The UK’s Tempest fighter jet programme seems to be moving forward despite previous concerns about its potential cancellation under the new Labour Government.
Recent parliamentary activities and industry announcements indicate continued support for the project.
On 24 July, the Commons order paper included a motion to approve the Global Combat Air Programme International Government Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2024.
This order aims to formalise the establishment of the GCAP international government organisation, a crucial step in the collaborative development of the next-generation fighter jet, according to government documents. This legislative move brings into effect the convention signed by the UK, Japan, and Italy in December 2023, indicating to the aviation industry a sustained commitment to the programme.
bringing into effect the Convention signed by the UK, Japan and Italy in December 2023.https://t.co/fsfph4agb9
— Louisa BrookeHolland (@brookehollandl) July 22, 2024
Defence policy analyst Louisa Brooke-Holland, who focuses on UK defence issues at the House of Commons Library, highlighted the significance of this legislative move on social media, noting its role in cementing the international collaboration necessary for the project’s success. “This would establish the GCAP international government organisation, bringing into effect the Convention signed by the UK, Japan, and Italy,” she tweeted.
The Tempest project, initiated in 2018, aims to deliver a sixth-generation fighter jet by the mid-2030s. The programme is led by Team Tempest in the UK, involving around 3,500 workers, with plans to expand this workforce significantly in the coming years. The project’s continuation is seen as vital for maintaining the UK’s sovereign combat air capability.
Further reinforcing the programme’s momentum, the House of Lords is set to address the future of the GCAP programme and the Strategic Defence Review. Lord West has scheduled an oral question on 23 July regarding these topics, while former Defence Minister Baroness Goldie plans to inquire about pausing expenditure on certain defence programmes on 25 July.
Additionally, at the Farnborough International Airshow on 22 July, the three nations of the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) – the UK, Italy, and Japan – unveiled a new concept model of their next-generation fighter aircraft. This model features an evolved design with a larger wingspan to enhance aerodynamics.
Herman Claesen, Managing Director of Future Combat Air Systems at BAE Systems, highlighted the progress made since the programme’s launch, stating, “In the 18 months since the launch of the Global Combat Air Programme, we’ve been working closely with our industrial partners in Italy and Japan under the collaboration agreement, and also with the three governments, to understand and align requirements for a next-generation combat aircraft.”
Guglielmo Maviglia, Chief Global Combat Air Programme Officer at Leonardo, spoke of the programme’s rapid pace and strong commitment, saying, “The pace of the programme is extraordinary, building on a solid foundation and industrial legacy in each country and government-led partnership. Since the treaty was signed in December 2023, the programme has seen strong commitment from each partner.”
These parliamentary engagements and industry updates suggest to me a concerted effort to ensure the programme’s stability and progress. Industry leaders, including BAE Systems, have consistently highlighted the critical importance of the Tempest project for national defence and technological advancement. The company has also stressed that the programme provides “critical sovereign combat air capability.”
Recent actions and legislative moves indicate that the Tempest project is indeed moving ahead, but with a defence review and touch choices ahead, we’ll just have to wait and see.
As mentioned on a few other threads, this was all triggered by the press (Tory Press) whilst in reality, everything is going ahead as planned.
That’s not to say it’s a Definite but I’d hate to see it get binned at this or a later stage. This is a great opportunity to get back in the game.
Beware the Americans, their own 6th gen fighter is not intended to operate until the 2040s, they will try and wreck our plans, just like when they rushed around selling our customers the F104 instead of our Saunders Roe concept.
And Buccaneers.
Buccaneers actually kicked American thinking and their arse though……
The German Navy nearly bought them (I think they had their own air arm)
They do it’s the The Marinefliegerkommando (Naval Aviation Command) and the United Kingdom helped create it, I think it was in the 1950’s the first aircraft they used were Hawker Sea Hawks
Yep -the only export though was the SAAF. Hard worked, thy saw some 26 year of service – much oft it in combat in 87/88. Remarkable piece of kit.
An excellent piece of kit, British engineering at it’s finest!
the Americansand hated getting the VSTOL before they could.
2040s Really? What happened to Trumps boast when President that their 6th Gen prototype was already flying with expectation the project would gel in the 2020s… oh sorry I forgot this needs to be filed along with sorting out the Middle East, Iran, North Korea and trade with China, geez even Al Gore only claimed to have invented the Internet. Like everything else the programme timeline clearly only suddenly went astray once Biden took over.
The US isn’t selling its 6th gen so why would they try to cancel europes? It won’t be competing for export. I believe the B-21 with loyal wingmen and aim-260s will be the actual NGAD. Something fighter sized does not make sense at all in the pacific due to the ranges it will need to operate- and stealth along with modern sensors and more advanced/long range AA missiles and direct energy weapons make dogfighting unnecessary – so something bomber size will be the way to go moving forward.
Even in the crowded European theater imagine how useful a couple B-21s loaded to the brim with aim260 or even 120 flying CAP for 12 hours over Ukraine to shoot stuff down when needed. One of those can do the job of over a dozen fighter aircraft due to its endurance and payload (even with air to air refueling fighters have to leave station for a while meaning you’d need more fighters taking they’re spot)
I get this idea, but if it’s fighting a stealth, surely it would have to close to about 20 miles to get a lock, meaning that you’d rather still want a platform that can evade and defeat enemy missiles.
thats what loyal wingmen will be for. you could have them out 40+ miles from the host aircraft guiding the missiles in.
LM will do its best to cancel it as it will chip away at F35 sales.
The US government won’t care enough to try and f**k up GCAP but you can guarantee a US Senator or Congressman with their nose in the troff would do anything in their power to f**k up GCAP on behalf of LM.
This is one of the reason UK and Japan are making sure there is zero US manufactured content and nothing related to ITAR.
You can guarantee the yanks will find some way of making it ITAR even if the government has to stump up the cash to buy a company manufacturing parts for tempest so they can then ITAR the shit out of the project, it’s always been a stick to beat other countries with to keep the US on top
I tend to like this idea, but I am not sure about it. A B21 is useful as long as you don’t see it, so no radar. It is a large wing, so no high speed. I don’t mean they are mandatory. But if you want to know if speed and awareness are decisive factors to pierce a defense line or reinforce it, just play rugby.
Comfort and range though are certainly 6G attributes.
It’s interesting how close the design is to the previous Tempest design despite the inclusion of Japan, the vertical stabilisers are very distinctive.
The large Delta seems to show it’s got much longer range probably based on japans needs.
Good thing is the design seems to lend itself to being navalised in the future unlike Typhoon.
I could imagine Japan operating full carriers in future and having a need as well.
Hello Jim, indeed it does look like it’s going to have that important longer range and I do wonder about the Carrier option given that all three partners currently operate Carriers but it’s a bit confused due to the different Carrier configurations. The danger is that it gets divided into 3 different versions just like F35 but without the numbers.
I still thing it would be a perfect N bomb delivery vehicle and I seriously doubt that Russia would be remotely capable of countering it.
Realistically It’s Russia and China that would be the main threats, not that China has any intentions on being hostile towards the UK. As far as we know that is.
Given that all three partners operate F35B from their carriers, I doubt there is a significant push towards a naval variant.
However, at the end of F35’s life (well before the carriers are predicted to leave service) we may well see cooperation on the replacement UCAV.
Yes exactly and I’m looking at the future when the RN Carriers have no other options. At this point in time and for a considerable time in the future, there is only one aircraft that can be flown off ours. France wanted a Carrier capable Typhoon variant originally, they left the programme and produced their own, entirely on their own. At that time the UK had no plans for large carriers and that meant only one option was available and that was American. If it wasn’t for the success of the AV8b, I very much doubt they would have gone down the F35B route, then what would we have bought ?
Well we would have built our carriers (assuming we still built them) with cats and traps after all they were designed to incorporate either till quite late in the concept process and the space to incorporate the equipment is still there. The design change for when they were contemplating an angled deck is little different either the overall design did not fundamentally change, as it did not when the propulsion options were chosen the overall designs were just somewhat pared back when budget dictated. So at that time the traditional option would have been chosen and either F-18s or Rafale would no doubt have been considered with whatever option becomes available thereafter. The main problem would have been what launch system we would have incorporated. I suspect we would have gone for Emals which if the US system would have caused all manner of problems that the Mail/Telegraph would have thrived upon.
The French leaving the programme is generally what you relate but the problem was that a Typhoon sized aircraft was unsuitable for their Carrier design while not planning such carriers meant the other partners wanted a larger more capable aircraft purely for land operations. So there was no actual Typhoon variant argument, they wanted a lighter aircraft design altogether led by them of course, that could have a carrier version.
As a general guide, Typhoon is 52 ft long, 35ft wingspan and 11000kg’s, Rafale is 50ft long, 35ft wingspan and 10000kgs, EFA was 48ft long, 38ft wingspan and 10000kg’s, all pretty much similar really. France needed a Carrier variant and had no real choice but to go their own way. The UK at the time had no plans for Carriers and were focussed on the Invincible’s with Harriers. The QE class were the direct result of Labour’s SDR of 1997-8.and the F35 first flew in 2000 luckily the B version was developed for USMC and RN use.
I believe the USN are crying out for a longer range aircraft than F18 since F14’s were retired and threats have emerged from China and N Korea.
It will be interesting to see what comes of the F/A-XX.
Be careful on that front Russia and China are now talking of ‘Eurasia’ with outside forces ie the US keeping out of the region. You couldn’t make this up but if this does not fully explain the Russian invasion of Ukraine far from being in fear of Western encroachment was just stage 1 of a far bigger play in breaking the trans Atlantic cooperation and intimidation of Europe and the EU confronted with a united Eurasian military block. Thankfully that so far has failed but they won’t stop trying longer term and I now feel over the next decade we might see more Chinese forces creeping into European affairs. They need to break the Euro US links and between them and the idiocy of Trump they may still have some success. When you hear Trump talking about Taiwan paying for its own defence when if it falls Western economies will likely collapse perhaps irreparably it shows just how out of touch Mr America Only truly is.
.
Evening Jim, no possibility of a Naval version, as its looking ‘way’ too big….
We can hypothesise a radius of action in excess of 1000 miles.
I dread to say it, but we might actually finally get TSR2, in a modern 21st century guise, with full AtoA capability.
Can we really afford this beast in quantity??
Are we looking at a silver bullet force of 3/4 squdronds, 90 aircraft buy and an order of F35A for mass…
90 manned aircraft plus drones would be a major step up. The US was only looking at a maximum of 300 manned NGAD and 1000 drones.
My thoughts exactly. Naval suits UK and Italy as well. Cost of kit for cats and traps come down with 3 partners.
We need a plane that can have the range to go further than ever. Everything points to this from the Red Sea to the North and intercepting the Russians WNW of the UK.
Two major problems that have had a serious impact on recent combat air programmes have to be avoided.
Typhoon development was delayed and made more expensive by one partner, Germany, changing its mind on numbers whilst demanding a full work share.
F35 has been and still is bedevilled by software complexity. 23 years after winning the JSF competition, it is still in development and is of limited military utility.
Insofar that it is possible, Tempest needs to be kept simple, using existing powerplants, sensors and weapons. If development costs are not firmly controlled, the aircraft unit price could be come unaffordable.
If, as I hope, Tempest goes ahead, the pressures on the overall defence budget will mean something else has to go. AUKUS looks safe so the only area where big money could be saved is in planned ship orders. T32 won’t happen, T83 will be deferred, MRSS will cut overall numbers, MROS will revert to cheap off the shelf purchases.
I thought MY comment was slightly doom laden but yours beats mine hands down.
😂
Every partner of Typhoon changed it’s mind on numbers. Germany is not a partner on this. Germany would be a possible buyer when it all goes Tit’s up with France. F35 is the biggest program ever. Tempest will not be simple due to the whole ethos of the 6th generation Genre. T32 was more than likely a BJ error of judgement. T83 must happen. MRSS can not really be cut. MROS has no off the shelf options as each ship is built to order and in no way sat on a shelf waiting for someone to buy it.
Talk about negative vibes ! 😂
Mate, Proteus, MROSS 1, was OTS. MROSS 2 was to be purpose built, but does it need to be if money can be saved and Proteus does the job?
This I think was Peters point on that.
OTS or bought second hand ? there is a difference. People often say we should buy OTS stuff but in reality, ships are built to order. Proteus and Stirling Castle have been purchased as Trials platforms, both have had issues integrating into their specific rolls, both are supposed to be replaced with purpose built. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t but at this point in time, we need to keep being positive. Let’s give the new government reason to keep these programmes going in the right direction rather than any support to cut them.
Now, about these Aliens ?, you never did follow up on that.🤔🙂
Have they had issues? Not heard?
Yes, a difference, I’d happily buy 2nd hand for MROSS2 if it does the job and saves money.
No, I’m not going to, this is a defence website.
The issues relate to the Commercial build suitability rather than actual defects. I visit a rather good and very friendly RFA site which has a few serving types who know about these things.
Ok.
It’s a great site, I have learnt loads since being on there.
And on MRSS, only “up to 3” have been committed to. We need 6. That is the cut Peter means.
6 Minimum !🚢
Yes, otherwise it’s another cut in effect.
If they guaranteed 5 I’d take it though.
4, too few.
Need 6.
Yes DM, that’s only if H&W survives the latest financial f/up. There seems to be a billionaire buyer interested though. Yet another watch this space I guess 🤔. 😐🕳️Btth.
I really hope I’m wrong but we are already seeing examples of the financial pressures that will make provision of extra funding for defence so difficult- universities seeking bailout, above inflation pay rises for the public sector, NHS waiting lists etc. There is nothing left to cut in the army or RAF, so naval forces would seem to be the only option. Remember, the 10 year equipment plan lurched back into the red in 2023 because of AUKUS and the RN inclusion of costs for T32,T83,MRSS,MROS and NGAD. AUKUS has been effectively ring fenced. The rest hasn’t.
Well, That’s what you get with Labour I guess…. not that any of the other clowns were any better/worse.
It will take another war to make them see sense, another senseless loss of lives again.
Personally I’d prefer to chuck all our “Leaders” in a cage Fight and see who wins rather than send millions of grunts to the trenches to die for their fragile ego’s. I find this whole human trait of dying for arseholes to be a bit sad and pathetic TBH.
Apparently in the entire Universe, we are the only “Intelligent Species” Yup Okeydokey ! That just backs up just how stupid we really are.
The cage fight would be bloody fantastic would need to get it on ppv.
T83 will likely be an Australian T26 Hunter class derivative.
There’s little chance of a clean sheet design.
If there is a T31, it likely be a T31 batch 2.
I doubt money will be avable for clean sheet design
“Likely”, possibly, who knows ? None of us here that’s for sure.
Well that while has some accuracy needs a little added commentary I think. I’m not sure the Houthis think the F-35s effectiveness is in doubt after recent days after Israel hit them in rather more extensive targeting than we and the US dare do. But your general point is still pretty accurate on its relative lack of available weaponry due to innate software issues.
I do hope that Tempest doesn’t aim to high (though with flexibility to upgrade as required nonetheless), however the idea that it should use existing power plants, sensors and weapons per se isn’t actually feasible. RR is specifically designing an engine (with Japanese input) that is required to supply the required electrical power for any serious upgrade over what the Typhoon can do the EJ200 while a fine engine simply isn’t going to cut it in any respect be it thrust, range/fuel efficiency, stealth or electrical power. Technology has moved on considerably and we going to have to compete with US dual mode engines though thankfully RR invested a great deal in this when it worked with GE on the F-35 engine alternative. Indeed like RR much of GEs new engine development has come out of that work 15+ years back.
The radar will no doubt be a further development of the ECRS Mark 2 radar for the Typhoon but growth power potential will be vital and while much present weaponry, developments thereof or presently planned missiles will be fitted there has to be flexibility for new and further upgraded weapons and the option for electronic, microwave and laser weapons too to avoid possible obsolescence or lack of competitiveness over its service life. So a balance between ‘safe’ mature options and more advanced systems has to be made. Pilot awareness will be vital for this aircraft to be truly effective and that is going to be a good generation ahead of what Typhoon uses. You can’t simply upgrade a Typhoon to what an F-35 can offer all round so you really can’t expect to use existing, or mildly upgraded sensors or other systems in many cases.
The right emphasis has to be made however and certainly safer options especially initially may well be the correct option, but not en masse otherwise you might as well just radically upgrade the Typhoon. But as the US have discovered with the F-22 at some point upgrading becomes less effective and more costly than a clean sheet design.
Typhoon was preceded by the EAP demonstrator which first flew in 1986, I think. It used existing Tornado engines and the main aim was to show proof of design of the new airframe. Doing that as early as possible in the programme should help to sustain funding. Much easier to cancel a programme that hasn’t yet produced anything but designs than one that has actually flown.
That’s what I had in mind.
Didn’t save TSR2 though.
If you’ve never been, It’s a good visit to Cosford, you can see TSR2 and EAP in the same place. Both really impressive.
Great place to go – and free (well car park is £5 and rest is donations) Got as Cold War exhibition as well with Vulcan and Lightning..although tbh I’ve never really felt that exhibition is a great layout.
You can only walk underneath the Vulcan and the Lightning is hanging from the ceiling.
A lot is shoehorned in and you can’t get a real appreciation or majesty of the planes in there.
Go to the smaller Coventry museum, if you haven’t already.
Thanks for the suggestion I haven’t & have just had a look. Looks interesting esp. the Sir Frank Whittle stuff so will plan a trip imminently.👍
Cancelling Tempest would be like another TSR2 moment. That was the last time I developed an uncontrollable desire to exhibit an intense dislike for anyone in politics. Another one was CVA01. Seems labour have a very poor record in these areas. Let’s hope they are trying to turn a corner.
We’re throwing a lot of money at a aircraft that won’t have a VSTOL. version
tempest is never intended to be carrier capable, it is bloody enormous.
it’s designed to take a huge payload a very long way, characteristics not compatible with stovl carriers.
There has been no talk of this program being shut down bar a fearmongering article by the Torygraph, to join the gazillion other fearmongering articles they’ve put out in the run up to the election.
The Times is hardly that and they did an excellent article on the subject. Luke Pollard when asked for a commitment on the project refused to give one. The media reporting that is not fear mongering. Labour have not got the brightest record when it comes to defence.
labour will do nothing or achieve anything but decline
because they are in the middle of a defence review. They know that the guy cannot answer any of these kinds of questions in the middle of a defence review.
What matters is that there is 0 in the way of actual evidence that it is to be cut.
Regarding Labour’s “record on defence” – Was it them they did the creative accounting to bring things under the defence budget that had never before been, to hide the fact they were dropping under 2% of GDP?
Was it them that privatised recruitment? I am sure I don’t need to remind you on where that is currently.
How much personnel did the Tories cut across the forces? How did the attempt to replace those men with freebie reserves go?
We could go on, but to cut to the chase; the Tories did more cutting in 6 months under Cameron than Labour did in 13 years. Under far more dangerous global circumstances, too.
toilet paper roll
the telegraph is as bad as the mail for getting defence issues wrong
That is one big Delta!
Gloster Javelin for the 21st century, anyone!😉
Blake and Mortimer vibes
AVRO Arrow !
FD2 Fighter project!
Given all the Labour rhetoric on no new monies for different departments and the hints of possible relaxation on this for public service workers and the NHS it difficult to see any new monies for Defence in the near term. A budget in the autumn is too soon and Labour will want to see the options tabled next year (summer?) from the Robertson review. Starmer will only move on when he believes he has all the necessary information to aide decision making. So they will let studies and early development for new projects limp along and the hard choices will be next year. I would expect every defence related commitment to be thoroughly investigated by the Treasury before then and probably major commitments will be allowed to slip into late 2025 after the review has reported. Labour seem to favour holding current budgets and reducing commitments to stay in budget and giving greater focus to our NATO roles so I wouldn’t be surprised to see attempts to formulate more joint military solutions with other European nations even though they are likely to prove more expensive and take longer in the end.
labour will make no improvement they’re the unions Tory suits
Not sure why we’re all so concerned about Tempest.We knew Labour was going to get closer to Europe on defence, we voted for it. It’s democracy at work. The review will conclude that we need a 6th gen fighter but we can’t afford it but if we join FCAS we’ll be able to afford one because the bill will be split more ways. And if Starmer can bring Japan to FCAS he’ll get some major brownie points from France and Germany, but I don’t fancy his chances.
I doubt it very much , doing any major project with the French is extremely difficult. I know from my time working on the ITER project.
The reason that project is so far behind is almost 100% to do with the French. When it is finished it will be obsolete.
can’t trust those Frenchies
They don’t like it up’em
Well government will need to make concessions and having a competing program in Europe is huge red flag. Also it was the French that pulled out of the previous agreement with a Macron toys out the pram moment. GCAP is huge bargaining chip cancelling it and joining FCAS will provide the government a lot of EU browie points.
Do they, why?
So we abandon the Japanese for what? A political fraught relationship with France/ Germany where we have already had problems with in the past.
We already have plenty of bargaining chips and that will only improve.
Further Why should we abandon a project we have considerable influence in for one we won’t.
The French will do what the French always do, demand the lion share of the work, develop an aircraft tailor made for the French and funded by everyone else. Which the Germans are begining to learn to their cost.
FCAS is not an EU project so it will give us nothing.
Japan is sniffing about joining AUKUS which will be very lucaritive for the U.K.
Cancelling Tempest in favour of the dubious FCAS will be a huge mistake, economically and politically.
We elected a government that was overtly pro Europe defence cooperation, thats fact and they didn’thide it before the election. I don’t think the government cares about influence it cares about Europeean cooperation, blue collar defence jobs, and doing the opposite of the previous government. They can save buckets of cash as if we join FCAS Italy has no other choice so FCAS bills are split 5 ways, have you not heard that there’s going to be a £20+b black hole announced Monday!! And they can blame the Tories for it so it has zero political consequences.
Personally, I’m pro GCAP but if it’s canned in favour of FCAS that’s because we voted for a pre Europe defence party, so I respect the democratic decision. Japan will going AUKUS irrespective of GCAP as US is the main player.
Lastly don’t confuse the name of if the airframe with the program. Germany don’t refer to the Eurofighter as the Typhoon, A Tempest airframe can be delivered by another program so being committed to Tempest isn’t being committed to GCAP.
If Labour want to be closer to Europe the simple answer is to rejoin the common economic area, but to do so, so soon will be political suicide.
FCAS will be the virtual destruction of the U.K. aircraft industry as the French will insist on the lion share of the design and production .
So Starmer will sacrifice 20K job and throw away a massive advantage and opportunity for dubious favour with the EU. It is a poor bargain .
To even get the Japanese to play there will be some pretty heavy penalty clauses build into the agreenent.
In short they will throw away a massive chance to get back into the fighter game. With huge export potential. Piss off the Japanese for dubious gain.
Further with the Germans already looking for the ejection button( rumoured) do we really want to swap GCAP for FCAS when we will make little or no saving.
FCAS for the U.K. is a loose loose.
I hope you’re right and I’m wrong. Hopefully the Tories did one thing right and nade it hard to cancel. We’ll know in about 6 months I guess.
I suspect the Japanese will have ensured heavy penalties .
And it makes zero sense to kill one just to invest just as much in the other
the people have spoken in Europe it’s called democracy the British people want less to do with Europe.
labour equals more decline and one less carrier. the problems if the u.k armed forces are beyond their ability
Based on what exactly, other than your politics.
It was the Tories who hollowed out the armed forces. It was the Tories who rolled the strategic defence budget into the conventional budget.
French magazine says Japan already reserved 10B€ for the programe, 5x more than UK and Italy at 2B€ each.
He who pays the piper calls the tune…
That is the Japanese way. They are far more forward thinking where as we tend to budget from year to year.
Killing Tempest will have huge international and economic repercussions.
We will be seen as an untrustworthy partner. It will all but kill off the U.K. military aircraft industry . It will cost tens of thousands of jobs.
I very much doubt a very savy politician turned warrior like Lord Robertson will not grasp the bigger picture .
With the American 6th gen projects faltering and the likelihood they will not export them anyway, the marketing potential is huge. It will leap frog the RAF and give us a world beating aircraft.
I keep telling myself that politicians cannot be so short sighted, the I give my head a good wobble and remind myself politicians cannot see past the end of their nose.
Oh ! i just said pretty much the same an hour before. This is a huge opportunity with so many potential customers. So glad I’m not alone in seeing this.
I’m afraid I have very little confidence this project will go as originally spec’d by the UK.
At best it will be driven by the Japanese to become more of the plane they want – middle ground will be few more countrries joining and the design gets even more diluted , and worse case is of course it just gets cancelled by the next defence ‘review’.
There will be compromises, that is the risk of international collaborative projects but I doubt the Japanese will dominate the discussion particularly when alot of the tech is British.
Given the nature of this aircraft and its intended roles.
Judging by the few rumours that have got out about the two US 6th gen aircraft , they are of the same order of size and FCAS is not far behind.
but what ARE it’s intended roles- have they been defined yet?
I was under the impression it was to replace Typhoon for the UK.
Although I know the role of that aircraft itself was extended way beyond its original ‘interceptor’ spec- that is still a role it delivers.
I understood Japan doesn’t need/want that requirement from this project- as they have gone with US solution.
Therefore if they are committing more money up front (?) will they start to drive it – and if so what sort of aircraft will we get.
I assume , for example, tthere is no chance this will have any STOL requirement so F35B procurment and development will still be of paramount importance to the RN (at a minimum).
The answer is on the new packet. Longer range and naval possibilities.
Both of which you would need in mastery of the air, in and beyond NATO.
I know the same as you. Fighter, interceptor, reconnaissance and potentially deep strike bomber. Although I would expect with the current and leading generation of Ballastic and cruise missiles and lessons learned from Ukraine , it makes more sense to leave the deep strike to a million quid missile or glide bomb than a manned aircraft worth hundred times that,
Sustained high speed without the paint coming off.
Will we need a cockpit by 2035-2040 ?
if they’re built in Scotland we’ll wait years between the delivery.
Only if Ferguson’s are involved.
As both the US and Navy 6th gen projects are on hold, and there are doubts it will even go ahead. This puts Tempest in a very strong position.
Also why are the German sniffing about it. I thought they were all cozied up with the French on FCAS or are things not going well?
Germans are working with the French, no one is saying they are sniffing but it has been suggested that they my drop out, if so I would only consider them as a potential buyer of Tempest and not a partner.
Potentially the market is huge, USA will not sell their’s abroad (just like F22) so potentially, Tempest could be marketed to so many other NATO members and a few non members too.
Australia, Canada, Poland, Saudi, Qatar, Spain, South Korea as well as Germany and the UK, Japan and Italy. Just my opinion though.
The problem here is that the US could change it’s mind on selling the F22 in ten seconds and even if it didn’t and the UK arrived with Tempest to sell at X million, the US, having amortised is owen developments, could undercut any price we come up with.
Getting Tempest off the ground is going to ba a major political challenge and so far we have no evidence to point to our politicians being interested in much more than the next free meal..:-)
The Japanese have turned their back on the Americans, they need this jet badly , to counter China , they will have some very strong guarantees built into the collaboration agreement.
I also think they will be shopping , if not already for nuclear submarines tech . Their small , AI boats are good for coastal defence but now Japan is moving away from just self defence. They will come to the same conclusion the Australians have in needing Nuclear boats. However unlike Australia, they already have a strong nuclear infrastructure so the transition will be a lot easier.
Give Mitsubishi the drawing and they will figure it out.
An article from yesterday’s Daily Telegraph, written by defence “expert” Lewis Page:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/23/tempest-6th-gen-fighter-jet-stealth-gcap-raf-japan-italy/
This looks good but the chances of it not going the way of the TSR2 are slim.
The US has the F35 now and will promise anything to anyone for their new 6th gen plane and business and politics will ensure this UK plane never gets built. Logic would say cooperation wit the US but we are not sufficiently fly to manage this and they will walk all over us. Developing with the Japanese is also a major risk – their brains are not wired like ours so they will add all sorts of bells and whistles and the project will extend for decades as people buy the US versions.
A pity but sadly true.
Like the hypersonic missile Lockheed Martin want to ‘develop’ in the UK as part of AUKUS – they want to get the expertise they need and then build it, sell it and service it out of the US and perhaps leave a few crumbs for the UK and Oz.
When it comes to the USA, follow the money
If they really wanted to put Russia in a blue funk. They should include Ukraine as a partner nation!
I am wondering what this will be for even if it does ever get off the ground.
It has a max speed of 442mph and can carry 2 tons of bombs I believe. and is not carrier capable though has a good range ( a bit more than the F35)
So, it is for dog fighting or something? It won’t really matter if it is 6th, 7th or 10th generation when it gets close to combat.
Why would they build this when they could get an F22 or a Gripen or something?
Sadly it will be a great technology demonstrator only if only fot the fact that aerial combat has changed and will change more in the next few years. Drone swarms, unmanned planes, missiles which can take evasive action including dropping chaff and firing back and so on.
In any event, it could be the best plane on the planet but the Americans will make sure it never flies