UK unveils new Tempest fighter jet model

A model of the UK's planned new fighter jet, the Tempest, has been unveiled at the Farnborough Air Show.

The UK's Defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson, said the jet could be used with either pilots or as a drone.

The aircraft, which will eventually replace the existing Typhoon fighter jet, will be developed and built by BAE Systems, engine maker Rolls-Royce and Italy's Leonardo.

Mr Williamson said the UK would be investing £2bn in the new project.

The hope is to see it flying by 2035.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44848294

£2bn ??? What is it?

2 000 000 000?

A moderately updated Typhoon?

Or is it Italian Billion? 2 000 000 000 000?

Mortyman wrote:

UK unveils new Tempest fighter jet model

A model of the UK's planned new fighter jet, the Tempest, has been unveiled at the Farnborough Air Show.

The UK's Defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson, said the jet could be used with either pilots or as a drone.

The aircraft, which will eventually replace the existing Typhoon fighter jet, will be developed and built by BAE Systems, engine maker Rolls-Royce and Italy's Leonardo.

Mr Williamson said the UK would be investing £2bn in the new project.

The hope is to see it flying by 2035.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44848294

Seems like a random bit of morale injection for the UK. I don't see ANY specifications or requirements listed. Literally not a single number (and there are many many articles floating around in the past hour or so.)

It looks like a giant F-35, at least from the renderings in another article. Single engine, stealth, twin tail... with the UK already spending loads of cash on F-35 acquisition, it's got me scratching my head a bit. One rendering even shows a carrier-based variant. Why would they want to spend all the $$$$ on R&D after LM and the US have already done so (with an aircraft they are also heavily invested in!)

Again - seems like propaganda to me, they say they'd like to see if flying alongside the F-35 by 2035 implying it should have enough of a capability advantage to justify flying both types concurrently.

As far as manned and unmanned capability - this seals the deal on the propaganda spin for me. There's really no such thing as a good aircraft that can be both at the same time, and no advantages either - unless you're talking loiter time, but unless RR has some star-trek ion propulsion system I'm unaware of, you'd essentially have to quadruple the range of existing state-of-the-art designs before you really worry about fatigue issues, and even then their F-35s on-order are capable of refueling long past human endurance limit! The systems and environmental/visual requirements for a manned aircraft make them exponentially more complicated and expensive, as well as limiting range, increasing RCS significantly (ie. cockpit) and impacting maintenance costs dramatically as well. There isn't a single instance where I could see this being an advantage. If you have an aircraft that's capable of being manned, the only time you'd take the "man" out of it is if you were seriously concerned on their odds of survival - doesn't sound like any mission/aircraft I'd want to be a part of in that scenario!

Perhaps in 5 years or so, a more specific requirement and specification will exist for the aircraft - one which has a clear advantage over the F-35 in the long run, but for now.. I shall remain scratching my head.

As said from Monty Python as the troupe looked upon Camelot Castle: "It's just a model."

Nice to see them reuse the WW2 naming and succession, tho.

This is very exciting news. The mock-up looks really nice. Hopefully this comes to fruition.

From Gavin Williamson MP (Twitter):

estorilm wrote:

One rendering even shows a carrier-based variant.

Found quite a few links with renderings, but not a naval carrier variant. Could you post the link, please. Would explain why wing area seems enormous compared to the size. From the pictures I'd guess it's somewhere in the middle between the F-35 and F-22. Maybe 16.50-17.50m?

Ugh apparently they learned no lessons from Iran’s 2013 debacle. The only thing they didn’t do was put a full sized man in comically small shell.

estorilm wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

UK unveils new Tempest fighter jet model

A model of the UK's planned new fighter jet, the Tempest, has been unveiled at the Farnborough Air Show.

The UK's Defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson, said the jet could be used with either pilots or as a drone.

The aircraft, which will eventually replace the existing Typhoon fighter jet, will be developed and built by BAE Systems, engine maker Rolls-Royce and Italy's Leonardo.

Mr Williamson said the UK would be investing £2bn in the new project.

The hope is to see it flying by 2035.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44848294

Seems like a random bit of morale injection for the UK. I don't see ANY specifications or requirements listed. Literally not a single number (and there are many many articles floating around in the past hour or so.)

It looks like a giant F-35, at least from the renderings in another article. Single engine, stealth, twin tail... with the UK already spending loads of cash on F-35 acquisition, it's got me scratching my head a bit. One rendering even shows a carrier-based variant. Why would they want to spend all the $$$$ on R&D after LM and the US have already done so (with an aircraft they are also heavily invested in!)

Again - seems like propaganda to me, they say they'd like to see if flying alongside the F-35 by 2035 implying it should have enough of a capability advantage to justify flying both types concurrently.

As far as manned and unmanned capability - this seals the deal on the propaganda spin for me. There's really no such thing as a good aircraft that can be both at the same time, and no advantages either - unless you're talking loiter time, but unless RR has some star-trek ion propulsion system I'm unaware of, you'd essentially have to quadruple the range of existing state-of-the-art designs before you really worry about fatigue issues, and even then their F-35s on-order are capable of refueling long past human endurance limit! The systems and environmental/visual requirements for a manned aircraft make them exponentially more complicated and expensive, as well as limiting range, increasing RCS significantly (ie. cockpit) and impacting maintenance costs dramatically as well. There isn't a single instance where I could see this being an advantage. If you have an aircraft that's capable of being manned, the only time you'd take the "man" out of it is if you were seriously concerned on their odds of survival - doesn't sound like any mission/aircraft I'd want to be a part of in that scenario!

Perhaps in 5 years or so, a more specific requirement and specification will exist for the aircraft - one which has a clear advantage over the F-35 in the long run, but for now.. I shall remain scratching my head.

Maybe, maybe not. I do remember seeing a full scale mock up of the Advanced Combat Aircraft at this show in 1982.
It eventually became the EFA, then later named as Typhoon.
Changes happened on that path, the ACA's side intakes were moved to the config. we know from Typhoon, twin tails became a single one.
But the ACA was the start, BAe (as it then was) could have built it alone, they did build a technology demonstrator, with those changes, which I saw fly at this show in 1986.
It had the single tailplane, engines from a Tornado F.3 and other 'off the shelf' items, it was a technology demonstrator not a combat aircraft prototype after all.

However it has been Treasury policy, for over 50 years, not to fund national major military combat aircraft programs, preferring UK being a major partner in multi national ones.
This concept it seems, takes that on board, might even morph into planned work with SAAB.

Not seen at any show, was the 'Replica' full sized low observable concept, built in 1999 and declassified in 2003.
Never a flying machine, it did however demonstrate that BAE could build a LO aircraft's structure, it was tested for LO too.
This was BAE's 'in' to the JSF, it's how BAE got a Tier 1 stake in that program out of proportion to the money they initially put in. (They also provided LM with some advanced production line technology developed for Typhoon).

Agreed anything flying is a long way off, it might not totally resemble (as the history outlined above has shown), any final flying machine.
But I would not write it off as a 'morale booster' either - see that history with BAe/BAE and advanced combat aircraft projects.

So the 2 billion pound investment is to kickoff preliminary design and pay for some tooling perhaps?

Also the comments section on BBC it a hoot to read.

trpmb6 wrote:

So the 2 billion pound investment is to kickoff preliminary design and pay for some tooling perhaps?

Also the comments section on BBC it a hoot to read.

In 2015, that sum was allocated for 'advanced combat aircraft' studies, this mock up/concept is the first 'real' result of it so far showed to the public.
It seems that there has been quite a lot of work since 2015, at BAE, the named other major contractors and likely some others too.

Life is too short to bother with troll central.

GDB wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

So the 2 billion pound investment is to kickoff preliminary design and pay for some tooling perhaps?

Also the comments section on BBC it a hoot to read.

In 2015, that sum was allocated for 'advanced combat aircraft' studies, this mock up/concept is the first 'real' result of it so far showed to the public.
It seems that there has been quite a lot of work since 2015, at BAE, the named other major contractors and likely some others too.

Life is too short to bother with troll central.

The contractors named are pretty much their only options anyways? Rolls Royce for the engines?! Wow.. that was a huge shocker.

This thing will just keep bouncing around for another decade plus. The BBC comments are hilarious, but the connections to the TSRII and other similar designs/programs really jump out at me already - and it's still very much on the drawing board.

Either way, as long as they're spending crazy amounts of money on the F-35, they better come out and explain to their taxpayers what advantages this aircraft is going to have upon IOC over the Lightning II (or they should have just saved all that $$$ and stayed domestic with THIS program a decade ago!)

Nice to see the first fruits of the work done on a new combat aircraft. Looks quite nice for a first attempt. So the Italians and Britts are going together. BAe seems to be the spider in the web, Turkish fighter project, Saab project and still the Japanees?

Where does that leave Saab, are they still going to work together with BAe on a new fighter?

And Spain doesn't seem to be affiliate yet, they could be either way: with the French and Germans or with the Britts and Italians.

Can they afford one or two?

DarkKnight5 wrote:

Ugh apparently they learned no lessons from Iran’s 2013 debacle. The only thing they didn’t do was put a full sized man in comically small shell.

That is EXACTLY what I thought of when I saw this.

Tugg

Interesting that Germany and France have partnered for a fighter and now Brits and Italy.
Pretty much all the players of the Eurofighter, with the exception of Spain(?) And the inclusion of France (who was formerly part of it).

Maybe they have learned something from having multi national projects?

It looks a lot like an abandoned US study from quite a long time ago.

But I suspect it will be dogged by political infighting. And if the government changes, the next one will try and cancel it. Can I say already that it is wasteful spending and a bureaucratic bungle? Those politicians will have to pay me royalties if they want to say that!

Tugger wrote:

DarkKnight5 wrote:

Ugh apparently they learned no lessons from Iran’s 2013 debacle. The only thing they didn’t do was put a full sized man in comically small shell.

That is EXACTLY what I thought of when I saw this.

Tugg

I always thought that pilot looked like a Mario Kart character sitting in that tiny plane. “It’s MARIO TIME!”

The butt kinda looks like an Su-57's.

estorilm wrote:

GDB wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

So the 2 billion pound investment is to kickoff preliminary design and pay for some tooling perhaps?

Also the comments section on BBC it a hoot to read.

In 2015, that sum was allocated for 'advanced combat aircraft' studies, this mock up/concept is the first 'real' result of it so far showed to the public.
It seems that there has been quite a lot of work since 2015, at BAE, the named other major contractors and likely some others too.

Life is too short to bother with troll central.

The contractors named are pretty much their only options anyways? Rolls Royce for the engines?! Wow.. that was a huge shocker.

This thing will just keep bouncing around for another decade plus. The BBC comments are hilarious, but the connections to the TSRII and other similar designs/programs really jump out at me already - and it's still very much on the drawing board.

Either way, as long as they're spending crazy amounts of money on the F-35, they better come out and explain to their taxpayers what advantages this aircraft is going to have upon IOC over the Lightning II (or they should have just saved all that $$$ and stayed domestic with THIS program a decade ago!)

RR partnered with others in both the Tornado and Typhoon programs, though they are the leading fast jet engine maker in Europe.
Advantages? The eventual replacement of the Typhoon.

TSR-2? God, I wish that had been cancelled in 1963 or early '64, it would not have flown and we'd not have this 'lost great aircraft' myth down the years.
Like the CF-105.
The cold, hard facts devotees of this myth (usually not the best informed of people on the subject), always ignore, is that the RAF would have taken just 50 TSR-2's.
How many Tornado IDS were built, just for the RAF? Over 220.
It is also easy to see which of the two sustained the UK military aviation industry better, not counting the exports, along with other multi national programs such as the Jaguar and even the fully UK (and still in production today), BAe Hawk.

Better yet, had the Buccaneer, which could do much of what TSR-2 could in the low level strike mission but was much cheaper, would have done it better still if much of the avionics package for TSR-2 had been incorporated into this naval strike aircraft for the RAF.
But the RAF did not want it, until TSR-2 cancellation forced them to take some - which they fell in love with!
However, lack of earlier RAF interest made Buccaneer a hard sell to other AF's, 'if it's so good, why hasn't the RAF brought it?" would have been heard often.
(For more recent illustrations of this, with US aircraft, see the F-16/79 and more especially, the F-20).

I really do not see anything like those Iranian efforts, no-one is saying, outside of a few idiot tabloid hacks maybe, that this is a prototype of a new combat aircraft, it's a mock up showing where the thinking is on a new aircraft, who the major contractors would likely be (with others, SAAB is likely, Japan a possibility. The latter have recently tested a concept aircraft, though that stemmed in part from a reaction to the US refusing to sell F-22's to them. That and who is now in the White house, makes trusting to US technology and especially politics, a less sure thing than was until fairly recently was the case for Japan).
As well as a rough timescale, front line service some 20 years hence to replace those Typhoons.

You can also be sure that this team will not fly a remote controlled scale model and try to pass it off as the real thing. Leave that to the Iranians.

GDB wrote:

estorilm wrote:

GDB wrote:

In 2015, that sum was allocated for 'advanced combat aircraft' studies, this mock up/concept is the first 'real' result of it so far showed to the public.
It seems that there has been quite a lot of work since 2015, at BAE, the named other major contractors and likely some others too.

Life is too short to bother with troll central.

The contractors named are pretty much their only options anyways? Rolls Royce for the engines?! Wow.. that was a huge shocker.

This thing will just keep bouncing around for another decade plus. The BBC comments are hilarious, but the connections to the TSRII and other similar designs/programs really jump out at me already - and it's still very much on the drawing board.

Either way, as long as they're spending crazy amounts of money on the F-35, they better come out and explain to their taxpayers what advantages this aircraft is going to have upon IOC over the Lightning II (or they should have just saved all that $$$ and stayed domestic with THIS program a decade ago!)

RR partnered with others in both the Tornado and Typhoon programs, though they are the leading fast jet engine maker in Europe.
Advantages? The eventual replacement of the Typhoon.

TSR-2? God, I wish that had been cancelled in 1963 or early '64, it would not have flown and we'd not have this 'lost great aircraft' myth down the years.
Like the CF-105.
The cold, hard facts devotees of this myth (usually not the best informed of people on the subject), always ignore, is that the RAF would have taken just 50 TSR-2's.
How many Tornado IDS were built, just for the RAF? Over 220.
It is also easy to see which of the two sustained the UK military aviation industry better, not counting the exports, along with other multi national programs such as the Jaguar and even the fully UK (and still in production today), BAe Hawk.

Better yet, had the Buccaneer, which could do much of what TSR-2 could in the low level strike mission but was much cheaper, would have done it better still if much of the avionics package for TSR-2 had been incorporated into this naval strike aircraft for the RAF.
But the RAF did not want it, until TSR-2 cancellation forced them to take some - which they fell in love with!
However, lack of earlier RAF interest made Buccaneer a hard sell to other AF's, 'if it's so good, why hasn't the RAF brought it?" would have been heard often.
(For more recent illustrations of this, with US aircraft, see the F-16/79 and more especially, the F-20).

I really do not see anything like those Iranian efforts, no-one is saying, outside of a few idiot tabloid hacks maybe, that this is a prototype of a new combat aircraft, it's a mock up showing where the thinking is on a new aircraft, who the major contractors would likely be (with others, SAAB is likely, Japan a possibility. The latter have recently tested a concept aircraft, though that stemmed in part from a reaction to the US refusing to sell F-22's to them. That and who is now in the White house, makes trusting to US technology and especially politics, a less sure thing than was until fairly recently was the case for Japan).
As well as a rough timescale, front line service some 20 years hence to replace those Typhoons.

You can also be sure that this team will not fly a remote controlled scale model and try to pass it off as the real thing. Leave that to the Iranians.

I agree Europe will actually have a program in place and such. My only point was there was no reason to build an aircraft husk and put a big satin sheet over it like they could tug it out to the runway for a demo flight. Why bother other than to get a cool photo? And frankly it looks weird and the cockpit looks small. Might just be the perspective of the shot, the angle, the size, the over-drama all immediately made me think “Ha! Just like the Iranians!”

DarkKnight5 wrote:

GDB wrote:

estorilm wrote:

The contractors named are pretty much their only options anyways? Rolls Royce for the engines?! Wow.. that was a huge shocker.

This thing will just keep bouncing around for another decade plus. The BBC comments are hilarious, but the connections to the TSRII and other similar designs/programs really jump out at me already - and it's still very much on the drawing board.

Either way, as long as they're spending crazy amounts of money on the F-35, they better come out and explain to their taxpayers what advantages this aircraft is going to have upon IOC over the Lightning II (or they should have just saved all that $$$ and stayed domestic with THIS program a decade ago!)

RR partnered with others in both the Tornado and Typhoon programs, though they are the leading fast jet engine maker in Europe.
Advantages? The eventual replacement of the Typhoon.

TSR-2? God, I wish that had been cancelled in 1963 or early '64, it would not have flown and we'd not have this 'lost great aircraft' myth down the years.
Like the CF-105.
The cold, hard facts devotees of this myth (usually not the best informed of people on the subject), always ignore, is that the RAF would have taken just 50 TSR-2's.
How many Tornado IDS were built, just for the RAF? Over 220.
It is also easy to see which of the two sustained the UK military aviation industry better, not counting the exports, along with other multi national programs such as the Jaguar and even the fully UK (and still in production today), BAe Hawk.

Better yet, had the Buccaneer, which could do much of what TSR-2 could in the low level strike mission but was much cheaper, would have done it better still if much of the avionics package for TSR-2 had been incorporated into this naval strike aircraft for the RAF.
But the RAF did not want it, until TSR-2 cancellation forced them to take some - which they fell in love with!
However, lack of earlier RAF interest made Buccaneer a hard sell to other AF's, 'if it's so good, why hasn't the RAF brought it?" would have been heard often.
(For more recent illustrations of this, with US aircraft, see the F-16/79 and more especially, the F-20).

I really do not see anything like those Iranian efforts, no-one is saying, outside of a few idiot tabloid hacks maybe, that this is a prototype of a new combat aircraft, it's a mock up showing where the thinking is on a new aircraft, who the major contractors would likely be (with others, SAAB is likely, Japan a possibility. The latter have recently tested a concept aircraft, though that stemmed in part from a reaction to the US refusing to sell F-22's to them. That and who is now in the White house, makes trusting to US technology and especially politics, a less sure thing than was until fairly recently was the case for Japan).
As well as a rough timescale, front line service some 20 years hence to replace those Typhoons.

You can also be sure that this team will not fly a remote controlled scale model and try to pass it off as the real thing. Leave that to the Iranians.

I agree Europe will actually have a program in place and such. My only point was there was no reason to build an aircraft husk and put a big satin sheet over it like they could tug it out to the runway for a demo flight. Why bother other than to get a cool photo? And frankly it looks weird and the cockpit looks small. Might just be the perspective of the shot, the angle, the size, the over-drama all immediately made me think “Ha! Just like the Iranians!”

This project pre-dates our current Defence Secretary, who I agree does not cut a very impressive figure, not that you'll find others much better.
We will have to see more meat on the bones, the internet was not around last time BAe unveiled a concept for a new combat aircraft at Farnborough, so we cannot judge reactions in the same way.
Nonetheless, within 4 years a tech demonstrator was flying, the industrial network across Europe that would build on the work started, was in place.
20 years after that mock up was shown with some fanfare at Farnborough '82, the first Typhoons were being delivered. Plenty of differences with the ACA but that's where it started.

I doubt the stated timeframe to go from this Tempest concept, to delivering what comes from it, to the RAF and presumably partner nations, is the same.

DarkKnight5 wrote:

Ugh apparently they learned no lessons from Iran’s 2013 debacle. The only thing they didn’t do was put a full sized man in comically small shell.

At least the Brits didn't pretend this one was airworthy

DarkKnight5 wrote:

GDB wrote:

estorilm wrote:

The contractors named are pretty much their only options anyways? Rolls Royce for the engines?! Wow.. that was a huge shocker.

This thing will just keep bouncing around for another decade plus. The BBC comments are hilarious, but the connections to the TSRII and other similar designs/programs really jump out at me already - and it's still very much on the drawing board.

Either way, as long as they're spending crazy amounts of money on the F-35, they better come out and explain to their taxpayers what advantages this aircraft is going to have upon IOC over the Lightning II (or they should have just saved all that $$$ and stayed domestic with THIS program a decade ago!)

RR partnered with others in both the Tornado and Typhoon programs, though they are the leading fast jet engine maker in Europe.
Advantages? The eventual replacement of the Typhoon.

TSR-2? God, I wish that had been cancelled in 1963 or early '64, it would not have flown and we'd not have this 'lost great aircraft' myth down the years.
Like the CF-105.
The cold, hard facts devotees of this myth (usually not the best informed of people on the subject), always ignore, is that the RAF would have taken just 50 TSR-2's.
How many Tornado IDS were built, just for the RAF? Over 220.
It is also easy to see which of the two sustained the UK military aviation industry better, not counting the exports, along with other multi national programs such as the Jaguar and even the fully UK (and still in production today), BAe Hawk.

Better yet, had the Buccaneer, which could do much of what TSR-2 could in the low level strike mission but was much cheaper, would have done it better still if much of the avionics package for TSR-2 had been incorporated into this naval strike aircraft for the RAF.
But the RAF did not want it, until TSR-2 cancellation forced them to take some - which they fell in love with!
However, lack of earlier RAF interest made Buccaneer a hard sell to other AF's, 'if it's so good, why hasn't the RAF brought it?" would have been heard often.
(For more recent illustrations of this, with US aircraft, see the F-16/79 and more especially, the F-20).

I really do not see anything like those Iranian efforts, no-one is saying, outside of a few idiot tabloid hacks maybe, that this is a prototype of a new combat aircraft, it's a mock up showing where the thinking is on a new aircraft, who the major contractors would likely be (with others, SAAB is likely, Japan a possibility. The latter have recently tested a concept aircraft, though that stemmed in part from a reaction to the US refusing to sell F-22's to them. That and who is now in the White house, makes trusting to US technology and especially politics, a less sure thing than was until fairly recently was the case for Japan).
As well as a rough timescale, front line service some 20 years hence to replace those Typhoons.

You can also be sure that this team will not fly a remote controlled scale model and try to pass it off as the real thing. Leave that to the Iranians.

I agree Europe will actually have a program in place and such. My only point was there was no reason to build an aircraft husk and put a big satin sheet over it like they could tug it out to the runway for a demo flight. Why bother other than to get a cool photo? And frankly it looks weird and the cockpit looks small. Might just be the perspective of the shot, the angle, the size, the over-drama all immediately made me think “Ha! Just like the Iranians!”

I distinctly remember year after year of going to RIAT and seeing a mock up of the F-35 alongside all the real aircraft... It was even parked in the bow of the HMS Queen Elizabeth at one point.

Why are people here so against this particular mockup?

moo wrote:

DarkKnight5 wrote:

GDB wrote:

RR partnered with others in both the Tornado and Typhoon programs, though they are the leading fast jet engine maker in Europe.
Advantages? The eventual replacement of the Typhoon.

TSR-2? God, I wish that had been cancelled in 1963 or early '64, it would not have flown and we'd not have this 'lost great aircraft' myth down the years.
Like the CF-105.
The cold, hard facts devotees of this myth (usually not the best informed of people on the subject), always ignore, is that the RAF would have taken just 50 TSR-2's.
How many Tornado IDS were built, just for the RAF? Over 220.
It is also easy to see which of the two sustained the UK military aviation industry better, not counting the exports, along with other multi national programs such as the Jaguar and even the fully UK (and still in production today), BAe Hawk.

Better yet, had the Buccaneer, which could do much of what TSR-2 could in the low level strike mission but was much cheaper, would have done it better still if much of the avionics package for TSR-2 had been incorporated into this naval strike aircraft for the RAF.
But the RAF did not want it, until TSR-2 cancellation forced them to take some - which they fell in love with!
However, lack of earlier RAF interest made Buccaneer a hard sell to other AF's, 'if it's so good, why hasn't the RAF brought it?" would have been heard often.
(For more recent illustrations of this, with US aircraft, see the F-16/79 and more especially, the F-20).

I really do not see anything like those Iranian efforts, no-one is saying, outside of a few idiot tabloid hacks maybe, that this is a prototype of a new combat aircraft, it's a mock up showing where the thinking is on a new aircraft, who the major contractors would likely be (with others, SAAB is likely, Japan a possibility. The latter have recently tested a concept aircraft, though that stemmed in part from a reaction to the US refusing to sell F-22's to them. That and who is now in the White house, makes trusting to US technology and especially politics, a less sure thing than was until fairly recently was the case for Japan).
As well as a rough timescale, front line service some 20 years hence to replace those Typhoons.

You can also be sure that this team will not fly a remote controlled scale model and try to pass it off as the real thing. Leave that to the Iranians.

I agree Europe will actually have a program in place and such. My only point was there was no reason to build an aircraft husk and put a big satin sheet over it like they could tug it out to the runway for a demo flight. Why bother other than to get a cool photo? And frankly it looks weird and the cockpit looks small. Might just be the perspective of the shot, the angle, the size, the over-drama all immediately made me think “Ha! Just like the Iranians!”

I distinctly remember year after year of going to RIAT and seeing a mock up of the F-35 alongside all the real aircraft... It was even parked in the bow of the HMS Queen Elizabeth at one point.

Why are people here so against this particular mockup?

The whole exercise strikes me as silly and unnecessary. Also, I think the husk just looks a bit odd. And, getting back to my main point, the way it was presented immediately made think of the Iranian stealth fighter reveal from 2013, which made me LOL when I saw it. Probably not their intention to call back to a fake Iranian reveal, but that's what they did (from my perspective, and at least one other poster on the forum). Just pointing out the unflattering parallel.

moo wrote:

DarkKnight5 wrote:

GDB wrote:

RR partnered with others in both the Tornado and Typhoon programs, though they are the leading fast jet engine maker in Europe.
Advantages? The eventual replacement of the Typhoon.

TSR-2? God, I wish that had been cancelled in 1963 or early '64, it would not have flown and we'd not have this 'lost great aircraft' myth down the years.
Like the CF-105.
The cold, hard facts devotees of this myth (usually not the best informed of people on the subject), always ignore, is that the RAF would have taken just 50 TSR-2's.
How many Tornado IDS were built, just for the RAF? Over 220.
It is also easy to see which of the two sustained the UK military aviation industry better, not counting the exports, along with other multi national programs such as the Jaguar and even the fully UK (and still in production today), BAe Hawk.

Better yet, had the Buccaneer, which could do much of what TSR-2 could in the low level strike mission but was much cheaper, would have done it better still if much of the avionics package for TSR-2 had been incorporated into this naval strike aircraft for the RAF.
But the RAF did not want it, until TSR-2 cancellation forced them to take some - which they fell in love with!
However, lack of earlier RAF interest made Buccaneer a hard sell to other AF's, 'if it's so good, why hasn't the RAF brought it?" would have been heard often.
(For more recent illustrations of this, with US aircraft, see the F-16/79 and more especially, the F-20).

I really do not see anything like those Iranian efforts, no-one is saying, outside of a few idiot tabloid hacks maybe, that this is a prototype of a new combat aircraft, it's a mock up showing where the thinking is on a new aircraft, who the major contractors would likely be (with others, SAAB is likely, Japan a possibility. The latter have recently tested a concept aircraft, though that stemmed in part from a reaction to the US refusing to sell F-22's to them. That and who is now in the White house, makes trusting to US technology and especially politics, a less sure thing than was until fairly recently was the case for Japan).
As well as a rough timescale, front line service some 20 years hence to replace those Typhoons.

You can also be sure that this team will not fly a remote controlled scale model and try to pass it off as the real thing. Leave that to the Iranians.

I agree Europe will actually have a program in place and such. My only point was there was no reason to build an aircraft husk and put a big satin sheet over it like they could tug it out to the runway for a demo flight. Why bother other than to get a cool photo? And frankly it looks weird and the cockpit looks small. Might just be the perspective of the shot, the angle, the size, the over-drama all immediately made me think “Ha! Just like the Iranians!”

I distinctly remember year after year of going to RIAT and seeing a mock up of the F-35 alongside all the real aircraft... It was even parked in the bow of the HMS Queen Elizabeth at one point.

Why are people here so against this particular mockup?

You're comparing a mock-up of what was (at the time) already widely-known to be the highest-funded and most advanced fighter program in aviation history, against some benign pointless model with zero engineering background designed solely for propaganda?

I mean, newsflash - RAF is receiving operationally-ready F-35s to be deployed ON that ship which it was parked on.

There's a difference between a massive undertaking like the Lightning II, with a (like it or not) unlimited budget - versus what we are talking about here in this thread.

My biggest concern is that there's no specific specification or request that I can find for this aircraft! In the F-35's case, there was a VERY strict list of requirements from all branches of the military, in addition to many export customers - before the program was even launched. What are the fundamental program parameters that justify the creation of this aircraft? Parameters that the F-35 and all other UK aircraft are completely incapable of achieving? I can't really think of any (right now, at least) - which sets me back at the "national pride" argument.

Personally, I just see this thing is a random idea that's being launched by a few companies to make a buck and restore faith in domestic military aviation capabilities. History has proven time and time again that programs like that don't work. The ONLY way I could see this thing working is if the F-35 didn't exist, and the US continued to keep its' 5th gen tech to itself. There's just no way they will ever achieve the degree of battlefield integration that the F-35 has - of the export capabilities required to make a real return on investment. The costs would be equally astronomical to the F-35 program! The entire point of them buying the Lightning II was to mitigate risk of a domestically-developed/produced aircraft, or at least share it with enough countries that it was feasible and safe.

Mark my words - this program WILL be shelved continuously till the requirements shift entirely to some sort of a pure UCAV.

estorilm wrote:

moo wrote:

DarkKnight5 wrote:

I agree Europe will actually have a program in place and such. My only point was there was no reason to build an aircraft husk and put a big satin sheet over it like they could tug it out to the runway for a demo flight. Why bother other than to get a cool photo? And frankly it looks weird and the cockpit looks small. Might just be the perspective of the shot, the angle, the size, the over-drama all immediately made me think “Ha! Just like the Iranians!”

I distinctly remember year after year of going to RIAT and seeing a mock up of the F-35 alongside all the real aircraft... It was even parked in the bow of the HMS Queen Elizabeth at one point.

Why are people here so against this particular mockup?

You're comparing a mock-up of what was (at the time) already widely-known to be the highest-funded and most advanced fighter program in aviation history, against some benign pointless model with zero engineering background designed solely for propaganda?

I mean, newsflash - RAF is receiving operationally-ready F-35s to be deployed ON that ship which it was parked on.

There's a difference between a massive undertaking like the Lightning II, with a (like it or not) unlimited budget - versus what we are talking about here in this thread.

My biggest concern is that there's no specific specification or request that I can find for this aircraft! In the F-35's case, there was a VERY strict list of requirements from all branches of the military, in addition to many export customers - before the program was even launched. What are the fundamental program parameters that justify the creation of this aircraft? Parameters that the F-35 and all other UK aircraft are completely incapable of achieving? I can't really think of any (right now, at least) - which sets me back at the "national pride" argument.

Personally, I just see this thing is a random idea that's being launched by a few companies to make a buck and restore faith in domestic military aviation capabilities. History has proven time and time again that programs like that don't work. The ONLY way I could see this thing working is if the F-35 didn't exist, and the US continued to keep its' 5th gen tech to itself. There's just no way they will ever achieve the degree of battlefield integration that the F-35 has - of the export capabilities required to make a real return on investment. The costs would be equally astronomical to the F-35 program! The entire point of them buying the Lightning II was to mitigate risk of a domestically-developed/produced aircraft, or at least share it with enough countries that it was feasible and safe.

Mark my words - this program WILL be shelved continuously till the requirements shift entirely to some sort of a pure UCAV.

They have quite clearly stated what the (RAF) requirement is, replace the Typhoons, which have an out of service date of 2040.
One of the other major partners so far named, happens to be Italian , whose AF also will have Typhoons to replace (and it is stated on the F-35 thread, seem to be scaling back their total planned F-35 purchase).
No one really thinks the UK will have the very long planned total of 138 F-35B's, I reckon it will get to around 70-90 by the end of the next decade.

That figure comes from not only the needs of supporting carrier aviation, once both of them are operational but also I note that two Squadrons equipped with Tranche 1 Typhoons had their service lives extended, still they are less suitable for upgrades than the rest so could be replaced from the mid 2020's by some adapted F-35A's, this F-35A(UK) or maybe F-35K could meet RAF requirements in terms of having the drogue AAR system as well as any other requirements for RAF operation.

That still leaves the bulk of the Typhoon force to replace in the 2035-40 timescale.

At some point surely the 2 rival European programmes will merge?

Back in the 80s wasn't there lots of jostling between the countries, with eventually France pulling out to produce its Rafale, which resulted in 2 rival European fighter places competing for orders at a time when defence spending across Western Europe was being slashed! One French led, one (effectively) UK led. It would be crazy for the same to happen again, especially with even lower production volumes, but with the Germans on the other side..

These stealth programs are so prohibitively expensive these days that I'd argue that they'll never see the light of day.

Look at what's actually making headway:
The US has the F-22 that's out of production and was essentially the product of unlimited cold war budgets.
The US and their partners have the F-35, which needs production numbers of 1000+ to get per unit costs to under $100Million each
The US has the B-2 that is out of production, is a cold war unlimited budget product, and didn't hit 50 actual operational frames.
The US has the B-21 that is reusing much of the internal systems of the F-35, rehashing a lot of the aerodynamics of the B-2, and is reusing the F-35 powerplants and will still likely be north of $250Million each on the low side.
Russia has the SU-57 which is arguably not fully stealth, they're only going to make 12, have no clear plans on how they will ever afford more, and lost their only international partner on it due to spiraling costs.
China has several platforms under development that have various degrees of stealth. The only reason that they can afford them is that they are essentially fully government funded by the most populous nation on earth that has an essentially bottomless checkbook and still has been found to be getting a lot of their R&D through corporate espionage. Even with all that, they are still struggling to build turbofan engines that are as good as Russia's best from 10+ years ago.
There are a handfull of other countries attempting to develop something. Japan is trying to get with LM to get a hybrid of the F-22 and F-35 of the ground, but almost had cardiac arrest when they saw the sticker price on that one. They tried their own, proved that it could fly, and then realized how expensive it would be to go any farther and just parked it. Turkey started and stopped a program that would have involved Bae.

The UK and Italy don't have a prayer in getting anything past a wind tunnel or subscale flyable prototype without a lot more countries coming on board. France and Germany are in the same situation, heck, Germany can't even keep their own existing military operational and France can barely find anyone to buy the Rafale as it is. IF, and ONLY IF, Saab, Airbus, Dasault and Bae could find it within their hearts to get together and develop two planes that share everything under the skin possible, but have their own airframes, they could come up with a pan european family of fighters that can perform Air superiority and multi-role strike in a gen 5+ environment. They could even have interchangeable nose modules that allow them to be optionally manned and optimized for each role. And, even with that level of cooperation, the final product is still just a pipedream as they would still struggle to fund it.

Going forward, China will eventually run away with military tech. They have the deep pockets, the population, the resources, and the will to start, fund, and complete these programs. The US is running into its own problems funding their existing military and the uber expensive future programs are going to drain them dry in the long run.

AirbusA6 wrote:

At some point surely the 2 rival European programmes will merge? Back in the 80s wasn't there lots of jostling between the countries, with eventually France pulling out to produce its Rafale

It will be interesting to see the playout between the different programs. France pulled out of the Eurofighter program for a number of reasons including industrial workshare, the push for a larger aircraft than France wanted and by extension a reduction of potential export. Could Germany/France pull out of their agreement 5 years from now because a carrier version is compromising the design, or France aren’t happy with the workshare agreement, or Germany is pushing for a larger or smaller aircraft, or a host of other things? Certainly possible but perhaps not likely.

AirbusA6 wrote:

which resulted in 2 rival European fighter places competing for orders at a time when defence spending across Western Europe was being slashed! One French led, one (effectively) UK led. It would be crazy for the same to happen again, especially with even lower production volumes, but with the Germans on the other side..

Don’t forget Gripen. While it is a lighter aircraft it has competed directly in sales campaigns against the Eurofighter and Rafale.

I am somewhat sceptical that this concept will go anywhere. The program will clearly need partners with deep pockets and how that evolves over the next 5 years will almost certainly dictate success or failure. Of the potential partners, Saab doesn’t have deep pockets, neither really does Italy who would insist on significant industrial workshare, Turkey is an outside chance, Japan has some money but a strong preference to buy American. Perhaps a Middle East nation such as the UAE or Saudi Arabia who are traditionally very fond of UK/BAE products and see economic diversity with a partnership?

I think there will ultimately be some design share between the this and the French/German type. It the only way I can see it becoming cost effective.

LightningZ71 wrote:

These stealth programs are so prohibitively expensive these days that I'd argue that they'll never see the light of day.

Look at what's actually making headway:
The US has the F-22 that's out of production and was essentially the product of unlimited cold war budgets.
The US and their partners have the F-35, which needs production numbers of 1000+ to get per unit costs to under $100Million each
The US has the B-2 that is out of production, is a cold war unlimited budget product, and didn't hit 50 actual operational frames.
The US has the B-21 that is reusing much of the internal systems of the F-35, rehashing a lot of the aerodynamics of the B-2, and is reusing the F-35 powerplants and will still likely be north of $250Million each on the low side.
Russia has the SU-57 which is arguably not fully stealth, they're only going to make 12, have no clear plans on how they will ever afford more, and lost their only international partner on it due to spiraling costs.
China has several platforms under development that have various degrees of stealth. The only reason that they can afford them is that they are essentially fully government funded by the most populous nation on earth that has an essentially bottomless checkbook and still has been found to be getting a lot of their R&D through corporate espionage. Even with all that, they are still struggling to build turbofan engines that are as good as Russia's best from 10+ years ago.
There are a handfull of other countries attempting to develop something. Japan is trying to get with LM to get a hybrid of the F-22 and F-35 of the ground, but almost had cardiac arrest when they saw the sticker price on that one. They tried their own, proved that it could fly, and then realized how expensive it would be to go any farther and just parked it. Turkey started and stopped a program that would have involved Bae.

The UK and Italy don't have a prayer in getting anything past a wind tunnel or subscale flyable prototype without a lot more countries coming on board. France and Germany are in the same situation, heck, Germany can't even keep their own existing military operational and France can barely find anyone to buy the Rafale as it is. IF, and ONLY IF, Saab, Airbus, Dasault and Bae could find it within their hearts to get together and develop two planes that share everything under the skin possible, but have their own airframes, they could come up with a pan european family of fighters that can perform Air superiority and multi-role strike in a gen 5+ environment. They could even have interchangeable nose modules that allow them to be optionally manned and optimized for each role. And, even with that level of cooperation, the final product is still just a pipedream as they would still struggle to fund it.

Going forward, China will eventually run away with military tech. They have the deep pockets, the population, the resources, and the will to start, fund, and complete these programs. The US is running into its own problems funding their existing military and the uber expensive future programs are going to drain them dry in the long run.

Ever thought that experience with these partners in the 80's and 90's might have made BAE leery? France demanded 39% of workshare in the 80's for a new European aircraft, as well as insisting also on not only a smaller aircraft but French engines optimised for that size of aircraft.
The reason that the ACA mock-up in 1982 had some changes to the actual EAP that flew in 1986, was that Germany was to design/build the EAP's rear fuselage, they pulled out so a modified Tornado rear fuselage and single fin was substituted.
Germany did stay with the EFA programme, then they wanted out in 1992, claiming it was too expensive, eventually settling on a faux 'cheaper' version (it wasn't) that just brought delays and yes, extra costs.

In recent years however, the French aircraft has won export orders, is in the running in several competitions, I am sure they would have preferred them sooner but the facts remain that they have gained them.
They even, in the end, at least extracted a 36 aircraft order from India, after that nightmare of a procurement process.
Typhoon is still selling, looks to be in production until 2025, few on here thought that not so long ago.
As for the German AF, they did agree to raise spending in 2014, not as fast as other NATO allies would have liked but the direction of travel is clear after years of going the other way. They don't only have an AF to consider here either.

As I mentioned before, Japan has had some reason (F-22 refusal) and the conduct of the current US President, to not be quite so reliant on the US. Their X-2 Technology Demonstrator ended it's flying late last year, this was a program started to look at what it would take to develop a F-3 aircraft, either wholly Japanese - not that likely, or as a partner in a new fighter program - rather more likely.
They do have 42 F-35's on order and could likely expand that number, however so do both the UK and Italy.

It would be better if this proposal does become a pan European one, however history suggests it might not do.
As mentioned before, this project has been in the works since 2015, $2 Billion set aside from various UK departments, MoD included, was not done just to make headlines at one airshow this year.
A lot more than that will be needed to go further over the next two decades and as also stated, it won't be a UK only effort.
That went out in the 1960's.

Slug71 wrote:

Interesting that Germany and France have partnered for a fighter and now Brits and Italy.

Leonardo ≠ Italy.

Leonardo has a sizeable presence in the UK, through the former Marconi, GKN and Westland. With 99% certainty, that is why Leonardo is in on the concept, not because Italy is interested.

VSMUT wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Interesting that Germany and France have partnered for a fighter and now Brits and Italy.

Leonardo ≠ Italy.

Leonardo has a sizeable presence in the UK, through the former Marconi, GKN and Westland. With 99% certainty, that is why Leonardo is in on the concept, not because Italy is interested.

Ahh... thanks for the clarification.

I don't know, but this looks like another 5,th generation aircraft, which will be ready about 40 years after the F-22 Raptor made its first flight.....

VSMUT wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Interesting that Germany and France have partnered for a fighter and now Brits and Italy.

Leonardo ≠ Italy.

Leonardo has a sizeable presence in the UK, through the former Marconi, GKN and Westland. With 99% certainty, that is why Leonardo is in on the concept, not because Italy is interested.

This is true, it is also true that the Italian AF will be looking at replacing it's Typhoon's in the same timescale as the RAF.

A strategic decision was made in 2015, to began the path to both sustaining the UK industry in combat aircraft and in doing so, eventually replace the Typhoon.
Almost certainly via a multi national project with the UK as a major member of such a grouping, like the Tornado, like the Typhoon and a range of weapons and related systems, many in or soon to enter service.

Now Boeing wants to join the team. It has expressed interest in being a part of this project.

FARNBOROUGH, England — BAE System’ surprise presentation of a full-scale model for its Tempest fighter concept caught the Farnborough International Airshow by storm, but one feature of the design especially stood out — the cockpit.

That’s not normally the part of a plane on which people would focus, but there is something very different about Tempest’s design in that regard. When visitors looked at the dashboard, they saw none of the usual gauges and dials. Instead, a totally blank, black screen looked back at them — until they put on a helmet and the heads-up display appeared.

BAE is gambling that its concept for a virtual cockpit, which can be changed for pilot preference and upgraded easily to reflect new capabilities, will pay dividends for Tempest. And according to Nick Colosimo, principal technologist for disruptive tech at BAE, such virtual cockpits are the way of the future.

Check out article for more info and video:

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... ium=social

cpd wrote:

Now Boeing wants to join the team. It has expressed interest in being a part of this project.

That probably shouldn't be a surprise given Boeing has little future in military fighter aviation. Both the SH and F-15 lines will close in the 2020s and then the only potential remaining entrant is the T-X with Saab. If Boeing don't win that context they are out. Even in transports they are tying up on the KC-390 and it is only in Maritime Patrol with the P-8, which won't likely last more than 2023-2 either, that they have a market niche and dominance.

Ozair wrote:

cpd wrote:

Now Boeing wants to join the team. It has expressed interest in being a part of this project.

That probably shouldn't be a surprise given Boeing has little future in military fighter aviation. Both the SH and F-15 lines will close in the 2020s and then the only potential remaining entrant is the T-X with Saab. If Boeing don't win that context they are out. Even in transports they are tying up on the KC-390 and it is only in Maritime Patrol with the P-8, which won't likely last more than 2023-2 either, that they have a market niche and dominance.

And the KC-46 tankers.

Slug71 wrote:

Ozair wrote:

cpd wrote:

Now Boeing wants to join the team. It has expressed interest in being a part of this project.

That probably shouldn't be a surprise given Boeing has little future in military fighter aviation. Both the SH and F-15 lines will close in the 2020s and then the only potential remaining entrant is the T-X with Saab. If Boeing don't win that context they are out. Even in transports they are tying up on the KC-390 and it is only in Maritime Patrol with the P-8, which won't likely last more than 2023-2 either, that they have a market niche and dominance.

And the KC-46 tankers.

Their tanker dominance is only domestic, the KC-30 has been far more successful on the export market.

Ozair wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Ozair wrote:

That probably shouldn't be a surprise given Boeing has little future in military fighter aviation. Both the SH and F-15 lines will close in the 2020s and then the only potential remaining entrant is the T-X with Saab. If Boeing don't win that context they are out. Even in transports they are tying up on the KC-390 and it is only in Maritime Patrol with the P-8, which won't likely last more than 2023-2 either, that they have a market niche and dominance.

And the KC-46 tankers.

Their tanker dominance is only domestic, the KC-30 has been far more successful on the export market.

True. But the USAF buys in large numbers, they don't really need the exports. It will be interesting to see which way India goes with their choice.

They might work out something with the Japanese on a joint program. There are signals this isn't an isolated approach.

The Japanese are rich, capable and reliable and have put a lot of R&D already in the Shinshin. They are looking for cooperation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence-fighter-jet-exclusive/exclusive-japans-new-advanced-fighter-may-be-based-on-existing-foreign-design-sources-idUSKCN1GK06R

keesje wrote:

They might work out something with the Japanese on a joint program. There are signals this isn't an isolated approach.

While the Japanese are potential partners the time frame doesn't fit the replacement plans for the F-2, which Japan have indicated they want to replace by 2030.

Slug71 wrote:

True. But the USAF buys in large numbers, they don't really need the exports. It will be interesting to see which way India goes with their choice.

Given how much money Boeing has spent on the program and the expected long time till they can recover those costs Boeing could do with all the exports of the KC-46 they can get.

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

They might work out something with the Japanese on a joint program. There are signals this isn't an isolated approach.

While the Japanese are potential partners the time frame doesn't fit the replacement plans for the F-2, which Japan have indicated they want to replace by 2030.

Slug71 wrote:

True. But the USAF buys in large numbers, they don't really need the exports. It will be interesting to see which way India goes with their choice.

Given how much money Boeing has spent on the program and the expected long time till they can recover those costs Boeing could do with all the exports of the KC-46 they can get.

Wasn't Japan still recently, maybe still is, operating F-4's?
When did they finish the later batches of the F-15's they produced domestically?
So I would assume that the newest (save for the recent early F-35 deliveries) aircraft, the F-2, would be upgraded to make it to that timeframe. If there is a significant Japanese involvement industrially, that is a big incentive to do so.

GDB wrote:

Wasn't Japan still recently, maybe still is, operating F-4's?

There are approximately 70 F-4s still in service. The F-4s are currently being replaced by the F-35. Japan have operated large numbers of F-4s for a long period of time and the current fleet will draw down as the F-35 enters service.

GDB wrote:

When did they finish the later batches of the F-15's they produced domestically?

The Japanese manufactured the F-15 domestically until 1999 so there is plenty of life left in that fleet.

http://www.uswarplanes.net/f15.html

GDB wrote:

So I would assume that the newest (save for the recent early F-35 deliveries) aircraft, the F-2, would be upgraded to make it to that timeframe. If there is a significant Japanese involvement industrially, that is a big incentive to do so.

Agree that an F-2 upgrade is an option but the numerous statements from the Japanese MoD make it clear they see the ability of the F-2 to contribute decline significantly post 2030 and why it is slated for replacement then. The other problem with upgrading the F-2 is what do you upgrade? It already has an AESA, is getting Japan’s newest AAM, has a high thrust F110-129. You could upgrade comms and avionics, if it even needs it, but there doesn’t appear to be any low hanging fruit to significantly improve the performance of the aircraft.

As for Japanese industry involvement, they will be involved no matter what they do. Either in manufacturing and assembling F-35s, which for Japanese aircraft are planned to have a high local content, or in building a modified/new airframe with a foreign partner as we see from their F-2 replacement thread. No doubt the British concept could meet their needs but they have shown, with the F-2, an ability to spend a lot of money domestically to manufacture a local product that overall is not drastically more capable than other available commercial options.

The Tempest program may be a better option for the F-15J replacement in the late 2030s early 2040s timeframe when I realistically expect, if the program moves forward, that whatever Tempest turns into will be ready to enter service.

A graphic of the concept and Saab interest in the program.



https://twitter.com/scramble_nl/status/1021446549602295808

I think he or she who drew the cockpit view, never step foot in an actual one

One major issues with multinational programmes, is the workshares, which are more or less fixed at an early stage, and can look unfair if that country (under a different government for example) subsequently reduces its order!

It would be interesting to compare the cost/benefits from France's investment in Rafale, and the UK's share of Eurofighter costs and income (including UK led exports). Both from current sales, and what had been expected 30 years ago before the cold war ended!

Slug71 wrote:

Interesting that Germany and France have partnered for a fighter and now Brits and Italy.
Pretty much all the players of the Eurofighter, with the exception of Spain(?) And the inclusion of France (who was formerly part of it).

Maybe they have learned something from having multi national projects?

France and Germany learned something, that's why they want to limit the participations. UK wants to cooperate with Italy, Sweden, Japan and even Lockheed Martin.

Who will succeed in the end? It will depends of the needs of each countries, F-35 users or not, carrier capability etc...