Seven new companies are to collaborate with Team Tempest, the consortium delivering the UK’s next generation combat aircraft known as Tempest.

The companies who have signed a partnership are: GEUK, GKN, Collins Aerospace, Martin Baker, QinetiQ, Bombardier and Thales UK, along with UK universities and SMEs.

The Ministry of Defence say that the new members of Team Tempest will join forces on established projects and development work with core members BAE Systems, Leonardo UK, MBDA UK, Rolls-Royce and the Ministry of Defence, bringing the best of British expertise and ingenuity on designing, manufacturing and operating combat air systems.

Image via BAE Systems.

Defence Minister Jeremy Quin said:

“Today’s announcement demonstrates further progress in delivering the UK’s combat air strategy, with more companies collaborating on the future of the UK’s Air Defence. This is a highly innovative project based around cutting-edge technology and drawing on a skills base where the UK excels. I am delighted that the success and strengths of Team Tempest are being enhanced through drawing on UK expertise; working with industrial partners and highly capable international team we are configured for future success.”

Together the companies will develop more than 60 technology prototypes and demonstration activities say the Ministry of Defence in their announcement of the news here.

For more on Tempest, take a look at our article on how Tempest could turn out.

Tempest – A look at what Britain’s next generation combat jet could be

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

104 COMMENTS

  1. There’s some big names in there, I’m so glad tempest is going ahead, it’s great for a Great aviation nation Like the UK, I would have loved a new harrier but the engines placement meant it couldn’t go supersonic so I think we were right to partner with USA on the f35, I’m still confused why italy builds F35s but they aren’t a tier
    1 partner like the uk!

    • Italy assembles them, not builds from scratch. Presumably BAE thought getting 15 percent of every F-35 was worth more to them than assembling a few hundred outright.

      • Indeed assembly superficially looks good to outsiders but in reality it offers only a fraction of the high tech I out and know,edge accumulation that our role provides.

      • But so are all aircraft aren’t they, All aircraft have parts from around the globe and they are just assembled in one place.

    • Well there was a design for a supersonic Harrier P1154 with afterburner but well beyond our capability to afford alone considering the potential sales, so was dropped. It was to be a bit longer and an increased 5000 lb or so take off weight with Mach 2 capability at altitude. Indeed when F35b was being planned RR dusted off some of its previous work (to be precise Bristols work) on combustion delivered lift through all nozzles it developed for the project, and indeed in the end all that expertise helped it get the lift fan business when that method was preferred during the design stage.

      The engine is still on show at the FAA museum..

        • It still would have required a catapult take off and would have cost many times the Navy’s first choice: Phantom. P1154 was a bullet well dodged.

          • The P1154 … Well it’s another of our TSR2 (go off on a tangent jobs)!

            It started off an early 60’s effort to procure a fighter bomber for both the Airforce and the Navy.

            Both demanding different capabilities, the weight grew, the performance degraded and the bill sky rocketed before cancellation became unavoidable.

            The first prototype was in the jigs and being skinned and the Bristol BS100? was being bench run…

            There was an argument that the prototype should have been completed as a test aircraft, so the research wasn’t waisted … Unfortunately, it wasn’t to be….

            Then, we redesign the F4, adding RR Spey engines, making the British Phantom the slowest and most expensive phantoms in the world, doubling the unit cost in fact….

            Another ‘feat’ of fantastic defence planning!

          • Good Evening John. It’s past 11 pm here in Durban and I couldn’t sleep-still so pissed off by the article about the F35 in the Telegraph! But on the P 1154-not only was a prototype on the floor but several -4 or 5 to memory, pre production aircraft in build. There is a photo of that somewhere if you have time to’hoke’ it out on the internet. The tragedy of the P 1154 goes beyond its flaws at the time. If Profumo could have kept it in his pants then the Tories would have won the election and the supersonic Harrier would have gone ahead. The design would have evolved and it would have equipped the Navies of the world with Son of Harrier and Grandson. On the subject of the Phantom-you left out the fact that it was also the thirstiest version of that otherwise wonderful airplane.

          • Now indulge me please gentleman. We now have a third world currency-hence my cancelling my Telegraph subscription. This is what i would have said.
            The decision to opt for the F 35b was taken for two reasons. One- the cost of installing new technology cats was estimated to be in the order of several billion pounds and Two- an additional TWO YEAR delay to the in-service date! The F 35b offered almost 100% interoperability between RN and RAF and, despite lower performance parameters than the F35C, still gave payload, range and top speed way above what Harrier had provided. The Cherry on top was the extra flexibility for both services of VSTOL capability.So-proverbial no-brainer!! Now-this Telegraph person said we were considering buying F35’s that could not fly off the the QE Class!! That was the malicious, misleading headline that made my blood boil.Even if the RN had opted for conventional carriers they STILL would have needed two F35 types-the F35C and, wait for it-the F35A which of course as we all know, cannot fly off aircraft carriers!! No one ever said Typhoons could fly off aircraft carriers nor indeed F 35 A’s, so what was her point other than to publish the lowest form of cut and paste journalism!
            Phew-feel better now but wish I could of got this message to her and informed the readers that if they wanted the REAL facts all they needed was to go to the UKDJ.

          • Evening Geoff, very true. Had P1154 remained a single seat fighter for the RAF it ‘might’ have survived, if the Tories had won the 64 election.

            The Navy version was always going to fail I think and a straight order for (licenced production perhaps) F4B/ J models should have been considered.

            So many firsts in the P1154, the development costs to production would have been considerable.

            But, it would never have been able to operate from dispersed sites like the harrier did, the jet blast from the BS100 would have melted tarmac and blew holes in the road!

            It would probably have been operated in a similar way to the Jaguar in sevice.

          • Hi John. The UK input to Phantom was purely to appease the British aircraft industry for the loss of all their major aircraft projects-it made little sense technically. Would have been much better to buy of the shelf. In fact the last F4’s operated by the RAF were bought of the shelf. F4J’s I think and they were stationed in the Falklands.
            “Melted Tarmac” 🙂 🙂 that may have been the case but would I think have created a platform to develop a Naval version at a later stage.The P 1127 was spared by Wilson’s Government because they did not think it would amount to anything-thank goodness!!
            Cheers

          • Profumo was a relatively minor issue in terms of the electoral strength of the Conservatives. They had been in office for 13 years (famously, Wilson remarked ’13 wasted years’) and were a spent force. With Macmillan having withdrawn from the leadership due to health reasons, the party grandees levered the very unimpressive toff Lord Hume into the chair….clearly not a man of the people like our Harold Wilson. Wilson of course was the most brilliant student of PPE of his day and became an Oxford Don….so pretty much like all of us really! The economy was also in tatters….from ‘you have never had it so good’ to Regi Maudling’s comment to his Labour successor as Chancellor, Jim Callaghan, ‘sorry about the mess old chap’. He was, of course, referring to the economy! When our Jim opened the books he ‘allegedly’ burst into tears and wanted to resign. The Conservatives were a busted flush. This, by the way, was the last time the Tory grandees foisted a leader on the party. The next leader, Ted Heath, was elected by democratic means. And a great success he was 🙂

          • Good day Herodotus. All from memory-Wilson got in by the skin of his teeth and I think the Profumo affair made the difference. Macmillan resigned due to “ill health” but lived to the age of 92!! I think the Profumo affair had a lot more to do with it than you give credit. Wilson may have been a sort of man of the people but he was a drab character who wore that stupid jersey his wife had knitted and also never fought in the War so I do not think he was as popular as you say. Also Ted heath was an affable lad but failed as Prime Minister and failed to tame the Unions or revive the economy. Ironically he said that he and Jim Callaghan had more in common(both fought in WW2) than with many of his Conservative colleagues! Lord Home-ironically pronounced Hume

            Cheers
            Geoff

          • We’ll have to agree to differ on Profumo. Wilson actually was considered very go-ahead in his first administration and had an eye for popular culture. Though not a glamourous character like Hugh Gaitskell, he was viewed by many as a breath of fresh-air. The problem for the Conservatives was that they were a nepotistic clique, mostly from very privileged backgrounds and were viewed as being very stuffy. Labour was seen as being more in-tune with the ‘swinging 60s’, an idea that they promoted heavily! Profumo had lied to Parliament, but this was largely seen as his problem and Macmillan wasn’t really blamed for this. Though, of course, it implied that the government had taken its eye off the ball…as it were! There were a number of other scandals concerning government ministers that were selling the tabloid papers like hotcakes. One concerned the divorce case of an aristocrat (I won’t name the lady as I am not sure about libel laws concerning it) where a photo of a well known aristocrat, wearing nothing but her pearls, is seen fellating, what was claimed to be, a senior government minister. Can you imagine how that would ‘go down’ today.. ooh err missus.

          • Haha Herodotus. Wonderful stuff and lovely to have someone to talk to who actually knows something about this era! Maybe we can meet half way about Profumo. They were much more touchy about ‘that sort of thing’ in those days and there was of course the Soviet Naval attaché which suggested a serious breach of security. Gaitskell was a cartoonists dream! Anyway we have strayed off subject so better get back on the straight and narrow in case George bars us from this site! Cheers

          • Thanks Geoff…I have had the privilege of teaching history to A level students for the past twenty years…..British 19th and 20th century political history is my bag! It’s always great to spar with other knowledgeable contributors to this site….best regards! Though, I have always wondered how anyone could have identified a senior minister from his lower body and genitalia. Ahhh the wonders of the British public school system!!!!

          • add to that the unctuous David Cameron, hapless Theresa May and the egregious Boris and just imagine Jeremy Corbin as PM. If ever the times needed a true statesman, who didn’t play politics with peoples lives and told the truth unambiguously it is now. But that’s as rare as a Russian aircraft carrier that doesn’t break down

      • I would love to have seen a supersonic harrier, stuff my dreams are made off… shame we can’t even get one ex navy sea harrier for air shows around the UK! We do still have some in running order…

        • You got £100:000 per flying hour to operate one Sea Harrier for airshows? and that’s just the start of operating costs for fast jets for display purposes.

    • Because the UK chose not to invest the money into a F-35 production line. Seeing the pathetic dribble of UK orders, that seems to have been a wise decision.

      • It’s just an assembly operation in Italy, we design and build 15% of every single F35 that will be built, that could be over 3000 aircraft. That is worth far far more in technical knowledge and work share then an essembly line.

    • I understand we build 15% of every aircraft and that’s far more than if we built all our F35s in the UK, it would have been nice to build them in the UK that’s all I’m saying. Anyway tempests the future and it looks dam good for the UK. ??

    • Italy commited to buying 150 aircraft, the largest buy in Europe, so they could get the final assembly & overhaul contract. Then of course they reduced their order! By rights the UK should have these facilities.

      • The UK hasn’t committed to any further orders from its current 48 yet either. The Dutch or some of those Nordic countries are bound to kick off if they order more than Italy but don’t get much of the cake in terms of work share.

    • I agree 100% Cam……this Tempest project could be hugely beneficial and successful for our United Kingdom. Projects like the Tempest, the ever growing export of the Type 26, our heavy involvement in the F-35 and many others make it an exciting time to be involved in the British defence sector…we are leading the World in so many ways.

    • Sweden and Italy are onboard, they’re aviation heavyweights like us. More will come as the project gathers steam

      • Sweden have evidently confirmed they are part of the wider FCAS concept, but not committed specifically to Tempest as such. Don’t know the precise parameters under which Italy is involved though.

        • Not sure if Sweden want a twin engine fighter, Italy isn’t very reliable. Realistically we need orders from Saudi, Kuwait, UAE and Qatar to make it viable. France seems to win the bulk of orders from UAE, Qatar will order off just about anyone. India will be another tough battle where they might go French. Hopefully Saabs close links with Embraer will help exports in Brazil but the two later countries will want big work shares.

          • South East Asia and Australia I think will opt for F35. Australia would love a twin engined fighter but the cost will be over double an F35 so hard to win any exports unless its political or secured big work shares

          • “Italy isn’t very reliable.”

            I can’t read the future but they have been the only country to remain with UK since Tornado.

            The air industry military industrial cooperation between UK and Italians : Tornado, Eurofighter, EH 101(Merlin), now Tempest.
            You probably don’t find a closer country not even USA.

  3. The RAF have also revealed a new shape for the Tempest, and also intentions about using intelligent drones .

    • I know “looking cool” isn’t exactly top of the agenda for a fighter jet but the new 3D model on the RAF’s website looks far better than the previous pictures, including those above.

    • One thing that I cannot get my head around. RAF have F35B, which is necessary for carrier operations when under the auspices of RN. Now all major future focus is on the Tempest – fair enough, but no indication that it is to have a suitable short take off ability to supercede in the maritime role. Yet, between these two designs, the RAF evidently wish to dispense with F35B after relatively low numbers for the land based A version. Add to that we still have the very capable and continuously evolving Typhoon and the phrase ‘having your cake and eating it’ starts to come to mind. Now, I know these types are not exactly like for like, but bloody hell. Looming behind all of this is the capability review – ostensibly over UK necessary expenditure. Somebody help me out here, please!
      Regards

      • Who told you the the RAF wants the F-35A? Answer that and consider your answer, maybe then the light bulb will go on.

        Tempest replaces Typhoon over time.

        • Thanks for the non-answer, R5. Are you saying the RAF don’t want F35A, or that you haven’t heard any such thing. A positive answer to the first would be of some use; but if the second applies, do your own research.
          Regards

          • Perhaps Ron’s point is that all we have to base the RAF’s desire for F35A on is speculation and rumour. I don’t have specific knowledge as to the RAF’s interest but perhaps the following points would be worth considering.

            1) F35A would undermine Tempest numbers, thus likely to drive up costs. Continuing with F35B enables the RAF to either keep those squadrons long term or transfer aircraft to the FAA as Tempest replaces both Typhoon and F35B in RAF service.
            2) The RAF along with the Tempest program members are very focused not only on reversing the trend in ever increasing aircraft cost, but also in significantly reducing costs, both to purchase and to operate. This enables the RAF to increase its aircraft numbers. This was stressed 2 years ago at the public launch. So does it seem likely that the RAF will do anything that is likely to reduce their overall aircraft numbers long term?
            3) Headline cost for F35 aircraft have dropped but costs per flight hour are still very high. Tempest will certainly be engineered for low operational costs in addition to low manufacturing cost, leveraging TyTAN learning and ever more sophisticated simulator training.

          • Yes, certainly as a UK participation 6th Gen fighter matures then something has to give, with any mooted F35A purchase being the most obvious choice. Since the original concept was for 138 F35, there could possibly be headroom for increasing B numbers, purely due to the undoubted flexibility of their launch/recovery characteristics, though I’m currently doubtful that this will come to fruition.
            Still, with regard to the carriers, some way of fully utilising their capacity is logical, beyond overly relying upon the US Marines, and providing the UK is committed to the QEs.
            A resilient, weaponable short take off loyal wingman could of course be controlled by an F35B, as part of the wider FCAS, but I’m straying beyond my original concerns.
            Regards

        • It very much depends on how things progress with Tempest. If it doesn’t go ahead, then the F35A will step in, it’s ready made and the relatively low unit price ( certainly much lower by 2030) and close relationship to the B would be ‘very’ attractive to many at the MOD.

          Like I said, ready made, not a perfect solution perhaps, but ready and waiting.

        • If Sweden are/will be part of the team, they will demand that the aircraft has a STOL performance. This is part of the defence doctrine where their past aircraft have utilised their road network as dispersed runways. The aircraft that replaces their Gripen must also be able to land and take off from short stretches of road.

  4. Expertise has never been in doubt – not entirely, and actually, no worse than amongst the competition. The besetting problem going back decades and under all governments has been project management. The arguments go back and forth still but at the centre of many are delays, dithering and our old friend swapping horses in mid stream. Sometime very soon and at some critical juncture in the programme’s life, someone will, as they have repeatedly over the carriers, get the media’s attention and point out the U.K. could save a lot of money cancelling and buying abroad.

    • Hi Barry,

      Yeh, that is depressingly likely at some point, but not necessarily a certainty. The Meteor missile programme went reasonably well, better than most projects anyway, so there is a chance for a better outcome on Tempest.

      We can but hope.

      Cheer CR

    • That’s not program management, that’s political & high level ministry leadership & decision making. If Brexit has taught the UK anything, it has taught that those two things are well below meeting basic standards.

      • Defence programme mismanagement predates Brexit. It has been bad for decades. Trust me I am old. Besides ‘political & high level ministry leadership’ is simply a synonym.

    • Interesting stuff Daniele. Iv’e been picking up bits and pieces recently along similar lines thru’ RUSI and so on. is this the first time Royal Marine and ARMY commandos have been mentioned together in a press release?

      • Maybe Geoffrey. But remember it is nothing new. 24 Commando Regiment RE and 29 Commando Regiment RA are army formations. 29 in particular has 148 battery, the NGS specialists, whom I’d assume would be integrated into these spearhead elements given their specialist nature.

        The fear is while a fancy new name, fancy uniform, and new mode of operation is highlighted by HMG most of those supporting regiments and the Specialist shipping get the chop.

        How they keep talking of forward deployed yet ignore the elephant in the room of what ships will host them and how they are inserted ( helicopters, landing craft ) is hillarious.

        I also wonder whether some of these Arm groups will be permanently embarked on QEC.

    • I believe BAE recently acquired Williams Advanced Engineering so it makes sense they’d be bringing them onboard!

      • Hi Steve,

        According to what I can find on the Companies House website Williams Advance Engineering Ltd is a Private Limited Company owned by EMK Ltd which in turn is a Limited Liability Partnership. No mention of BAE System, unless they are partners in EMK!

        However, Williams have a long standing relationship with BAE Systems having worked on a cockpit development environment which has been a key part of BEA Systems work on the Typhoon. So it is likely that this facility will be part of the Tempest effort.

        https://www.wae.com/what-we-do/case-studies/bae-systems

        Whatever the relationship it looks like a good innovative company.

        Cheer CR

          • No worries 🙂 They are the type of company that monsters like BAE like to buy out. It usually ends badly to be honest, as the big company usually ends up styfling the very thing that encouraged the innovation they thought they were buying. So perhaps BAE are keeping the relationship close but not too close, if you follow me 🙂

            Cheers CR

  7. Lots of really exciting stuff going on reported across the web regarding Tempest. I’m starting to get confident the project will go ahead. One article stated the project being set up in a way that will deliver the high tech features at a reasonable cost, even delivering modest numbers. This reduces the need to team up with a huge number of nations, or amalgamation the project with FCAS.
    The one thing I cant work out is that Rolls Royce have been contracted with BAE and Reaction to conduct hypersonic engine studies for the project. Their are multiple articles stating their intention to test an EJ200 engine with the reaction intercooler and make it hypersonic. And yet the marketing speal only makes reference to hypersonic weapons. It would be nice to have this clarified as to whether we might be looking at a high mach plane or not.

    • Hi T.S.

      The basic concept, as I understand it, is to fit the Reaction Engines intercooler to the front end of an advanced engine to achieve hypersonic capability. However, it would make sense to derisk the basic concept by fitting the new tech intercooler to an existing proven engine, before pushing ahead with the intercooler / advanced engine combination. Hence the EJ200 / intercooler combination.

      The UK has history of this type of derisking approach when they fitted Tornado RB199 engines into the EAP (Experimental Aircraft Programme) in the late 80’s in support of the Typhoon development programme.

      Cheers CR

        • Correct, the design shown above is for an aircraft that can happily do Mach 2 to 3ish only. To go past Mach 3 you need a different style of design. The fuselage needs to be a lot longer in the nose section, i.e. SR71 like. As you go faster and faster supersonically, the angle of the supersonic shock cone decreases. You want the aircraft’s wings and fins to remain inside the shock cone for as long as possible. By having a longer fuselage/nose means the incident angle from the nose to the wing tip reduces. Therefore, you can go faster, before the cone compresses enough to touch the aircraft, thus delaying the thermal shock on the airframe. Aerodynamics at hypersonic speeds, i.e. greater than Mach 5 have more severe affects on the airframe. The most known about is the thermal shock to the airframe. But the other is the strength of the shock waves themselves. The aircraft has to be beefed up to cope with these. Because of the strength of the shockwaves you can use them to your benefit. Rather than having large wings to generate lift, you can use specifically designed shockwaves over a lifting body with minimal wings, to provide the necessary lift. A good example of these types of airframe design are the NASA X type prototypes, the X43, X51 wave-rider and the X60. However, having such tiny lift generators doesn’t help below these speeds, hence why these NASA prototypes are launched from a mother aircraft like a B52.

          You could also use as aero-spike just like Trident uses. This is a metal spike that is projected in front of the missile. Again, it is to make sure the shock cone at hypersonic speeds misses the missile’s body.

    • The U.K. signed a joint agreement (i.e. we get stuffed, again) with the French to work on aircraft evolved from Taranis and the Neuron. I suspect that is just a way of keeping some funding for a project that failed to make a case for itself. The ‘role’ was never quite clear and still isn’t. As someone (apologies to you, you know who you are!) said on another thread, having Typhoons scooting about dropping bombs on people from Birmingham or Tower Hamlets hiding in Iraqi caves is a mite over kill when a subsonic type like a Hawk, cheaper to run and so forth, come do much the same job with a bolt on package.

      • The Frenchies usually stay in these joint projects long enough to suck all the knowhow out of their “partners” then bugger off and use it on their own. Good riddance.

        • Rage much you xenophobe? Seriously what is up with french bashing. All this because they left one project? Eurofighter because it did not meet their requirements -> workshare, carrier and nuclear capable? The UK left the Horizon project and made T45 for similar reasons. If anyone is not getting along with Euro partners, it is the UK -> Brexit. Pot calling the kettle black.
          FYI France participates on tons more Euro military projects than the UK -> A400, A330MRTT, NH90, Tiger, Neuron and EUROMALE drone, Horizon and FREMM frigates, mine hunting MMCM, SAMPT, Meteor & Aster missiles etc… and new projetcs in the pipeline such as MGCS tank, SCAF 6th gen fighter, EPC corvettes, MAWS for maritime surveillance, etc….

          • On the face of it, it is a she that Europa two main military aviation powers can’t work together.

            We certainly do work together well on a military level.

            You mention BREXIT, that’s got nothing to do with it.

            The main problem is France wants a naval derivative, this limits the size and weight and adds complexity of construction that’s simply not needed for our requirements.

            Good luck to the Franco German effort, little chance of that progressing either with Germany as a partner and a vast EU Covid19 bill to pay for.

            Germany buying new batches of Thypoon will see it good to go until 2050, so there goes the Franco German effort… The German parliament will probably cancel it.

            Can France afford to go it alone??

            No more than we can with Tempest …. I see little common ground for a Franco British project…

          • ? Franco German project is advancing. In fact Spain has joined which will mean the program is elligible for PESCO funds. Furthermore they just recently agreed to workshare split and each country has submitted funds for phase 1. So the project is moving along. Ofc there will be delays and obstacles to overcome, just like any big military project.
            Germany buying additional Typhoons does not put the program at risk in any way. (buying more Typhoons is a step in the right direction, believe it or not, since France told Germany that buying F35 would be a red line) Germany needs Tornado replacement and the fear was that Germany order F35 and thus endanger the SCAF (FCAS). The order of some F18 was just to meet their NATO requirement for the nuke sharing agreement, since the US was not willing to make Typhoon compatible in a timely manner. Ordering more Typhoons also supports german economy in post Covid crisis and enables Hensoldt to develop an AESA.
            Finally the FCAS was originally a Franco British project, but due to politics on both sides over workshare/requirements it did not happen.
            Finally the jury is still out if either project will succeed or if both fail. Tempest has the advantage of being British which makes decisions easier (although respecting timelines and costs is no guarantee). On the down side, it will also have less funding for an ambitious project since Tempest is just one piece of a larger 6th gen picture (wingman etc…). But sometimes you can make more with less ie like the french did with Rafale vs the euro consortium and Typhoon which is a good plane but still fell a bit short (price, capability, upgrade commitment)
            You are right that the Franco German process will be more complicated ie the Bundestag need to give the greenlight for any expenditure over €25m, and this will cause delays. It already caused a few months delay just getting the last funding stage (elections in germany in next few months didn’t help). But there seems to be genuine political willingness on both side to co-develop it, as well as working on the next gen tank MGCS. Both projects are linked politically eventhough they are different requirements.
            I don’t have a crystal ball, but this will not be easy for either Tempest or SCAF (FCAS) especially since many other countries are also looking to develop their own planes (Japan, S. Korea, Turkey, India) and you know the US will not make it easy and push for LM and Boeing contracts.
            Anyway 2035 or 2040 is still some years away. For now both projects are moving towards a demonstrator phase due around 2026, at which stage we will be in a better position to assess who has made tangible progress. Powerpoints and mock ups are just sales gimmicks and it’s always smooth sailing, so it’s important to keep things in perspective at this point.

          • I agree with you on most points, both projects will face stiff international competition, the Franco German offering is going to be further hamstrung by the French insisting on carrier capability, as said, adding weight, limiting size, specialist materials and adding considerable extra costs for a ‘niche’ French national requirement to build a handful of aircraft, that in all likely hood, no one else will require.

            The Franco German effort appears very much Gen5+ while Tempest is being rather more bold in its approach…..

            As you say,we will see, best of luck to both teams….

  9. Tempest will be great but how can defence forces the size of ours make it economical to create a sixth gen aircraft then only build 200 (if that)? Either the new Euro (French / German) effort or ours will fill the market – not both.

    F35B v F35A. All about defence politics. The RAF know that if the second purchase are A’s they’ll have control whilst if they are B’s then it is the RN in the box seat. I would have thought 3 x RN F35B sqns, 3 x RAF F35B sqns & 3 x RAF F35A sqns would be best. However I doubt we are ever going to get more than 6 front line F35 sqns.

  10. These companies have signed up to a partnership in full expectation that the UK (and partners?) will fund the project. Prototypes and demonstrators are fine, but to manufacture, test, and produce requires billions. Where’s the money going to come from?

    • The same budget that’s been spending 2-4 billion a year on combat air for the last 30 years. By the early 2030s when the big spending kicks in, Successor will be winding down, F35 purchases will be finished, the army’s recapitalisation will be basically done. The 2020s are a horror decade for defence, because of Successor and army block obsolescence, but the problem does sort itself out over time

  11. I know this isn’t the final design but it doesn’t look very much different that current 5th gen fighters. Especially those big vertical tails.

  12. Love all the hype, PR team is doing a good job, but what about financing? Besides the UK, I am not aware of any funding having been released by Sweden or Italy. Where’s the cash? Lots of good intentions, but as they say “money talks, bullshit walks”.

  13. Will Tempest be navalised? There was a proposal to build a maritime Typhoon when India expressed an interest, which would have required strengthened undercarriage, thrust deflectors for slow landing and anti-corrosion materials. I don’t know whether the engine power with reverse thrust would be sufficient for either aeroplanes without EMALS/traps but it would be as well to build Tempest with this in mind now so it is also not too big to fit! It would make sense given the size of our floating ski jumps to add Gen6 to their portfolio.

    • I agree that it should be navalised and multi role. But i have read that Tempest will be air superiority only since the F35 is supposed to take over the Tornado role as well as the Navy requirement for decades to come. In the end it is expensive and not practical to have many types of aircraft especially when modern fleets have fewer aircraft. How many planes did UK have during WW2 or cold war? Anyway they are still in early stages and still defining requirements so this may change or already have changed.

      • As a direct replacement for the Typhoon, you will expect it to be centred around the air dominance role, but like the Typhoon it will have to be capable of strike missions as well, probably in concert with a loyal wing man or two etc. I would like to say the days of a single purpose fighter are over, but as the F15 proved. You can still use the design of a dedicated air superiority fighter as a useful strike aircraft, even though the wing design isn’t really shaped for it.

  14. I just can’t see tempest coming to anything, unless we get a tier 1 or 2 military on board that is willing to buy a few hundred.

    The 100 at best jets that the UK would order, is not enough to make this vaguely affordable, mainly because once you divide just the R&D costs per jet it is likely to exceed the cost of the f35 (a jet that is constantly quoted as too expensive) let alone including the costs of building factories etc.

    My assumption is these companies are all joining to get a bit of the public money, knowing full well that they will never have to actually build anything. They will then use the IP they build on the back of the public expenditure to win contracts with overseas countries, probably the US.

    If it does come to something, my assumption is that we will start building the first tranche on the basis that export orders are expected, and then as the exports don’t come as everyone buys the way cheaper or more capable US options (benefiting from economy of scale) the UK order will get cut and cut, like what happened with the t45 etc etc.

    • Hi Steve, Like Jaguar, Tornado and Typhoon – I feel “Tempest” will be a collaborative programme. Both British, Italian and Swedish governments are bullish over the strategic need to retain an independent combat-jet design and manufacturing capability – although I suspect the Swedes may drop-out and do their own thing, as Tempest gets more complex and heavier.

      To have a viable production run, I suspect we also need our other long-term partner, Germany – and the French (don’t shoot the messenger folks!).

      I feel the evolution of Tempest has a long-way to go!

  16. This thing looks good , first i have heard of it , in Australia there is only talk of the US Navy future fighter .

  17. Swedens GKN Aerospace (who make the engines for the Gripen) has taken out adds to promote that they are jointly working as part of the consortium on feasibility studies of various fighter engine designs for the project, combining Swedish and British technology from the different manufacturers.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here