Tempest jet investment ‘significantly less than required’

And you can guarantee that there will be endless committees filled by mates of mates, enabled to endlessly examine the issues, the whys the what’s and the wherefores, eventually are many false deadlines, come up with inconclusive 1000 page out of date reports which just delay it further and add to the costs until we are told the program will continue in some form but focus on bringing the technology into other projects rather than that originally envisioned which will no doubt be called the Camel I fear. Which over time Boris and his then current cronies, will sell us is thoughtfully named after yet another classic British fighter but in reality is just a horse designed by a very political committee.

But then to a degree it has achieved Boris’s main desire to disguise as Brexit came to fruition Britain looking like a lonely outcast from the European alternative program with the bad look of at least two former partners jumping ship from previous collaborations to team up with that historical competitor France, making us look like a technological loser and dead end post Brexit. Potentially worse still even soon after potentially leading to our biggest technological employer considering quitting the Country to establish a new headquarters across the pond. The death knell to any hope Boris and co would have to establish a positive Post Brexit legacy and success story before it hardly got out of the stalls. So one fears it’s a matter of feeding in enough cash to maintain a semblance of seriousness and commitment, delay any embarrassing fallout and hope that we can establish enough partners elsewhere, if that appearance is upheld long enough to keep the programme viable longer term. Or if not then to move the fallout from its no doubt disguised discontinuance as far from the European exit as possible while no doubt in usual phony bluster, talk up its ‘replacement’ as a new improved cooperation with a US or European programme which in reality we would be a minor partnership. Time will tell, I do hope I’m wrong.

There are familiar elements here, such as TSR2, which became a political hot potato leading to its eventual demise. The internal dogma you describe is so true, no one wants to be ultimately responsible, so the onus of leadership is shared through what is termed, ‘Team players’ thus dissipating the blame for failure. One possible way to develop Tempest would be to pay a company to develop and present to more than one country, an off-the-shelf prototype package. The UK’s current jet trainer was created that way. Admittedly, the cost would be horrendous minus the Whitehall internal cost, which could be considerable?

if u haven’t got anything relevant to add to the convo. then don’t even post anything at all.

Ha  😆 

Or do some research yourself, your a big boy, grow up a bit, and learn a few facts before adding school boy posts on this site. Google is a fantastic tool. Or buy the key Publishing magazine ‘Typhoon To Tempest ‘ for 114 pages of lovely Tempest developments and technology.

Like you Keyboard Warrior, you think any Tempest info is out there, its going to use the New Radar developed for the Typhoon, out of date kit. will have a Price tag on par with a F22. WORD COUNT JORNOS writing information a school boy could produce.

So you don’t know anything about Typhoon Mk2 radar then. It will be a special bit of kit, and anything but outdated.

Hi Robert, you may already know it but if not then Tempest radar will be more advanced than Typhoon Mk2.
https://www.defensenews.com/home/2021/01/15/secrets-of-tempests-ground-breaking-radar-revealed/

Thanks for the link mate, I’ll take a look. I new it wasn’t planned to use Mk2 for Tempest, but haven’t seen much detail on what It potentially will use. Mk2 will transform Typhoon capability though. 👍

Let’s hope this project is kept in check and doesn’t follow many other defence screw up projects

Are any of them green? What do the actual colours all mean. I’m colour blind so actually couldn’t see any green. Is that right or just my wonky eyes and brain?
For example spearfish has a red dot. I thought that program has went ok and been delivered?

MS wrote:
“What do the actual colours all mean.”


The actual key:

Thanks for this farouk,

Not much if any green on any of the programmes. We have a low tax and in many cases a low wage economy and a big wish list, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

However, if the Treasury would include the tax return on UK expenditure in their spending assessments then perhaps they would be more willing to fund these projects properly. That might enable UK based businesses to then export stuff on the back of success, which would hopefully be reflected in higher tax returns and wages.

Penny pinching never works.

Cheers CR

Treasury has agreed to include economic benefits of domestic procurement in either review or command paper. Quinn confirmed in last Def questions in Parliament. At least for shipbuilding. Future FSS.

Low tax, LOL, that’s a good un

Thanks farouk. Lots of commitments beyond just shiny toys, Tanks, Ships and Planes.

Thats why the USAF set the bar lower for the B21 its seen how asking for the moon on sick impacts programs and results in reduced numbers or cancelled programs.

Comparing the T7 to a F35 program is moot. The T7 is purely a trainer with the potential for light ground attack and self defence. It is pretty basic aerodynamically and not that far removed from a F5/F20. It has absolutely no concern for a reduced observability or being able to communicate stealthily etc.

You can easily design a jet trainer type of aircraft in a year with today’s CFD, analytics and flight simulation. The hard part is the system integration if you want it to do anything complex. If you now include a reduced RCS requirement, it can affect the aircraft’s design and stability. So time has to be spent re-evaluating the design to mitigate the RCS reduction. Embedded RAM helps here as before they couldn’t be used in high stress areas like wing skins. 3D CAD has also helped massively with the fit and routing of cabling and piping, as well as the location of internal systems that don’t get in the way of other systems.

The rapid process used for the T7 can only be used so far. It is usually avionic systems that hold up the development and production. Engines although a major part of the aircraft can be replaced with other manufacturers products. A good example of system integration problems is Crowsnest. There were a few issues with the Merlin’s airframe when attaching the radar. But these have been solved now. The major holdup is that new management system is talking properly with the newish Searchwater 2000 back end. There’s nothing wrong with the radar per se, just how the information is displayed and used.

So if we consider Tempest. A lot of the systems will be integrated and tested on the ground. Then they’ll probably be fitted to an airliner where there’s space for data recording. The issue comes when trying to package it all together in a small airframe. For example when Typhoon was fitted with the early version of Captor. It continuously broke down, which was attributed to a lack of cooling. Through various modifications it was fixed so that it is pretty reliable these days, but it took a good number of years to sort out.

With Tempest being a supposed 6th gen aircraft, the technological goalposts are being stretched again. The F35 has shown what is possible with sensor fusion and data management. The Tempest will be more of the above, but with hopefully more open architecture. I can understand LMs reluctance to open the coding on the F35. As everything talks to each other, they have to be super careful, that nothing can corrupt any system, for example how the flight control system (FCS) interacts with the engine management system and vice versa. But now we hang a new weapon on the aircraft. It will be communicated through the weapons controller (WC), depending on the weapon’s complexity, it may continuously update it with go/no go health data. The WC will talk to the FCS telling it mass and CoG, so it can work out the aircraft’s dynamic trim. Then the weapon is used, requiring the FCS to alter the dynamic trim. A lot of this seems relatively simple, but if we now include the weapon to be internally carried you have to consider opening a door, extending a rack, will there be any G limitations with the door open. What happens if the weapon’s exhaust is ingested by the engine etc.

These all take time research and evaluate. It took LM less than 4 years to design and produce the X35, but nearly 10 years to get the first proper production F35 ready. It still isn’t fully operationally ready as the Block upgrades prove. I am hoping that with Tempest there is less red tape. US aircraft manufacturers in particular are really inflexible when it comes to their product. With Typhoon we always had the problem of getting each partner Nation to agree on a modification, even it was just for a drawing update with a new part number. I am hoping that Tempest removes a lot of the red tape that hampers Typhoon thereby speeding up design and build process.

Hi Daveyb, is this potentially an area where Saab’s experience with the Gripen could be informative? Specifically the way in which the FCS coding is kept separate from the sensor and weapons code, so an avionics or weapons upgrade/addition doesn’t result in a lengthy flight safety re-certification.

Saab also use a lot of UK products in Gripen so no doubt have a good working relationship with Tempest project participants already which is good.

I am ever hopeful.

It is the active electronic countermeasure that the Gripen E/F currently uses that would also be a major benefit for the Tempest program.

Define home defence? As any force without the capability and ability to choose the ground, time and location, for offensive actions will lose every single time. A genuine question, how do you define and equip for home defence? Your thoughts would be interesting, thanks.

Home defence is usually a shotgun or an AR-15. Or maybe a 9mm.

Not entirely convinced by your logic Karl, the Europeans went through Africa like an exocet because they had guns against spears. Surely the Africans were trying to defend their homes.

I’m not saying that the UK does it all right (we know it doesn’t) but we do need to have skin in the game if we want to have our own defence industry and on the back of that sell lots of stuff to make money.

Broadly I agree, partly because I sense we are on the cusp of an entirely new era. A.I. is here. I rather thought Poseidon would be replaced by drones; not Taranis but the much more to me significant Mantis. I think the ‘human in the loop’ will replace the one in the bunk bed. In defence terms the British have lost a sense of their historic past and the 20th century’s wars fought to the finish. We excel in small elite forces used ‘just in time’ and diplomacy, the ability to rally friends and compromise; not very stirring or exciting but it served us well.

“Stop thinking we matter?” What kind of rubbish is this? I usually just ask questions rather than get into arguments on here but what kind of rubbish is this. Like it or not unless u want a world ruled by Russia and China where you won’t be free to post online then we are helping usa police the world, yes we make mistakes but it’s better than alternative, at least we try unlike most of Europe that like a frog would sit in pot of water gradually getting hotter until too late.

Doing CAS with platform like that is great for afghans but for country that next week could be fighting a peer conflict, we don’t have the cash for a high/low mix in the RAF so the uav swill have to do, other platforms need to be able to fly in peer war

It may be cheaper but i always think of the Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a cage by ISIS. Spend the money and keep our pilots safe.

Agreed in regard to enough airframes for a decent level of CAS, and this will not likley change in the near future. However I do think, from experience, that a prop airframe for CAS, in the Afghan situation would not have been the best option. Yes cheaper, less logistic chain etc but the effect for the end user will be the issue. Most of my available assets were US, but the cloggies, French and RAF were also available most times.

The problem was whatever asset I would have allocated, if a TIC went of elswhere, then I would (possibly) lose that asset and on occasion not be replaced. However the issue with a light turbo prop is both range and load of ordnance available, and speed of response. If I lost an asset, then it could be replaced, fast, from elsewhere in theatre. Plus, I have more options of ordnance, to include low and fast gun run, or fly by, where with a Tucano (for example) that risk is greater for the airframe. Like you said, its all about risk, and effect, and in my opinion (and most others) a light turbo prop was not a good idea at that time. Things change and it may be decided in the future we may need one, but greater minds than mine will decide that, cheers.

For the Afghanis, it probably is the right aircraft. There’s a few other light close air support aircraft on the market, like the Pucara. But all the light CAS aircraft have a similar range and performance. The next step up would be jet trainer aircraft that has a decent light attack option, like the Hawk or M346. The issue here is that they are a big step up in complexity and maintenance compared to a Tucano. Something the Afghanis even with contractor help will struggle with. Mind you the ways things are going, there won’t be any contractors mad enough to work out there.

The problem with close air support is that the other side gets a vote. If they are technically savy and have a MANPAD, life can be difficult for a CAS pilot. This means they either require very good DAS or they attack from a stand-off distance away from the threat. Which has implications on getting a good designation or eyes on the target.

As you say it is down to risk. If the issue is counter insurgency, asymmetric warfare in a failing country or peer vs peer. Each have their own peculiar risks and may need their own type of aircraft to provide support.

Medium to high flying bomb trucks would work well where there’s next to no SAM threat, but would be easy meat in a peer conflict. Thereby a balanced response is called for. The Reaper/Protector will be ok for use in places like Afghan or Mali if used in quantities. They have the same issue of a slow top speed, therefore if the aren’t on station their response time is not great. Using Typhoon and F35 in places like Mali is overkill. They have great response time but crap on station times if not aerial refuelled. If the threat was against a peer, you would hopefully have lots of artillery support on hand anyway.

If we had the funding, I think there is a case for a dedicated “strategic” bomber that has a really long set of legs that can also be used for the CAS role, where its safe to do so. With a high subsonic cruising speed and operating altitude it could get where its needed pretty quickly. But also with a large payload that doesn’t need topping up every half hour. I wonder if the USAF are selling off any B1s soon?

CAS or wandering marauders sometimes they are unable or just gung-ho to distinguish Friendlies as was the case OP Granby 1991 Kuwait even with British markings .That’s why we Should be able to conduct our own Close Air Support and not constantly rely on our Allies it pains Me to think we’re forever being psychic up with promises from whichever Party is in power and then the Rug is pulled away with some Lame excuse. And the Boots on the ground or the guys in the Air come off second best .And that’s all I’m saying on the matter

Wandering marauder? One on let me assure you CAS has improved somewhat from then but it’s also a very complicated and technical aspect of OS and mistakes happen, by every country conducting it, it did in Afghanistan and it still will in other areas of conflict.

Spot on, B52 on station for what could seem ages, and a number of options offered in payload. Apaches, mmmm not a great fan, unless already there, could be quite a while to get overhead, however my best asset, was the 3 x 105mms back at the FOB, with the 81mms……have to give the FOO and the MFC some credit lol. The “re-wired” and close nit FST was the best thing to come out of Afghan in regard to OS thats for sure, however always, always busy!!!!! Cheers mate.

Yes, it was bonkers having separate bods to doing pretty much the same task.

A b52 syle plane is a no go for the UK, way too expensive. We kinda need to think out of the box and start realising that a ground support aircraft does not also need to be able to do air-to-air. There was talk a while back about making a gunship version of the A400m, maybe that is an option for medium range stand off attacks without having to spend a futune maintaining a new expensive fighter/bomber.

I don’t know what happened to the targetting pods from the harriers/tornadoes but that is a good start if they can be reused at very little cost.

I agree a cheaper option would be to use an A400 in much the same role as a USMC C130 Harvest Hawk. However, it removes at least one aircraft from doing it proper job of being a transport. If we are getting rid of the Hercs’, then the A400 will have to take up the slack. Do we have enough A400s to spare?

In a few years time the USAF will be pensioning off the B1s, perhaps we could put a word in?

And what has the RAF got in the box for CAS that has the ability to remain on station have an adequate payload it’s own defensive capability (20mmAden cannon the Late great Harrier) retired before its time

That’s why we all use allies, we use each others strengths to mitigate each others weakness.

Mate assets could be over 10k AGL dropping paveways, its not all about rockets or guided missiles as any sort of missile, for CAS will have a too small a warhead to be effective. The best rockets we utilised were the RA GMLRS from Bastion. CAS is complicated and the simple expectation of a missile or rocket to be effective does not take into account the numbers and types of targets. In fact a “dumb” inert training bomb, can be used, and was used, to reduce any sort of collateral damage, due simply to the kinetic energy imparted.

Enhanced Paveway 4 and Brimstone 2 are perfect for CAS. Extremely accurate, and low collateral when you need it.

do you really want to be out done by the French? if yes then. What wrong with you?

Thanks. Nothing positive seems to be coming from Italy and Sweden impression seems to be that they just see it as chance to get £ from HMG. Maybe we’ll hear something when CSG21 gets to Japan.

What would you expect to hear from Italy though?

Sweden may want their own airframe design but they are likely to leverage avionics, radar and engine technology if they don’t use the same airframe. For example they might license build the same engine but use in a single engine fighter.

I agree. For Sweden in particular, the Tempest would be a complete operational concept change. The model that BAe have produced is not a STOL aircraft. So it wouldn’t meet the Swedes requirements of operating from short roads etc. The likelihood is that Tempest will spawn a couple of aircraft, a heavyweight and lightweight. These would be direct replacements for Typhoon and Gripen, thereby meeting each Country’s requirements. The aircraft will share manufacturing processes, avionics, engines etc.
However, the main issue I have with this method is costs. Two airframes = higher costs, therefore less affordable airframes. Will we be able to afford a 1 for 1 Typhoon replacement?

I haven’t seen a breakdown on how much of a modern aircraft comprises the airframe cost versus the cost of what goes in it and on it. Looking at the F-35 program it seems its taken many more years developing the systems, especially software, than the airframe and we’re not done on those software costs yet. Its sobering to reflect that the F-35 first flew late 2006 and we probably won’t have Block 4 done until 2026, two decades later.

If we can keep to the Tempest programme intent of a fast development cycle, automated manufacturing and use of modern manufacturing techniques, such as additive manufacturing, all to reduce costs, then it may be possible to significantly reduce the airframe cost while leveraging the combined volumes of two aircraft for the rest.

To this day I still believe the two interviews of BAES and the RAF at the 2018 public launch provide some of the best guidance on the critical requirements for Tempest, with both stressing the importance of low cost.

First BAES:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogAtFy3q3xk

Second the RAF :- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utanRbCOfI8

Which is what you said. Sorry sometimes reading all the comments is like working my way through a book.

Major high value job losses in sensitive regions if that happens, not sure any political party will want to own that. Of all the defence industries to be in for the UK, aerospace is definitely it, where it dominates our defence exports. WW leads in avionics, radar, and defense aids from Leonardo. WW leading weapons from MBDA UK. A very exclusive club for state of the art jet engines in RR’s case.

Its ironic how many suggest exiting Tempest given the hysteria on this site about the need to build our own military vehicles when every man and his dog are building them nowadays.

Even shipbuilding is sketchy with a future that looks increasingly like a service industry selling design and management skills for foreign build. The industry has a chance but it has to embrace and be successful in commercial business. It cannot rely solely on government contracts.

I’m not suggesting exiting Tempest just that security of the project is not guaranteed .Their are some politicians who don’t see this as we do have complete contempt for defense and for example think Green jobs could replace complex military investments. We were a world leader in aircraft design and manufacture now fast just production relies on Tempest alone. And 100% agree military investment should be a catalyst to create commercial opportunities not the only way industry can survive.

I do apologise Airborne the thread is slightly misleading as I was a surface skimmer (Navy ) what I was trying to put across was that successive Government give with One hand and take away with a bloody Dumper truck with the other ie you can have a payrise but the equipment you have will have to do in all eventualities One example Action working dress number 8s were cotton flame resistant a tad to expensive MODs solution Nylon Shirts and trousers alright for those behind a desk in Whiehall Not for us During OP Corporate FALKLANDS CAMPAIGN How many Lads carry the scars of molten Nylon burns due to Fecking cost cutting .Then 1983 we were re equipped with Cotton fire retardant AWDress The Money is always there but the bookkeepers at the treasury don’t like signing off the cheques

Correct mate, whatever funding you think your getting for “new” has generally been taken from other necessary, but “kicked the can down the road” projects. Nothing in this world for free, and most certainly not in the defence budget world.

Amen and thanks Airborne

Agree completely. There is isn’t a lot of value in these reports at the early stages of a project. This one has already provoked undeserved criticism on this site.

Not unusual TBF.

Made sure the RN were getting the carriers and that they were to be built at Rosyth. Which just happens to be in his constituency.

In part correct but actually most of the carriers were made else where in the UK and assembled in Rosyth which was far from the biggest share of their cost. Only place able to do so other than H&W in NI which was almost dead by then.