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

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
104 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cam
Cam
2 months ago

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!

Jordan
Jordan
2 months ago
Reply to  Cam

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.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
2 months ago
Reply to  Jordan

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.

Paul C
2 months ago
Reply to  Cam

It is just an assembly operation.

Cam
Cam
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul C

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

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
2 months ago
Reply to  Cam

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… Read more »

4thwatch
4thwatch
2 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

I have read that bizarrely the Navy turned it down. Surprised by that if true.

Ron5
Ron5
2 months ago
Reply to  4thwatch

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.

John Clark
John Clark
2 months ago
Reply to  Ron5

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… Read more »

geoff
geoff
2 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

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… Read more »

geoff
geoff
2 months ago
Reply to  geoff

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… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark
2 months ago
Reply to  geoff

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… Read more »

geoff
geoff
2 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

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… Read more »

Herodotus
2 months ago
Reply to  geoff

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… Read more »

Herodotus
2 months ago
Reply to  Herodotus

Should have been Lord Home not Hume….finger trouble or predictive text?

geoff
geoff
2 months ago
Reply to  Herodotus

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… Read more »

Herodotus
2 months ago
Reply to  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… Read more »

geoff
geoff
2 months ago
Reply to  Herodotus

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

Herodotus
2 months ago
Reply to  geoff

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!!!!

G Hanson
G Hanson
1 month ago
Reply to  Herodotus

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

Cam
Cam
2 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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…

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
2 months ago
Reply to  Cam

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.

geoff
geoff
2 months ago
Reply to  Cam

Hi Cam. Me too. The loss of the P 1154 hurt even more than TSR2. I think Airfix offered a model of it!

Ron5
Ron5
2 months ago
Reply to  Cam

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.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
2 months ago
Reply to  Ron5

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.

Cam
Cam
2 months ago
Reply to  Ron5

I dunno, a few aircraft a month, you could have a steady drum beat of work.

Jason Holmes
Jason Holmes
2 months ago
Reply to  Cam

There was a supersonic harrier variant in the 60/70’s the P1154

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
2 months ago
Reply to  Cam

We have a new Harrier, it’s the F35B.

Noth
Noth
2 months ago
Reply to  Cam

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.

Meirion X
Meirion X
2 months ago
Reply to  Noth

Not True! Italy is has only commited to 60 F-35A, and 15 F-35Bs.

BB85
BB85
2 months ago
Reply to  Noth

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.

Stevo H
Stevo H
2 months ago
Reply to  Cam

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.

Andrew r
Andrew r
2 months ago

Could do with a couple of partner countries as well.

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg
2 months ago
Reply to  Andrew r

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

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
2 months ago

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.

BB85
BB85
2 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

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.

BB85
BB85
2 months ago
Reply to  BB85

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

AlexS
AlexS
2 months ago
Reply to  BB85

“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.

TrevorH
TrevorH
2 months ago

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

RobW
RobW
2 months ago
Reply to  TrevorH

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.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
2 months ago
Reply to  RobW

Yeah, it looks very sleek. 👍 The real thing will probably look nothing like it 😆

4thwatch
4thwatch
2 months ago
Reply to  TrevorH

Looks more compact than earlier perhaps Sweden wanted slightly smaller plane.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
2 months ago
Reply to  TrevorH

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… Read more »

Ron5
Ron5
2 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

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.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
2 months ago
Reply to  Ron5

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

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full
2 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

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… Read more »

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
2 months ago

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… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark
2 months ago
Reply to  Ron5

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.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
2 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

Indeed, John.
Regards

Meirion X
Meirion X
2 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

It will be cheaper to fit the carriers in the future with EMALS, then Design a STOVL Tempest!

Daveyb
Daveyb
2 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

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.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
2 months ago

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.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
2 months ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

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

Ron5
Ron5
2 months ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

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.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
2 months ago
Reply to  Ron5

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.

Geoffrey Roach
Geoffrey Roach
2 months ago

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?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
2 months ago
Reply to  Geoffrey Roach

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 (… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
2 months ago

Damned mobile. “Arm groups” should read RM groups.

4thwatch
4thwatch
2 months ago

Lets hope it is RM not Army! I like the Army and I remember some of the old Army Commandos who were splendid Lovat Scouts.

Ulya
Ulya
2 months ago

What are “Army” commandos? I searched but it always took be to RM, not army

Ulya
Ulya
2 months ago
Reply to  Ulya

Sorry, please ignore, I didnt read properly, artillery and engineers

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
2 months ago

One of the SME’s is reportedly the Williams Formula-E team, supporting the electrification of the aircraft. Engineering speaking the key issues facing F1 teams and aviation engineers are the same, light weight, high stress on pretty much every sub-system that makes up the aeroplane. So a good and innovative company to include.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/07/15/tempest-fighter-project-brings-williams-electrify-jet/

Cheers CR

Stephen
Stephen
2 months ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

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

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
2 months ago
Reply to  Stephen

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.… Read more »

Stephen
Stephen
2 months ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Ah, could well be that I’ve totally misremembered a story about them partnering! Apologies!

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
2 months ago
Reply to  Stephen

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

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
2 months ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

“On July 16, BAE Systems said it is teaming up with Williams AdvancedEngineering (WAE) to explore how battery management and cooling technologies from the motorsport industry could be exploited to deliver efficiency and performance gains in the design of future combat aircraft.”

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/27446/UK_Air_Force_Reveals_3D_Shape_of__Tempest__Fighter_Jet#.XxY69ShKjQA

T.S
2 months ago

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… Read more »

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
2 months ago
Reply to  T.S

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

T.S
2 months ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Thanks, if that is the case, surely Tempest would have to look significantly different aerodynamically though?

Daveyb
Daveyb
2 months ago
Reply to  T.S

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,… Read more »

Paul
Paul
2 months ago

So what happened to Taranis or was it just a sop to keep Big and Expensive busy?

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul

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… Read more »

terence patrick hewett
terence patrick hewett
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul

Taranis was a demonstrator.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
2 months ago

This I know. It seems to have demonstrated that there isn’t a U.K. requirement.

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul

Government didnt provide any funding for the next stage so French went it alone.

Ron5
Ron5
2 months ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

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.

Lordtemplar
Lordtemplar
2 months ago
Reply to  Ron5

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… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark
2 months ago
Reply to  Lordtemplar

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… Read more »

Lordtemplar
Lordtemplar
2 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

? 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… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark
2 months ago
Reply to  Lordtemplar

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….

Rob
Rob
2 months ago

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… Read more »

T.S
2 months ago
Reply to  Rob

We will be lucky to see 4 at this rate.

pkcasimir
pkcasimir
2 months ago

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?

SD67
SD67
1 month ago
Reply to  pkcasimir

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

dan
dan
2 months ago

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.

T.S
2 months ago
Reply to  dan

It will be interesting to see if the technology from the Magma project is mature enough to consider blown air controls for Tempest thus potentially removing the need for fins and moving surfaces.

T.S
2 months ago
Reply to  dan

I would also predict the final design will look very different as the tech is all still in development may heavily influence its final form. The biggest ? Is if it will be hypersonic, as surely manoeuvring at these speeds may require completely different aerodynamics.

Lordtemplar
Lordtemplar
2 months ago
Reply to  dan

6th gen is much more than just the aircraft, it’s an ensemble with AI wingman concepts.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
2 months ago
Reply to  dan
Lordtemplar
Lordtemplar
2 months ago

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”.

JohnL
JohnL
2 months ago

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.

Lordtemplar
Lordtemplar
2 months ago
Reply to  JohnL

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.

Daveyb
Daveyb
2 months ago
Reply to  Lordtemplar

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.

Steve
Steve
2 months ago

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,… Read more »

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
2 months ago
Reply to  Steve

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!

Andy
Andy
2 months ago

These companies are developing prototypes only, which actually leaves the option of joint FCAS wide open.

Sean Crowley
Sean Crowley
2 months ago

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

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
2 months ago

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.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
2 months ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

22 JULY 2020

“GKN Aerospace Sweden joins UK and Italy feasibility studies on future fighter engine tech”

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/gkn-aerospace-sweden-joins-uk-and-italy-feasibility-studies-on-future-fighter-engine-tech

Lordtemplar
Lordtemplar
2 months ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Gripen engines are american GE F404 made under license by GKN, not sure what expertise they can claim vs Rolls Royce

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
2 months ago
Reply to  Lordtemplar

Yeah but by that logic most American engines were simple copies of British designs. Volvo and now GKN have adapted the american design to make them more rugged for the more hostile daily conditions they will encounter in Sweden.