Tempest Fighter Jet Programme News and Discussion Thread

DMJ13030 · Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:02 pm

744SPX wrote:
Reaction engines tech? I hadn't heard that. Mach 5 capability would definitely be a unique selling point.

It's not just the potential speed that the propulsion system could have, it's the heat exchanger technology in general. If you can effectively turn all the heat energy into electrical energy then that's a huge amount of energy that can be used to power DEWs. One of the biggest challenges for next gen aircraft is being able to generate the power to work these weapons.

art · Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:36 am

744SPX wrote:
Reaction engines tech? I hadn't heard that. Mach 5 capability would definitely be a unique selling point.

Do materials or cooling systems exist to allow aircraft skins to sustain mach 5 flight? Or mach 4? Or mach 3 even?

art · Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:04 pm

Tempest to counter hypersonic missiles with laser weaponry?

Sixth-generation Tempest fighters firing laser beams will be able to take out hypersonic missiles in the future, Italy’s military chief of staff has claimed.

Gen. Enzo Vecciarelli made the prediction at a Rome seminar on missile defense, stating that directed-energy weapons were “probably the future” when it came to stopping the hypersonic missiles now being developed around the world.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... -missiles/

art · Wed May 26, 2021 9:07 am

Tempest moving towards construction of a technical demonstrator

The Tempest – Innovation for UK Security and Prosperity report was released ahead of the anticipated launch of the Concept and Assessment phase of the programme in the coming weeks. This phase marks the transition of the project from a research and development (R&D) effort into one that will produce a real-world demonstrator platform.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... cept-phase

art · Wed May 26, 2021 11:17 am

I know a Tempest TD will not use the engine to be designed for the production version but does anyone have any idea

- what thrust a new engine needs to provide
- if it will use variable cycle technology
- how much composite will be used for vanes, blades etc
- how much electrical power it will generate

art · Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:21 pm

Top NATO general urges ‘alignment’ between US and European sixth-gen fighter plans

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ter-plans/

Sensible advice, isn't it?

Leovinus · Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:49 pm

art wrote:
Top NATO general urges ‘alignment’ between US and European sixth-gen fighter plans

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ter-plans/

Sensible advice, isn't it?

It is, and I agree with the sentiment. Though it's all quite sensitive at this stage, so far as I can tell. Especially politically. It's hard enough for Germany and France to share the FCAS. Inviting a nation that's extracted itself from the Union and created a massive headache in Brussels (though I personally want them back in and welcome them with open arms) add its voice to the chorus doesn't seem appetising. And that's even assuming Britain didn't go its own way precisely for that reason to begin with.

If we suppose the reverse, that Europe comes to the UK, would they be willing to offset enough parts of the project in turn? Would they allow enough say in the Tempest programs shape to satisfy Europe? Possibly if we bank-roll it enough I suppose. Because I doubt the UK has the financial strength to pull through on it's own without making very painful sacrifices elsewhere in the national budget. It's a political quagmire.

But time is running out. Once development starts in earnest on either project you'll start locking down you industrial partnerships and intellectual properties for the final product. And it's not as though these two industrial bases can serve the same program if they merge later on. Adding yet another diplomatic and legal headache.

As it stands it feels as though we'd be marching towards another TSR2 scenario for one or both programs. Unless clearer head prevail. Granted, if both succeed (even if they do so by the barest of margines) it's more aircraft for enthusiasts to gawk at. So there is that...

art · Fri Jun 11, 2021 3:29 pm

Leovinus wrote:
art wrote:
Top NATO general urges ‘alignment’ between US and European sixth-gen fighter plans

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ter-plans/

Sensible advice, isn't it?

It is, and I agree with the sentiment. Though it's all quite sensitive at this stage, so far as I can tell. Especially politically. It's hard enough for Germany and France to share the FCAS. Inviting a nation that's extracted itself from the Union and created a massive headache in Brussels (though I personally want them back in and welcome them with open arms) add its voice to the chorus doesn't seem appetising. And that's even assuming Britain didn't go its own way precisely for that reason to begin with.

If we suppose the reverse, that Europe comes to the UK, would they be willing to offset enough parts of the project in turn? Would they allow enough say in the Tempest programs shape to satisfy Europe? Possibly if we bank-roll it enough I suppose. Because I doubt the UK has the financial strength to pull through on it's own without making very painful sacrifices elsewhere in the national budget. It's a political quagmire.

But time is running out. Once development starts in earnest on either project you'll start locking down you industrial partnerships and intellectual properties for the final product. And it's not as though these two industrial bases can serve the same program if they merge later on. Adding yet another diplomatic and legal headache.

As it stands it feels as though we'd be marching towards another TSR2 scenario for one or both programs. Unless clearer head prevail. Granted, if both succeed (even if they do so by the barest of margines) it's more aircraft for enthusiasts to gawk at. So there is that...

Or no aeroplanes to gawk at if both projects run out of money / political will.

The big problem to me is that France would want to be lead partner in any re-worked advanced European fighter partnership, making demands that the others could not accept.

Leovinus · Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:45 pm

art wrote:
Leovinus wrote:
art wrote:
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ter-plans/

Sensible advice, isn't it?

It is, and I agree with the sentiment. Though it's all quite sensitive at this stage, so far as I can tell. Especially politically. It's hard enough for Germany and France to share the FCAS. Inviting a nation that's extracted itself from the Union and created a massive headache in Brussels (though I personally want them back in and welcome them with open arms) add its voice to the chorus doesn't seem appetising. And that's even assuming Britain didn't go its own way precisely for that reason to begin with.

If we suppose the reverse, that Europe comes to the UK, would they be willing to offset enough parts of the project in turn? Would they allow enough say in the Tempest programs shape to satisfy Europe? Possibly if we bank-roll it enough I suppose. Because I doubt the UK has the financial strength to pull through on it's own without making very painful sacrifices elsewhere in the national budget. It's a political quagmire.

But time is running out. Once development starts in earnest on either project you'll start locking down you industrial partnerships and intellectual properties for the final product. And it's not as though these two industrial bases can serve the same program if they merge later on. Adding yet another diplomatic and legal headache.

As it stands it feels as though we'd be marching towards another TSR2 scenario for one or both programs. Unless clearer head prevail. Granted, if both succeed (even if they do so by the barest of margines) it's more aircraft for enthusiasts to gawk at. So there is that...

Or no aeroplanes to gawk at if both projects run out of money / political will.

The big problem to me is that France would want to be lead partner in any re-worked advanced European fighter partnership, making demands that the others could not accept.

I don't think that's unlikely, but it's not something I'm familiar with. Would their logic be that the Rafale and connected IP should be the starting point as opposed to a truly clean sheet design? A Rafale 2.0 with new clothes? Obviously more advanced then that, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

Honestly it's weird that there wasn't a collaboration through the Typhoon conglomerate for this. Then again Rafale was the French answer, so they do have a "not invented here" streak going for them.

Britain is similarly pigheaded as the French though. Which is why I assume it's unlikely for the two programs to merge. But again I'm not sure their budget can take it. The FCAS is going to be straining the largest economies in Europe working together. Britain going alone seems comparatively ludicrous. Especially considering the absolute disaster their procurement of (for example) naval ships have been for the last decade due to budget constraints.

GDB · Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:01 pm

art wrote:
Leovinus wrote:
art wrote:
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ter-plans/

Sensible advice, isn't it?

It is, and I agree with the sentiment. Though it's all quite sensitive at this stage, so far as I can tell. Especially politically. It's hard enough for Germany and France to share the FCAS. Inviting a nation that's extracted itself from the Union and created a massive headache in Brussels (though I personally want them back in and welcome them with open arms) add its voice to the chorus doesn't seem appetising. And that's even assuming Britain didn't go its own way precisely for that reason to begin with.

If we suppose the reverse, that Europe comes to the UK, would they be willing to offset enough parts of the project in turn? Would they allow enough say in the Tempest programs shape to satisfy Europe? Possibly if we bank-roll it enough I suppose. Because I doubt the UK has the financial strength to pull through on it's own without making very painful sacrifices elsewhere in the national budget. It's a political quagmire.

But time is running out. Once development starts in earnest on either project you'll start locking down you industrial partnerships and intellectual properties for the final product. And it's not as though these two industrial bases can serve the same program if they merge later on. Adding yet another diplomatic and legal headache.

As it stands it feels as though we'd be marching towards another TSR2 scenario for one or both programs. Unless clearer head prevail. Granted, if both succeed (even if they do so by the barest of margines) it's more aircraft for enthusiasts to gawk at. So there is that...

Or no aeroplanes to gawk at if both projects run out of money / political will.

The big problem to me is that France would want to be lead partner in any re-worked advanced European fighter partnership, making demands that the others could not accept.

Though I share Leovinus sentiments, the fact this Tempest project began in 2015, only the initial model was shown 3 years later, before enough people in the UK, just, were persuaded by a bunch of charlatans, chancers, crooks, to vote to impose economic sanctions on ourselves.
More to the point perhaps is that two of the Typhoon partners, the UK and Italy, might remember how France acted in the mid 80's with the FEFA project, that evolved into Eurofighter.
The demands for 39% share, their engines, smaller than the other partners wanted (to fit on their then two smaller carriers), it was wondered if this was not just a tactic to delay things while France pressed ahead with as always intended, their own national project.

Post Cold War, that won't work, budgets are tighter, even so we have seen some echos of that attitude with the FACA, though they say they have resolved them.
Compare this with the quiet work of the Tempest team, (can we please drop the redundant TSR-2 comparison, without wanting to repeat just how out of wack that is with today), remember Tempest is unlike that project, multi national. Not for some political reason (beyond appeasing the UK Treasury), it's a practical one.
What the nations involved, UK, Italy, increasingly Sweden, require, in the UK and Italy's case replacing the same aircraft, what they each bring to the project, both technically and to an extent, political cover, harder to axe multi national projects.

Leovinus · Sat Jun 12, 2021 7:46 am

You're absolutely correct GDB, the TSR2 simile is far from perfect. As you mention both of these projects have a wide multinational industrial base tied to them. But that's also a major problem IF pressure is put on the programs to merge in any form. You can't push all these industrial parties and IPs into the same project. There would have to be absolutely massive political wrangling. I meant the comparison more in the vein that, should budgets prove insufficient and the only feasible solution being scrapping one project for another in the end; it should be done now instead of down the road when there is actual hardware and massive national investments put towards any one project.

I would also dissuade anyone from believing that Sweden has any deep pockets with which to fund Tempest. Sweden has made it clear that they are willing to participate in development so long as it benefits Swedish IP development. There is no expectation to purchase Tempest. It's projected to be too big and expensive for our budgets and needs. In fact Sweden is working (for the moment, to my great personal annoyance) with Turkey on the successor aircraft for Gripen NG. A small, stealthy, modern replacement.

There is a reason why Sweden develops small "cheaper" aircraft. Our national defence budgets are not big and subject to change. It will therefore be up to Italy and the UK to primarily carry the program, Sweden pitching in as much as they can besides.

art · Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:23 am

I can see that making one set of systems for 2 different aircraft would cut costs. For example, why should 2 different radars be developed? A cheaper approach and possibly a better approach technically would be for the nations in the 2 programmes to develop 1 radar.

Leovinus · Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:23 am

art wrote:
I can see that making one set of systems for 2 different aircraft would cut costs. For example, why should 2 different radars be developed? A cheaper approach and possibly a better approach technically would be for the nations in the 2 programmes to develop 1 radar.

It would, but would the companies (and nations sponsoring) be ok with sharing IP and production between two companies for each and every item that gets duplicated at the moment between programs? Even if, and that's quite a huge if, that's possible to solve its hardly economical either. Some joint ventures will probably be possible, after a lot of legal and diplomatic wrangling, where others will not and companies booted out. Again, with a cost to legal and diplomatic dimensions of the projects. If nothing else I foresee a very lengthy delay if any sort of merging is attempted. And at that point I don't think it's unlikely that some partner nations would jump on the F-35 bandwagon instead. And I would certainly prefer the EU rely on its own industrial base and spread money around internally than overseas personally. Even if its more expensive.

GDB · Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:01 pm

I think Leovinus is correct that is is hard to see Tempest, at least in it's currently projected form, being a replacement for the Gripen.
However, Tempest is part of a system which will likely involve 'Loyal Wingman' unmanned element, I would suspect that Swedish involvement could well focus there, important high tech work for their industry and also a potential procurement for the Swedish AF. Not that I would rule out a small number of manned Tempests to work with other elements of the system as well as supplementing the Gripen E fleet.

Sweden would be well advised to steer clear of Turkey, Sweden has long had a policy at least with advanced military hardware of not selling to or working with authoritarian regimes, which Turkey under it's current leader is.

It should also be recognised that Swedish political/military posture has been changing somewhat, it's still neutral but for a non NATO member their forces are doing a lot of exercises with NATO nations.
Likely due to Putin's disruptive aggression policy.

SAS A340 · Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:28 pm

Sweden working with Turkey on a small and stealthy replacement for Gripen E?? Where on earth have you read this? :confused:

Leovinus · Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:17 pm

SAS A340 wrote:
Sweden working with Turkey on a small and stealthy replacement for Gripen E?? Where on earth have you read this?

It's rather old news, and I have no recent information. But back in the early 2010's Sweden and Turkish TAI signed a contract for technical assistance in the TF-X project. In a 2013 state visit by Sweden to Turkey there was much talk about a possible stake in SAAB being sold to TAI. Assumedly to allow for co-development of a joint TF-X. Since then things have gone silent however. I can only hope that clearer heads have prevailed since. I damn near dropped my jaw when I read it had been a topic during the state visit in the local news.

Personally I would hope for something to come out of closer ties with Embraer. Sweden has good ties to Brazil. Though I personally don't like Bolsonaro in the least, he's not (yet) an Erdogan. I think It's likelier for Embraer to want to develop a new air frame in partnership than it is for the UK and Italy to sponsor SAAB in a plane for the Swedish national interest. Though GDB makes a very good point I hadn't thought of.

GDB wrote:
However, Tempest is part of a system which will likely involve 'Loyal Wingman' unmanned element, I would suspect that Swedish involvement could well focus there, important high tech work for their industry and also a potential procurement for the Swedish AF.

This is actually an excellent point. If the next SAAB fighter is optionally manned it might work very well as a loyal wingman. Or perhaps a future SAAB fighter would simply be constructed with a view to serve as basis for both aircraft. Sharing components. The European FCAS is a broad program with the same intent, and SAAB did work with Dassault on their nEURON autonomous vehicle.

GDB wrote:
It should also be recognised that Swedish political/military posture has been changing somewhat, it's still neutral but for a non NATO member their forces are doing a lot of exercises with NATO nations.
Likely due to Putin's disruptive aggression policy.

Yes, since the annexation of Crimea and the increased military activity in the baltic from Russia Sweden has upped its defence spending markedly. The nation as a whole is still divided on NATO membership, preferring, for the moment, to integrate tightly with its baltic neighbours through the "Nordic Battle Group" under the European Common Security and Defence Policy. As well as increasing its partnerships with NATO.

I think Sweden has managed to align itself with the west and Europe enough to guarantee our involvement in any conflict to a degree where we're in NATO in all but name in a sense. But I personally prefer staying out of it for the simple reason that I think Sweden should be able to decide its own defence spending without undue influence from other NATO member states. Specifically the US. A nation we're already tied up enough with in my opinion.

Kiwirob · Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:33 am

art wrote:
Top NATO general urges ‘alignment’ between US and European sixth-gen fighter plans

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ter-plans/

Sensible advice, isn't it?

Not really this is just the US defending it's future potential exports from competition.

Irt · Thu Jul 01, 2021 8:07 pm

Leovinus wrote:

I would also dissuade anyone from believing that Sweden has any deep pockets with which to fund Tempest. Sweden has made it clear that they are willing to participate in development so long as it benefits Swedish IP development. There is no expectation to purchase Tempest. It's projected to be too big and expensive for our budgets and needs. In fact Sweden is working (for the moment, to my great personal annoyance) with Turkey on the successor aircraft for Gripen NG. A small, stealthy, modern replacement.

There is a reason why Sweden develops small "cheaper" aircraft. Our national defence budgets are not big and subject to change. It will therefore be up to Italy and the UK to primarily carry the program, Sweden pitching in as much as they can besides.

You are talking out of your rear end. Sweden is not developing a fighter with Turkey, there were talks that SAAB would help the turks about 10 years ago but in the end BAE was choosen and then nothing hapened.

Sweden wont develop a new fighter alone. We couldnt even afford to develop Gripen E alone. You think we will spend €15+ billion to develop another fighter that noone else wants to buy? And how many of the new fighter would we buy? 50-60?

The next gen fighters needs to be much bigger than Gripen, thats why both FCAS and Tempest are bigger than the Typhoon and the Rafale. You will need to carry weapons internaly. Thats why im sure that Sweden will buy the Tempest. When SAAB got involved i got my hopes up, when the Swedish goverment got involved its a done deal.

Leovinus · Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:53 am

Irt wrote:
You are talking out of your rear end. Sweden is not developing a fighter with Turkey, there were talks that SAAB would help the turks about 10 years ago but in the end BAE was choosen and then nothing hapened.

Sweden wont develop a new fighter alone. We couldnt even afford to develop Gripen E alone. You think we will spend €15+ billion to develop another fighter that noone else wants to buy? And how many of the new fighter would we buy? 50-60?

The next gen fighters needs to be much bigger than Gripen, thats why both FCAS and Tempest are bigger than the Typhoon and the Rafale. You will need to carry weapons internaly. Thats why im sure that Sweden will buy the Tempest. When SAAB got involved i got my hopes up, when the Swedish goverment got involved its a done deal.

I base the Turkey statement on news from several years back when a stake in SAAB was offered to Turkey (I posted that above). It might not be relevant anymore, but I can't find any sources for or against. I'd lean towards the matter having been quietly dropped, but again that's speculation.

What's clear is that Sweden puts its hopes to the Gripen until at least 2040 in budget and planning, and they have a solid MoU that is not yet a binding agreement. It likely will be solidified, but I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that it isn't likely to contain a firm order for Tempest. I think the Swedish government will be vague precisely because they don't want to be put in a position where the future defence budgets are tied up too far ahead of time.

Resultantly I think it's likely that Sweden won't field the Tempest directly (at least not off the bat), yet like with the Saab-Boeing T-7 trainer might be a key developmental partner. Of course It might be possible that a smaller production run of expensive Tempests will replace the Gripen at some point. Shrinking the Swedish Air Force as a result. Something that would necessitate a new defence strategy.

If Sweden keeps its current defence strategy of dispersed air wings engineered for swift turn-around and STOL capabilities from our road networks Tempest likely won't be a good fit. Necessitating a nationally produced fighter that is. Something that might actually lie within the Tempest partnership framework in a way. SAAB, theoretically, could produce an optionally manned loyal wingman to serve both as a "cheaper" fighter and drone. Or use an offshoot of such a drone to produce a manned variant. Again, I'm speculating widely based on Swedish strategic and economical realities as they stand today.

GDB · Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:16 am

Leovinus wrote:
Irt wrote:
You are talking out of your rear end. Sweden is not developing a fighter with Turkey, there were talks that SAAB would help the turks about 10 years ago but in the end BAE was choosen and then nothing hapened.

Sweden wont develop a new fighter alone. We couldnt even afford to develop Gripen E alone. You think we will spend €15+ billion to develop another fighter that noone else wants to buy? And how many of the new fighter would we buy? 50-60?

The next gen fighters needs to be much bigger than Gripen, thats why both FCAS and Tempest are bigger than the Typhoon and the Rafale. You will need to carry weapons internaly. Thats why im sure that Sweden will buy the Tempest. When SAAB got involved i got my hopes up, when the Swedish goverment got involved its a done deal.

I base the Turkey statement on news from several years back when a stake in SAAB was offered to Turkey (I posted that above). It might not be relevant anymore, but I can't find any sources for or against. I'd lean towards the matter having been quietly dropped, but again that's speculation.

What's clear is that Sweden puts its hopes to the Gripen until at least 2040 in budget and planning, and they have a solid MoU that is not yet a binding agreement. It likely will be solidified, but I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that it isn't likely to contain a firm order for Tempest. I think the Swedish government will be vague precisely because they don't want to be put in a position where the future defence budgets are tied up too far ahead of time.

Resultantly I think it's likely that Sweden won't field the Tempest directly (at least not off the bat), yet like with the Saab-Boeing T-7 trainer might be a key developmental partner. Of course It might be possible that a smaller production run of expensive Tempests will replace the Gripen at some point. Shrinking the Swedish Air Force as a result. Something that would necessitate a new defence strategy.

If Sweden keeps its current defence strategy of dispersed air wings engineered for swift turn-around and STOL capabilities from our road networks Tempest likely won't be a good fit. Necessitating a nationally produced fighter that is. Something that might actually lie within the Tempest partnership framework in a way. SAAB, theoretically, could produce an optionally manned loyal wingman to serve both as a "cheaper" fighter and drone. Or use an offshoot of such a drone to produce a manned variant. Again, I'm speculating widely based on Swedish strategic and economical realities as they stand today.

Since WW2, Sweden has designed and built and series of outstanding combat aircraft, however I have been around long enough to remember how even early on in it's development, it was accepted that Gripen would be the last Swedish fighter, at least one where SAAB is the prime designer.

The dispersal air wings as a concept may also be a thing of the past, this was remember a measure by a neutral but Western facing nation's response to the threat of an all out attack by the Warsaw Pact.
The threat from an aggressive Russia remains, just not the same type or level.
Sweden increasingly then has to see it's security as still around it's airspace and the Baltic, however as the largest AF in that area of small Scandinavian states, even a few dozen Tempests would have a valuable and deterrent role, along with supporting UCAV's and other defence systems.

Tempest would ultimately mean a smaller Swedish AF combat aircraft component but an extremely potent one, with industrial involvement from Sweden still a good economic bet.
After all, good as the Saab 37 series were, how many were exported, the more exportable Gripen has had limited success but is not likely to see many more sales.

Irt · Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:57 am

Leovinus wrote:
Irt wrote:
You are talking out of your rear end. Sweden is not developing a fighter with Turkey, there were talks that SAAB would help the turks about 10 years ago but in the end BAE was choosen and then nothing hapened.

Sweden wont develop a new fighter alone. We couldnt even afford to develop Gripen E alone. You think we will spend €15+ billion to develop another fighter that noone else wants to buy? And how many of the new fighter would we buy? 50-60?

The next gen fighters needs to be much bigger than Gripen, thats why both FCAS and Tempest are bigger than the Typhoon and the Rafale. You will need to carry weapons internaly. Thats why im sure that Sweden will buy the Tempest. When SAAB got involved i got my hopes up, when the Swedish goverment got involved its a done deal.

I base the Turkey statement on news from several years back when a stake in SAAB was offered to Turkey (I posted that above). It might not be relevant anymore, but I can't find any sources for or against. I'd lean towards the matter having been quietly dropped, but again that's speculation.

What's clear is that Sweden puts its hopes to the Gripen until at least 2040 in budget and planning, and they have a solid MoU that is not yet a binding agreement. It likely will be solidified, but I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that it isn't likely to contain a firm order for Tempest. I think the Swedish government will be vague precisely because they don't want to be put in a position where the future defence budgets are tied up too far ahead of time.

Resultantly I think it's likely that Sweden won't field the Tempest directly (at least not off the bat), yet like with the Saab-Boeing T-7 trainer might be a key developmental partner. Of course It might be possible that a smaller production run of expensive Tempests will replace the Gripen at some point. Shrinking the Swedish Air Force as a result. Something that would necessitate a new defence strategy.

If Sweden keeps its current defence strategy of dispersed air wings engineered for swift turn-around and STOL capabilities from our road networks Tempest likely won't be a good fit. Necessitating a nationally produced fighter that is. Something that might actually lie within the Tempest partnership framework in a way. SAAB, theoretically, could produce an optionally manned loyal wingman to serve both as a "cheaper" fighter and drone. Or use an offshoot of such a drone to produce a manned variant. Again, I'm speculating widely based on Swedish strategic and economical realities as they stand today.

I understand where you are coming from. What Saab was surposed to help Turkey with is the TAI TFX, in the end BAE was choosen, a mock up of TFX was shown in 2019, its a 21m long heavy fighter with twin F110 engines. Saabs involvment would only be to assist the turks, not to develop a replacement for Gripen.

Yes Gripen Will be our main fighter untill atleast 2040. After that it Will be Tempest, as i said, the goverment would not be involved otherweise. All airforces shrink with every new generation of fighters fielded.

neutronstar73 · Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:36 pm

art wrote:
Top NATO general urges ‘alignment’ between US and European sixth-gen fighter plans

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ter-plans/

Sensible advice, isn't it?

And no one will follow it, either!!

RJMAZ · Fri Jul 02, 2021 11:32 pm

neutronstar73 wrote:
art wrote:
Top NATO general urges ‘alignment’ between US and European sixth-gen fighter plans

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ter-plans/

Sensible advice, isn't it?

And no one will follow it, either!!

The problem is the European 6th gen programs are really just 5th gen programs. Removing the vertical stab like on the YF-23 so it looks cool doesn't mean Europe can then call it 6th gen. It needs extreme range, speed, stealth and sensor fusion.

Europe is simply naming them 6th gen programs to save the embarrassment when the US 6th gen fighter enters service and Europe still hasn't flown their 5th gen aircraft. Then Europe has an excuse for the delays as they are "developing superior 6th gen technology"

The French/German program is making a small F-35 sized aircraft to land on carriers. I fail to see how that will even surpass the F-35 capability. It physically can not have fuel capacity to provide the range of 6th gen. Speed is also connected to fuel capacity.

The Tempest program does seem a little more advanced due to it being bigger and not being hamstrung by having to be carrier capable. Their full size mockups show a fighter still clearly smaller than the F-22. It won't have the range or fuel to supercruise for long periods of time.

The US 6th program in all the public renderings have shown a tiny glass cockpit and a huge voluminous fuselage. Two XA100 engines have around 45,000kg of thrust. It will be twice the size of Tempest.

The best solution is to get the XA100 fitted to the F-35A as soon as possible and sell it to the U.K dirt cheap. With a 20% speed and range boost to the F-35A it will be able to now hit all of the Tempest requirements in my opinion. Sweden won't be too upset as they have only joined Tempest for technology transfer as they always do. The U.K needs Tempest to replace their Eurofighters within 10 years time. Sweden has brand new Gripen E about to enter service so they are sorted for nearly 20 years. Sweden would be the ideal F35 customer in 15-20 years time the F-35 will be dirt cheap.

744SPX · Sat Jul 03, 2021 2:22 am

RJMAZ wrote:
neutronstar73 wrote:
art wrote:
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ter-plans/

Sensible advice, isn't it?

And no one will follow it, either!!

The problem is the European 6th gen programs are really just 5th gen programs. Removing the vertical stab like on the YF-23 so it looks cool doesn't mean Europe can then call it 6th gen. It needs extreme range, speed, stealth and sensor fusion.

Europe is simply naming them 6th gen programs to save the embarrassment when the US 6th gen fighter enters service and Europe still hasn't flown their 5th gen aircraft. Then Europe has an excuse for the delays as they are "developing superior 6th gen technology"

The French/German program is making a small F-35 sized aircraft to land on carriers. I fail to see how that will even surpass the F-35 capability. It physically can not have fuel capacity to provide the range of 6th gen. Speed is also connected to fuel capacity.

The Tempest program does seem a little more advanced due to it being bigger and not being hamstrung by having to be carrier capable. Their full size mockups show a fighter still clearly smaller than the F-22. It won't have the range or fuel to supercruise for long periods of time.

The US 6th program in all the public renderings have shown a tiny glass cockpit and a huge voluminous fuselage. Two XA100 engines have around 45,000kg of thrust. It will be twice the size of Tempest.

The best solution is to get the XA100 fitted to the F-35A as soon as possible and sell it to the U.K dirt cheap. With a 20% speed and range boost to the F-35A it will be able to now hit all of the Tempest requirements in my opinion. Sweden won't be too upset as they have only joined Tempest for technology transfer as they always do. The U.K needs Tempest to replace their Eurofighters within 10 years time. Sweden has brand new Gripen E about to enter service so they are sorted for nearly 20 years. Sweden would be the ideal F35 customer in 15-20 years time the F-35 will be dirt cheap.

The XA100 will help the F-35 with range and that's about it. The airframe and stealth coatings (which, BTW, are all 20+ year old technology) simply can't handle it. The B and C models can't even make the required mach 1.6 without skin damage and are not allowed to maintain that speed for any significant length of time, if at all..

If you are going by performance metrics, the F-22 is a legit Gen 5 aircraft. The ONLY one. The F-35 is like Gen 4+.
Compared to the F-22 it has: Inferior thrust to weight ratio, vastly inferior top speed and supercruise capabilities, inferior maneuverability.

Tempest will have to match the F-22 in speed and exceed it in supercruise duration and range.

Also, removing the vertical stab does not make a Gen 6 fighter but it is aerodynamically superior to the F-35's (and F-22's) tail configuration.

RJMAZ · Sat Jul 03, 2021 4:32 am

744SPX wrote:
The XA100 will help the F-35 with range and that's about it. The airframe and stealth coatings (which, BTW, are all 20+ year old technology) simply can't handle it. The B and C models can't even make the required mach 1.6 without skin damage and are not allowed to maintain that speed for any significant length of time, if at all.. .

I think you are quoting 10 year old articles. Skin coating issues have long been solved. The current overheating is from the engine exhaust itself causing the tail to overheat. The restrictions are to limit afterburner to between 40 and 80 second continuous durations. The time limit depends on the F-35 model and speeds. A 3 minute cooling period of non afterburner resets the clock.

It is extremely rare for a fighter to use afterburner for more than a minute. In the case of the F-35A it would already be hitting the maximum mach 1.6 speed limit. A maximum speed of Mach 1.6 is nothing to sneeze at. Very few 4th generation fighters can actually hit this speed with weapons and if they can they would be consuming all of their fuel to exceed it

The XA100 engine will run cooler with the third air stream acting as an insulator between the airframe. The big fuel consumption improvement allows for more fuel to be allocated for high speed use. If an aircraft has limited fuel remaining it must conserve fuel and remain subsonic or disengage. The XA100 will transform the F-35 to have the best kinematics.

744SPX wrote:
If you are going by performance metrics, the F-22 is a legit Gen 5 aircraft. The ONLY one. The F-35 is like Gen 4+.

Compared to the F-22 it has: Inferior thrust to weight ratio, vastly inferior top speed and supercruise capabilities, inferior maneuverability.

This is entirely wrong. Firstly, top speed is irrelevant. Average speed entirely depends on fuel capacity or fuel fraction. The F-22 lacks fuel and even while supercruising it is burning more fuel than flying the same distance subsonic. The F-22 has less internal fuel than the F-35 despite it weighing approximately 50% more. The F-35 currently can fly nearly all F-22 mission profiles. Even the F-22 mission profile with the 150nm Mach 1.6 supercruise dash the F-35 can simply use afterburner and it still has enough fuel to perform the entire F-22 profile.

While the F-35 cannot accelerate vertical or do cool turns below stall speed it is not far behind. F-22 is further behind in terms of sensors. This is why the F-22 is being retired as the F-35 can already do everything at a fraction of the cost.

744SPX wrote:
Tempest will have to match the F-22 in speed and exceed it in supercruise duration and range.

To exceed the range of the F-22 is nothing to brag about. The Eurofighter and Rafale can both fly further than the F-22. Tempest would still be 5th gen. The USAF 6th gen will more than double the range.

Leovinus · Sat Jul 03, 2021 8:21 am

I have to say I find it a bit galling, in general, to entirely discard a project that has as yet not seen even a prototype in production.

Irt · Sat Jul 03, 2021 9:54 am

RJMAZ wrote:
neutronstar73 wrote:
art wrote:
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ter-plans/

Sensible advice, isn't it?

And no one will follow it, either!!

The problem is the European 6th gen programs are really just 5th gen programs. Removing the vertical stab like on the YF-23 so it looks cool doesn't mean Europe can then call it 6th gen. It needs extreme range, speed, stealth and sensor fusion.

Europe is simply naming them 6th gen programs to save the embarrassment when the US 6th gen fighter enters service and Europe still hasn't flown their 5th gen aircraft. Then Europe has an excuse for the delays as they are "developing superior 6th gen technology"

The French/German program is making a small F-35 sized aircraft to land on carriers. I fail to see how that will even surpass the F-35 capability. It physically can not have fuel capacity to provide the range of 6th gen. Speed is also connected to fuel capacity.

The Tempest program does seem a little more advanced due to it being bigger and not being hamstrung by having to be carrier capable. Their full size mockups show a fighter still clearly smaller than the F-22. It won't have the range or fuel to supercruise for long periods of time.

The US 6th program in all the public renderings have shown a tiny glass cockpit and a huge voluminous fuselage. Two XA100 engines have around 45,000kg of thrust. It will be twice the size of Tempest.

The best solution is to get the XA100 fitted to the F-35A as soon as possible and sell it to the U.K dirt cheap. With a 20% speed and range boost to the F-35A it will be able to now hit all of the Tempest requirements in my opinion. Sweden won't be too upset as they have only joined Tempest for technology transfer as they always do. The U.K needs Tempest to replace their Eurofighters within 10 years time. Sweden has brand new Gripen E about to enter service so they are sorted for nearly 20 years. Sweden would be the ideal F35 customer in 15-20 years time the F-35 will be dirt cheap.

Just lol!
This f**l even belives himself...

Since u can see into the future.. please tell us the specs of the coming European and American fighters.

UK needs to replace its Typhoons by 2030? Why? Are u telling us that the UK is developing a new more advanced version of the AESA radar for its Typhoons even tho the planes will be gone within 10 years time?

There is a bigger chance that the USAF is buying Gripen E to replace its F16s than the SWAF buying F35 to replace its Gripen.

art · Sat Jul 03, 2021 11:01 am

Leovinus wrote:
I have to say I find it a bit galling, in general, to entirely discard a project that has as yet not seen even a prototype in production.

Is the problem that it is cursed by not being American in the view of some? As for F-35, according to one poster, it is underpowered but that doesn't seem to matter. What matters is that with a new engine the deficiency it currently suffers from that does not matter will be fixed and it will suddenly start to matter that it has adequate power! A bit of a 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' situation evolving into 'We fixed what was broke because it was broke but it only became broke after we fixed what wasn't broke before we fixed it'.

And it currently still falling short in several hundred ways does not get a mention. Oh yes, the Europeans should abandon making fast jets and leave it to the US to do that. I mean who wants a fighter that doesn't have several hundred deficiencies 5 years after entering service when you could buy an American one that does!

RJMAZ · Sat Jul 03, 2021 1:16 pm

Irt wrote:
UK needs to replace its Typhoons by 2030? Why? Are u telling us that the UK is developing a new more advanced version of the AESA radar for its Typhoons even tho the planes will be gone within 10 years time?

The RAF Tranche 1 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft are already being retired in 2025.. They will be 22 years old. Tranche 2 Eurofighters will all be over 20 years old in 2030 and they'll be gone by 2035.

The Gripen E isn't even operational yet. They'll be more than a decade younger on average than the RAF Eurofighters fleet.

Irt wrote:
There is a bigger chance that the USAF is buying Gripen E to replace its F16s than the SWAF buying F35 to replace its Gripen.

That's probably what the average Joe living in Switzerland thought. There is a high chance that the Tempest program doesn't get the go ahead in 2025. What do you think Sweden will then replace the Gripen E with?

Irt wrote:
Since u can see into the future.. please tell us the specs of the coming European and American fighters.

The French German FCAS will be sized to fit the French carriers and will use two small M88 sized engines. The demonstrator will actually use M88 engines and fly in 2027 based on this link:

https://sldinfo.com/2021/05/fcas-next-steps-may-2021/

The final aircraft will have engines with approximately 90kn up from the 75kn of the M88. This is slightly less installed thrust than the F-35. Two small engines are also heavier than a single large engine at the same thrust putting the FCAS at a disadvantage. Carrier capability also adds weight, so does weapon bays and a large internal fuel capacity. The specs and dimensions will be near equal to the current F-35A.

The Tempest mockup looked similar to size to the F-35 when they sat side by side. The Tempest was a little longer and skinnier than the F-35. It is definitely much smaller than the F-22. I cant see the production version suddenly becoming bigger than the F-22. This is probably the only model where the exact size isn't locked in.

I'd estimate two 125kn thrust engines. 16t empty weight, 10t of internal fuel and 33t MTOW. 17m long, 12m wingspan, big 70m2 delta wing. This simply doesn't have the size and range for sustained supercruise.

The USAF 6th gen fighter I would estimate to have the following specs:
Two 22kn thrust XA100 engines
30t empty weight
20t internal fuel
60t MTOW
Length 26m
Wingspan: 15m
150m2 wing area delta wing
This aircraft will be able to fly across the Atlantic without inflight refueling. It will be able to fly at Mach 2 sustained for 1,000+nm. 80,000ft service ceiling.

We will check back in 10 years time.

Irt · Sat Jul 03, 2021 3:04 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Irt wrote:
UK needs to replace its Typhoons by 2030? Why? Are u telling us that the UK is developing a new more advanced version of the AESA radar for its Typhoons even tho the planes will be gone within 10 years time?
The RAF Tranche 1 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft are already being retired in 2025.. They will be 22 years old. Tranche 2 Eurofighters will all be over 20 years old in 2030 and they'll be gone by 2035.

The Gripen E isn't even operational yet. They'll be more than a decade younger on average than the RAF Eurofighters fleet.

Irt wrote:
There is a bigger chance that the USAF is buying Gripen E to replace its F16s than the SWAF buying F35 to replace its Gripen.

That's probably what the average Joe living in Switzerland thought. There is a high chance that the Tempest program doesn't get the go ahead in 2025. What do you think Sweden will then replace the Gripen E with?

Irt wrote:
Since u can see into the future.. please tell us the specs of the coming European and American fighters.

The French German FCAS will be sized to fit the French carriers and will use two small M88 sized engines. The demonstrator will actually use M88 engines and fly in 2027 based on this link:

https://sldinfo.com/2021/05/fcas-next-steps-may-2021/

The final aircraft will have engines with approximately 90kn up from the 75kn of the M88. This is slightly less installed thrust than the F-35. Two small engines are also heavier than a single large engine at the same thrust putting the FCAS at a disadvantage. Carrier capability also adds weight, so does weapon bays and a large internal fuel capacity. The specs and dimensions will be near equal to the current F-35A.

The Tempest mockup looked similar to size to the F-35 when they sat side by side. The Tempest was a little longer and skinnier than the F-35. It is definitely much smaller than the F-22. I cant see the production version suddenly becoming bigger than the F-22. This is probably the only model where the exact size isn't locked in.

I'd estimate two 125kn thrust engines. 16t empty weight, 10t of internal fuel and 33t MTOW. 17m long, 12m wingspan, big 70m2 delta wing. This simply doesn't have the size and range for sustained supercruise.

The USAF 6th gen fighter I would estimate to have the following specs:
Two 22kn thrust XA100 engines
30t empty weight
20t internal fuel
60t MTOW
Length 26m
Wingspan: 15m
150m2 wing area delta wing
This aircraft will be able to fly across the Atlantic without inflight refueling. It will be able to fly at Mach 2 sustained for 1,000+nm. 80,000ft service ceiling.

We will check back in 10 years time.

Here we go again.. if not Tempest then FCAS. Europe wont abandon its avaiation industriy. Relying only on the US for fighters wont hapen.

Since the mockup of the FCAS was over 18m in length i doubt your claim of 90kn.. more likley they will be in the 120-140kn range. The Tempest mockup i havet not seen any figures for. Only a 1:48 modell plane, wich said it was 18.12m in length so its also likley will have engines in the 120-150kn range.

I say keep dreaming on your estimate of the USAF next fighter.. cus what you are describing is a $500milion+ fighter. But hey ill be the first to admit defeat if it actualy happens.

About the Typhoons.. the T1 is one thing, the T2 and T3 will serve well into the 2040s.

RJMAZ · Sat Jul 03, 2021 11:01 pm

Irt wrote:
Since the mockup of the FCAS was over 18m in length i doubt your claim of 90kn.. more likley they will be in the 120-140kn range. The Tempest mockup i havet not seen any figures for. Only a 1:48 modell plane, wich said it was 18.12m in length so its also likley will have engines in the 120-150kn range.

You are way off. The European designs just like the F-35 are trading thrust to weight ratio for significant fuel fraction. Range is much more important than being able to accelerate vertical at an air show. The SR-71 could cruise at Mach 3 with less than half of the thrust to weight ratio of the F-35. High thrust isn't needed to fly fast.

Part of being designed for supercruise means they are longer and skinnier with a high mach angle. A 18m long fuselage will result in similar volume and weights to the F-35.

The FCAS prototype is using small M88 engines. You can't grow a 75kn M88 sized engine up to 140kn thrust. It will hit 90kn at that size.

Irt wrote:
I say keep dreaming on your estimate of the USAF next fighter.. cus what you are describing is a $500milion+ fighter. But hey ill be the first to admit defeat if it actualy happens.

What I am describing is 6th gen. Using F-35 engines and systems significantly saves cost. The F-35 engines are already at 190kn and they have exceeded 200kn on the test stand. The XA100 engines should hit 220kn no problem.

How light do you expect a fighter with two 220kn engines to be? You are clearly thinking about high thrust to weight ratios for air shows. At a 30t empty weight and 60t MTOW it still has a higher thrust to weight ratio than the F-35. 60t is huge. It sounds crazy just typing it as it's getting up towards SR-71 in size

Irt · Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:30 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Irt wrote:
Since the mockup of the FCAS was over 18m in length i doubt your claim of 90kn.. more likley they will be in the 120-140kn range. The Tempest mockup i havet not seen any figures for. Only a 1:48 modell plane, wich said it was 18.12m in length so its also likley will have engines in the 120-150kn range.

You are way off. The European designs just like the F-35 are trading thrust to weight ratio for significant fuel fraction. Range is much more important than being able to accelerate vertical at an air show. The SR-71 could cruise at Mach 3 with less than half of the thrust to weight ratio of the F-35. High thrust isn't needed to fly fast.

Part of being designed for supercruise means they are longer and skinnier with a high mach angle. A 18m long fuselage will result in similar volume and weights to the F-35.

The FCAS prototype is using small M88 engines. You can't grow a 75kn M88 sized engine up to 140kn thrust. It will hit 90kn at that size.

Irt wrote:
I say keep dreaming on your estimate of the USAF next fighter.. cus what you are describing is a $500milion+ fighter. But hey ill be the first to admit defeat if it actualy happens.

What I am describing is 6th gen. Using F-35 engines and systems significantly saves cost. The F-35 engines are already at 190kn and they have exceeded 200kn on the test stand. The XA100 engines should hit 220kn no problem.

How light do you expect a fighter with two 220kn engines to be? You are clearly thinking about high thrust to weight ratios for air shows. At a 30t empty weight and 60t MTOW it still has a higher thrust to weight ratio than the F-35. 60t is huge. It sounds crazy just typing it as it's getting up towards SR-71 in size

The production version will use a clean sheet design, not the M88. But as u said, lets check back in 10 years time.

Im not doubting the weight of your fighter, but the cost. That behemouth has to cost 3x of what an F22 did.

art · Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:26 pm

RJMAZ

Are you aware that while the US spends about 3.4% of GDB on defense, European countries spend more like half that? The only way I can see Europeans buying very expensive aircraft is when they develop the technology used in the aircraft themselves. I do not want my government to stop spending on R&D. If France or England opted out of engine development and production, the US could dictate whether or not we were supplied with their products and would almost certainly be in a position to dictate which countries could be supplied with our aircraft. This would include refusing us permission to supply countries X or Y for political or economic reasons eg we don't like the politics of country X or we would rather country Y bought our aircraft so we get the $$$ from the sale.

RJMAZ · Sun Jul 04, 2021 10:02 pm

art wrote:
RJMAZ

Are you aware that while the US spends about 3.4% of GDB on defense, European countries spend more like half that? The only way I can see Europeans buying very expensive aircraft is when they develop the technology used in the aircraft themselves.

I am fully aware which is why I am posting.

For a country who has never made a 5th gen aircraft or even a stealth aircraft going straight to a 6th gen fighter is minimum $20 billion worth of R&D. Aircraft prices are getting more expensive with every generation so with Eurofighter costing over $100 million each I could see the larger more advanced Tempest costing $200 million each due to the small production rate.

The UK would be looking at 100 Tempest fighters at $200 million each. Dividing the $20 billion development cost over 100 fighters is another whopping $200 million per aircraft. So at the end of the day all costs included each Tempest fighter would easily cost $400 million each.

There is a very high risk that the capability of the Tempest in 2035 won't be any better than the F-35A built in 2035. The F-35 by then will have its new adaptive engine to allow it to supercruise and have 20% more range all for under $100 million each.

art wrote:
I do not want my government to stop spending on R&D. If France or England opted out of engine development and production,

Rolls Royce still has the Trent series of engines pushing technology and Safran is making cores for GE. Plenty of R&D without burning government cash.

Plenty of commercial aircraft to keep smart minds busy instead of buying 6th gen fighters at half a billion each.

The west needs more long term government to government planning in terms of military equipment manufacturing. We have multiple products duplicating the same research and develooment. "You buy my equipment and I buy yours" each country concentrates on something that suits their level of technology.

For example Australia could make most of Europe's armoured vehicles in exchange for buying French built submarines built in France. France then has to adopt F-35 with their own assembly line. Everyone wins and saves billions. You could have 3 way and 4 way deals. No doubt some countries would demand more than their fair share.

art wrote:
the US could dictate whether or not we were supplied with their products and would almost certainly be in a position to dictate which countries could be supplied with our aircraft. This would include refusing us permission to supply countries X or Y for political or economic reasons eg we don't like the politics of country X or we would rather country Y bought our aircraft so we get the $$$ from the sale.

Based on history this is a very good thing. The French continue to sell aircraft and equipment to countries that are dangerous. It is there primary market to satisfy countries who have no access to US equipment. The west has had to go to war against french equipment on many occasions. State of the art French Exocet missiles being launched from state of the art French Super Etendard sunk many UK ships during the Falkland war. The A-4 Skyhawks operated by Argentina were in very poor condition as the US had already put an embargo on them 6 years before the war.

There will never be a day where the west will have to shoot down an enemy F-16.

art · Mon Jul 05, 2021 12:01 am

RJMAZ wrote:
art wrote:
RJMAZ

Are you aware that while the US spends about 3.4% of GDB on defense, European countries spend more like half that? The only way I can see Europeans buying very expensive aircraft is when they develop the technology used in the aircraft themselves.
I am fully aware which is why I am posting.

For a country who has never made a 5th gen aircraft or even a stealth aircraft going straight to a 6th gen fighter is minimum $20 billion worth of R&D. Aircraft prices are getting more expensive with every generation so with Eurofighter costing over $100 million each I could see the larger more advanced Tempest costing $200 million each due to the small production rate.

The UK would be looking at 100 Tempest fighters at $200 million each. Dividing the $20 billion development cost over 100 fighters is another whopping $200 million per aircraft. So at the end of the day all costs included each Tempest fighter would easily cost $400 million each.

Agreed, Tempest would be very expensive because of the low numbers likely to be produced. Same to be said for French/German/Spanish FCAS. The Europeans are dumb to duplicate researchon comparable aircraft (Tempest and FCAS) but they don't seem to be able to overcome nationalistic desires. Not interests, desires. This inability to co-operate for their common good, as illustrated by Rafale and Eurofighter both being developed, weakens them.

RJMAZ wrote:
There is a very high risk that the capability of the Tempest in 2035 won't be any better than the F-35A built in 2035. The F-35 by then will have its new adaptive engine to allow it to supercruise and have 20% more range all for under $100 million each.

I don't agree that F-35 will be as good as Tempest. As for an adaptive engine, RR was involved in designing such an engine 10 years ago. US chose them to do it.

RJMAZ wrote:
art wrote:
I do not want my government to stop spending on R&D. If France or England opted out of engine development and production,

Rolls Royce still has the Trent series of engines pushing technology and Safran is making cores for GE. Plenty of R&D without burning government cash.

See my comment on adaptive engines above. GE, P&W, RR will all lead in different aspects of fast jet engine technology. Why should RR stop? If any should pull out of the business, wouldn't it make more sense for it to be GE or P&W?

RJMAZ wrote:
The west needs more long term government to government planning in terms of military equipment manufacturing. We have multiple products duplicating the same research and develooment. "You buy my equipment and I buy yours" each country concentrates on something that suits their level of technology.

For example Australia could make most of Europe's armoured vehicles in exchange for buying French built submarines built in France. France then has to adopt F-35 with their own assembly line. Everyone wins and saves billions. You could have 3 way and 4 way deals. No doubt some countries would demand more than their fair share.

Agreed that it is stupid for military business to be done the way it is.

RJMAZ wrote:
art wrote:
the US could dictate whether or not we were supplied with their products and would almost certainly be in a position to dictate which countries could be supplied with our aircraft. This would include refusing us permission to supply countries X or Y for political or economic reasons eg we don't like the politics of country X or we would rather country Y bought our aircraft so we get the $$$ from the sale.

Based on history this is a very good thing. The French continue to sell aircraft and equipment to countries that are dangerous. It is there primary market to satisfy countries who have no access to US equipment. The west has had to go to war against french equipment on many occasions. State of the art French Exocet missiles being launched from state of the art French Super Etendard sunk many UK ships during the Falkland war. The A-4 Skyhawks operated by Argentina were in very poor condition as the US had already put an embargo on them 6 years before the war.

There will never be a day where the west will have to shoot down an enemy F-16.

I have little belief in the US' ability to identify a dangerous country. Too driven by national pride to listen to others more knowledgeable about the world and more capable of assessing the world, among other deficiencies.

I don't want my country's foreign policy to be subject to the simplistic views of the US through the US interfering with our ability to acquire or sell arms. Particularly if another ignorant idiot is voted into the highest office there.

mxaxai · Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:21 am

Irt wrote:
Since the mockup of the FCAS was over 18m in length i doubt your claim of 90kn.. more likley they will be in the 120-140kn range. The Tempest mockup i havet not seen any figures for. Only a 1:48 modell plane, wich said it was 18.12m in length so its also likley will have engines in the 120-150kn range.

The FCAS engines are expected to provide at least 120 kN thrust, possibly even 130 kN. Since Tempest is unlikely to be significantly smaller or lighter than FCAS, I would expect similar engines there.

That said, thrust is expensive, as are new engines. If they used a simple EJ200 derivative, they'd probably be limited to 100-120 kN but it could save the UK a lot of money in the short term.

art · Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:43 am

mxaxai wrote:
Irt wrote:
Since the mockup of the FCAS was over 18m in length i doubt your claim of 90kn.. more likley they will be in the 120-140kn range. The Tempest mockup i havet not seen any figures for. Only a 1:48 modell plane, wich said it was 18.12m in length so its also likley will have engines in the 120-150kn range.

The FCAS engines are expected to provide at least 120 kN thrust, possibly even 130 kN. Since Tempest is unlikely to be significantly smaller or lighter than FCAS, I would expect similar engines there.

That said, thrust is expensive, as are new engines. If they used a simple EJ200 derivative, they'd probably be limited to 100-120 kN but it could save the UK a lot of money in the short term.

Using an EJ200 derivative would need the Eurojet partners to consent, wouldn't it? Why would Germany do that when involved in a rival project?

Leovinus · Mon Jul 05, 2021 11:16 am

art wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Irt wrote:
Since the mockup of the FCAS was over 18m in length i doubt your claim of 90kn.. more likley they will be in the 120-140kn range. The Tempest mockup i havet not seen any figures for. Only a 1:48 modell plane, wich said it was 18.12m in length so its also likley will have engines in the 120-150kn range.

The FCAS engines are expected to provide at least 120 kN thrust, possibly even 130 kN. Since Tempest is unlikely to be significantly smaller or lighter than FCAS, I would expect similar engines there.

That said, thrust is expensive, as are new engines. If they used a simple EJ200 derivative, they'd probably be limited to 100-120 kN but it could save the UK a lot of money in the short term.

Using an EJ200 derivative would need the Eurojet partners to consent, wouldn't it? Why would Germany do that when involved in a rival project?

I don't know enough about the company structure of the Consortium and of the voting rights within it, but since Rolls-Royce took ownership of Italys Avia they have about a 54% development and production share according to Wikipedia. Germany MTU and Spains ITP making up the rest. If the company structure and founding agreements allow for it I don't see why not on a technical level. Though on a political level it's something else entirely...

Politically it could be offset by letting suppliers of FCAS supply certain parts for Tempest in return. So if there is political will I'm sure it can be sorted. And at the end of the day Britain will get an engine anyway, so why not let Europe profit from it if it can?

mxaxai · Mon Jul 05, 2021 11:21 am

art wrote:
Using an EJ200 derivative would need the Eurojet partners to consent, wouldn't it? Why would Germany do that when involved in a rival project?

I don't know the specifics of the EJ200's legal framework but the only major German partner is MTU, who already provide parts for the F/A-18E and F-15 engines - direct competitors of the Eurofighter.

Personally, I doubt that politics would play a role as long as only legacy technology is concerned. Though I also expect Tempest to use a brand new engine if they want to be competitive performance-wise. The EJ200 is a good but somewhat dated engine that would struggle to meet the efficiency and power demands of either of the two new aircraft. It would only work as a stop-gap measure if the new engine comes late or over budget.

art · Mon Jul 05, 2021 11:57 am

mxaxai wrote:
art wrote:
Using an EJ200 derivative would need the Eurojet partners to consent, wouldn't it? Why would Germany do that when involved in a rival project?

I don't know the specifics of the EJ200's legal framework but the only major German partner is MTU, who already provide parts for the F/A-18E and F-15 engines - direct competitors of the Eurofighter.

Personally, I doubt that politics would play a role as long as only legacy technology is concerned. Though I also expect Tempest to use a brand new engine if they want to be competitive performance-wise. The EJ200 is a good but somewhat dated engine that would struggle to meet the efficiency and power demands of either of the two new aircraft. It would only work as a stop-gap measure if the new engine comes late or over budget.

I do not know the legal framework either.

I don't see an EJ230 (EJ200 +30% power) being developed based on a 35 year old design. IMO it would be better to spend the extra $billions saved on a optimising a new Tempest engine design.

Irt · Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:50 pm

mxaxai wrote:
art wrote:
Using an EJ200 derivative would need the Eurojet partners to consent, wouldn't it? Why would Germany do that when involved in a rival project?

I don't know the specifics of the EJ200's legal framework but the only major German partner is MTU, who already provide parts for the F/A-18E and F-15 engines - direct competitors of the Eurofighter.

Personally, I doubt that politics would play a role as long as only legacy technology is concerned. Though I also expect Tempest to use a brand new engine if they want to be competitive performance-wise. The EJ200 is a good but somewhat dated engine that would struggle to meet the efficiency and power demands of either of the two new aircraft. It would only work as a stop-gap measure if the new engine comes late or over budget.

Im 100% sure that both Tempest and FCAS will use variable cycle engines.

RJMAZ · Mon Jul 05, 2021 5:20 pm

mxaxai wrote:
The FCAS engines are expected to provide at least 120 kN thrust, possibly even 130 kN.

Source? The FCAS prototype is going to fly with small M88 engines.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... akes-shape

No engine this size can produce 130kn. Are you suggesting they will fit the M88 as a loose fit inside the rear of the airframe and that physically larger engines will be fitted later?

If that was the case I do not see why they wouldn't just use larger engines for the prototype. They used GE F404 engines in the Rafale prototype. The fact they are using the a M88 in the prototype means the final engines will also be compact. That rules out 130kn.

mxaxai wrote:
Since Tempest is unlikely to be significantly smaller or lighter than FCAS, I would expect similar engines there.

The other way around. FCAS is sized for the French carrier. I expect Tempest to be 20% bigger and a faster
design as it does not need a slow landing speed for carrier use.

mxaxai wrote:
That said, thrust is expensive, as are new engines. If they used a simple EJ200 derivative, they'd probably be limited to 100-120 kN but it could save the UK a lot of money in the short term.

Rolls Royce already has a cleansheet adaptive design engine under development that has massive electrical power generation.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... ramme.aspx

mxaxai · Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:03 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
The FCAS engines are expected to provide at least 120 kN thrust, possibly even 130 kN.

Source? The FCAS prototype is going to fly with small M88 engines.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... akes-shape

Per the French Senate http://www.senat.fr/rap/r19-642-2/r19-642-20.html#fn15

The Rafale M88's maximum thrust is 7.5 tonnes (with versions of more than 8 tonnes possible). This thrust is less than its direct competitor, the Eurofighter's J200 (9 tonnes), a heavier aircraft than the Rafale, and much less than the Pratt & Whitney F135, the F35's engine (up to 20 tonnes of thrust for a heavier single-engine aircraft than the Rafale). The objective is to reach at least 12 tonnes of thrust for the engine that will be equipped on the FCAS's NGF, since this aircraft will necessarily be bigger and heavier than the Rafale. More power implies a higher operating temperature. Currently, the F35's engine has a significant advantage over the Rafale M88 engine in the matter.

The DGA has awarded Safran a contract for an upstream study programme (PEA), Turenne 2, in the amount of €115 million to work on increasing the power of the M88, which could eventually be used on the Rafale and make progress on the FCAS.15(*)

The second challenge for the future NGF engine is to develop technological innovations that can maintain high thrust at supersonic speeds and reduce fuel consumption when cruising at low altitude. Variable engine cycle technology, by varying the proportion between hot and cold air flow, allows such a result to be achieved. In fact, this is a very active field of research for American engine manufacturers (experimental tests on the F35 engine).

That the M88 engines are somewhat undersized for FCAS has been realized by all parties and they are considering a scaled down or less capable prototype. This is somewhat similar to the X-35 and X-32, which used a derivative of an existing engine (the F-22's) instead of the more powerful F135.
Obviously Tempest does not need to worry about such problems since they want to build the real thing straight away - though this does rob them of the ability to detect certain issues early in the design phase.

Irt · Mon Jul 05, 2021 7:38 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
The FCAS engines are expected to provide at least 120 kN thrust, possibly even 130 kN.

Source? The FCAS prototype is going to fly with small M88 engines.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... akes-shape

No engine this size can produce 130kn. Are you suggesting they will fit the M88 as a loose fit inside the rear of the airframe and that physically larger engines will be fitted later?

If that was the case I do not see why they wouldn't just use larger engines for the prototype. They used GE F404 engines in the Rafale prototype. The fact they are using the a M88 in the prototype means the final engines will also be compact. That rules out 130kn.

mxaxai wrote:
Since Tempest is unlikely to be significantly smaller or lighter than FCAS, I would expect similar engines there.

The other way around. FCAS is sized for the French carrier. I expect Tempest to be 20% bigger and a faster
design as it does not need a slow landing speed for carrier use.

mxaxai wrote:
That said, thrust is expensive, as are new engines. If they used a simple EJ200 derivative, they'd probably be limited to 100-120 kN but it could save the UK a lot of money in the short term.

Rolls Royce already has a cleansheet adaptive design engine under development that has massive electrical power generation.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... ramme.aspx

"Safran contracted to speed up 6th generation fighter jet engine development
The New Generation Fighter (NGF) sixth-generation fighter jet developed by France, Germany, and Spain in the framework of the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) will require more powerful engines than the ones currently equipping the Dassault Rafale (Safran M88) or the Eurofighter Typhoon (Eurojet EJ200).

Higher thrust means higher temperatures. According to the French Ministry of Armed Forces, those temperatures could reach 2100 Kelvin (1826.85 degrees Celsius) at the turbine inlet – 250 Kelvin (250 degrees Celsius) more than those of the M88. Current materials are not able to sustain such conditions.”

https://www.aerotime.aero/27428-safran- ... evelopment

Myv40 · Tue Jul 06, 2021 5:11 pm

art wrote:
t State of the art French Exocet missiles being launched from state of the art French Super Etendard sunk many UK ships during the Falkland war. The A-4 Skyhawks operated by Argentina were in very poor condition as the US had already put an embargo on them 6 years before the war.

1 Royal Navy and 1 Merchant vessel were hit by exocet, the other 3 losses were inflicted by free fall bombs designed in the 1950's dropped from the old A-4 Skyhawks. Ironically the bombs were acquired from the UK.

art · Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:30 pm

Tempest at risk of late EIS due to funding

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/tempest ... -required/

estorilm · Mon Jul 26, 2021 2:52 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
neutronstar73 wrote:
art wrote:
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ter-plans/

Sensible advice, isn't it?

And no one will follow it, either!!

The problem is the European 6th gen programs are really just 5th gen programs. Removing the vertical stab like on the YF-23 so it looks cool doesn't mean Europe can then call it 6th gen. It needs extreme range, speed, stealth and sensor fusion.

Europe is simply naming them 6th gen programs to save the embarrassment when the US 6th gen fighter enters service and Europe still hasn't flown their 5th gen aircraft. Then Europe has an excuse for the delays as they are "developing superior 6th gen technology"

The French/German program is making a small F-35 sized aircraft to land on carriers. I fail to see how that will even surpass the F-35 capability. It physically can not have fuel capacity to provide the range of 6th gen. Speed is also connected to fuel capacity.

The Tempest program does seem a little more advanced due to it being bigger and not being hamstrung by having to be carrier capable. Their full size mockups show a fighter still clearly smaller than the F-22. It won't have the range or fuel to supercruise for long periods of time.

The US 6th program in all the public renderings have shown a tiny glass cockpit and a huge voluminous fuselage. Two XA100 engines have around 45,000kg of thrust. It will be twice the size of Tempest.

The best solution is to get the XA100 fitted to the F-35A as soon as possible and sell it to the U.K dirt cheap. With a 20% speed and range boost to the F-35A it will be able to now hit all of the Tempest requirements in my opinion. Sweden won't be too upset as they have only joined Tempest for technology transfer as they always do. The U.K needs Tempest to replace their Eurofighters within 10 years time. Sweden has brand new Gripen E about to enter service so they are sorted for nearly 20 years. Sweden would be the ideal F35 customer in 15-20 years time the F-35 will be dirt cheap.

This ^^ !

I agree 100%, it's just typical British arrogance to throw out a term like "first 6th generation fighter" when they have yet to master ANY of the technologies required for such a platform, and historically they've struggled to design, develop and (most of all) MARKET or procure a major defense contract for an aircraft. I'll give a pass to the engine situation China/Russia struggle with, as they have the very good EJ200 engines for the EF2000 (Rolls in general shouldn't have a problem with this) but wow everything else?! The US had to dump BILLIONS for tech development and they already had extensive experience with RAM, state-of-the-art avionics and sensors, stealth design and aerodynamics, etc. I know I've said this before in this thread, but how on earth can anyone just assume the UK will crap out a plane with no issues at a reasonable cost and in an absurdly short time frame? It's completely inconceivable to me.

To you main point though - yes, double-down on the F-35 project and make it a bit better. Parts and training / maintenance commonality, easy integration of systems and communications / tactics, etc - AND far lower risk as it's already established. As you say, this "6th gen" thing is all marketing and PR, now they can say "well, we don't want more of the F-35s because we're looking for a 6th gen option" LOL.

art · Mon Jul 26, 2021 8:47 pm

estorilm wrote:
I agree 100%, it's just typical British arrogance to throw out a term like "first 6th generation fighter" when they have yet to master ANY of the technologies required for such a platform, and historically they've struggled to design, develop and (most of all) MARKET or procure a major defense contract for an aircraft.

I agree in general.

What would you like UK (and France) to do? We could shut down our military aircraft sector and simply buy from US. Apart from always being subject to US export controls (US effectively deciding our foreign policy), we would be throwing away $billions worth of IP. Of course if US decided to buy it that would be a different thing. I don't think US would. Result: we can no longer make fighter aircraft, US decides whether we can buy theirs - possibly with restrictions on use - and US more or less decides what we pay for them (no non-US competitors being available)..

Thanks but no thanks.

PS Fancy closing Boeing Commercial Aircraft down and buying all your 150+ seat airliners from Airbus because Airbus is better at civil aircraft than Boeing?

art · Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:29 pm

Tempest enters concept and assessment phase.

The Ministry of Defence has awarded a contract worth approximately £250m to progress the design and development of Tempest, the UK’s Future Combat Air System (FCAS).

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british ... e-funding/

RJMAZ · Sat Jul 31, 2021 4:14 am

art wrote:
What would you like UK (and France) to do?

Work together to build complimentary products not competing products. Splitting up a small market with competing products means everyone loses. Duplication of research and development costs and economy of scales reduces.

With any aviation project Europe simply has to add Boeing or Lockheed as a 25% partner and then have a separate US assembly line. The US will then buy the product no problems. Boeing or Lockheed will then provide input to sculpt the product into something the US will buy. Boeing and Lockheed will then campaign for it to be purchased like the F-15X for example.

The USAF has a demand for a Gripen sized fighter. Lots of European countries have demand for such an aircraft as either their primary fighter or a secondary fighter.

Also it can go the other way. The new US helicooter programs Europe could add SAAB, BAE or Dassault as a partner and give them a European assembly line.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net