Ozair wrote:

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



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

So Europe will replace two nearly-identical 4.5th gen fighter jets with two nearly identical 6th gen fighter jets? This is marketed extremely similar to the German-French FCAS.

I had hoped for this project to be a lighter, less expensive jet than the FCAS (since the brits already have the heavy F-35) but this looks like another powerful albeit heavy and complex fighter-bomber.

mxaxai wrote:

Ozair wrote:

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



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

So Europe will replace two nearly-identical 4.5th gen fighter jets with two nearly identical 6th gen fighter jets? This is marketed extremely similar to the German-French FCAS.

I had hoped for this project to be a lighter, less expensive jet than the FCAS (since the brits already have the heavy F-35) but this looks like another powerful albeit heavy and complex fighter-bomber.

Well, I think you got it the wrong way. The F35 is the small size. Trying to guess the length of the Tempest proposal, I came up with something like 18-18.5m at least. TBH I just took 2 images of the Tempest and the F22 and assumed the cockpit canopé to be of similar size for one pilot. It would make sense for the British to go bigger into air superiority size (F22) RAF only, with the F35B already in service and more on order.
IMHO there is no way to know where the French/German FCAS are going when it comes to size, role,...
Neither have the smaller F35 on order and the French need it to be carrier capable. Would make sense, if they go 15-16.50m, 2 engine attack/strike/agile. Just guessing here.
It is very early. In a few years, if the two programs don't join, the best outcome would be one big (F22) one small (F35). The Tempest of now looks to be the big one.

mat66 wrote:

Well, I think you got it the wrong way. The F35 is the small size. Trying to guess the length of the Tempest proposal, I came up with something like 18-18.5m at least. TBH I just took 2 images of the Tempest and the F22 and assumed the cockpit canopé to be of similar size for one pilot. It would make sense for the British to go bigger into air superiority size (F22) RAF only, with the F35B already in service and more on order.

The graphic displayed, and the model shown at Farnborough, are very much just concepts. They do not represent an actual design and therefore extrapolating size based on those models is likely not accurate in any way.

mat66 wrote:

IMHO there is no way to know where the French/German FCAS are going when it comes to size, role,...
Neither have the smaller F35 on order and the French need it to be carrier capable. Would make sense, if they go 15-16.50m, 2 engine attack/strike/agile. Just guessing here.

The carrier limitation will be a significant hurdle to overcome as it will limit size and length, especially given the French Carriers do not permit Rafale full payload take-offs today.

mat66 wrote:

It is very early. In a few years, if the two programs don't join, the best outcome would be one big (F22) one small (F35). The Tempest of now looks to be the big one.

Agree 100% it is early days. We know the US is looking for the following characteristics from their future fighter, “reach, persistence, survivability, net-centricity, situational awareness, human-system integration and weapons effects”. Those characteristics appear to trend towards a larger platform. How does that play for the Tempest program though, will SAAB accept and subsequently Sweden induct a 70k lb fighter, in stark opposition to the Gripen and Viggens that have served Sweden for 50 years?

Not sure much will come of this as I don’t see Dassault standing down from leadership of the French/German program, nor do I see the UK accepting a new jet that is built around French requirements.

Airbus CEO says eyes merger of its, BAE's jet fighter units: Sunday Times

The chief executive of Airbus (AIR.PA) said he was open to a merger of his firm’s jet fighter business with that of BAE Systems (BAES.L), the Sunday Times reported.

Tom Enders was quoted as saying it was time to “seriously look at consolidating and coalescing efforts eventually to one” and that “there’s just no room for three different programs, not even for two”.

His comments raise the prospect of a pan-European military aircraft firm to compete with the United States.

Airbus and BAE Systems were not immediately available to comment.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN1KB0U1

Ozair wrote:

Not sure much will come of this as I don’t see Dassault standing down from leadership of the French/German program, nor do I see the UK accepting a new jet that is built around French requirements.

Airbus CEO says eyes merger of its, BAE's jet fighter units: Sunday Times

The chief executive of Airbus (AIR.PA) said he was open to a merger of his firm’s jet fighter business with that of BAE Systems (BAES.L), the Sunday Times reported.

Tom Enders was quoted as saying it was time to “seriously look at consolidating and coalescing efforts eventually to one” and that “there’s just no room for three different programs, not even for two”.

His comments raise the prospect of a pan-European military aircraft firm to compete with the United States.

Airbus and BAE Systems were not immediately available to comment.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN1KB0U1

I saw a couple of "reports" on YouTube a few days ago, that also indicated a co-operative project. It's the only way I see this happening. Ithink it might be possible to have different shapes if most of the "Skelton" is used, including everything else, without increasing cost significantly to the point of being a clean sheet. But that's not my area of expertise.

If this is a 6,th generation project, I really hope SAAB hangs on to it, and maybe even Embraer?

SAS A340 wrote:

:highfive: If this is a 6,th generation project, I really hope SAAB hangs on to it, and maybe even Embraer?

Not really sure where SAAB's interest in this lies, as they generally seem to be more into smaller single engine fighters.
But I'm sure they have their reasons and could certainly benefit from the cost benefits of a joint project.
But if there is any co-operation with France/Germany, makes for a lot of hands in the pot again.

50% of the development cost is avionics/sensors.

25% of the development cost is engines.

That's if a country was building a cleansheet 5th gen fighter from scratch in my opinion. The airframe structure is now very easy to develop and test in the digital environment.

Shared avionics would easily allow for two different European fighters at a much lower cost. 20 million lines of software code is not cheap. You could even change the number of AESA radar modules to suit a smaller fighter while keeping the same backend.

I'm curious if the U.K and the german/french projects will build a brand new airframe and fit it with the existing Eurofighter or Rafale avionics and use existing engines with a thrust bump. Test flight of a production ready aircraft could be within 5 years of program launch.

Or will they go brand new F-35 level avionics from the start. Or will they do a block 2 tranche 2 with brand new avionics.

The RAF would be more likely to reuse F-35 components in its project. Export restrictions would be less of an issue. Requirement wise I could see the U.K building a very large long range fighter bomber with the F-35B as the low end. This could spark interest with the USAF as a F-22 replacement and could become a joint project. Japan and/or South Korea could be partners.

Overall design i would expect two F-35 class engines with F-35 sensors in a big stealthy supercruising fighter like the YF-23. As the avionics and engines would be in full scale production with the F-35 they will keep the price down of the large twin engine aircraft.

The French German project would then make a stealthy aircraft similar to the Rafale. This would be carrier capable.

RJMAZ wrote:

Requirement wise I could see the U.K building a very large long range fighter bomber with the F-35B as the low end.

Maybe they could do something like this:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060145019A1/en

[twoid][/twoid]I would be great if the Brits join up with the Japanese / Saab and develop a slightly smaller performance optimized interceptor variant and the German/French a longer range 2 man Interdiction aircraft. And buy what's needed from each other to complement their fleets. They could work work together on engines, systems, data integration standards etc. The other NATO airfroces can decide what fits them best. Or is specialization / optimization something of the past?

RJMAZ wrote:

The RAF would be more likely to reuse F-35 components in its project. Export restrictions would be less of an issue. Requirement wise I could see the U.K building a very large long range fighter bomber with the F-35B as the low end. This could spark interest with the USAF as a F-22 replacement and could become a joint project. Japan and/or South Korea could be partners.

I want some of what you've been sipping. As long as we have the ability to produce our own advanced fighters here in the USA, then that is what we are going to do. So I wouldn't hold your breath on the USAF looking outside of Lockheed, Boeing or Northrup Grumman for a 6th gen fighter.

Andre3K wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

The RAF would be more likely to reuse F-35 components in its project. Export restrictions would be less of an issue. Requirement wise I could see the U.K building a very large long range fighter bomber with the F-35B as the low end. This could spark interest with the USAF as a F-22 replacement and could become a joint project. Japan and/or South Korea could be partners.

I want some of what you've been sipping. As long as z have the ability to produce our own advanced fighters here in the USA, then that is what we are going to do. So I wouldn't hold your breath on the USAF looking outside of Lockheed, Boeing or Northrup Grumman for a 6th gen fighter.

The F-35 is a joint project. You cant even kick Turkey out of the project without delaying the entire program by 2 years. If the USA was so great they would have built the entire F-35 themselves and sold it normally through FMS.

Such a U.K project would be a 5+ gen fighter available to tier 1 allies. Basically an F-35 with 50% greater speed and range like the J-20. The US would play a huge part in the development.

RJMAZ wrote:

Andre3K wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

The RAF would be more likely to reuse F-35 components in its project. Export restrictions would be less of an issue. Requirement wise I could see the U.K building a very large long range fighter bomber with the F-35B as the low end. This could spark interest with the USAF as a F-22 replacement and could become a joint project. Japan and/or South Korea could be partners.

I want some of what you've been sipping. As long as z have the ability to produce our own advanced fighters here in the USA, then that is what we are going to do. So I wouldn't hold your breath on the USAF looking outside of Lockheed, Boeing or Northrup Grumman for a 6th gen fighter.

The F-35 is a joint project. You cant even kick Turkey out of the project without delaying the entire program by 2 years. If the USA was so great they would have built the entire F-35 themselves and sold it normally through FMS.

Such a U.K project would be a 5+ gen fighter available to tier 1 allies. Basically an F-35 with 50% greater speed and range like the J-20. The US would play a huge part in the development.

There is no chance to agree on any joint UK-US-EU project before the relations are normalized.

RJMAZ wrote:

Andre3K wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

The RAF would be more likely to reuse F-35 components in its project. Export restrictions would be less of an issue. Requirement wise I could see the U.K building a very large long range fighter bomber with the F-35B as the low end. This could spark interest with the USAF as a F-22 replacement and could become a joint project. Japan and/or South Korea could be partners.

I want some of what you've been sipping. As long as z have the ability to produce our own advanced fighters here in the USA, then that is what we are going to do. So I wouldn't hold your breath on the USAF looking outside of Lockheed, Boeing or Northrup Grumman for a 6th gen fighter.

The F-35 is a joint project. You cant even kick Turkey out of the project without delaying the entire program by 2 years. If the USA was so great they would have built the entire F-35 themselves and sold it normally through FMS.

Such a U.K project would be a 5+ gen fighter available to tier 1 allies. Basically an F-35 with 50% greater speed and range like the J-20. The US would play a huge part in the development.

F-22, F-16, F-15 all developed for US by the US for us first, others later. That's just a few. The only reason other countries got in on the F-35 is because the numbers for replacing basically the entire US fighter fleet were too high to shoulder all of the financial responsibility and risk alone. This would not be the case when you are looking at less than 1000 aircraft worldwide. I'm a centrist but I believe this America First sentiment is permanent from now on so Id put money on the US developing our own 6th Gen fighter and maybe sharing with others rather than us piggybacking on some other countries aircraft tech. And I don't mind. The UK has a plan for a new fighter, let them carry the weight of it on it's own.

Andre3K wrote:

F-22, F-16, F-15 all developed for US by the US for us first, others later.

They also went to the moon... Fat chance of
the US government ever doing that again.

All future large military projects will be joint programs to some extent. Even if the U.K does this themselves it will still involve a massive amount of US companies.

The USA, Japan, South Korea, U.K, France and Germany all want a supercruising, stealthy and long range fighter in the next decade or two. Like with Japan we will see a prototype but nothing will get a financially tick of approval to begin procurement for an order of under 100 aircraft. This will see countries swallow their pride a bit and agree on a realistic set of requirements.

The USAF would be crazy not to purchase an off the shelf fighter than had F-22 speed and F-35 avionics. US companies will jump on board so that they can have a "made in the USA" sticker on it. An advanced derivative could then win the 6th gen fighter contest as a budget low risk solution.

Naming is the big issue. This was easily solved with the Eurofighter consortium as the Germans would not order an aircraft called the British Aerospace Typhoon.

RJMAZ wrote:

The F-35 is a joint project. You cant even kick Turkey out of the project without delaying the entire program by 2 years. If the USA was so great they would have built the entire F-35 themselves and sold it normally through FMS.

There is no technical, financial or risk related reason the US could not have developed and manufactured the aircraft by itself.

Andre3K wrote:

The only reason other countries got in on the F-35 is because the numbers for replacing basically the entire US fighter fleet were too high to shoulder all of the financial responsibility and risk alone.

Not quite. The US was more than capable of the investment and risk but the aircraft, initially as the JAST, was meant to replace an aircraft common to the UK and the US and maintain commonality. The UK only contributed US$200 million to the JSF demonstration program, so just 10% of the expected demonstration phase cost. Canada also joined and contributed just US$10 million, so 0.5% of the total demonstration phase cost. Had the US not had that US$210 million I am sure they would have been fine...

Past that for the program as a whole, the US sought partners and partners sought the US. Both gained from the participation, in the US committing less resources (although in the long run the US funded the extra development costs, not the partners) and the partners receiving significant production contracts in high technology sectors as well as being able to acquire the aircraft at essentially cost price and support domestic industry. Look at the UK for example, as a tier one partner they stand to make nearly 10 times their initial investment in production and support contracts, an exceptional return for British industry especially in this current climate.

RJMAZ wrote:

All future large military projects will be joint programs to some extent. Even if the U.K does this themselves it will still involve a massive amount of US companies.

I'm not sure about massive and I'm not sure how much the US will be involved in the project. They may look to reuse some technologies developed from the JSF program, such as the stealth coating and the datalink, but I don't expect too much else. Too much US content may limit the export potential of the aircraft.

RJMAZ wrote:

The USA, Japan, South Korea, U.K, France and Germany all want a supercruising, stealthy and long range fighter in the next decade or two.

The US already has that and what they want out of their upcoming 6th gen is still open the debate.

RJMAZ wrote:

The USAF would be crazy not to purchase an off the shelf fighter than had F-22 speed and F-35 avionics. US companies will jump on board so that they can have a "made in the USA" sticker on it. An advanced derivative could then win the 6th gen fighter contest as a budget low risk solution.

I don't consider that viable for a number of reasons. For starters any US acquisition will require local production and 50% US content which is unlikely to happen. There is no evidence that the airframe will reuse F-35 avionics either as the UK do not have access to the source code for a start. Also any future British aircraft will undoubtedly have a RR engine, a GE or P&W unit on a mostly British aircraft will not be acceptable. Finally US companies will not sign up unless it is in their financial interest. At this point in time that is why Boeing is keen, because they will soon be out of the fighter business, but don't for a second think they will join out of the goodness of their heart. They, with all the other US companies, will need a very strong business case to support any investment in this program and as it stands today that investment would carry significant risk.

The likelihood of the US acquiring this aircraft is very low and I doubt it will meet their 6th gen requirements. In place of that, the US can continue to develop and invest in a proven, and cost effective, 5th gen platform that still has significant growth potential.

Ozair wrote:

There is no technical, financial or risk related reason the US could not have developed and manufactured the aircraft by itself.

You missed the most important and often overlooked benefit to the F-35. Having all coalition partners operating the same aircraft type that can seamlessly join together in a full scale war scenario is priceless.

The F-35 joint program effectively locked allies into purchasing aircraft by giving manufacturing contracts to allied countries. So the US could not have done it by themselves. There is no way the US would have given free F-35 aircraft to NATO allies and Australia to attain this high level compatibility.

Now that all major allies have purchased the F-35 it is only a matter of time until smaller allied countries buy the F-35.

This is why nearly all future projects will be joint programs, not for outright capability or cost reduction but for high level compatibility reasons.

Ozair wrote:

The US already has that and what they want out of their upcoming 6th gen is still open the debate.

The F-22 isnt long range. It has similar range to the F-35. Inflight refuel assets will be at risk which is why the penetrating counter air program was floated. It aims for 1000+nm combat radius so it will have to be very large F-111 sized.

In 20 years time the F-35 will be pumped out like F-16's. It would be silly for a country like Japan or the U.K to make something similar to the F-35. The best option is to make something bigger so it has a different role. These countries wont have a dedicated bomber fleet.

Ozair wrote:

I don't consider that viable for a number of reasons. For starters any US acquisition will require local production and 50% US content which is unlikely to happen. There is no evidence that the airframe will reuse F-35 avionics either as the UK do not have access to the source code for a start. Also any future British aircraft will undoubtedly have a RR engine, a GE or P&W unit on a mostly British aircraft will not be acceptable. Finally US companies will not sign up unless it is in their financial interest. At this point in time that is why Boeing is keen, because they will soon be out of the fighter business, but don't for a second think they will join out of the goodness of their heart.

A U.K fighter program would probably have 50+% US content simply become so much high end technology is made in the US. All it would need is an assembly line.

I could see an engine, avionics and airframe manufacturer from the US teaming up with U.K companies. We might see an F136 built under licence by Rolls royce for example.

The Super Hornet has shown how a proven and budget alternative can put pressure on procurement of new technology. A 5+gen

Why would a production development, that eventually stemmed from the demonstration model shown at Farnborough, have 50% or so US content?
BAE, Rolls Royce, GKN, Leonardo, MDBA, at least three of these have US operations true, however that is usually to bid to supply for the US market, in the case of BAE a large part of that is not air systems but also military vehicles, maritime equipment and various avionics.
This does not mean 50% US content, what about other potential partners, such as Japan, Sweden and most notably, Italy?

In 1985 France left the FEFA project, (which ultimately became the Eurofighter), because as mentioned before, France insisted on a near 40% workshare, meaning the others would have to accept a much lower involvement or have one of them drop out, as well as having some differing requirements. They also wanted M88 engines or nothing, plus a smaller size and carrier compatibility.

The whole project that has led to this demonstrator model, the first visual representation of it at least to the public, was started to retain the UK industrial and skills base in advanced military aircraft and to eventually replace Typhoon.
Though in partnership with others, 50% of the content going to one country, with a much larger industrial base in this area, kind of misses the point of retaining that skills base.

They are in fact seeking to replicate the Tornado and then Typhoon, where the UK industry worked with others. No one had 50% but even so, they improved and sustained the UK aerospace design, technology and industrial base.
All those cancelled home projects in the 1950's and 60's were fresh in the memory.

JSF, where as stated the UK was a Tier One partner, as well as being the first, was something of an exception.
There was a requirement to replace the RAF/RN Harrier force, with new carriers, not yet defined as the CVF but always planned to be substantially bigger than the Invincible Class.
But this was not seen as a viable UK only program, a new VSTOL type was always seen as a joint effort, this policy dating back to the 1970's.

That the UK got a lot more work than it's initial cash buy in to JSF would suggest, was because they brought some tech of their own to the party.
Who else has developed a viable VSTOL combat aircraft? The USMC brought the Harrier for a reason, as well as proving with the Replica project that BAE could work with LO materials and airframe structures.

So while the UK has gained a lot from JSF/F-35, it is not a leading partner in the same sense as with the Typhoon, which as I mentioned further up, itself had it's roots in the demonstrator mock up unveiled at Farborough. The ACA in 1982.
F-35 is a LM design first and foremost, while the UK was involved from the start, from industry, including some test pilots, it's a strongly US led program.
Which considering who is the major purchaser, three branches of the US military, is only right and proper.

Thank you Ozair and GDB for your well thought out and researched responses. I agree with you both 100%. Those responses were what I imagined in my head but didn't bother to put in words.

RJMAZ wrote:

You missed the most important and often overlooked benefit to the F-35. Having all coalition partners operating the same aircraft type that can seamlessly join together in a full scale war scenario is priceless.

That is a great feature of the program but if you look at those acquiring the aircraft in Europe, only the UK is a new user, every other country has and already does operate a US aircraft. The same goes for Asia where South Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia all already operate US aircraft. An extra level of commonality by operating the same variant reduces complexity but the difference is not that significant.

RJMAZ wrote:

The F-35 joint program effectively locked allies into purchasing aircraft by giving manufacturing contracts to allied countries. So the US could not have done it by themselves. There is no way the US would have given free F-35 aircraft to NATO allies and Australia to attain this high level compatibility.

You are trying to tie to concepts together that have no logical connection. The quest for interoperability is not so great that the US gives aircraft away, nor is it so great that the US would intentionally restrict a domestic program with foreign partners for that reason alone. Both sides benefitted from an international program but the US would almost certainly have succeeded in building and selling the aircraft to a similar extent.

RJMAZ wrote:

This is why nearly all future projects will be joint programs, not for outright capability or cost reduction but for high level compatibility reasons.

Look at the last few major conflicts the US have been involved in with fighter aircraft. Afghanistan and Iraq, fighters from multiple nations and no clear restriction on interoperability. Libya, no clear restriction on interoperability. GW2, primarily a US, British and Australian air operation that did not appear to suffer any interoperability issues. Bosnia, where most of Europe operated aircraft in the region and all the players appeared to work well together. GW1, everyone worked well together and interoperability, or the lack thereof given the large number of different aircraft types, did not significantly impact operations.

I fully expect the US 6th gen effort will not be a joint program as it will likely follow similar lines to the F-22 program.

RJMAZ wrote:

The F-22 isnt long range. It has similar range to the F-35. Inflight refuel assets will be at risk which is why the penetrating counter air program was floated. It aims for 1000+nm combat radius so it will have to be very large F-111 sized.

The F-22 has range enough for the mission type it needs to accomplish and may receive an engine upgrade at some point in the next ten years to carry it forward until the 6th gen aircraft arrives. As for the F-35, it will push 1000nm when the AETP engine upgrades come in the mid 2020s and will provide the aircraft with more than enough range. I’d also suggest that forward deployed drone tankers are a better option for supporting assets than worrying about rear areas tankers. The 20 year future of these ops also likely resolves around loyal wingman concepts in which the respective manned aircraft push unmanned platforms forward, in that context the ranges of the respective aircraft should be sufficient for their needs.

RJMAZ wrote:

In 20 years time the F-35 will be pumped out like F-16's. It would be silly for a country like Japan or the U.K to make something similar to the F-35. The best option is to make something bigger so it has a different role. These countries wont have a dedicated bomber fleet.

But is that what they all want? The UK perhaps is seeking a Tornado replacement but that isn’t actually clear given the stated intention of the platform to replace Typhoon. Really the airframe will have to be multi-role and in that context an F-111 sized aircraft will likely be too big and costly to maintain. Japan is seeking a high speed interceptor with a large weapons load, not a long range bomber and it is doubtful Sweden wants a long range bomber sized aircraft even though Saab wants to be involved in the program.

There are a few years of requirements gathering and partner building to go before this actually gets to the point where a valid size, weight and capability matrix can be built.

RJMAZ wrote:

I could see an engine, avionics and airframe manufacturer from the US teaming up with U.K companies. We might see an F136 built under licence by Rolls royce for example.

Doubtful on a F136. That ship has sailed and RR themselves recognise they need to develop AETP technologies. That is where US engine tech is moving and where the engine for this concept needs to go. They could acquire under license that technology but I think the far more likely path forward is RR developing the technology themselves.

If the US was to build its own 6th gen fighter, what are the chances of it being allowed for export? I'd imagine it to be more advanced than anything else built and taking over the role of the F-22.

Ozair wrote:

An extra level of commonality by operating the same variant reduces complexity but the difference is not that significant.

Strongly disagree. F-35 sensors and radar can link together between aircraft on an unprecedented level.

It is not the same as simply exchanging location coordinates through a datalink like 4th gen aircraft.

Ozair wrote:

You are trying to tie to concepts together that have no logical connection. The quest for interoperability is not so great that the US gives aircraft away, nor is it so great that the US would intentionally restrict a domestic program with foreign partners for that reason alone.

I disagree. The F-35 networking is so great that the US will tell it allies to stay home if they cant access the network. The risk of friendly fire in a stealthy combat zone would be too great. So they either have to give the aircraft away to allies or go it alone in future conflicts. A joint program was the only way to force all allies to buy the F-35.

Ozair wrote:

GW1, everyone worked well together and interoperability, or the lack thereof given the large number of different aircraft types, did not significantly impact operations.

Tell that to the family of the Tornado drivers shot down by friendly fire.

Ozair wrote:

The F-22 has range enough for the mission type it needs to accomplish

I said the USAF needs a long range fighter.
You said the USAF already has one.
I pointed out the F-22 isnt a long range fighter.
You now say the F-22's range is enough and is not a long range fighter.

The USAF needs a long range fighter and does not have one.

Ozair wrote:

The UK perhaps is seeking a Tornado replacement but that isn’t actually clear given the stated intention of the platform to replace Typhoon. Really the airframe will have to be multi-role and in that context an F-111 sized aircraft will likely be too big and costly to maintain.

The size of an aircraft doesnt have much to do with maintainance. A well built large aircraft can cost less to maintain than a poorly built small aircraft. Fuel burn is the biggest cost of a larger aircraft.

If they want an aircraft that has low fuel burn they would get more F-35's. So this points to tempest being much larger. Multirole is standard these days.

Ozair wrote:

Japan is seeking a high speed interceptor with a large weapons load, not a long range bomber

Who mentioned the word bomber? I sure didnt. An aircrafts range reduces the faster you go. The F-22's range halves if it supercruises the whole flight making it almost useless. The more payload you carry range reduced as well. So Japan wants a long range fighter. They can simply not buy bombs for it if they dont want to use it against ground targets.

Ozair wrote:

doubtful Sweden wants a long range bomber sized aircraft even though Saab wants to be involved in the program.

Saab as a civilian company would enter the program for the tech. Sweden isnt buying the USAF trainer aircraft but Saab teamed up with Boeing.

Ozair wrote:

There are a few years of requirements gathering and partner building to go before this actually gets to the point where a valid size, weight and capability matrix can be built.

I'm sure you are as excited as I am regarding any developments and how the program will form.

Ozair wrote:

Doubtful on a F136. That ship has sailed and RR themselves recognise they need to develop AETP technologies. That is where US engine tech is moving and where the engine for this concept needs to go. They could acquire under license that technology but I think the far more likely path forward is RR developing the technology themselves.

RR will not develop AETP tech for 100 aircraft for the U.K. Who would write that cheque?

The EJ200 is too small. As you know stealth aircraft with internal weapon bays are larger and heavier. So even with a thrust bump it would only have slightly more thrust than the single F135.

I am also totally skeptical regarding AETP tech. With a set fixed diameter engine the most powerful engine would be a pure turbojet. Adding a temporary larger path of bypass air means the core will have to be reduced. This core reduction would then cancel out most advantages.

I expect the gain will be less than 10%. You can either expect a 10% range increase with no thrust increase or a 10% thrust incresse with no range increase. Or an engine that provides 5% addition range and 5% additional thrust.

Performance wise you would be far better off fitting the F-35 fleet with two engine options. A low bypass engine with 20% additional thrust for speed and a high bypass lower thrust engine for 20% additional endurance.

RJMAZ wrote:

Strongly disagree. F-35 sensors and radar can link together between aircraft on an unprecedented level.

I disagree. The F-35 networking is so great that the US will tell it allies to stay home if they cant access the network. The risk of friendly fire in a stealthy combat zone would be too great. So they either have to give the aircraft away to allies or go it alone in future conflicts. A joint program was the only way to force all allies to buy the F-35.

What do you expect non MADL USAF users to use? F-15E, B-52, F-16 and perhaps F-15C will be around for a long time to come. The USAF is trialling a gateway pod for that very use case. Additionally USN F/A-18E/F, EA-18G all won’t use MADL for their work and will likely be interfacing with USAF assets for years.

RJMAZ wrote:

It is not the same as simply exchanging location coordinates through a datalink like 4th gen aircraft.

I am very aware of the capabilities of the jet…

RJMAZ wrote:

Tell that to the family of the Tornado drivers shot down by friendly fire.

That is a bit crass don’t you think? The Tornado shot down during GW2 had an IFF malfunction. How would that have changed no matter the aircraft being operated?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 63357.html

RJMAZ wrote:

I said the USAF needs a long range fighter.
You said the USAF already has one.
I pointed out the F-22 isnt a long range fighter.
You now say the F-22's range is enough and is not a long range fighter.

The USAF needs a long range fighter and does not have one.

As far as we can tell the US has plans for a long range fighter in the form of the 6th gen concept. Until that time the range that exists for current aircraft is sufficient, especially if/when the engines upgrades come through.

RJMAZ wrote:

The size of an aircraft doesn’t have much to do with maintainance. A well built large aircraft can cost less to maintain than a poorly built small aircraft. Fuel burn is the biggest cost of a larger aircraft.

A well understood concept of military fighter aviation is size increases complexity and maintenance cost. It is one of the reasons why the French pulled out of the Eurofighter and built the Rafale, the size of airframe was bigger than they were seeking and would have limited exports. It is one of the reasons there are more F-16 aircraft in USAF service than F-15. It is the reason nations like Australia and Canada chose the F-18 over the F-14/15. It is one of the reasons the USN went to an F-18 fleet and retired the F-14.

RJMAZ wrote:

If they want an aircraft that has low fuel burn they would get more F-35's. So this points to tempest being much larger. Multirole is standard these days.

As GDB has stated Tempest is about UK moving their industry and technical skill forward in areas that have been reasonably successful within previous partnership arrangements. The solution of more UK F-35s in whatever variant, while capable and almost certainly cost effective, does not meet the above goals.

RJMAZ wrote:

Who mentioned the word bomber? I sure didnt.

You made the insinuation by the following.

RJMAZ wrote:

The best option is to make something bigger so it has a different role. These countries wont have a dedicated bomber fleet.

The F-35 is already a 70k lb multi-role aircraft fully loaded and essentially the same max loaded weight as an F-15C. If I have interpreted that incorrectly then fair enough.

RJMAZ wrote:

RR will not develop AETP tech for 100 aircraft for the U.K. Who would write that cheque?

I think that is the point I am trying to make. The engine alliance that comes out of this program, headed by RR, will seek just that type of engine. The airframe would likely not be competitive without it.

RJMAZ wrote:

I am also totally skeptical regarding AETP tech. With a set fixed diameter engine the most powerful engine would be a pure turbojet. Adding a temporary larger path of bypass air means the core will have to be reduced. This core reduction would then cancel out most advantages.

I expect the gain will be less than 10%. You can either expect a 10% range increase with no thrust increase or a 10% thrust incresse with no range increase. Or an engine that provides 5% addition range and 5% additional thrust.

Performance wise you would be far better off fitting the F-35 fleet with two engine options. A low bypass engine with 20% additional thrust for speed and a high bypass lower thrust engine for 20% additional endurance.

P&W, GE and the USAF are very confident the technology works and will deliver the thrust and range promises required. They have invested a lot of money into it over the past 10 years and the technology is gusting TRL7.

Let's face it, it's very days for these future aircraft programmes, it won't be our current politicians writing out the big cheques to pay for them...all it takes a change of government in any of the main countries, and plans will drastically change.

Ozair wrote:

*all of the above*

I continue to be impressed with how much time you save me on these forums when I try to catch up on multi-day discussions that you've already replied to. I'm definitely on the same page as you with everything that's been discussed in here.

In any event, I continue to be taken back by how casually everyone in this thread seems to think the UK and other future programs (requiring a boatload of new technology) can be punched out like cheap car. These same companies have a long history of struggling with 4 / 4+ gen aircraft programs, and throwing the political issues into the mix paints the full disaster picture that most of these things became.

Now all of a sudden, these same companies are going to skip over an ENTIRE generation of fighter aircraft, engines, avionics/sensors, stealth, and manufacturing technology and casually knock out the worlds first 6th gen aircraft?!

In particular this..

RJMAZ wrote:

If the USA was so great they would have built the entire F-35 themselves and sold it normally through FMS.

Really? US contractors developed every single piece of 5th gen fighter tech we see being copied 3 decades later, even most of the features on this Tempest prototype in the OP directly reflect a design that Lockheed established starting in the late 80! Now all of a sudden they can't build the F-35 themselves?

It would have been easily achievable for this to be another domestic-exclusive program like the F-22, but it made sense on multiple levels to share costs during the entire development, production, maintenance, and even training programs , between our allies. You'd have to be stupid not to - it's basically what we went through with the F-16. I'm not exactly sure how you're able to link marketing / cost-sharing and pure profits to an inability to keep the entire program domestic. While I'm off on a tangent - just think about where all of these allies would be sitting right now if there was zero export F-35. The entire global fighter picture/model would be total chaos.

In any event (and to some degree) you're kinda proving my point a bit - the largest defense/mil spender in the universe "needed" these allies to assist in production of theF-35, utilizing a company which has already developed and fielded the most capable (and really.. only..) stealth air-to-air / strike aircraft in history. YET.. these other nations seem to think it'll just float off the drawing board into a production aircraft with no issues?

There's LOTS of avionics, sensor/SA, ergonomics, and stealth technologies that haven't really been mastered by a single one of these contractors yet - even on a 5th gen level, much less 6th.

Look what happened with the SU-57 - that thing had a jump start on any other equivalent 5th gen since the 22/35 - extreme confidence in an aircraft that could do everything the F-22 could do (better!) and after countless compromises, they ended up with an empty flying testbed netting essentially 4+ capabilities.


Anyways, there's a difference between resenting a perceived US "arrogance" in the market, and having a bit of humility for how difficult these programs actually are - and that just seems to be the same take-away I keep circling back to with this whole Tempest proposal. It seems like someones fantasy to me - at best a 2030's+ aircraft that ends up being a massive compromise due to endless political BS, with an EIS just in time to be left in the dust once again after immense funding.

Not unsurprising that the UK is looking for partners and I think India would make a good one for the Tempest program. I'm not sure what the appetite is from India for another large co-development program ala PAK-FA and whether they would see this as a either an opportunity to transform the AMCA program or a companion to that jet.

The potential savings from manufacturing large segments in India could be advantageous as well as allow India to use their own systems where desired or probably bid against the other partners for their systems to be integrated. India would also be good for at least a 150+ aircraft as the replacement cycle may line up quite well for a large segment of the SU-30MKI fleet.

UK invites India to co-develop 6th-gen fighter aircraft Tempest

The U.K. Ministry of Defense has unveiled new plans for a new stealth fighter jet called "Tempest" at the biennial Farnborough Airshow, referring to the legandary Hawker Tempest of Word War 2. After having rejected Moscow’s proposal to jointly develop a fifth-generation fighter aircraft, the Indian Air Force (IAF) will be invited this month to co-develop the Tempest.

Business Standard learns that a UK delegation, including Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials and executives from British defence giant BAE Systems, who will arrive on February 18 for the Aero India 2019 exhibition in Bengaluru, will brief Indian MoD and IAF officials and gauge the potential for collaboration.

The U.K.-headquartered firm will lead “Team Tempest,” which also includes engine-maker Rolls-Royce, Italian defense contractor Leonardo, and the European missile consortium MBDA. The aircraft will have two engines hidden away deep inside the airframe to help keep its radar and infrared signatures as low as possible. Rolls-Royce says they are working on an engine design that will leverage composite materials and advanced manufacturing processes to be lightweight, have better thermal management, and still keep costs low. The powerplants will have digital controls for more precise power management and to readily provide maintenance personnel with information about whether components need replacement and other aspects of the system’s “health.”

The Tempest will have a wide array of sensors, including advanced radars and multi-spectral cameras, as well as unspecified data links and communications equipment. As with other advanced fighter jet designs such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the goal is to provide the pilot with as complete a picture of the battlespace as possible, allow the jet to share that information with other friendly forces, and let the pilot pull additional data from other assets in the air, on the ground, and even potentially in space.

https://www.airrecognition.com/index.ph ... mpest.html

I would think the US might be a better partner a la F-35 than India.

So they're just copying the Ruston product line verbatim?

texl1649 wrote:

I would think the US might be a better partner a la F-35 than India.

There is little development comparatively for the F-35 compared to the Tempest. A primary goal of India would be getting in at the early stages and influencing the requirements, gaining access to technology and furthering domestic industry.

DfwRevolution wrote:

So they're just copying the Ruston product line verbatim?

I'm not familiar with the reference, mind explaining?

Ruston was a British manufacturer of industrial gas turbines. Their major models were the Tornado, Typhoon, and Tempest. They are still produced today but have since been rebranded following various acquisitions by Alstom and eventually Siemens.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Ruston was a British manufacturer of industrial gas turbines. Their major models were the Tornado, Typhoon, and Tempest. They are still produced today but have since been rebranded following various acquisitions by Alstom and eventually Siemens.

Ha, fair enough.

DfwRevolution wrote:

So they're just copying the Ruston product line verbatim?

Actually, it's worse than that. Like the US, they're just recycling their own legacy fighter names from WWII. It took a lot of brainpower to come up with "Lightning II". I wonder though, why have the UK skipped over "Hurricane", unheralded hero of the Battle of Britain? Or has there been a contemporary program with that name I'm not aware of? Tempest sounds cool, but it was a lesser-known model, and a variant of the Typhoon. Maybe the new Tempest name is meant to acknowledge the lauded attack role of it's predecessor.

zululima wrote:

I wonder though, why have the UK skipped over "Hurricane", unheralded hero of the Battle of Britain?

I seem to remember some banter about not using WWII "visible" names for modern fighters.

zululima wrote:

Actually, it's worse than that. Like the US, they're just recycling their own legacy fighter names from WWII. It took a lot of brainpower to come up with "Lightning II".

Yep, lightning II was a let down for me. I prefer the name reported in use within the US Services, the Panther (yes I acknowledge the F9F).

zululima wrote:

I wonder though, why have the UK skipped over "Hurricane", unheralded hero of the Battle of Britain? Or has there been a contemporary program with that name I'm not aware of?

I doubt they will ever reuse Hurricane or Spitfire for that matter. Given both still fly as part of the Battle of Britain memorial flight they are simply too iconic to be reused.

zululima wrote:

Tempest sounds cool, but it was a lesser-known model, and a variant of the Typhoon. Maybe the new Tempest name is meant to acknowledge the lauded attack role of it's predecessor.

I consider the Tempest a better interceptor than ground attack aircraft although by the time it entered service every aircraft was conducting A2G work.

Ozair wrote:

I consider the Tempest a better interceptor than ground attack aircraft although by the time it entered service every aircraft was conducting A2G work.

very good multipurpose System, while the Hurricane did most of their A2G work in Russia...... i think the naming makes sense.

best regards
Thomas

This has money pit and propaganda written all over it still. Why is this thing called a 6th generation fighter anyways? ...because they're so late to the game? lol.

Just sounds like some blatant attempt to regain some notoriety in the fighter world. You're not only going to match what has proven to be an unattainable goal for every other country, but leapfrog it by an entire generation?!

Hate to sound so rash, but look at the immense struggles every 5th generation fighter program has faced. The largest economy in the world could barely afford to develop/launch/integrate two 5th gen programs. Over a decade later, the No. 2 & 3 countries are compromising designs and slowly rolling out aircraft that grossly underachieve - still another decade from any sort of respectable fleet numbers.

But no, you'll jump in and punch out an entire generation past those. AFTER all of NATO and others are done topping off their expensive F-35s? Who is going to buy these things?

I will say, at least they've got RR - the ET engine performance has been really stellar - that's a huge element of the struggles Russia and China have been dealing with.

They'll still need TONS of partners, and with the political climate in the UK right now, I don't see any of this happening. The ET was a disaster of collaboration and instead of saving costs, it drove them up. With that in mind, every one of those contractors are going to be required to develop and produce entirely new technologies (not a progression, but rather skipping an entire generation they've never even touched before).

I don't see this going anywhere - dead end. In a few years, after the govt shakedowns smooth out - they'll buy some new F-35s, maybe with AETP and some new capabilities. They're already a prime contractor, already have maintenance and training, sims, etc invested and integrated - how much more will the Tempest offer that a future F-35 can't? ...besides a nostalgic name?

estorilm wrote:

how much more will the Tempest offer that a future F-35 can't? ...besides a nostalgic name?

Work for BAE, Saab and whoever else wants a piece of the cake. This could potentially merge with the US PCA but US protectionism will probably prevent this.

mxaxai wrote:

estorilm wrote:

how much more will the Tempest offer that a future F-35 can't? ...besides a nostalgic name?

Work for BAE, Saab and whoever else wants a piece of the cake. This could potentially merge with the US PCA but US protectionism will probably prevent this.

I think the Tempest and FCAS will have a lot of commonality.

Slug71 wrote:

I think the Tempest and FCAS will have a lot of commonality.

What do you mean by commonality?

Unless the programs merge into one there is absolutely no reason these two airframes will share any commonality except perhaps a common NATO datalink standard. They will have different engines, avionics, radars and other sensors etc. It is quite possible they will also have different weapons.

mxaxai wrote:

This could potentially merge with the US PCA but US protectionism will probably prevent this.

The requirements for PCA appear to be quite different to those of both FCAS and Tempest so I would expect little interest, and ability to afford the PCA, from anyone outside the US.

On one hand, 6th Gen tech will make projects prohibitively expensive, on the other, more than one type of 6th gen aircraft means near-peer adversaries will have to flex around which aircraft they choose to counter. That's how I look at the F-35, the cost sharing is great but how easy is it for a country like China to design an aircraft that can specifically counter it (even if it's a low-tech solution)? Another point to highlight is the amount of espionage that was directed at the F-35 program since its inception (no secret there), near-peer adversaries may have all they need at the moment to know how to design an affordable "6th gen fighter/interceptor" since the fielding of a mass fleet of Western 6th Gen isn't a concern for adversaries over the next decade or so.

Ozair wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

I think the Tempest and FCAS will have a lot of commonality.

What do you mean by commonality?

Unless the programs merge into one there is absolutely no reason these two airframes will share any commonality except perhaps a common NATO datalink standard. They will have different engines, avionics, radars and other sensors etc. It is quite possible they will also have different weapons.

Airframe/parts commonality. They look very similar minus a few small differences and the vstab.

Some more interesting Tempest news, the program sees the creation of a loyal wingman very similar to what FCAS is proposing although the UK is mandating it be carrier capable. An interesting decision and may result in a few trade-offs. I'd also expect that loyal wingman to be controllable by the F-35B.

Given the QE configuration it will have to be VL or more likely SVRL as well as obviously take off from a ski-jump.

Tempest’s unmanned ‘loyal wingmen’ to be carrier capable

The UK is looking to create a carrier-capable unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) as part of its wider efforts to develop the Tempest next-generation combat aircraft, a government minister said on 14 February.

Answering questions in the House of Commons, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (MoD), Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, Earl Howe, said that the Tempest needs to be compatible with the Royal Navy's two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, and that the concept currently being considered is that the UAV 'loyal wingmen' will be ship-based rather than the fighter itself.

"The combat air acquisition programme is looking at the replacement of Typhoon's capabilities [through development of the Tempest], and any new combat air system will need to be interoperable with the Carrier Enabled Power Projection (CEPP) programme. The concept phase of the acquisition programme will consider Queen Elizabeth carrier basing for any unmanned force multipliers which may form part of the future combat air system," Howe said.

Lord Howe's answer provides further detail to an earlier statement made by armed forces minister Mark Lancaster, who in July 2018 noted that, "The UK approach to its [Tempest] Future Combat Air System is for it to be fully aligned with carrier strike".

The TIZARD contract to develop the Tempest was awarded by the MoD in early July 2018. Team Tempest - which comprises BAE Systems, Leonardo UK, MBDA, and Rolls-Royce - is geared towards developing a replacement for the Eurofighter Typhoon in the 2040-timeframe (although it is initially set to enter service in the early 2030s).

BAE Systems has highlighted a number of vital attributes that any future fighter is likely to feature, including a flexible payload, an adaptable airframe, long-range sensing, advanced materials, laser directed-energy weapons, intelligent maintenance, cyber protection, manned-unmanned taming (MUM-T), and a future cockpit.

https://www.janes.com/article/86417/tem ... er-capable

Slug71 wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

I think the Tempest and FCAS will have a lot of commonality.

What do you mean by commonality?

Unless the programs merge into one there is absolutely no reason these two airframes will share any commonality except perhaps a common NATO datalink standard. They will have different engines, avionics, radars and other sensors etc. It is quite possible they will also have different weapons.

Airframe/parts commonality. They look very similar minus a few small differences and the vstab.

Zero chance of that. They are two separate programs which will have almost entirely separate industrial bases.

mxaxai wrote:

estorilm wrote:

how much more will the Tempest offer that a future F-35 can't? ...besides a nostalgic name?

Work for BAE, Saab and whoever else wants a piece of the cake. This could potentially merge with the US PCA but US protectionism will probably prevent this.

Better stealth, a weapon bay large enough for a decent air2air load and better radar come to mind. Mostly the stuff you just get from being decades newer and having a bigger nose.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

estorilm wrote:

how much more will the Tempest offer that a future F-35 can't? ...besides a nostalgic name?

Work for BAE, Saab and whoever else wants a piece of the cake. This could potentially merge with the US PCA but US protectionism will probably prevent this.

Better stealth, a weapon bay large enough for a decent air2air load and better radar come to mind. Mostly the stuff you just get from being decades newer and having a bigger nose.

Best regards
Thomas

You got all that from the powerpoint or do you know the requirements for the program that hasn't defined any yet?

Ozair wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Work for BAE, Saab and whoever else wants a piece of the cake. This could potentially merge with the US PCA but US protectionism will probably prevent this.

Better stealth, a weapon bay large enough for a decent air2air load and better radar come to mind. Mostly the stuff you just get from being decades newer and having a bigger nose.

Best regards
Thomas

You got all that from the powerpoint or do you know the requirements for the program that hasn't defined any yet?

No point doing the program otherwise. Didn't even see the PowerPoint.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Ozair wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Better stealth, a weapon bay large enough for a decent air2air load and better radar come to mind. Mostly the stuff you just get from being decades newer and having a bigger nose.

Best regards
Thomas

You got all that from the powerpoint or do you know the requirements for the program that hasn't defined any yet?

No point doing the program otherwise. Didn't even see the PowerPoint.

Best regards
Thomas

Of course there is a point which mxaxmi made clear, the program will likely deliver a great aircraft but it isn't rooted in requirements, it is rooted in industry preservation.

tommy1808 wrote:

Mostly the stuff you just get from being decades newer and having a bigger nose.

Hasn't electronic beam forming enabled radar antenna in other locations like leading edges, patches of fuselage or wing skin ?

Introducing unmanned sacrificial wing dings would require those to be indistinguishable from the manned platform, right?
( otherwise you can select targeting for the manned signatures.)

WIederling wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Mostly the stuff you just get from being decades newer and having a bigger nose.

Hasn't electronic beam forming enabled radar antenna in other locations like leading edges, patches of fuselage or wing skin ?

Introducing unmanned sacrificial wing dings would require those to be indistinguishable from the manned platform, right?
( otherwise you can select targeting for the manned signatures.)

I think the point of uncrewed wingmen is not to serve as armor but to go to places where detection is likely while the crewed jet remains in an undetected (yet close) position.