As an enthusiastic defence aviation commentator with a particular eye on the Asia Pacific region, I remember the excitement in defence media circles and forums in the last week of 2010 when the first grainy images started to appear of the new soon-to-be-designated CAC J-20 Mighty Dragon fighter (NATO designation Fagin) performing taxi tests at the CADI airfield in Chengdu.
The first black and white images, while difficult to make out, appeared to show a large, slender, and long airframe that, if you squinted your eyes just right, looked a bit like the Grumman F-111 at certain angles.
The conclusion was rapidly drawn by not only defence media circles and the aviation enthusiast community but also some very respected defence aviation journalists that this aircraft was a long-range bomb truck.
A Chinese Digression
A large, not overly manoeuvrable, long-range, marginally stealthy fighter. A bomb truck designed to haul a bomb payload out over the South China Sea and not intended to get into a real fight against types like the F-22.
As we slipped into 2011 and the first flight of the J-20 occurred, leading to better pictures getting out, aspects of this analysis started to fall apart. While the new fighter was certainly large and no doubt long-ranged, it was not a simple bomb truck. What we began to see was a fighter with a stealthy, not-so-slender blended fuselage design with a delta canard configuration. This would be a fighter designed to have a highly pointable nose and impressive instantaneous turn rate while also being able to carry a large payload of weaponry internally with lots of fuel to bring it a long way.
Over the years, firstly in testing and then into low-rate initial production, as more footage was released, it showed a highly agile jet. Eventually, personnel at CAC who designed the plane were interviewed and confirmed the J-20 was designed to be a highly manoeuvrable but agile air superiority fighter, not a simple bomb truck. Its large size was a function of its requirements, the need for long-range but also the ability to carry many potentially large missiles internally, and the electrical power generation needed for its numerous systems.
As an aside to this story, the main thing hindering the J-20 from reaching its full potential is the lack of a 5th generation engine, with the type forced to rely on the 4th Gen Saturn AL31 or the domestically produced Shenyang WS10, the latter in effect a reverse-engineered General Electric GE F101 with features of the derivative GE F110. The 5th Gen Shenyang WS-15 is still being tested on the J-20 and is barely in low-rate production. When available in numbers, it should give the J-20 full supercruise capability, higher electrical power generation, greater reliability, and range.
It should also be noted that the USAF/USN take the J-20 very seriously, using the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet as the preferred aggressor type to simulate the rather crude Russian SU-57 Felon. The F-35 Lightning is used to act as the aggressor simulator for the J-20. Nevertheless, over the years, the idea has persisted amongst many in defence circles, including respected journalists, who have stuck to the narrative that the CAC J-20 is a modern-day F-111 knockoff, a not particularly manoeuvrable but long-ranged bomb truck. The reality was not matching perception, but people in our defence aviation circles were reluctant to change their initial analysis based upon a few grainy pictures.
Tempest Revealed
So why this long digression about the J-20 in an article about GCAP/Tempest? At last month’s Farnborough airshow, the GCAP partners revealed a model of the latest configuration of the Tempest, this one more representative of the final configuration. The most noticeable feature was not only its sheer size, nearly 65ft long with a 54ft wingspan, but also its large classic delta wing configuration, a wing with almost the same area as an A320. This will be a big fighter jet, and inevitably, the comparisons to the F-111 and the label bomb truck started to make the rounds on social media and the defense press.
The comparison was almost inevitable, and certainly, the general view of the commentariat has been towards Tempest as a heavyweight, long-range carrier of munitions. The more astute will also note the heavy influence of Japan and their specific requirements for range and the ability to carry a couple of heavy long-range anti-ship missiles. This is all true, but when we are talking about 6th generation fighters, there is much more to consider.
What is a Generation?
To a degree, what defines any generation of fighter aircraft is subjective, varies from nation to nation, and is often subject to the whim of a marketing team. It is too big a subject to fully investigate here, especially when it has been covered in depth already and is a quick Google search away for those wishing to travel down the rabbit hole. If you want to talk in simple terms, an aircraft like the F-16, a mature multi-role type but lacking in stealth, is widely accepted as 4th Generation. The Eurocanards like Typhoon and Rafale, with their high performance combined with sensor integration, are 4+ Generation. The F-22, with its stealth, is 5th Generation.
The F-22 is interesting in that it is effectively a jet built based on the threat assessments of the 1980s, developed in the 1990s, and pushed into service in the 2000s. Development-wise, it is contemporary to the Eurocanards. So, while it gets stealth, it also gains thrust vectoring to give it a very pointable nose, a useful feature against the then-new Soviet wunder-fighters the Mig-29 and SU-27. Both those new Soviet fighters had high agility and a high off-bore-sight short-range IR missile, the R73, combined with a helmet-mounted sight. Close in, they were lethal opponents.
With the fall of the Soviet Union, both types were trialled by Western pilots, and the information gleaned fed back into the further development of more advanced missiles and systems to counter the threat. HMD, IR missiles like AIM-9X and ASRAAM, plus a slew of advanced countermeasures, were integrated into Western fighters. Curiously, to this day, the F-22 still lacks a helmet-mounted sight, but it is still regarded as the apex predator of the skies.
You will note I have only mentioned weaponry and systems used for fighting within visual range, which ignores a simple truth: for all the romance of the Knights of the Air, the turning dogfight outside of the film Top Gun Maverick is not how we do it now. The most successful Western air-to-air weapon of the last three decades has been the AIM-120 AMRAAM, a BVR weapon. Ideally, the enemy our fighters engage in combat will never know what caused their jet to rapidly disintegrate around them.
F-35: A Step to 6th Generation
In many ways, FCAS, the program that became Tempest and GCAP, is overshadowed by the F-35. The F-35 is the poster child for a modern 5th-generation fighter and is heavily marketed as such. The F-35 will form the backbone of Western air forces for decades to come. For all its cost and growing pains, it is a formidable aircraft that takes the very concept of 5th Gen and takes it to the next level.
It is stealthy, multi-role, but also information-rich, able to take in a vast amount of data and present it to the pilot or command and control. It will see the entire battlespace and perform roles never previously considered for fighter jets. It is in those abilities that we see the basis of what 6th Generation will be.
When it comes to air combat, the F-35 will favour BVR missiles like AMRAAM and, hopefully, soon, Meteor once Block 4 development gets unstuck. For all the trouble that the F-35 has experienced over its troubled development, those who operate it know they are getting something beyond a simple dogfighter. Tempest will need to be a step beyond F-35 to be truly 6th Gen.
NGAD and GCAP: The Assassins
To go back to the reveal of GCAP/Tempest, my first personal observation of the overall configuration was to note that the team designing it was going down the same line of thinking as those developing the 6th Generation USAF fighter, the NGAD. Like Tempest, NGAD will be, according to what limited information has been revealed, both large and fast.
This has been the clear direction of travel when it comes to 6th-gen development for the USAF. It will probably utilize variable cycle engines like Tempest, allowing significant power generation and performance. It will have high situational awareness and utilize AI to analyze the battlespace, just like Tempest. It will also work with drones to act as sacrificial wingmen, again, just like Tempest.
It will have large weapon bays able to carry large munitions. We got a taste of what kind of munitions recently when the USN tested an air-launched variant of the SM-6 Standard missile, the AIM-174. Launched at high altitude, the AIM-174 is a hypersonic weapon skipping off the upper atmosphere to dive down at an unsuspecting target at over Mach 2. Using off-platform sensors, a 6th Gen fighter using a hypersonic missile can kill an enemy fighter with it never knowing what killed it. Put simply, there will be no turning dogfight. Tempest and NGAD will be assassins, not brawlers!
Coming back to Tempest, it will still be able to perform traditional roles, from QRA to the dropping of bombs, not only well but better than our current types like Typhoon. At altitude, the delta wing has some advantages when it comes to manoeuvrability, and it will be able to carry lots of fuel. In essence, a 6th Gen fighter will be able to see all and potentially engage all potential threats. Types like the SU-57 or J-20 will simply not be in the same class when facing 6th Gen. The ability to participate in all aspects of the battlespace, from ground support to coordination of multiple platforms from the ground, sea, and air, will define a fighter as a true 6th Gen. Potentially, a Tempest could act as a component in an engagement against a ballistic missile alongside the future Type-83 destroyer.
So, while yes, the Tempest will drop bombs like an F-111, it will be so much more. Just as with the J-20, initial appearances do not tell the whole story when it comes to modern fighter development. That being said, when the F-111 was first developed, it was intended to be a fighter and bomber, a type that bridged all aspects of air combat, so maybe it was the first true 6th-generation fighter.
Many Challenges Still to Come
Like AUKUS, GCAP/Tempest is a vital defence programme that, if allowed to be cancelled, would not only hobble the UK defence industry but also almost certainly destroy vital defence relationships with multiple countries.
So far, despite the usual pre-defence review worrying leaks and tabloid speculation, the general assumption is both programs are safe. The greater concern is a salami slicing of capabilities from Tempest, a diluting of what a 6th Gen fighter is truly meant to be, ironically the same fate that befell the F-111. Diluted in capability rather than killed off like another much-discussed aircraft, the TSR2. Time will tell.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
Great article, I enjoyed reading that, 13ft longer and 19ft wider than a Typhoon giving a large payload and long range whilst being undetectable. I wonder if it could carry 500 Nuclear bombs !🙄
RAF wanted Typhoon to be this sort of size. They wanted legs and massive payloads.
Europeans didn’t as they were thinking home defence. So RAF got the Eurofudge Typhoon – which is still very good.
Larger/high payload is easier to upgrade and possibly easier to make as you don’t spend so long agonising how to fit each part inside the envelope. It is certainly easier to spiral develop.
So there is a misguided thought process that smaller is cheaper…..when the opposite is true…..up to a point.
This is also why, as the article correctly states, who the partners are is important. Germany and France won’t want a big platform. France will want a small variant with tail hook. UK and Japan do want a big platform. Italy could possibly go either way.
So not just politics here – needs must align too.
I guess being larger is important to enable carrying a bigger payload internally.
It’ll be interesting to see what RR come up with as I would assume it’ll require more powerful engines than the Typhoons.
There are plenty of ways the EJ200 can be developed.
RR made some presentations in this.
Anyway Tempest demonstrate will fly with EJ200 derived power plant. That has been announced.
I was just having a search and found an interesting article on KEY.AERO about this subject, RR are working on a new generation of engines using next generation technologies, can’t see any mention of it being specifically developed from the EJ200 but I guess it will be.
I think the development of the Trent engines might be some sort of guide the latest of that family have little in common with earlier variants even substantial between others still in production but still have core family links. EJ200 has likely been a starting point but the final design will be very different by the time new technologies and materials, cooling and power management elements are introduced. The Pearl engines probably give a guide to some of the concepts and technologies to be exploited but then with a pure military make over going stages further. Even though I expected it, this is the first mention of ‘variable cycle engines’ for Tempest (though regularly for NGAD) but for a true 6th Gen aircraft that seems a vital element, maybe the technology behind it has been talked of just not with that headline term and I didn’t pick up on it as I am no engineer.
I’m no engineer either, nor ex military but it does sound like an amazing project.
I’ve heard before that variable cycle engines were going to be a key part of Tempest but unclear on what exactly they are.
Apparently the main benefits are improved power generation and all altitude performance.
They are not new but the tech is advancing at a pace.
Think of it as combining the benefits of a turbojet and a turbofan. A commercial airliner’s engine is all about maximizing the mass flow for the minimum of effort. Whereas a fighter engine has more requirements based on responsiveness as well as outright power. But it also needs to be economical which gives the aircraft duration.
A turbojet consumes almost all of the air that enters the engine. This means it maximizes the military power (non reheat). Whereas with a turbofan, the air is divided between the bypass fan and the core of the engine. The bypass air aids engine cooling. But can also dramatically increase the power generated by reheat. As there’s more clean unburnt air to use. On some fighter based turbofan engines, their military power is less than a turbojets.
The key factor for modern fighter turbofan engines is the bypass ratio. The Rolls Royce RB199 used by Tornado had a pretty large ratio of 1.1:1. The F135 used in the F35 has a bypass ratio of 0.57:1, compared to the EJ200 with 0.4:1. Though the Russian AL-31F has 0.56:1, which is used in the Su-57 etc. But that engine is huge compared to a Western engine.
What do bypass ratios mean and why are they important. For the F135, it means that 0.57kg of air bypasses the engine core for every 1kg of air that enters it. Something like the RR Trent 1000 has a bypass ratio of 10:1. So the fan draws 10kg of air for every 1kg of air going through the core.
The aircraft’s requirements sort of determine the bypass ratio. The Tornado wanted a small packaged engine, that was very economical. Hence the larger bypass ratio. This did have a knock on effect as the engine is quite small so didn’t have a great power to weight margin. Which made the aircraft fairly slow to accelerate. The larger bypass air did give it more power for reheat, but at substantially huge uses of fuel.
The F135 large bypass ratio is due to using some of the bypass air to aid avionics cooling. Where cooling circuits are introduced in to the airstream. The bypass air is also used to form a shield around the hot engine and engine’s core exhaust stream. Which mixes and reduces the effluxes temperature. Thereby lowering the infrared signature. It also means there’s more air (oxygen) to use in the afterburner. But compared to the RB199, the engine’s core diameter is much larger. Giving it better military performance.
A variable cycle engine is a turbofan that can reintroduce some of the bypass air back into the engine core. This can be used to further aid cooling. So the engine can run at hotter temperatures for longer. But the air can also get burnt in the combustion chamber, thereby potentially increasing the power. These engines are also called multi stream engines. Because they further divide the bypass air into two or three streams. Where one stream (outer) is dedicated to avionics cooling. Then the other stream/s (inner) is used for engine services, such as reintroduction, engine cooling etc.
The question is how much will the bypass ratio be? As the larger the bypass fan, the more energy is needed to spin it. A larger fan can also make the engine slower to respond. Which is where Rolls Royce’s traditional use of the triple shaft arrangement can help. But more bypass air helps with avionics and engine cooling. Along with reducing the exhaust efflux IR signature.
You are correct in that a turbojet should be able to operate at a much higher altitude than a turbofan. As more of the air is drawn into the engine core. The turbofan wastes energy turning the bypass fan at extreme altitudes. The bypass air, what little there is, doesn’t significantly help dry thrust. Whereas if it’s burned using the afterburner, it can help, but at the expense of fuel economy. The variable bypass engine will help with this issue.
Thanks, that makes much more sense
So there don’t actually have to be extra moving parts?
How does that help with power generation?
There will be a need for additional moving parts. But they won’t need to be as complex as say variable angle stator blades. These will be items like flapper valves to control the flow of the bypass air into the engine core. One of the main areas will be introducing the bypass air in to the low pressure and high pressure power turbine section. This isn’t really for using the additional oxygen. But because the air is cooler, so can it can be used to cool the turbine blades.
One way for the engine to make more power is for it to run much hotter. This is part of the thermal dynamic rules. In simple terms, where the engine’s power is determined by the difference between the intake air temperature and the temperature post combustion. By maintaining a difference you produce power.
For turbofans/turbojets they reach a practical limit of around Mach 3ish. In essence they get chocked. As there is too much air being rammed down the intake. Which can’t get past the compressor section fast enough. Which causes the engine to be starved of air as the shockwaves block the intake. This is why the SR-71 closed off the intakes to its J58s. Which stoped the majority of air from entering the engine core. The moveable spike cones would let a reduced amount of air through. The reduced air was then diverted into the afterburner section, to make it run like a ramjet. There was still some air going through the engine’s core to power the engine. Which was needed to power the hydraulics and electrics.
For a jet engine there is a limit on how long the power turbine blades can last at elevated temperatures, if you make the engine run hotter, even when coated with a ceramic heat protective layer. The increased heat will cause fatigue in the blades and lead to rapid failure.
The second method is to reintroduce the bypass air in to the compression section of the engine. As you’re now introducing more oxygen to the engine. Plus it may lower the compression temperature again to maintain the temperature differential.
The third method is similar to the power turbine cooling, but introduces the bypass air to the combustion section. Again to enable the combustors to run hotter, by cooling their surfaces and soaking away the heat.
These will likely be the main methods used to reintroduce the bypass air. One to increase the engine’s power and secondly to help cool the engine.
Rather like the Typhoon development aircraft (EAP) flew with RB199 engines from the Tornado.
Hi SB. I recall reading the EJ2oo was spooled up to circa 23,000lb thrust, don’t believe tis variant is in production though.
Well outside my area of knowledge!
no worries! 👌
Very true, although we also need to be thinking in terms of a replacement for F-35B for Carrier Strike. Tempest will obviously see service well past F-35’s an the QE carriers’ out of service dates, and unless we don’t plan on killing our carrier capability after they’re retired we’ll need a fixed wing platform to fly off our future carrier.
I absolutely get that it’s hard to see that far ahead, but if there’s absolutely no allowance for carrier ops in the Tempest design, then we’re forced into a second buy of a 6th Gen carrier capable platform. Considering that both Italy and Japan are also now getting into the (currently small) carrier game, I see that more as a shared requirement than an “only British” one.
Maybe that alliance will have to develop another design but certainly Tempest doesnt have carrier ops in mind.
If it can be developed fast and at sensible cost, avoiding all the Eurofudge of Typhoon then I can see a follow in project for VTOL.
I’m wondering whether any carrier development of Tempest would simply prove to be too big for carrier operations.
F14 had a wingspan 10ft wider but obviously only flew of US carriers, probably not a problem carrying it on a QE class but lifts and hanger space might be an issue. Overall width of an Osprey is 84ft so tempest’s 54ft (Sea Vixen was 55ft) shouldn’t be an issue but the Osprey folds up into a rather more compact package for storage.
Biggest issue would be the age old question about how it would launch and recover.
Could potentially develop a naval aircraft / engine combination in the future, but keep the same avionics of Tempest. Having said that the airframe and engine would use Tempest know-how so could be run in parallel to Tempest.
Basically what I am trying to say is that a carrier aircraft could be developed using a second team that gets to work on the main areas of ‘difference’ and develops an airframe / engine combo capable of carrier ops while the Tempest team continues to spiral develop Tempest. That Tempest development would go straight into the new aircraft because the new airframe would be designed around the Tempest systems. In other words the mission systems are a fixed input to the design process.
I am proposing an approach that does not interfere with the Tempest program and the partner navies would have to take whatever systems development Tempest offered. However, given the likely capabilities of Tempest, assuming no samali slicing, I can’t see anyone moaning about capability…
As you say the need for a new carrier plane is some way off, so developing a new airframe in the manner I describe need not interfere with the current Tempest program.
Cheers CR
I realise that is the current reality, and I can understand that the programme team will be very wary of adding any extra requirements at this point. But just observing that it may be something to consider- I don’t think there’ll be cash or appetite for a completely separate carrier aircraft from the 3 partners.
The key internal parts are what are really going to count therefore a dedicated carrier aircraft could incorporate those, yet have a more compact frame and folding bits. Who knows but unless we develop 6th gen its game over. May be better to go with F35C for carriers at some point when the US sort it. Everything to be said for synchronizing with the USN if you are going into the Indo-Pacific as history has taught us.
Very well written and understandable article; Thanks.
Thinking that far ahead will be 7th Generation – and I don’t see it being a manned vehicle. Personally I would think it possible that there will be at least two variants required – a shorter range craft designed to defend the fleet against mass drone attacks and a larger strike craft. I stress personally!
I’d respectfully beg to differ:
If I recall correctly, F-35 OSD is somewhere in the 2040s, let’s call it 2050; I think that 2050 is officially the OSD for the carriers too, although from experience call it 2055-60.
Whichever national/international programme you look at, 6th Gen will be operationally flying in the mid-late 2040s at the earliest. That means that our end of life / new carriers will be sailing slap bang in the middle of Tempest’s projected lifespan.
I fully agree that drones will be a key part of all air ops by that point (the Tempest programme itself expects as much- it’s a system of systems). But I’m not sure we’ll be at the point of fully unmanned air wings either…
As I said, personally. Can’t disagree with your view, but looking at current developments 25/35 years or so should be a quantum change. It depends on how long the carriers are kept in service and if they are replaced – and what with. AI/Drone technology developing as quickly as it is…
Of course, and I’m just sitting in my General’s/Admiral’s armchair and gazing into my own crystal ball as much as anyone else!
Technology is advancing at an increasing rate all the time, so the time gap between 6th and 7th Gen could easily be far shorter than 5th-6th.
OSD in 2040s? That’s not my understanding at all. Far from it. I think it was around 2077-2080. The US GAO have stated 2088 for end of service life.
2088?! That is a very long way in the future- and I suspect will require the procurement of additional airframes, like the USAF are doing with new F-15EX buys.
Will be a question as to whether we do the same, or select a different type when ours run out of hours- I honestly don’t see us or anyone else running 60-year old airframes. Of course, I could be completely wrong- happens often enough!
OSD for F-35 has been extended from 2077 to 2088. I hope there’s a link coming in a version of this message awaiting approval. Meanwhile search on:
“The F-35 Will Now Exceed $2 Trillion As the Military Plans to Fly It Less”
from the GAO, May 2024
by then I think drones will be able to handle most carrier ops
F35b will be around a very long time yet
I agree it’s far more likely the F-35 will be further developed as a distant control node for drones than a new manned fighter produced for carriers. With the massive advances in Ai currently taking place that technology including robotics (within which I include military drone technology) is almost impossible to predict even 5 years down the line let alone 30+. Indeed humans might struggle to remain relevant anything beyond that timescale. I know it’s been said before but manned attack aircraft or fighters will I believe have at best a peripheral role used in oversight or to add flexibility rather than any frontline offensive role. But I think things will become clearer by decade end by which time we will better comprehend the true impact of AGI and other Ai advances and how quickly they are taking over.
I’d respectfully beg to differ:
If I recall correctly, F-35 OSD is somewhere in the 2040s, let’s call it 2050; I think that 2050 is officially the OSD for the carriers too, although from experience call it 2055-60. By 2050, the F-35s we’re buying now will be 25 years old, the youngest will (in theory) be about 20. But all indications of the increasingly unstable world situation suggest them being flown a lot harder than the Typhoons we currently have, and age of airframe is less important than hours flown. We don’t want to buy more, because they’re a joint RAF force and we don’t want to jeopardise Tempest. But if we don’t think about future carrier ops now then we may end up with the RAF lying shiny new Tempest, and a now separated FAA flying F-35s that have already had the wings flown off them.
Whichever national/international programme you look at, 6th Gen will be operationally flying in the mid-late 2040s at the earliest. That means that our end of life / new carriers will be sailing slap bang in the middle of Tempest’s projected lifespan.
I fully agree that drones will be a key part of all air ops by that point (the Tempest programme itself expects as much- it’s a system of systems). But I’m not sure we’ll be at the point of fully unmanned air wings either…
Is the European FCAS carrier capable?
Yep otherwise France would look a bit silly
More than usual?
I think so 🤔 €10 billion on a CVN complete with AAG and EMAL cats without any aircraft is silly even by French standards.
It is a very high bar they have set 😆 Olympics in the Seine takes sone beating.
I don’t know, honestly. I’d imagine not, seeing as Germany would have zero interest in that on paper.
There was that talk of a Franco-German aircraft carrier alliance as the core of some kind of EU superpower navy about a year or so ago. But that seems to have faded away as a European federalist fantasy.
RAF really didn’t, the genesis of the programme with ACF and TKF90 was pretty much what we got. They were after an F/A-18 sized multirole aircraft to replace Jaguar and Phantom in RAFG. There was never any indication that they wanted anything larger. Tornado and Buccaneer replacement were not on the cards for Typhoon. Both were expected to be replaced by something else (FOAS in the 2000’s). The post Cold War drawdown meant that Typhoon ended up doing everything.
Absolutely right gone are the day’s of Jags,Phantoms ,Harrier Lightning ,Buccaner 😞 🇬🇧
Best of times for aircraft shows in the UK – Takes me back 🙁
👍
Indeed, if you really look at the UKs needs, the only real role for a medium land based fighter is NATO air policing missions in Eastern Europe. The rest of the need is based around flying of islands a long way for potential missions and typhoon does not really have the legs for that without tanker support.
If they are going for a heavyweight fighter the size of an f111 it could easily have a range of 6000km, which could allow flights to the gulf of Aden without tanker support..admittedly it’s not likely it could carry much of anything that far…but that point of something like spear three is you don’t need a lot.
GCAP and NGAD may get cancelled soon. What we see is US budget freeze for 2024 for these programs. Is it true, is it a ruse? Can’t tell.
For France and Germany. We will see what come out of the wash. What is known is that France is spending 10 Bn on Rafale evolution (F4.2, 4.3, 5) and one Bn on Scaf till 2030. What exactly will be the SCAF is still debated. Ukraine tells a lot. Pacific is far away. Priorities…
It seem Europe will handle Russia and Iran alone.
GCAP won’t be cancelled.
But it may well get other participants injected into it who no sane nation would want involved.
It seems crazy to me that Europe is about to develop two nearly identical fighter jets. If I had my way, there would still be two. One large twin engine, long, range heavy payload, in other words a stealthy equivalent of the F-15EX. The other would be a stealthy lightweight single engine jet to replace F-16, Mirage 2000 & Gripen.
An interesting thought!
A heavy fighter more like a f14 or F15. Medium fighters are good and the typhoon is a great example but a heavy fighter like an F15 just has so much more range..and for the UKs needs..essentially island based into the North Sea and Atlantic, in the eastern med down to the gulf of Aden and south Atlantic, range will be so useful…when you think an F15 ( which is smaller than the proposed tempest and so tempest may have greater range) can go for 5600km on external fuel tanks…that’s a round trip from Cyprus to the gulf of Aden.
Absolutely, I think this aircraft is a great prospect, The US want longer range aircraft again, It’s the right direction to take to my mind.
Yes will be interesting to see what sort of superior range it might have what with variable cycle engines superior aerodynamics and lighter stronger structure. GEs new tech engines are promising considerable range improvements with similar or better performance than current engines.
You hear it was the Mosquito that could have won us the bomber strike war more decisively sooner less casualties, due to its amazing range and performance if we had gone all out with it in 1942. I see the Tempest as much the same.
If Tempest turns out as the modern equivalent of the Mosquito we’re laughing.
At least this time there is government funding and interest.
….maybe echoing something of Canada’s ill-fated old Avro Arrow large -long-range interceptor design?
To be honest I think the UK would of been better off with either F14 or F15 in mid 80s ,90s rather than Tornado F3 ADV. Did read many years ago that the RAF did do trials on the F14 and suited the role ADV ,range but sadly the Engines we’re said to be unreliable.The RAF Pilot was quoted saying a pair of Rolls Royce Engines would of been better suited to the task .🤔
Hi Andrew, do you know if the RAF did also consider F15 as an option before deciding on Tornado ADV?
I didn’t mate ,what could of been 🤔
Thanks Andrew
Are prodding at a certain person name starting with a J ?
Great article, it’s going to be very interesting to see Tempest development especially if the manned component of NGAD has been canceled. The Franco German FCAS looks increasingly unlikely as well leaving GCAP as the only viable manned 6th generation fighter program.
It’s been a long time since the UK held this kind of lead in aircraft development, hopefully the new government doesn’t squander it to save a few quid.
NGAD hasn’t been cancelled.
I said “if” the manned component has been cancelled. It’s certainly being delayed and re scoped for sure. The navy program is already all but gone and the USAF simply doesn’t have the budget to do NGAD, F35, sentinel and B21.
Something has to give and NGAD looks like the only option.
Well the official line is that it’s being paused so that final development options can be chosen and finalised to prevent later costly changes but hey that could be obscuration I guess. They are certainly not going to say it’s cancelled or decisively delayed or some such humiliating comment so time will tell where the truth lies. I suspect cost/performance balance is the true debate.
Hi Jim. I think its unlikely the USAF will cancel NGAD, your observation on re- scoping seems the plausible reasoning. There are some challenging capability gaps expanding within the USAF- in particular F15C and looming E replacement in a few years . What to do?
The official term is reconsidering but if you read between the lines. At an estimated 300 million each they are looking for major cost savings.
I will be genuinely surprised if they are not floating the collaborative carrot with Tempest but one of the big plus from the Japanese and the U.K. side was not having to bend the knee to the Pentagon.
I have long thought that after the technology demonstrator phase, a merger could be on the cards. Because the costs will be enormous. An aircraft the size of Tempest, even if early versions are more Typhoon under the skin than cutting edge brand new 6th gen, the cost will still be eye watering. And numbers have never been publicly discussed yet, which means it will be small numbers with drones/loyal wingman making up the mass. I don’t think Europe has the money or the market for two competing 6th gen platforms. I still would not rule out a NGAD/Tempest merger later this decade. F35 will dominate the fighter market for years to come. And will employ many 6th gen capabilities as it goes into the 2030’s and 40s. So Tempest has to offer something F35 can’t. And it can. But it will likely come with a very large price tag.
I disagree about F35 dominance. Tech refresh 4 is late and over budget.
It still has range problems and cannot sustain supersonic flight or the paint comes off.
I think a single pilot will struggle to fully utilise loyal wing men .
So if, as I suspect Tempest will have a back seater , it will have many uSP that the F35 cannot begin to compete with.
But we don’t know what its USP is, apart from being large and stealthy. We don’t even know what the official air staff requirement is for Tempest. What the RAF wants it to do. F35 has had its problems, but the order book keeps filling up. It does not have range problems. And can comfortably hit it’s published top speed of M1.6. True top speed is classified. Not that top speed is very important these days. Stealth and situational awareness is king. And F35 offers a capability Air Force’s have not had before. And the lessons from F35, says that an aircraft and capability like Tempest will be very very expensive. There is a place In the market for both types. But we won’t see a 1000+ Tempests in service.
I never said it couldn’t hit its top speed , what I did say is that it cannot sustain it because the stealth skin becomes damaged.
It also makes it stated range as long as it stay subsonic, 1300 miles max range is nowhere near enough in the Pacific unless you use tanker which will be a sitting duck.
Tempest needs to have long leads and sustained high speed
Micheal. The skin does not come off at its top speed. No fast jet can sustain supersonic speed for long because it uses huge amounts of fuel. Even F22 and Typhoon which can both supercruise on dry power, don’t do it for very long. Because it uses a very large amount of fuel. And F35 can sustain M1.2 on dry power if it needs too. All fast jets use/need tanker support for extended time on a sortie . A F35 isn’t going to fly into the heartlands of China. Neither will F22 or F15EX or Super Hornet or Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen. That’s why the Americans have B2’s and B21 and cruise missiles. I’m sure Tempest will carry a large internal fuel load. But not to fly across the Pacific, or fly at M2 for 5 hours. This isn’t top trumps. Or fantasy fighter requirements.
Do I know you? Why are you starting your reply with my name , when it is obvious who your are taking too . Robert!!!
The Pentagon have limited the time the F35 can sustain supersonic speed because.
1) it degrades the skin of the aircraft increasing its RCS
2) structural damage to the antenna on the aircraft, particularly the rear!!
Dick!!
Here was me thinking we were going to have sensible conversation about Tempest. Have a good one Michael.
So was I , Dick
Because I have quickly realised, you don’t know what you are talking about.
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2021/07/16/the-number-of-major-f-35-flaws-is-shrinking-but-the-pentagon-is-keeping-details-of-the-problems-under-wraps/
Don’t I?
Anyone can share a news article link. Nigel Collins did that constantly. He got himself banned In the end.
I am not Nigel Collins, I backed up my statement and the forum moderators let it through.
The F35 did and still does have restrictions regarding super sonic flight and it has zero to do with fuel.
Which btw any body with half a brain know about and why when the Uks QRA Typhoons launch they need a Tanker to meet them on the way back.
An article that’s 3 years old. We have Voyager on alert at Brize Norton that takes off every time the QRA Typhoons are launched, because they can be on task for a good few hours sometimes They also need diversion fuel. It is also good to keep the tanks topped up because it would be a tad embarrassing if we intercept a Bear or a backfire, fly alongside for 5 mins then have to head off to a tanker. All Airforces that hold QRA and have tanker capability do this, regardless of the range, endurance or the fuel capacity of the launching QRA aircraft type. The Americans do this if F22’s or F15C’s/EX are lunched. F16s or F35A’s. Its standard operating procedure if you have the capability to do it.
An article that is three years old but the fact still remains. The US F35 is speed restricted. Therefore I assume so are the rest.
As for fuel burn, it is called basic physics. Go faster, more energy required , faster fuel burn . Simple!!
Yes. I know. Because I told you.
Lmao!!
Yeah right, you keep thinking that , Dick.
I can call you Dick, saying as we are on first name terms apparently!!
Well, the more you message me, Michael, the more you might learn something.
Somehow I very much doubt it.
Dick!!
Well, as you didn’t serve in the RN, I think you just might learn something. Or I could tell you about the engineering achievements of offshore wind. And the many, many talented ex forces personnel that now work in the industry. Because you won’t know anything about that either.
Okay, if you want to go there.
I have no doubt and from my experience with many ex commissioned and non commissioned individuals that their excellent training and experience , UK services personnel can be put to good use in many fields.
As for Wind power as a viable energy source, I have my own opinion.
Nope I didn’t serve but I have degrees in physics and engineering and a couple of post graduates and yes I know a lot about wind, petrochemical as well as civil and military nuclear .
I have had considerable experience with a certain branch of the Royal Navy, which you can guess from the above..
We can continue this tit for tat or call it quits and go our seperate ways , in the firm desire our paths never cross again.
If Germany and France are involved all the usual tropes will emerge.
Every single program the same rubbish stunts are pulled.
Germany has proved a terrible partner in Typhoon. Work share /buy and then killing the dead cert Saudi deal.
France will pull all the usual stunts for design authority have a good look round and walk off in a strop and do its own thing.
makes me worried that labour wants to seek closer “defense integration” with europe tbh… we need to suck it up, stick with japan and italy, fund it properly, then rack up those export sales in the future to allies!
I agree.
Cool calm heads.
This is the cheapest option.
EUROfudge is very expensive. OK Typhoon and Tonka were not EU projects but they may as well have been in a lot of respects.
It’s an interesting question about size vs cost. I’ve read that the US is basing its estimate of $300m per unit on the size requirement. However, there seems to be less of an assumption on that here in the UK. SB even called it misguided in an earlier comment.
Given the emphasis on developing new sensors, comms and computing power, none of which would increase in cost along with size, why would the US think that larger means that much more expensive? Is it coatings or engine costs? What drives the assumption?
I think it’s all the above. I also think here in the UK, industry and the MOD isn’t publicly being open about true costs. Because they know the politics about public spending is a sensitive topic. larger generally does mean more expensive. We haven’t made any cheap large fighters in the past. The sheer complexity of making a large, very stealthy jet with 6th gen capabilities is mind-boggling. F35 is a very good example of a small, very complex jet, but it’s still expensive even when built in numbers. NGAD and Tempest will also likely be built in small numbers. Which will massively drive up costs.
Manned component of NGAD has not been cancelled…
The FCAS will be either Franco-German or Franco-French.
It is increasingly likely to be a Franco-German project.
But it will cost more than a Franco-French project, as is always the case with cooperative projects.
The MGCS is in danger, but the FCAS is likely to go all the way.
France and Germany are putting pressure on the industrials to make the project going “all green”. It’s the only project currently making progress, and not without reason: Germany needs the French on the technical side, while the French need the Germans’ money. (Whereas for the MGCS, the two don’t even know if they want the project…)
Not really that up with the MGCS project but did take a little look… Do you think recent events in Ukraine might have focussed minds on the worthiness of Tanks and spending vast sums?
It’s more a question of future design than whether tanks are worth the effort.
Also the MGCS is not only about a MBT, just like the FCAS, it’s a systems family.
The problem is the same as for aircraft carriers and anti-carrier weapons.
Anti-carrier weapons do not invalidate the usefulness of aircraft carriers, because nothing can totally replace them.
Tanks in their current form are not perfect, but nothing can replace them.
It’s a non debate:
I’m sure there are other things going on that we don’t know about as well. No doubt GCAP will have a long range anti-ship role, like the J-20, and carrying larger, longer range anti-aircraft missiles (all critical for the Japanese). The increased loiter time will be useful for an intelligence / surveillance and as a forward sensor networked to other weapons systems. Now we know why Sweden dropped out, such a large aircraft doesn’t make any sense for them.
Joint missile development with Japan could be just as if not more interesting than the aircraft itself. It’s something that has been severely lacking for us with the USA on F35 even when as with the USMC we have a need to develop options for the F35B together and we even have very high end capable solutions like Meteor, Paveway IV and SPEAR 3 that are not mentioned in the US due to industrial lobbying while the US has options like LRASM that would suit our needs as well. There is zero collaboration on weapons.
The F35 was a clever way to lock us in, and lock us out, so to speak. The partnership with the Japanese looks increasingly like a smart move.
I don’t think any of it was planned and if we proceeded with GCAP then there been no harm caused to British industry. If we don’t proceed with Tempest then it’s a different story, we just become a component manufacturer with no design capability.
The block IV saga has been just as big a problem for the US and it’s industry, they have hardly any modern weapons cleared for F35 as well.
Exactly, I was shocked by the lack of weaponry available to it prior to Block lV almost pitiful in an attack role especially.
5th gen plane with 3rd gen weapons 😀
and yet people are still complaining we didn’t go all in and buy a bunch of early model jets…. for once waiting has actually paid off! (in regards to not having to spend vast sums of money to upgrade them…. at least)
We don’t do any air weapon development with the US due to Asraam, PWIV and Meteor fallout. This was mainly due to US pulling out of Asraam, welching on a deal, and then restricting sales of PWIV and Asraam due to ITAR, despite then selling similar systems to the same countries…(GBU-12 and AIM-9X to Saudi). The UK also wisely smelt a rat when they tried to get into Meteor with a hypothetical ramjet powered Amraam…
If ITAR is involved the UK wants nothing to do with it….nor do Japan or Italy.
The only US air weapons now considered are on a small scale to fill capability gaps. You can see that with Mk.54 on P-8 (although now Stingray is being integrated). The only recent deviation from this is, inevtitably, with the Army and its lack of industrial foresight buying JAGM and APKWS for Apache E….the Army as ever just do not get it in the slightest…
Given that Italy are already part of FC/ASW I would not be surprised if the Japanese bought those missiles along with Spear for their own GCAPs.
We were planning a joint evolution of Meteor with AESA seeker, but I haven’t seen anything on it more recent than a few concept images from years ago.
What we need is to develop a longer range ramjet AAM that uses the whole length that will be available with Tempest.
A sort of AIM174 equivalent using our own technology to properly exploit what will presumably be vastly more capable sensors than we currently have experience with.
JNAAM is jus a test programme. Further development was curtailed by French and Italian objections (France because of France and Italy because they make the Meteor seeker).
But a Meteor mk.2/MLU will be on the way…which will probably have a new seeker.
I thought the Japanese were the ones who wanted AESA Meteor, rather than a European project
I guess long range and heavy payload is of use to us in thinking about covering the GIUK gap. The only downside I suppose is that it reduces the (probably already slim) chances of a carrier alternative?
That might be the bigger long term problem, in 30 years time both Japan and the UK might be looking for a carrier capable jet.
There was never any requirement/intention for GCAP operating from a carrier.
Looking 10-20 years down the line from now, I can see Tempest being the main heavy fighter/bomber, with ground and carrier-launched unmanned fighter escorts. The Tempest would have the range and heavy weapons capability, and the fighter escorts dealing with the air-to-air threats
We are still tasked with covering the GIUK gap by NATO. This is one of the RAF’s key commitments for NATO.
There’s a zero to very slim chance that a carrier version will get modeled. Large area delta wings aren’t great for incorporating a hinge, to reduce the parked footprint. Rafale M’s a good example, it does not have folding wing tips.
Plus the current design does not use canards. Delta wings have in general a higher stall speed. Which means their approach angle of attack is quite high. The canard in this context, helps to generate lift, so the approach angle can be shallower.
I guess the American’s will be looking very closely at this project with a view to taking it head on as it usually does with the lucrative jet fighter market. We must not underestimate the clout the US has in this business and I fear the programme will end up a Japanese/ British effort as Italy’s economy tends to vacillate, to the point, Tempest may be too expensive to continue cooperation. Sadly, the Labour party and new military aircraft projects don’t make good bedfellows, so we will have watch this space.
I might be wrong but I’m pretty sure the American offering will not be erm, offered, just like F22 which puts Tempest at the top of the potential sales league. This is a great opportunity.
Don’t get me wrong, I think this is a great opportunity to revive the British Aircraft Industry a place it once dominated with technological advancements and ingenuity. Qualities we still have in abundance.
With you 100% on all of that.
Agree, UK industry while not large still offers great capability for high end weapons manufacture and our design skills are still world class.
I can’t see the US offering 6th gen aircraft for export.
The bigger threat will come from LM selling F35.
Their marketing department will be working full time to tell everyone that Tempest is not a 6gen aircraft and it’s really just a 5.5 gen aircraft so you may as well buy the F35D.
They will use anything that comes out of NGAD especially all aspect stealth with no vertical stabiliser to make this claim.
It’s exactly what they did against typhoon to keep selling F16.
There is no F35D.
F16 had one vertical stabiliser same as Typhoon.
F35 has two.
Was there ever really a plan to pitch Typhoon against F16 ?
“This is exactly what they did against Typhoon to keep selling F16”
Please post all the links so that we can see where you came up with all that ?
Hello ?
Oh it seems that no links are forthcoming again. How odd. 😂
Perhaps not directly related. There’s been a number of recent aircraft sales pitches. Where the Tyohoon competed against the F16. I think the biggest was the Finnish F18 replacement, that was eventually won by the F35.
There were two US and three European manufacturers involved in the competition that made the initial cut. With Boeing’s Super Hornet and Growler, LM and the F35A, Saab with the Gripen E/F, Rafale and Typhoon.
Lockheed Martin went in with two sales pitches as did Boeing with the Super Hornet and F15. LM with the F35 and a cheaper one with the latest block of F16. The Finns ruled out the F16 and F15 very early on.
Part of Eurofighter’s issue is the unit price is too high. Which is a consequence of lower orders and a smsllwr production line. Even though the F35 is newer, LM has easily sold twice as many aircraft.
“J-20 Mighty Dragon”
It’s like they want us to laugh at them
Media speculation aside, Tempest and AUKUS are both multinational programmes, so actually cancelling them would presumably amount to a treaty violation.
This might be a bit of a silly question, but with an aircraft to be this powerful is there enough energy for incorporating a DEW in place of a cannon? Can all or some of the thrust energy be harnessed and reused?
I thought the article was a good read too.
According to RR, the new engines will be able to generate 10x’s the energy of the Typhoon engines, I’ll be surprised if the Thrust is not a fair % greater too.
From what concepts I have seen DEW are unlikely to be used as offensive weapons in the traditional cannon position.
The main role is projected to be in the rear arc as a sort of hard kill countermeasure to incoming missiles. Because the beam can be steered by moving only a mirror rather than the whole array and can be hidden behind glass in the skin of the aircraft they can be more distributed than a normal gun would be.
RR as Baker said have really pushed the amount of power generation they can make for Tempest and so it’s reasonably safe to predict DEW will be involved somehow.
The stuff I read about the new RR engines is quite amazing in so many ways, Quieter, more powerful, easier to maintain, more efficient and able to self start and generate huge amounts of energy. 6th generation style being developed in fact. GE are doing similar, haven’t a clue what the French/Germans are developing but I assume something on the same lines.
We’ll probably see it all first on a PLAN Aircraft though !!!
doubt it…..engines are not their specialty….. otherwise their j20’s wouldn’t still be hobbled…
If we have another trump presidency I wonder if he will try and pressure Japan to leave the program? As we’ve seen in the past the Americans don’t really like the Japanese having an independent defence industry especially when it comes to avionics.
I think it’s exactly the reason Japan want’s in. US will not sell F22 nor their own version outside the US.
Can’t see a problem with that really.
The bigger problem is if the US vote Trump in again. The bloke is unhinged.
Hello again Scot Parker, It’s great that you replied again as I can now view a few other posts from 6 years ago …..What the heck happened to the Los Palomas Chicken ? He was amazing. Also I see you had conversations with Captain P Wash, DM mentioned him a few months back, I Forgot but now remember…. CPW made me laugh a lot.
“Los Palomas Chicken”
I forgot about that poster!!
The Captain, lately known as Frank….I keep thinking is actually you in your current guise mate.
You have a similar SOH.
The word of the month is weird.
I think she will come close, yes but she may not be all the USA needs at this crucial time. Frankly I’m lost for answers on US politics. they have diverged so much. I think if trump is unhinged its easy to see why. An attack from the left of such virulence and so irrelevant to the real needs of the country which has such a massive debt burden its hard to see a way out.
In essence, the American voting public appear to be poorly served for choice, echoing the recent UK experience.
If you had thrust vectoring on a Grippen ( or similar) would that be able to land / take off from QE carriers? The F35 does the rolling landing thing. A vectored rear and large canards up front would be a lot simpler than a vertical landing system. Could give a manned/unmanned aircraft for small carriers and a short take off and landing aircraft for the Swedes.
Oh no, don’t say that. I was so hoping we would make a real go of this !!!!😂
I will be very surprised if the Japanese have not insisted on some pretty binding section of the treaty to develop Tempest .. Once the final spec is agreed it will be cast in stone and the Japanese will ensure it does not get dumbed down.
They are acutely aware of their tactical situation and that they can no longer count on the US riding to their rescue.
The export potential of Tempest is enormous, Japan, Australia Taiwan , with Korea as well as the NATO nations.
Something Trump never did understand was that being the Top dog in NATO brought huge benefits to US arms sales.
The unpalitable fact is defence spending needs to go north to 3%.
The benefits of Tempest and AUKUS tech in non military applications are enormous.
If anything these projects should be financed outside of the MoD budget.
I’m from Derby and I know a fair few senior (Old like me) engineers from the Aero side of RR who are all say the same thing. Japan are simply brilliant project partners to work with, and the Italians are just plain eager to be cooperative and make sure it all works.
As long as the US has their backs Taiwan will buy whatever the US is selling, S Korea are a different kettle of fish but they don’t play nicely with Japan.
A far cry from the Shinanigans during Typhoon caused by initially the French and latterly the Germans that ended up costing the project, Time money and capability .
As I’ve said before 2 very similar projects in Europe is nuts. Sweden look like it’s going alone with a lighter weight, single engine aircraft again, they may have an entire market all to themselves.
Perhaps but when the U.K. has had a very bitter experience with both France and Germany on similiar projects , I am neither concerned or surprised that there is.
The Germans appear to be doing what the Germans always do so I am very happy they have nothing to do with Tempest and if they do want on board. It is on a take it or leave it basis.
The French are welcome to them.
The direction Kneeler ( formerly Sir Keir) is headed he will shut down daytime TV.
At time of first flight it will be already obsolete…
Do you think Typhoon and F22 are obsolete?
Made obsolete by what exactly ?
Plumb the bomb bays for additional fuel, when it’s being an interceptor.
They didn’t scrap it because it wasn’t allocated any budget.
excellet article
Nobody’s talking about F/A-XX anymore. Is it dead or just resting? Can we expect a USN comeback? They don’t seem too keen on F-35C, so what are they going to do?