At the Farnborough International Airshow 2022, MBDA revealed its vision for “optimising weapon effects in the future battlespace” through its Weapon Effects Management System.
As part of its involvement in the Future Combat Air System, otherwise known as Tempest, MBDA is developing a Weapon Effects Management System.
“Working closely with our Partners in the programme, the concept intends to deliver software that works in harmony with the core platform’s mission systems and sensor suite, providing the best threat response, deployable at the most opportune moment, therefore maximising the overall mission effectiveness.
In an ever increasingly complex operating environment, a pilot – or even remote operator – will need the assistance of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) of a Weapon Effects Management capability to reduce their cognitive burden and facilitate the coordination of all available complex weapons in a battle space. It may also be that the best effect does not come from the system’s core platform, but an un-crewed adjunct or UCAV or even from wider in the battlespace such as a ground or naval-based systems, or a combination of them.”
An additional capability of the system, say MBDA, is to exploit sensing and data-linking capabilities on an ‘Effector’ to contribute into a mission system thus increasing situational awareness.
Chris Allam, Managing Director of MBDA UK and Executive Group Director of Engineering, said:
“At MBDA, we know that networked weapons, cooperating in packs, or even swarms, will provide an operational advantage in the future battlespace. The Future Combat Air System will also have the information advantage in that same space. Coupling the two, the vision for the Weapon Effects Management System is to enable true effects optimisation, making complex weapons simple.”
Lorenzo Mariani, Managing Director of MBDA Italia and Executive Group Director of Sales and Business Development, said:
“MBDA is able to provide customers with the ability to co-operatively manage effects, including all the technologies needed to defeat increasingly challenging future threats. These capabilities will be the basis of best-in-class next generation multi-domain systems. The FCAS programme is a further great opportunity to co-operate internationally and leverage each country’s advanced capabilities to offer the market new cutting edge performances.”
My 2 big hopes for this: It is followed through and produces a great aircraft. It looks nicer than the current CGI images and mock up. If you are going to spend billions at least make it look good, which is something Boeing didn’t realise with their X-32. If lawmakers are asked to sign off on these things then looks matter I’d say. The CGI images make it look front heavy with a very bulbous cockpit. The RAF have a better version on their website with a more angular cockpit. Anyway, looks aren’t everything I suppose, or at least I… Read more »
Yes; looks are as important as function, if you intend to flog the stuff. ‘If it looks right it is right’ is a surprisingly accurate estimation.
Exactly right. The ‘menacing’ look or clean lines of a fighter aircraft does have an important psychological factor on sales (as TPH has noted), and on the enemy… (as does the name of a fighter, eg: Spitfire). As someone once said, or words to the effect, ‘if it looks right, then it will fly right’. (The Eurofighter Typhoon, the original version with the twin tails (like the F-18), looked SO much better than the production model … thanks Germany!) The previous mockups of the Tempest looked a bit ‘odd’, to be honest. The new Tempest mockups are much sleeker, closer… Read more »
Yes, that’s a classic. If you draw a generic cartoon of a 20th Century jet fighter it looks something like that.
Just shows how looks are to a degree in the eye of the beholder the F5e looks like it was fundamentally a poor man’s cheap excuse for a real fighter even if that is a little unfair overall perhaps. Looks effete, gutless and without substance to me a bit like the sort of thing they used to produce on Space 1999 superficially sleek but fundamentally a little laughable as a serious threat, says in neon you are a second rate airforce.
If you look at the latest mock up from the farnborough air show, the current concept looks very different now. More like a sleeker f22.
I will have to look at that sounds impressive.
will it not be more like a tesla car, more about the software and connectivity, optional pilot. big internal weapon bay more electrical power for whatever future weapons/electronics.
To be clear its the Italian arm of MBDA thats doing this software development and could be considered part of the Italian industrial contribution.
Good. Last thing we need is the French meddling
But I’d have Germany. French could join if they accepted that everybody else gets a say. To be fair to them, the language doesn’t help; have you tried pronouncing ‘Macron’ correctly without looking down your nose?
More the issue would be that, if the French were involved, the platforms would lock out US weapons and use strange dimensions slightly different to any other standards……..
It is the Germans with Airbus that are in a fight with Dassault regarding flight control authority and ownership.
Oh god no….. The team ‘Euro’ has already started a bun fight and threaten to seriously derail their own efforts …. There, but for the grace of God and all that.. France has so predictably (yawn) insisted on project lead and both are squabbling over workshare. In fact while France and Germany are scrapping in playground, someone should sidle up to Spain and see if they want to join team Tempest! Keep Germany and France well away from Tempest….! A killer team of UK, Japan Sweden and Italy will hopefully make a first rate Gen6 fighter. I would assume Sweden… Read more »
Heard around time sixth gen coming to the fore that Germany, or perhaps some Germans would be more accurate, would far have preferred UK partnership. Not at all a serious issue under Brexit technically of course, if the one Brussels had not been created to rule them all, that is! The bit about France joining should not be taken too literally; it’s theoretical but not that conceivable *. And the other bit just could not be resisted – I’m very weak. * see France and the USA are apparently mulling cooperation on next gen aircraft carrier. Both have ‘unique perspectives’… Read more »
Considering the problems , mainly political the Germans caused during Typhoon’s development, eg continually trying to pull the plug or dumb down the capabilities of the aircraft. Every six months like clock work there was a big diplomatic effort/crisis meeting to keep the Germans on board and the project alive.
Frankly The French are welcome to them !!
Haven’t heard that before. Interesting
The political history of the Typhoon is very interesting . From the get go the French trying to grab the lion share of the development and construction and then wanting the whole project delayed so they could flog more Mirage 2000 to the Germans continually trying to do a runner . Typhoon is a salutary lesson in the problems of running hi tech international projects. The technical side was easy it was the politics that was the biggest problem and also why the Brits Typhoons have a lot of stuff from engines to avionics that are different. The whole sorry… Read more »
Cheers. Last paragraph ought to be the one that all parties and consortiums focus on henceforth – an Ideal Scenario occasioned by an increasingly Unideal World, as ever.
ITER as in fusion, I presume. Are you in that, at all? Ought be infinitely more an issue than an aircraft, 6th gen of whatever. Plus as you say all the partners.
Rgs
I am in the U.K. nuclear industry and I was involved with ITER ( in 2012). ITER was the successor to the highly successful European Fusion project JET with one BIG difference. JET everyone contributed money and people and it had an established management structure . Politics were largely kept out of it. ITER the participating countries provide “ benefit in kind” and in many cases they downright refuse to work/ compromise with other nations. There is an established engineering team , tasked with design integration but they have little authority to knock heads and force solutions. That is why… Read more »
It is politics in broad sense but also commercial interests.
There are also inevitable commercial conflict because knowledge cannot be preserved in the company that has the know how in many situations in this kind of projects so that company might loose the advantage.
That is the case of Dassault.
Dassault makes fighters, Airbus do not, so the sharing might put Dassault at risk vs Airbus.
Obviously is that what is going on here is that Airbus after getting the French helicopter industry -Aerospatiale – wants to get also Dassault.
.
Are you taking about ITER or Typhoon? And Actually Airbus do make fighters. They took over the German share of Typhoon manufacturing.
If Tempest happens, and if is the biggest word in the dictionary in the context of MOD projects, could they ensure its capable of using the latest weapons in the inventory. Spending more billions years after its built integrating meteor or something is an absolute waste and being a cynic I suspect manufacturers and certain individuals in the MOD do this on purpose to extract more cash from the taxpayer.
Certainly their needs to be some kind of open standard interface defined and implemented for weapons to platform (eg aircraft) interfacing. Integration work to allow a platform add a new weapon should be minimised as far as possible, and any bespoke code should be ‘plug and play’ without requiring wider upgrades to either the platforms or weapons core software.
Which is nice if the API us fully defined from the world go. The issue with F35B is likely that as the aircraft and systems have matured more possibilities have evolved and been spotted so the way the API works has gown more complex. The other issue is that the API will have to backwards support older generation weapons such that the weapons software does not have to be re written so new API elements will be created. I don’t know this but this is why, I am guessing, BlockIV is such a big deal on the F35 – there… Read more »
Well that’s why I see the case for having to facilitate bespoke-interface code but legacy weapons or those with unforeseen requirements, but do it as a black box design. I think the issue with the F35 was to get something flying asap, and then incrementally refine and improve over time. Essentially applying an agile approach to both its hardware and software. Up to that point, every fighter that reached initial operating capacity was already using obsolete technology because of development time. Had a traditional waterfall been used with F35, it might only now be reaching IOC and certainly the numbers… Read more »
I cannot imagine why you would want to use FireWire rather than Ethernet protocols over fibre.
If that is true it would be a massive bottle neck to the, hopefully SSD, disk.
Mind you that tells an interesting story about the hardware being used at the core of the plane and I would posit that BIV is then also about upgrading the processing to a newer platform.
AS5643 combines existing 1394-2008 features like looped topology with additional features like transformer isolation and time synchronization, to create deterministic double and triple fault-tolerant data bus networks. AS5643 established IEEE-1394 standards as a military and aerospace databus network; eg F35, AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), etc.
https://www.militaryaerospace.com/commercial-aerospace/article/14228626/combining-as5643-and-ieee-1394b-the-rise-of-the-machine
There is an open standard used on NATO aircraft for weapons control allowing weapons to be programmed and released, its not however moved with the times since the 80’s/90’s however and it doesnt support two-way communication so if a weapon has its own sensors e.g. radar guided missiles or tv guided bombs and you want to ensure the weapon has its own lock before launching rather than relying on it acquiring the lock after launch then you need two-way communication between the plane and the weapon. And this functionality needs to be specifically written into the planes OS.
That is what is fundamentally happening, most of the new projects boast of their modularity and certainly in the US they are talking about completely separating software specific to flying the aircraft and that which controls weapons and other non core functions so that the latter can be changed and updated without the former having to go through extensive re-testing and re signed off. Would expect something similar with these other top level platforms too as this is generations ahead of what originated with F35 so long ago and has created such legacy issues and delays for years as it’s… Read more »
Guaranteed that Meteor or any updated version will be incorporated from the off too many fingers in the pie that use it for it not too.
I think the Japanese getting involved is maybe a double edged sword. Massive amount of engineering know how and expertise and a big budget. They may however have conflicting requirements as their focus will be China where our is Russia and to a smaller extent China.’ Eg a bigger longer range beastie able to range over the pacific. In a related note I will not be surprised if the Japanese start developing their own indigenous nuclear propulsion program as the Japanese armed forces move away from their current self defence posture to one capable of taking on the Chinese. I… Read more »
In a word, yes Stu, beacuse we are in the driving seat with Tempest.
With F35 and Thypoon, we are just one of the customers, waiting to integrate our respective weapon fits…
With Tempest, rapid integration of new systems will be a built in requirement, without having to wait for foot dragging partners to agree.
Basically it’s a totally new approach, learning the
(how not to) lessons from Typhoon, from the flexible partnership agreement, to the actual construction.
This was on Janes Defence’s website of an alternative configuration.
This was from Farnborough I believe. That is more handsome than the Tempest plastic mockup doing the rounds. The real thing may well look very different from either designs.
I actually quite like the look of last year’s mock up, it was different to anything else being proposed and looked ‘british’. This new one, whilst quite elegant, seems more generic and like it’s following everything else out there. Surely to get transformative performance it will need to be different and move things on a bit?
All depends on the requirements. Range, payload, performance,stealth. Is it first and foremost an air superiority fighter or more long range strike aircraft with a strong air defence capability. We haven’t seen the official requirements for Tempest detailing what we want it to do. I think it have much better endurance, payload and stealth compared to Typhoon, but might not be as agile. Everything is a compromise. If you want a F22 on steroids with 6th gen tech, then it will come with a very large price tag.
Everyones saying this new model looks like the YF-23, the aerodynamically more advanced competitor that lost out to the YF-22 to become the F-22. It certainly seems to have the whole tail acting as control surfaces like the YF-23 did.
YF-23 is certainly still an influence on design and rightfully so I think, it was nearly as manoeuvrable even with complex thrust vectoring, more stealthy and with greater range and I believe weapon capacity. Talk above about ‘looking good means it is good’ seems also to have affected that choice too, though in that particular case by the F-22 test pilot flinging the F22 around like a dervish catching the eye of the big wigs and old schoolers, despite it having little to do with actual ability in the modern warfare it was aimed at. Well that and the perception… Read more »
Italians expect Tempest exports from 2040
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/07/italy-expects-tempest-exports-by-2040-japan-working-on-jets-jaguar-system/
Some relevant technology talking in the text too.
Have Japan and the tempest program joined together? I heard talk of it last week but haven’t actually looked into what happened.
Officially, with signatures i don’t think yet. But the perspective are positive if USA don’t sabotage it.
Until now the ones that put money in the project are UK and Italians.
And SAAB have put some money in but not the Swedish government. The Swedes are having a review this year to decide their future aircraft strategy in light of joining NATO and the change in posture towards Russia.
Do you know in what field did SAAB put money?
They put in £50m for a FCAS development hub, I think its essentially just a corporate embassy to keep them on the inside of the project team as the design work progresses and positioned to quickly ramp up involvement if Sweden decided to formally invest.
Thanks Watcherzero
Not yet, and they even then they are more in it for the technology sharing. The most important and fundamental part. But they do want to build their own airframe at the very least.
F-35 is turning into a real boon for the Italians, as the official European heavy maintenance centre for the type and one of the three final assembly plants (With Turkey ejected) large orders from Europeans have been very beneficial to their aviation industry.
Final assembly plants are
Forth Worth USA
Cameri Italy
Nagoya Japan
But i think only with hard number we can know who is getting most of it. The final assembly lines imply a big investment.
Nevertheless the deep knowledge Italians will have of F-35 assembly and repair might help improve Tempest.
interesting i hadnt realised that the Turkey involvement had moved to Italy – I had the folorne hope at the time it may have come to us – oh well ..so much for ‘special friendship’ some mention.
The Italian factory was to be there from beginning, It is not due to Turkey This is from 12 May 2012 (from SLDinfo site) Another key aspect of Italy’s approach to the F-35 is not simply buying it but producing key parts for the plane as well as building a final assembly and checkout facility in Italy. SLD: Could you tell us about the basic contract and approach to building the FACO in Italy? White: The contract is called a 548 commercial capability standup contract for the FACO in Italy. And it’s in Cameri. The contract is between the Italian MOD… Read more »
From same article, the Japanese Factory came after they visited Italy
SLD: Because the F-35 is a global program, what might be the impact of the Italian effort on others?
White: Japan is looking seriously at the Italian model and the possibility of setting up a FACO in Japan. They have already visited Italy to look at the approach and to think about a similar site in Japan.
It seems to have gone very quiet on the French/German Gen 6 fighter.
At the start the assumption was that everyone would want to join that project, yet several years down the line the momentum is very firmly with Tempest especially with the Japanese coming on board. Despite my initial scepticism, this thing might actually fly
Well the french will want it to be a french plane that they can use and sell to others as they see fit.
The Germans will not want that and want it to be a German or joint plane. The Spanish are probably having a siesta until the mess is sorted out.
Basically tempest is the last hope for uk, Italy, of staying in the fighter game. If it fails it will be an American monopoly on jets. Uk can always do ucav etc. As for Sweden I’m not to sure what they will do.
I rather like the idea of the Tempest and son of Tempest approach. A large twin engined job and a single engined off shoot. The manufacturing premise of the plane is via robotic production line with additive components and so on. Indeed the flying demonstrator (not prototype) that is promised in a few years time is going to have a ‘representative’ fuselage and by that I take it mean a fuselage put together by a representative production facility, a facility which should easily accommodate for instance different sizes of Tempest (click the enlarge or decrease button) * A two-model approach… Read more »