https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-airshow-fighter-boeing/boeing-would-be-thrilled-with-role-on-new-uk-fighter-defence-ceo-idUSKBN1KA13C?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=5b51d5e904d3013004ebf4c6&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
 
U.S Air Force Reps Meet to Discuss Britain’s Future Fighter With UK

One day following the announcement of Britain’s future combat air system (FCAS) effort, known as Tempest, U.S. Air Force officials plan to discuss the project this week with UK officials.

Tempest was revealed on the first day of the Farnborough Airshow. The aircraft is described as a twin-engine, low-observable fighter.

Air Force Under Secretary Matthew Donovan told reporters interoperability is the most important feature when any partner is building a platform critical to an allied fight.

“Other folks who are going to develop new technologies, we highly encourage that, because we don’t have the corner on the market for sure,” he said. “But we want to make sure that they are going to fit into the joint coalition warfare fighting system they have in the future, so [that] we can agree on standards moving forward.”

Will Roper, assistant secretary of the air force for acquisition, technology and logistics, told reporters during the same briefing the U.S. must work with its allies, especially the UK, on the next generation of air dominance.

“A lot of what we’re going to have to determine about the future depends on the direction that we think threats are evolving, but not just our threats – it’s also the world of commercial technology,” he said. “Now we live in a world where sensors are increasingly propagating because of commercial investment – we have to weigh the pros and cons.”

Roper is visiting the UK’s Rapid Capabilities Office, which is a mirror of the Pentagon’s, to discuss ways the two entities can work together, he said.

“To achieve the National Defense Strategy we can’t do it alone. We’re going to have to be able to not just fight with our allies – we’re going to have to be able to build things with them,” Roper said.

http://m.aviationweek.com/farnborough-airshow-2018/us-air-force-reps-meet-discuss-britain-s-future-fighter-uk
 
Boeing, Saab and now the USAF... Is this the aerospace version of the three kings?

K0Xug6
 
I am here all week at FIAS 2018, and laughingly only read / saw the news on the second day here. Thus I wondered over to the BAE hall
 

Attachments

  • 41713106570_9f82d2c49b_k.jpg
    41713106570_9f82d2c49b_k.jpg
    484.3 KB · Views: 377
  • 43524662811_c156693778_b.jpg
    43524662811_c156693778_b.jpg
    90.8 KB · Views: 83
  • 43524662631_72089ae332_b.jpg
    43524662631_72089ae332_b.jpg
    90.2 KB · Views: 88
  • 29653094668_12b2959940_b.jpg
    29653094668_12b2959940_b.jpg
    61.6 KB · Views: 90
  • 42617036675_76c8147635_k.jpg
    42617036675_76c8147635_k.jpg
    779.2 KB · Views: 79
  • 41713105340_9de98941d5_z.jpg
    41713105340_9de98941d5_z.jpg
    97 KB · Views: 318
  • 42617037895_253af07736_k.jpg
    42617037895_253af07736_k.jpg
    484.8 KB · Views: 339
  • 43521853221_286ce6d1c5_k.jpg
    43521853221_286ce6d1c5_k.jpg
    337.4 KB · Views: 356
  • 29650208188_a7fbd7d498_k.jpg
    29650208188_a7fbd7d498_k.jpg
    423.4 KB · Views: 372
Nice images, thanks for sharing, if you get a chance could you take some detail snaps of the undercarriage, tailfins and rear end, be handy for modelling :) i dont suppose theres any outline drawings of the mockup being handed out ;)
 
I always liked the Replica and YF23 design obviously. Lambda wings have a weight penalty. This might be overcome, if my observation of the engine and nozzle are correct. It looks like the shape of the nozzle and the 4 pipes running along the engine is a conformal fluidic nozzle system. Apart from offering 3D trust vectoring, it has rather huge weight saving potential (no moving parts). Especially if combined with variable cycle engines.
It also make sense to go for bigger than F35 as this fighter should coexist with the F35. Looks to me that it might be about 17.5m-18m. That's F22 territory and A2A superiority.

Obviously the best chance of any European program is to combine with the French/German program. If for any reason that is not possible and - I can think of plenty - France/Germany should make their fighter smaller and more air defense/strike focused, as they don't have any F35 on order. It also has to be CV capable for the French navy. In order to be remotely affordable, they both should still cooperate under the hood in avionics systems, radar, weapons, counter measures, cockpit, software...
BAE can still cooperate with Saab and maybe Japan and why not Boeing, as well?
Two programs have to have two different fighters and why shouldn't there be two aircraft with different missions. One European "F22" and one "F35" (version A and C only and with 2 engines). The F22 is dead and there is only the F35 with all its well known shortcomings in the market for a continent that will have to be independent in its defense and a lot of further export opportunity.

This is my first post here. Please be kind and forgiving :)
 
Are they taking the piss with 'Remove before flight' on the intake blanks?

Chris
 
CJGibson said:
Are they taking the piss with 'Remove before flight' on the intake blanks?

Chris
Taking the piss? It's pretty standard to "dress up" mockups.
 
Trying not to be cynical here, but I wonder if the Americans are trying to nix a potential competitor by offering BAE a way into the PCA programme?
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, a joint US-UK-Japanese PCA programme could provide some viable returns.
 
Hood said:
Trying not to be cynical here, but I wonder if the Americans are trying to nix a potential competitor by offering BAE a way into the PCA programme?
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, a joint US-UK-Japanese PCA programme could provide some viable returns.

A great idea Hood. Getting a three nation PCA program up and running could in theory make the PCA much more cost effective than either the F-22/F-35 programs.
 
FighterJock said:
Hood said:
Trying not to be cynical here, but I wonder if the Americans are trying to nix a potential competitor by offering BAE a way into the PCA programme?
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, a joint US-UK-Japanese PCA programme could provide some viable returns.

A great idea Hood. Getting a three nation PCA program up and running could in theory make the PCA much more cost effective than either the F-22/F-35 programs.

I don't know, but the timing of the presentation, would seem to me be aimed right at the USA not being involved. What with the present President' stance on isolationism, it would seem to be showing, here's what we can do --
 
No problem with dressing up a mock-up, I was more concerned about a ground crew that would need a reminder to remove the intake covers.

Chris
 
Hood said:
Trying not to be cynical here, but I wonder if the Americans are trying to nix a potential competitor by offering BAE a way into the PCA programme?
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, a joint US-UK-Japanese PCA programme could provide some viable returns.

I don’t think that will happen as I thought the PCA like the F-22 would not be up for export due to the technology involved.

Anyway I’d rather partner on this project with nations like Japan than the US who probably have rather different requirements to us.
 
BAE Systems has big presence in the US so its not beyond the realms of possibility.

From my perspective at present BAE Systems only really has a market in the Middle East, how long that will hold in the face of growing US competition is open to question. SAAB have done very well with the Gripen with second and third-tier nations with generous financing and offsets. SAAB's ideas seem to still be in the cheaper single-engine category that might suit nations with small pockets who can't afford to build their own TF-X or KF-X F-35 look-alikes, hence their insistence on including Gripen E technology. The Tempest is a rather more larger and expensive beast (the Swedes have never operated a twin-jet fighter) more suited to nations with deep pockets and technically competent ground crews to keep them running). Will those competing commercial interests ultimately prevent a BAE/SAAB deal and is each firm's key market actually sustainable for a sixth generation fighter?
 
The reason the U.S.A.F. visited is to reinforce the idea of force integration; i.e. that they use systems that can communicate with each other for coordinated operations. Britain isn't going to get in on PCA anymore than they got in on the F-22.
 
Airbus interest ... https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/airbus-boss-tom-enders-eyes-bae-fighter-merger-cnfp6d2c0
 
Interesting, there are a couple of non-paywall stories, but all quoting the original Times story it seems. This is the best onehttp://www.cityam.com/289555/airbus-ceo-eyes-pan-european-military-merger-form-us-rival

Enders dream seems to be the unification of the defence arms of Airbus, BAE Systems, Dassault, SAAB and Leonardo into one giant defence aerospace company. Whether he wants it under the Airbus banner or separate is not clear, though I suspect the former.

Not sure what to make of this, if anything. Airbus doesn't have a fighter company, it has a 46% stake in Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH via Airbus Defence and Space. Airbus Defence and Space is not a 'fighter' company, its military aircraft products are all transport-related (A400M, MRTT and C295). Perhaps its a tacit admission that Airbus is not qualified to undertake a leading role on a military fast jet programme, especially given their eagerness to follow Dassault's lead.

Still more questions than answers, a few of my ponderings are; is Enders proposing to sell Airbus's stake in Eurofighter to BAE Systems? Is he proposing to dump his troubled Airbus Defence sector so Airbus can concentrate on its airliners? Or does he think BAE Systems will go fully down the systems route and divest itself of Warton to Airbus? Where does Dassault fit into all this and could they survive just as a business jet producer? Would the UK and Sweden as non-EU nations be happy to hand their defence aerospace capabilities to Airbus? In the helicopter field, Airbus and Leonardo are direct competitors, it would be hard to disentangle those competing designs into a rational family of helicopters.
 
The shape at the front does remind me of the character "Randy" from the film Monsters Inc.
 

Attachments

  • randall-bogue-personnage-monstres-cie-05.jpg
    randall-bogue-personnage-monstres-cie-05.jpg
    225.3 KB · Views: 255
  • randall-bogue-personnage-monstres-cie-04.jpg
    randall-bogue-personnage-monstres-cie-04.jpg
    374.5 KB · Views: 251
Have any ga drawings, dimensional data or even cad images appeared as yet in public of the Tempest design ? Be fun to create the mockup in model form :)

cheers Joe
 

Attachments

  • _20180718_075926.JPG
    _20180718_075926.JPG
    6.5 KB · Views: 249
Sure. BAE will upload full set of NX drawings to their media site soon.
 
If Tom Enders does realise his dream then hopefully something will have been learned from the A400M:

The European defense industry ...is besieged by
“too many national interests, too much overlap
and certainly too much waste,”
as well as the tendency for parochially driven
demands on industrial involvement.

EADS CEO, Tom Enders, in AviationWeek.com blog
'Things with Wings' May 2, 2014
http://aviationweek.com/blog/a400m-horror-horror
 
Source:
http://boards.4chan.org/k/thread/38578906/team-tempest
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/tempest-a-look-at-what-britains-next-generation-combat-jet-could-be/
 

Attachments

  • 1531752866057.jpg
    1531752866057.jpg
    354.7 KB · Views: 645
  • RS79875_Team-Tempest-Future-Combat-Air-System-concept-infographic-2-lpr.jpg
    RS79875_Team-Tempest-Future-Combat-Air-System-concept-infographic-2-lpr.jpg
    301.1 KB · Views: 615
  • RS79887_Team-Tempest-Future-Combat-Air-System-concept-3.jpg
    RS79887_Team-Tempest-Future-Combat-Air-System-concept-3.jpg
    94.9 KB · Views: 605
  • 1531751504672.jpg
    1531751504672.jpg
    304.7 KB · Views: 607
Saab CEO Says Warplane Maker Could Join U.K.-Led Fighter Program

While Saab is also evaluating a rival Franco-German fighter plan, the Tempest program funded by Britain’s Ministry of Defence and including BAE Systems Plc and Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc has more appeal for the Swedish company, Chief Executive Officer Hakan Buskhe said Friday.

“We’re much more intensive in discussion with the Brits than the other consortium,” Buskhe said in a phone briefing. “It looks very promising, and I think we jointly can do good things together.” BAE once held a 35 percent stake in Saab and the pair cooperated in a venture to help market the Gripen.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-20/saab-ceo-says-warplane-maker-could-join-u-k-led-fighter-program
 
Harrier said:
If Tom Enders does realise his dream then hopefully something will have been learned from the A400M:

The European defense industry ...is besieged by
“too many national interests, too much overlap
and certainly too much waste,”
as well as the tendency for parochially driven
demands on industrial involvement.

EADS CEO, Tom Enders, in AviationWeek.com blog
'Things with Wings' May 2, 2014
http://aviationweek.com/blog/a400m-horror-horror

Just look at MBDA. Consolidation into a single company achieves little because national security restrictions mean that you still have to have independent, firewalled, nationally-based companies to work on national eyes only projects. What you actually end up with are separate companies which share some business services. Not a massive saving.
 
Also, Enders has probably well and truly burnt his bridges with his recent ill-advised attempts to influence government policy and public opinion with regards as to Brexit. Calling his efforts cack handed is a probably a polite way of putting it.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Also, Enders has probably well and truly burnt his bridges with his recent ill-advised attempts to influence government policy and public opinion with regards as to Brexit. Calling his efforts cack handed is a probably a polite way of putting it.

I think you will find that perception is very much in the eye of the beholder.
 
RR was bumped from AETD follow-on program in 2012. Did they continue with their own adaptive-cycle, three-stream engine development?

Eurofighter production to end by 2023.

£2B invested by 2025

Final investment decisions by 2025. IoC 2035.

I get they really don't have a choice but is it me or does that seem like a long time? Based on existing current German and French fighter MCR's it seems they like to purchase planes but not fly or maintain them. Perhaps the UK has an opportunity to move quickly and garner sales ahead of Airbus but these timelines don't project much confidence.
 
There are photos of the mock up RIAT previous weekend, probably eyes only to RAF and MoD diginitaries ....laughignly I was at RIAT..

Wondered if it was in the BAe hospitality chalet by the flightline..

cheers
 
The PR exercise at Farnborough, with Team Tempest conflated with the mock-up in the BAE display area, seems to have led people to miss what the Combat Air Strategy says:

26....The delivery of the Future Combat Air System
Technology Initiative is being managed
through a pilot project called ‘Team Tempest’.
This innovative Government-Industry
partnership is being used as a catalyst and
test bed for these changes.

27. The performance of Team Tempest and
wider industry is key to demonstrating that
Government and industry can achieve the
necessary capability and behavioural change.
Our assessment of this performance will be
fundamental to programme decisions in 2020.
Success will prove that the UK is in a strong
position to lead in delivering affordable next
generation capability. Alternative options and
greater flexibility in our national requirements
will have to be considered if performance does
not meet expectations.

Clearly, the mock-up will not lead to a flying aircraft by 2020, if ever.
 
In that, by 2020 they hope to have an industrial team (with partners) that has a proposal that is affordable- which is not going to look like the mock up.

That said, the mock-up is channelling lots of design cues from other BAE studies over the years and an affordable project is unlikely to be a risky uber-stealth design.

In the mean time, everyone has money to go away and get their design teams working on future stuff...
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogAtFy3q3xk
 
http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-why-time-may-be-ripe-uk-tempest
 
While a Franco-German alliance would be problematic due to France’s insistence on a dominant role, it does reflect Brexit’s grim political reality. Airbus CEO Tom Enders’ recent comments about being open to a BAE/Airbus fighter unit merger depend on resolution of Brexit and other difficult political obstacles.

Given that Airbus/Germany has already (and most sensibly) ceded the leadership role to France/Dassault, I'm not sure I follow Aboulafia's logic that a Franco-British alliance would necessarily be a more natural match. In terms of technical resources and military requirements it arguably is, but the UK joining reintroduces the thorny issue of leadership - one that proved override all other concerns in the past. BAE's airframe branches joining Airbus Military as proposed by Enders could be an elegant way of solving it, but the uncertainties of Brexit make that a difficult proposition in its own right, as noted.
 
Trident said:
While a Franco-German alliance would be problematic due to France’s insistence on a dominant role, it does reflect Brexit’s grim political reality. Airbus CEO Tom Enders’ recent comments about being open to a BAE/Airbus fighter unit merger depend on resolution of Brexit and other difficult political obstacles.

Given that Airbus/Germany has already (and most sensibly) ceded the leadership role to France/Dassault, I'm not sure I follow Aboulafia's logic that a Franco-British alliance would necessarily be a more natural match. In terms of technical resources and military requirements it arguably is, but the UK joining reintroduces the thorny issue of leadership - one that proved override all other concerns in the past. BAE's airframe branches joining Airbus Military as proposed by Enders could be an elegant way of solving it, but the uncertainties of Brexit make that a difficult proposition in its own right, as noted.

Not to drag the discussion off topic but some may remember some contributors arguing that Brexit would have absolutely no short, medium or long term negative consequences for the UK aviation industry, and were spitting bile at anyone who dared suggest otherwise.
 
Tempest unveiling is clear statement of intent

The UK’s leading industry players and Ministry of Defence played a great hand at the Farnborough air show, with a clear statement of intent that they will not be left behind as their French and German counterparts strive to create a future combat air system.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/opinion-tempest-unveiling-is-clear-statement-of-int-450576/
 
Flyaway said:
Tempest unveiling is clear statement of intent

The UK’s leading industry players and Ministry of Defence played a great hand at the Farnborough air show, with a clear statement of intent that they will not be left behind as their French and German counterparts strive to create a future combat air system.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/opinion-tempest-unveiling-is-clear-statement-of-int-450576/

Intent is easy. Monetary support is wholly something else. We'll see.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom