous to the EAP using Tonka engines (and the vertical tail if I recall). Hell with a few mods EAP doesn’t look out of place today 🙂 Wait isn’t that a Typhoon? sorry just talking to myself…
Of course it originally was supposed to have a twin tail but thanks to the Germans lack of commitment at that early stage (they had designed the tail) Bae went on to build the EAP with effectively a tail from the Tornado to save on costs. .
Twin Tail huh? I did not know that, now I do 🙂
Yes something like the F-18 from what I read. Once they went traditional on the EAP with all the flight testing and delays Germany caused even at that early stage I think it was deemed too risky to change there after. Would be interested to know what they felt the advantages would have been but haven’t found anything to elaborate.
Hi Spyinthesky,
The twin tail arrangement can give a lower radar cross section (RCS) if done right, which is why many stealth aircraft use twin tail or none at all as in the B-2 and B-21 bombers.
Typhoon was supposed to have a lower RCS than other equivalent aircraft without being full on stealthy. Not sure how successful that effort was if at all… Apparently the big single tail is something of a radar reflector / re-radiator.
Cheers CR
Other issue I’ve heard is the air brake causes dirty air to pass over the vertical stabiliser and causes it to vibrate and wear. Supposedly the twin tails would have been less susceptible to this.
I agree Glyn. EAP looked the real thing and performed to expectations tor reports. That was 1986. Typhoon didn’t go live until 2006 I think. The reason was the Germans tried to back out after 1989 and All That. So we had bribes and horse trading for political reasons. Had we unilaterally pursued production at the time I am certain the U.K. would have sold as many if not more. See Gripen and the excellent Rafale.
I agree but it is possible to bring it into service with the latest EJ200’s and then spiral.
A demonstrator is just that – this fundamentally works.
I can see early Tempest also using Radar2 and DAS (Praetorian) and cockpit bits stripped out of spares inventory.
Very interesting that MOD is loaning bits to this program. I’ll be pretty sure the engines are not the only bits loaned.
As a thought exercise, it would be interesting to see the practicality of introducing an interim design based on the tech demonstrator into service early as a stop-gap.
Plenty of mentions have been made of ordering additional Typhoons to bulk up the RAF, but if the tech demonstrator could be accelerated from 3 years to 2ish (and if it actually proved successful), an order for perhaps 24 Franken-Tempests using Typhoon common parts to get them operational by 2030 might be a better idea. Modern stealthy airframe, parts commonality, build both manufacturing and operational experience for the full-fat Tempest in 2035.
Question is are they spiralable?
Otherwise you end up the orphaned Typhoon Tranche 1 problem all over again?
The key is making them large enough that a big shoehorn isn’t required….
That would depend entirely on how similar the final product was to the initial tech demonstrator. Changes are usually made right down to the basic structure of the aircraft that, although the might not be visible, make the two types wildly divergent. Having said that, the whole point of this hypothetical is to get the RAF a modern platform in the shortest feasible time frame. There’s a strong argument to be made that getting a “good enough” 5.5 gen equivalent into service within the next 5 years is a better call than only fielding 4.5 and low numbers of 5th… Read more »
The problem with that approach is you are spending huge amounts of money on an interim solution and waiting a decade to get it. Then when you get the finished article you can’t upgrade them so scrap em ! After all in the Western world we are the World Champions in scrapping aircraft with plenty of life left in them. Harrier, Sea Harrier, Tornado, Typhoon Tranche 1. We as a Nation cannot afford “nice to haves” when we can’t even afford sufficient “Must haves”. Unfortunately we desperately need more Airframes that are 100% developed and buildable now or ASAP. Hence… Read more »
“ Harrier, Sea Harrier, Tornado”
They wouldn’t survive in the present battle space.
I was thinking that…
Its a technology demonstrator. Which is nothing like a production standard aircraft.
That has happened before certainly 30s and 40s into the 50s indeed for obvious reasons esp Spitfires and WW2 Tempests come to mind. The Mk lX Spit was a rushed temp job to compete as best they could with the FW190 till the Mk Vll and MkVlll became available. It was so successful it’s supposed replacements were barely seen though their improvements then featured in later Mks. But don’t see that happening with this Tempest I think it would be very problematical. That said Mk1 Tempest though fundamentally the final design might well be less capable than presently planned so… Read more »
Absolutely you fly with a proven engine, it’s not about ultimate performance or fuel efficiency, power generation et al at this stage it’s about testing your concepts and potential, then you introduce your upgraded or new engines within a relatively mature prototype or further prototype.
I thought they had an uprated EJ 200 ready to go
The article, and other sources, specifically say MOD donor parts and not new build from RR. That could be an MOD donor that has been upgraded and/or refurbished by RR. It could be two of the latest Typhoon engines…..It could be two of the early Typhoon engines……we don’t really know that sort of detail and I’m not sure it should be public domain. What we do know is the prototype is half built by weight and has two engines! TBH half built by weight is a lot further on than the handout photo would suggest – you would certainly be… Read more »
Good news, but let us hope it is full steam ahead with no possibility of cancellation. If that awful day ever arrived, it would spend the end of Britain’s role as a major player in the military aircraft Industry!
Note- we are not allowed to mention the TS**
Please don’t even think about it being cut up. Folding wings variant with arrester would be more practical than with earlier models. Low wing loading,very Japanese and Italian too. All of which makes sense for a number of reasons not least of which is a need for dispersal. Airfields will come under massive bombardment in any future showdown.
I’m putting cones around your comment Geoff, nothing to see here, move along please….
I nearly mentioned TSR2 earlier mate, but I think I got away with it, doh!
Ironically, GCAP isn’t going to be a ‘lot’ smaller than TSR2, size comparisons with F111 have already been made.
It does concen me how many can we afford and will wholesale redevelopment of the bases be required?
That is one big aircraft then. No wonder the Swedes are playing a wait and see role. I guess with the idea of dog fighting is retreating way, way into the distance, plus the multi role capabilities required, you need an airframe that can internally/externally not only carry numbers of varied missiles but capable of loading bigger missiles too to maintain stand off capabilities. And then you need good fuel capacity in stealth mode and the enormous power for all the advanced electronics. The nimble compact fighter may have had its day. How does it compare to an F-15 I… Read more »
I think it has been described as being roughly F-111 sized.
Even if it does get into a dogfight, I thought ASRAAM does the turning for you?
I wouldn’t be surprised if an air to air role appears for the B21. It would have a significant advantage over almost anything else.
True, as has been mentioned before here, it bares a strog resemblance to the proposed stretched big wing FB22. Probably based on similar thinking. We can certainly hypothesise an unrefueled combat range of 1000+, possibly touching 1500… The Japanese will certainly be insisting on as large an aircraft as possible. Aa much as I applaud the direction of travel, I am starting to get concerned regarding affordability and numbers. Can the RAF afford enough for 8 Squdrons, or are we obly going to get 60 odd aircraft and a couple of Squdrons?? Will the rest be drones, or will it… Read more »
So will we see the rebirth of Bomber Command?😃
That would be nice Geoff!
😉
Now, fit four merlin and a few turrets Geoff and we’re in business!
It would be great to see a 2 seater version in service, could be called Mosquito
Great new. I posted previously that producing a flying demonstrator as soon as possible was vital to maintain support for the programme. Using existing engines to achieve this mirrors the EAP approach to Typhoon. Above all, we cannot afford the eye wateringly expensive software development that has bedevilled the F35. Building, wherever possible, on what already works has to be the way forward.
News.
Thankfully the way that particular software had originated and evolved is very different to what can be done now and while there will always be problems to solve the modern modular way of doing so is far superior to the legacy environment the F-35 code has been stuck with. Bit like comparing the horrendous legacy design requirements of an Intel x86 chip/code environment to that of a far more modular and modern Arm or other RISC related design. You can change and update but fundamentals and compatibility get more and more complex and a drag on efficiency, reliability and timescales.
Any maritime variant planned?
What happened to the days when you could take a request through design & testing & production to front line in less than a year, think North American NA-73X? I know why, I was just lamenting.
Things are just a little bit more complicated now, there’s over 15 miles of wiring in a Typhoon. We could build something analogous to a P-51 in a few months easily, but it would be as useful as a condom in a convent.
But at the same time digital modelling is more mature. So when materials are cut/cast/printed they are cut/machined/created very precisely to tolerances nobody could dream of previously. So the assembly process is a lot quicker than of old. Given distributed fibre networks (layered) the wiring issues are a lot simpler than they once were. Power control and smoothing to onboard circuits will be vastly simpler than of old. Power control semiconductors are orders of magnitude better than they were when Typhoon was being developed. As ever it depends on the those running the project having the clarity of view and… Read more »
The P-51 of course did have a fair amount of input prior to the prototype being built for the RAF in such a short time, much of the design and aerodynamic work had been bought in from Curtiss who had no spare capacity themselves for a new fighter.
Yes, that’s why I said “I know why”, but the lack of urgency / faffing about is also a big issue today. Look how quickly Ukraine has got “ASRAAMs on Trucks”, “Storm Shadows on Su-24s” etc. This is the type of urgency that ultimately yielded the Mustangs.
This is pretty brisk by any reasonable standards.
That is why you don’t want/need the Germans or French involved having pointless arguments about control, technologies and workshare.
A condom is an essential bit of stealth equipment in a convent! 🙏🏻😇.
Good initiative to get the ball rolling. The Turks and S. Koreans already are working on their 5th generation planes.
The Turks are flying theirs as are the South Koreans. The latter has borrowed from the F-35 but seems by many to be considered a 4.5 Gen aircraft. Time will tell if the Turkish Kaan is deemed a true 5th Gen design.
They simply don’t have the tech or materials for a true 5th gen.
The S.K. ‘Boramae’ is considered a 4.5 generation aircraft.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2024/06/27/south-korea-orders-first-batch-of-kf-21-fighters/
Given that this is a demonstrator,with all the Typhoon bits what are we demonstrating?
Same reason as we did for EAP 40 odd years ago, so much tech and production methods are new and being combined that they need to produce a prototype. It really doesn’t matter about the engine or radar, it’s learning about how it all gets built and integrated.
EAP was very similar in that respect, it cost £80 million but the lessons learnt were calculated to have saved over £850 million in production costs.
Which was then wasted N x over by going multinational and having camel arguments.
EAP was a BAE private project with little interference and a little seed funding from HMG.
There is a reasonable argument that if BAE had been allowed to get on with it as a UK lead project it would have cost UK less money.
It was the era of the Eurofudge Grande Project (like Channel Tunnel) so Eurofudge got it as it sounded better…
The primary job of this technology demonstrator is to prove the new construction technology is valid and meets all the requirements.
If it’s sufficiently flexibility in its build, it might also be used as part of GCAP developing programme, testing avionics and systems etc.
Well the Airframe will be almost completely new which is more than EAP which borrowed a modified Tornado tail. It doesn’t need the latest engine or radar technology et al to test that all the digital twinned calculations work as designed the airframe and control/flight systems are the priority. Everything else gets added in progressively and systematically and tested till you have a complete picture and can move on to the pre production design. Many a test pilot of old* will tell you to test a new airframe with a new engine is an accident waiting to happen. These days… Read more »
Often quoted BT the late, great Roland Beamont. “Always test a new airframe with a proven engine”
I’m confused as the fountain of defence knowledge the telegraph (eyeroll) has released about a thousand articles in the past week saying the whole tempest programme is being cancelled. Could they have been talking out of there arse.
Jokes aside I’m glad it’s moving ahead at a decent pace. I’m also glad we’ve not gone down the common 6th gen for the whole of nato. Think it will be better to have 2 or 3 different types planes than just 1 (aka American) 6th gen. That way they can compliment each other’s weaknesses. Can’t remember the specifics but someone mentioned that the benefit of having both the eurofighter and rafale in service is that they bother complement each other shortcomings.
On the other hand it may just be a very shrewd financial move for U.K. PLC. The pace of them getting this going is very impressive and it seems we have decent sensible partners.
The Tory graph, maybe not the best source of info. I think this has stemmed from a basic assumption that we are engaged in two high profile collaborative projects, Tempest and AUKUS and we can’t apparently ( in their opinion) afford both given that the amount that will need to spent to fix the damage done by the Tories. Plus the army deputy chief, Dame what’s her name, Wants the program killed and the money spent on the army. I will point out that should she ever lead men into combat, she will probably be the first to be screaming… Read more »
Lead men into combat? Her and her officers will stay at the back while the squaddies are suffering, and then she’ll blame it on one reason or the other. Army’s been wasting it’s money compared to the navy and airforce, maybe they can have a say when they properly deliver a major project without hiccups.
Really good piece by Sir H on The Thin Pinstriped Line deconstructing the media’s attacks on Tempest. Broadly, it is slow season in Westminster (summer holidays) so they are stirring up nonsense to get us all talking. Classic Fleet Street, but slightly worrying how much influence the traditional news outlets still have!
The reasoning for possible cancellation of the Tempest programme was put forward by Prof Justin Bronk, from what I read there was some logic to what he was saying, but at the end of the day it’s all down to how much money the Govt of whatever flavour are prepared to throw at it.
It makes sense to use existing bits where ever possible to keep costs down.
On a personnel note, please please please , keep the Germans out of it, if they must be brought in, it must be a take it or leave it basis.
They were the principal reason why Typhoon was delayed and expensive.
If FCAS folds ( I doubt the French can go it alone) then same conditions. This is the spec,IT IS FIXED. No negotiation !!
I think that is even with Labour a given should the Germans be invited in. If they want to take the design and modify it for their own purposes fine let them do it and pay for it off their own production line if they want, but not modify our own agreed design to suit. I note today that Rishi made a point of the fact the Saudis want to join and that the PM will hopefully continue the discussions. Will no doubt be mixed reviews of that on here but it’s a nice option to pursue if thought required… Read more »
I think the Brits ( certainly under the Tories) were keen to bring the Saudi on board but the Japanese were the stumbling block with the Saudi less than stellar human rights record.
Having worked there,the Kasgoggi state murder did not surprise ne
Typhoon will need replacing in RSAF, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar service at some point. Now that RSAF tonkas have gone ( and In no small part due to Germany refusing to send spares) the Typhoons are going to be doing a lot more hours. The RSAF really liked Tonkas. Far more than any other aircraft including F15s that they used. A licence Tempest assembly in KSA and a maintenance hub for ME Customers would be an ideal solution. KSA has some very good companies who have done a lot of in country upgrades to Tonkas and Typhoon. Ok, lots of… Read more »
Yet we’re more than happy to sell them our weapon systems isn’t that so. I see no significant difference, except in this case the Saudis will be investing even greater money from development stage, and who knows truly how much spare money they’ll throw at it.
I wasn’t not debating the rights and wrongs of bringing them on board, just stating the current barrier and my own experience of working in the region.
IMHO the whole Middle East region is a powder keg kept in check with the ruthlessly efficient security services,
When it blows it will BLOW!!
I doubt the tolerant attitude of the Tories will transfer to the current government. But defence projects do make for uneasy alliances.
They are very concerned about the growing influence of the Iranians but they have their own internal problems.
The Iranians where causing issues here back in 2011-15. However the security apparatus closed them down…very ruthlessly. When “radicals” missed a Police vehicle with a Roadside IED and hit a car carrying a local lady and her kids any support evaporated. Shortly after a warehouse with lots of made in iran stuff was found.
Since then its been pretty quiet here…even burning tyres in the road are few and far between nowadays.
Given the amount of tech being developed for Tempest which will have none military applications. I see no problem in the R&D budget contributing to Tempest.
Certainly an awful lot of these technologies will potentially give our technology sector a serious boost. We have already seen cross overs from F-1 and of course Reaction Engines technology in the art of industrial cooling. Never has modern technology had such widespread potential to spread wide and far between sectors as we have seen with state of the art British electric motors being used in Australian rockets.
I live pretty close to Luton airport so I think it would be sensible for them to use that as the testing base for flight tests.
It’ll have a really, really safe car park after the recent fire so I think that seals the deal.
It is interesting that Tempest is being developed “ somewhat” in the public domain while both 6th Gen American fighters have been developed in secrecy, we don’t even have an idea what they look like.
Plenty of renderings of them, new ones quite recently but it is difficult as media is on steroids over there so difficult to discern fact from fiction, they do love to use imagery from Tom Cruise films I find as click bait. Even the imagery on respected sites tend to use imagery gathered from official sources but without Official sanction regarding authenticity. So all we know (almost) for sure is that it will be tailless though as no ‘winner’ has been announced on either project is that a certainty? I would be surprised actually if the naval fighter would have… Read more »
The USNs ATA Advanced Tactical Aircaft had no tail, it was a flying wing.
It was developed around the same time as the ATF, so, the YF 22, 23.
It was cancelled, but believed to continue in some form in the black world, and very similar to the alleged TR3A.
Telling fact from fiction is the. Problem where they seem happy to showcase Tempest evolution.
Probably to build momentum and media/public awareness in the hope, as it becomes a wider National ‘quest’ for excellence will make cancellation of it and all the associated technology promoting in the public awareness an image of Worldwide technology driven UK excellence all the more difficult. The US after a long drawn out process of its own of indecision and rethink over decades has pretty much got to do this now after seeing Chinese progress, while options to restart production of an F22 derived design or upgrade shown to be potentially more costly than a clean sheet design (what with… Read more »
I am, overall, very optimistic about Tempest. But, I am still struggling with the timeframe. If a tech demonstrator flies in, say early 2026. Entering service from 2035 sounds wildly optimistic. Unless, under the airframe, it’s more Typhoon than all new 6th gen capability. With a long road map well into the 2040/50s to get up to all singing 6th gen capabilities. The manned version is also only part of the Tempest capability. So, numbers. I wouldn’t get too excited about airframe numbers. If I was a betting man. I’d say 70-100 max. With the bulk of future mass coming… Read more »
Yes, good post mate.
I’m not sure I would get too hung up about the manned / unmanned issues. Controlling the aircraft either way will be critical to the whole prototype strategy. Unmanned will not be an optional extra I suspect the unmanned system will be essential to manned flight as well. I’m guessing, obviously, however I would be surprised if the hardware & software required were not already a work in progress. Remember similar software will be needed for the drones.
I suspect it’s built on an extension of 20 years of work by Bae and others tbh.
Agreed.
Modern build techniques cut time. A recent article on F16 manufacture has them now using a robot to accurately drill rivet holes in a section of the airframe. Its doing the job something like +30% quicker than the old method . Now add in Composites that are moulded not riveted, 3d printing of complex shapes, digital drawings fed into machines directly, improved tolerances aiding in assembly its all shaving time off the construction. Modular electronics that are connected via fibre networks not copper wire looms with massive multi pin plugs (Stand fast mains power!). That all make things easier and… Read more »
Just read a report on Lockheed Martin and the proposed Mako and how they are working hard to reduce costs with new techniques enabling the structure and parts to be built many times quicker and cheaper and more reliably and making changes much, much quicker too. It’s work of this nature that has turned rocket launchers once limited to a few Govts and launch costs ridiculously high to the point that almost anyone can produce launchers and afford a space industry. Not only have New Zealand originated a launcher business they are working on a hypersonic aircraft demonstrator too as… Read more »
Must admit the timeframe does seem very optimistic but then I had no idea that build work was underway so not sure how much work over the years had already taken place, these latest renderings may be reflective of design a good while back, indeed must be if so much work is already under way. It’s difficult too to compare to the long drawn out gestation period of the Typhoon as production techniques are completely different now and quick prototyping and then re-prototyping to get to the full production stage far quicker and one hopes that the rabid delays in… Read more »
EAP is a bad example because we had infamously the Germans botch up the timeframe. Had we had no issues like that, the Typhoon would likely be flying even earlier.
The Germans had nothing to do with EAP. It was a British Aerospace project only. German politics held up Typhoon development.
TWZ has also taken an in-depth look at the Tempest demonstrator. Well worth a look.
Goven that GCAP is going to be a significantly larger and heavier airframe, wouldn’t a demonstrator be seriously underpowered with EJ200s? The F22 is smaller than the GCAP proposal but its engines have almost double the power of the EJ200.
The timetable here is aggressive however that will be the difference between a successful design and a failure. The design muct be quick to produce and flexible so that it is simple and quick to provide upgrades.
Are Italy and Japan helping to build this prototype?
How long before the Global Combat Air Programme and the Future Combat Air System are merged? Also, would this possible and worthwhile?
Tempest, perfect name for a British aircraft, I only hope that present and past governments don’t give up to another country like many other projects, remember our jump jet Harrier, the TSR2 that was just outstanding albeit the design of the undercarriage, given up by politicians, and the Nimrod aircraft £over 700 million on refit and specially designed anti submarine detection, then Cameron decided to scrap them for American AWax aircraft, I hope that the Tempest succeeds beyond the boundaries. 🤞🇬🇧
Just out of interest will the new fighter jet be primarily be used to defend the UK, or sold to dubious regimes at great profit to murder and suppress? Asking for a friend.
Why does it just look like an f22/35 with a longer wing
Since the USAF cannot seem to get it’s act together on the Next Generation Air Dominance fighter, the US should consider buying the Tempest from the UK. At the rate the US is going, UK will already have the Tempest in preproduction or full production by the time the USAF makes up it’s mind.
What a beast of a jig that is!
You are so lucky to still have high end engineering in the UK! Make sure you don’t lose it (laments loss of Aussie car industry…)
So pleased to see this. A UK built and (hopefully) sourced aircraft. Something to spur other areas of industry. Perhaps, as ever when there’s a chance if wider conflicts, defence will lead the way in products that have a stable maintenance and supply chain.
Still not convinced it’s 6th gen with an ‘interactive cockpit’, ‘integrated sensors’ and ‘interoperable’. features seen on current 5th gen aircraft and block upgrades of 4th gen. Here, 6th gen seems to simply indicate the decade that it will be introduced in.