Or broker the same deal that the Israelis did as they seem to have significantly more control over their F-35s than most other countries...

Well, if Tempest turns into a real aircraft 10-15 years from now, the partners will be able to integrate whatever they like. Which raises a question - if, for example, India or Brazil ordered some without being a partner, would they be given the codes needed for local integration of weapons? India produces several missiles with loads more coming so I doubt she would be best pleased if she were not able to integrate her own missiles (or others' weapons) on her own air force's aircraft.

LightningZ71 wrote:

Or broker the same deal that the Israelis did as they seem to have significantly more control over their F-35s than most other countries...

For that, you need virtual control of the US Congress or be blood brothers like the UK and Audtrailia. Canada can also get what ever they want. Except for the fact that they often are wishy washy on what they want.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

LightningZ71 wrote:

Or broker the same deal that the Israelis did as they seem to have significantly more control over their F-35s than most other countries...

For that, you need virtual control of the US Congress or be blood brothers like the UK and Audtrailia. Canada can also get what ever they want. Except for the fact that they often are wishy washy on what they want.

bt

Was UK offered the codes to integrate Meteor? If so, why is LM doing it?

art wrote:

Was UK offered the codes to integrate Meteor? If so, why is LM doing it?

My guess is it's a business decision.

The US government can provide the interface (they control that) but aircraft side intellectual property still belongs to LM.

So it would be a business decision if LM set up a UK subsidiary to do the work. Just speculating as I do not know the detail of that contract.

I do know that Boeing set up operation in UK to do the Wedgetail contract. IP still belongs to Boeing and the RAAF, but the work is done in the UK.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

art wrote:

Was UK offered the codes to integrate Meteor? If so, why is LM doing it?

My guess is it's a business decision.

The US government can provide the interface (they control that) but aircraft side intellectual property still belongs to LM.

bt

The 'special' relationship is not so special, is it? I recall the UK came close to pulling out of the F-35B about 15 years ago when it became clear that US would not share codes to enable UK to interface weapons. I recall seeing a British admiral talking to a committee in the US Congress about this. I thought US had changed its mind but clearly not so if US is doing Meteor integration.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uk ... ons-01549/

LM may have agreed to supply codes to UK. I don't know, but agreements with US are worth nothing if Congress can decide that they are not valid. In a nutshell, you cannot trust the US where defence is concerned..

Comment moved to private message - off topic.

bt

The head of the Italian Air Force will travel to Japan next month to hold talks with his Japanese counterpart about collaboration on sixth-generation fighter technology.

PS article published in Sep so visit is scheduled for this month.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... hter-jets/

Another sign of Tempest/F-X sharing systems in the future? I think that is looking more probable.

art wrote:

The head of the Italian Air Force will travel to Japan next month to hold talks with his Japanese counterpart about collaboration on sixth-generation fighter technology.

PS article published in Sep so visit is scheduled for this month.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... hter-jets/

Another sign of Tempest/F-X sharing systems in the future? I think that is looking more probable.

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/10/on- ... th-allies/
and possibly with the NGAD

Air Force officials have hinted there may be opportunities for the US and its allies to co-develop technologies that could be “associated” with future tactical aircraft — specifically the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones that will operate alongside the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) manned fighter, as well as the mission systems inside the fighter itself.

Purported translation of an article published by Yahoo Japan...

Source (in Japanese): https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/002d7 ... 9f1ae56964

Joint development of Next-generation fighter by Japan, Britain, and Italy, agreement to be reached next month, future export in mind

The government has decided to jointly develop a successor to the Air Self-Defense Force's F2 fighter with Britain and Italy. A formal agreement is expected next month. With an eye on exports after development, along with the revision of the three security-related documents, the government plans to review the operational guidelines for the "Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment," which permit the export of weapons under certain conditions, with the aim of exporting them in the future.

I'm not sure whether the intention is to develop a single aircraft instead of two (F3 and Tempest). Whichever, Tempest's chances of turning into a real, live aircraft look to be greatly enhanced to me.

art wrote:

Purported translation of an article published by Yahoo Japan...

Source (in Japanese): https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/002d7 ... 9f1ae56964

Joint development of Next-generation fighter by Japan, Britain, and Italy, agreement to be reached next month, future export in mind

The government has decided to jointly develop a successor to the Air Self-Defense Force's F2 fighter with Britain and Italy. A formal agreement is expected next month. With an eye on exports after development, along with the revision of the three security-related documents, the government plans to review the operational guidelines for the "Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment," which permit the export of weapons under certain conditions, with the aim of exporting them in the future.

I'm not sure whether the intention is to develop a single aircraft instead of two (F3 and Tempest). Whichever, Tempest's chances of turning into a real, live aircraft look to be greatly enhanced to me.

Agreed. It might be a slightly different looking aircraft incorporating some F-X elements. Not a bad thing as the F-X (renders at least) looks a bit more elegant than the Tempest.

Rishi Sunak (UK prime minister) is set to announce a collaboration between the UK, Italy and Japan to develop a new fighter jet that uses artificial intelligence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63908284

art wrote:

Rishi Sunak (UK prime minister) is set to announce a collaboration between the UK, Italy and Japan to develop a new fighter jet that uses artificial intelligence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63908284

The Swedes are out?

TheSonntag wrote:

Somehow it seems to me (from a German perspective) that Tempest and FCAS are a lost chance. Or rather said, the Germans and Spanish should have stayed with Tempest, which is more or less a EF Typhoon successor. FCAS seems to much dominated by French interests.

Perhaps with the recent FCAS agreement all is good (or at least better) for Germany. If not, soon is the time to change course. Japan was prepared to invest $40+ billion into a 6G aircraft. That is a lot.

PS Tempest programme has become Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP)

art wrote:

Rishi Sunak (UK prime minister) is set to announce a collaboration between the UK, Italy and Japan to develop a new fighter jet that uses artificial intelligence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63908284

Depending on what is actually announced, this is pretty huge, especially if, say, Japan is announced as a truly 'full partner'. Lots of both geopolitical and industrial implications, if that's so.

TheSonntag wrote:

Somehow it seems to me (from a German perspective) that Tempest and FCAS are a lost chance. Or rather said, the Germans and Spanish should have stayed with Tempest, which is more or less a EF Typhoon successor. FCAS seems to much dominated by French interests.

History repeating with the early days of what became the EF Typhoon.
It is perfectly possible to have successful programs with France, I should know as many will be aware of my involvement in its later service with perhaps the most famous example of Anglo-French cooperation. There were others, the Jaguar aircraft and several, including ongoing ones, guided weapons. France and Germany had the Alpha Jet but not a frontline combat aircraft.
If it is an equal partnership at least.

The exception to an extent was and is Airbus (as long as it was headquartered in Toulouse), though the UK’s in and out history there, in particular early on, was also a factor. But with military programs it’s different.

With a more dispersed nationally program they like to leverage an assumed superiority in technology, they wanted a disproportionate share of what became Typhoon including all the leading technology parts, plus size limits for their then 30,000 ton aircraft carriers.

With that in mind and now FCAS, I was not overwhelmed with sympathy with the row around the ANKUS submarine project, there is a thread on that so suffice to say the Australians began to see promises on industrial involvement there start to be broken, plus the whole selling a pup of a design.

accentra wrote:

Depending on what is actually announced, this is pretty huge, especially if, say, Japan is announced as a truly 'full partner'. Lots of both geopolitical and industrial implications, if that's so.

What I have read on several Italian news websites is that GCAP is going to be a balanced partnership with the three Countries owning equal shares.

How this mechanism will work in case of further partners joining, it's not specified at the moment.

In any case, Italy and UK have a good list of success stories on this field, with Tornado, Eurofighter, AW-101 joint developments, not to mention Leonardo which is obviously a quite consolidated reality.

Japan needs reliable partners (and having a good track record helps the choice) and can bring on the table money and expertise.
Furthermore Japan is already sending some of their pilots to train at the IFTS (International Flight Training School) in Italy, where they can train on the T-346 and this existing collaboration may have helped as well.

Let's see how these two European projects will progress but if I have to bet on one, that would be the Tempest without hesitation.

Thought provoking article from Richard Aboulafia of all people, particularly regarding export potential.

https://richardaboulafia.com/november-2022-letter

Japan, Sweden sign deal for possible GCAP co-operation

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/air- ... w-70529694

To liken things to JSF, I wonder if Japan, Italy, UK will be Level 0 partners, Sweden and possibly others Level 1.

Italian industry signs Tempest / GCAP contracts

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... er-project

All major aerospace supplier appear to be onboard.

art wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

art wrote:

Was UK offered the codes to integrate Meteor? If so, why is LM doing it?

My guess is it's a business decision.

The US government can provide the interface (they control that) but aircraft side intellectual property still belongs to LM.

bt

The 'special' relationship is not so special, is it? I recall the UK came close to pulling out of the F-35B about 15 years ago when it became clear that US would not share codes to enable UK to interface weapons. I recall seeing a British admiral talking to a committee in the US Congress about this. I thought US had changed its mind but clearly not so if US is doing Meteor integration.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uk ... ons-01549/

LM may have agreed to supply codes to UK. I don't know, but agreements with US are worth nothing if Congress can decide that they are not valid. In a nutshell, you cannot trust the US where defence is concerned..

Does MDBA then needs to provide Meteor's source code or can the integration be done with only some insight into the missile's systems ?

In fact I thought one advance of the F35 was that no source code was needed to integrate new stuff as it was modular or something ?

Aesma wrote:

art wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

My guess is it's a business decision.

The US government can provide the interface (they control that) but aircraft side intellectual property still belongs to LM.

bt

The 'special' relationship is not so special, is it? I recall the UK came close to pulling out of the F-35B about 15 years ago when it became clear that US would not share codes to enable UK to interface weapons. I recall seeing a British admiral talking to a committee in the US Congress about this. I thought US had changed its mind but clearly not so if US is doing Meteor integration.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uk ... ons-01549/

LM may have agreed to supply codes to UK. I don't know, but agreements with US are worth nothing if Congress can decide that they are not valid. In a nutshell, you cannot trust the US where defence is concerned..

Does MDBA then needs to provide Meteor's source code or can the integration be done with only some insight into the missile's systems ?

In fact I thought one advance of the F35 was that no source code was needed to integrate new stuff as it was modular or something ?

It's annoying, I put it partly down to while the UK got a good slice of work being a major partner from the start, it did not include a Final Assembly Line in the UK.
That might not seem directly related to source codes but leverage, or maybe the UK government did not pay sufficient attention to this issue?

Worth remembering though, Meteor only exists due to the UK resisting US pressure.
It is pan European but UK initiated and led, when in the late 1990's consideration was being given to what would be the medium range AAM for Typhoon to supplement and eventually replace AMRAAM, the choice was between a proposal that became Meteor and an improved AIM-120.

The US offered some work on these advanced AMRAAM's, with the added advantage of AIM-120 in earlier versions being in RAF and RN service and still being procured.
Clinton lobbied hard, telling Blair in one letter that he feels very strongly about this.
Nonetheless, the proposed new AAM was picked and the project began.