Its a pretty standard process of exploring alternatives and downselecting. F-22 example is below. Tempest / FCAS AP is still in the first or second columns rather than at the end point.

To some extent that's true - but all of the digital engineering means that you can keep the development of the requirement and the concepting going much longer into the process, because the design/build/test phase can be significantly telescoped and compressed.

Older programmes had to be frozen and locked in much earlier, so even if Tempest is in your 'second column', it's much further along than that would normally suggest. We're ten years or so from IOC.

Also I'm not sure it is 'standard' - most previous UK programmes have seen a more chronological and iterative process in developing a configuration - eg Typhoon.

This is much more looking at everything, looking at all options, taking lessons, simultaneously developing the requirement, and finally picking the features to meet the eventual requirement - at the last moment. I'm not sure I've ever seen it done quite like this.
 
Examining alternative configurations is a very standard systems engineering approach. It was done for years under Typhoon if you look back. But maturity of configuration can only come with maturity in requirements and technology - the "best" configuration choice depends on these. But this systems engineering approach isn't worldwide, some still go for a "we drew it, we flew it" approach - fine for experienced teams not doing anything too risky.

As well as time from PDR/CDR to IOC we should also look at time from concept start to PDR. This often takes many many years e.g. ATF concept starts 1981, final requirements 1991, PDR 1993. And this is not unusual. At the moment Tempest / FCAS AP is 5+ years into this phase
 
To some extent that's true - but all of the digital engineering means that you can keep the development of the requirement and the concepting going much longer into the process, because the design/build/test phase can be significantly telescoped and compressed.

Older programmes had to be frozen and locked in much earlier, so even if Tempest is in your 'second column', it's much further along than that would normally suggest. We're ten years or so from IOC.

Which also explains NGAD-manned for the USAF 'to be or not to be in EMD', I assume...
 
View: https://twitter.com/HoansSolo/status/1593868671755100160


Article Text

TOKYO -- Japan has entered the final stages of talks with the U.K. and Italy to jointly develop and build a next-generation fighter jet, marking a turning point as Japan looks beyond the U.S. for defense cooperation.

Tokyo will also consider revising its export rules to allow for defense equipment sales abroad, hoping to reduce development costs for the new plane and boost the domestic defense industry.

The Air Self-Defense Force plans to deploy the fighter starting in 2035. Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, British aviation and defense giant BAE Systems, and Italian defense contractor Leonardo S.p.A. will oversee development. A formal agreement is expected by the end of the year.

This will be the first time that Japan partners with Europe to develop a jet fighter.

The new plane is slated to be a successor to the Mitsubishi F-2, which was jointly developed with Lockheed Martin. Japan's Ministry of Defense initially planned to once again collaborate with the U.S. company, which is currently developing the next-generation F-35 fighter. However, Lockheed's refusal to share confidential technological information raised concerns about servicing aircraft domestically after deployment.

The U.K., meanwhile, had announced plans to introduce its Tempest sixth-generation fighter by 2035. With its development schedule overlapping with Japan's, and Lockheed's unwillingness to share information, that provided ample incentive for Japan to launch its first defense collaboration with Europe.

Russia's war in Ukraine has presented additional motivation.

The Japanese government has taken steps to increase cooperation with NATO. It plans to sign a facilitation agreement with the British government to make it easier to conduct joint military exercises, raising the relationship between the countries to a quasi-alliance.

The development of a next-generation fighter aircraft requires the integration of complex elements like radar and missile systems, as well as advanced stealth technology. The Defense Ministry wants the next generation of fighters to have the ability to communicate with unmanned and U.S. military aircraft, and to have sensor systems that can quickly detect and respond to enemy planes.

The planned collaboration will draw on the technological strengths of each company. BAE has a strong track record in fighter planes, producing the current flagship Eurofighter Typhoon with Italy, Germany and Spain, and exporting it to Saudi Arabia. The addition of Italy's Leonardo, which is experienced in sensor technology, is expected to give the plane the edge that Tokyo is looking for.

Engines will be produced by Japan's IHI and Britain's Rolls-Royce, while radar technology will be jointly developed by Mitsubishi and Leonardo's U.K. subsidiary.

In conjunction with the fighter's development, Japan will consider easing its restrictions on the export of defense equipment.

The Defense Ministry's "Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology" currently limit exports to transport and surveillance equipment. An amendment to the rules could allow offensive equipment such as fighter aircraft to be exported under certain conditions.

Due to the current rules, which effectively limit the market to the country's Self-Defense Forces, the domestic defense industry has sent almost zero exports to other countries. Many contractors have withdrawn from the industry.

Exporting fighters will also ease production costs. Although Japan aims to significantly expand its defense budget, there is concern that rising costs on the new fighter could pressure the government's finances. Increasing sales through British and Italian channels would ease some of that pressure.

The Defense Ministry will discuss revising the export rules with the ruling Liberal Democratic Party during national security strategy discussions at the end of the year.
 

Where is Sweden now? I thought that they were in the program. Did they get cold feet or what?
Sweden have never been in Tempest fully. They were/are in the wider FCAS programme (the UK one, not France/Germany/Spain) looking at technologies for future combat aircraft. They've also got a big defence review underway at the moment, which will look at combat air into the future, so there is the possibility that they could join after that. However Saab's CEO made some comments recently that their involvement has declined. I suspect that as the Swede's have remained non-committal the other partners have decided to leave them behind....

Basically Saab can't seem to decide on the future, can't leave Gripen behind....


View: https://mobile.twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/1563129008354897920
 

Where is Sweden now? I thought that they were in the program. Did they get cold feet or what?
Sweden have never been in Tempest fully. They were/are in the wider FCAS programme (the UK one, not France/Germany/Spain) looking at technologies for future combat aircraft. They've also got a big defence review underway at the moment, which will look at combat air into the future, so there is the possibility that they could join after that. However Saab's CEO made some comments recently that their involvement has declined. I suspect that as the Swede's have remained non-committal the other partners have decided to leave them behind....

Basically Saab can't seem to decide on the future, can't leave Gripen behind....


View: https://mobile.twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/1563129008354897920

Come on Sweden do the decent thing and join the Tempest program as full partners like Italy and Japan.
 

Where is Sweden now? I thought that they were in the program. Did they get cold feet or what?
Where is Sweden now? Here is Sweden now:
 

Where is Sweden now? I thought that they were in the program. Did they get cold feet or what?
Where is Sweden now? Here is Sweden now:
Just to put that in perspective...250m SEK = $24m USD

Which is pretty much a paper study.
 
The only thing I worry about is whether we'll see a repeat of the Paris-Berlin tussles over exports.

BAE Systems likes to export to anyone who has petrodollars to spare and who have shifted more Typhoons than its partner nations (though let's be honest has a strong whiff of corruption dogging many of its deals since the 1980s and HMG blithely skipping along with whatever deal is done as it boosts industry) and Japan who constitutionally has been even less willing to export than Germany and who has no track record of military exports at all. There may well be tensions when it comes to agreeing a marketing strategy.

SAAB isn't going to be doing much on its own unless the Swedish government is going to throw resources at it like Turkey does at TAI or South Korea at KAI.
 
A Saab'ed KFI sounds so good! Let's close our eyes and figure it out:
- Japanese radar
- RR 3 streams engines
- Bae/Saab avionics
- Outsourced HMD

And obviously, wider rims and an Aero package!

...

But obviously, a Swedish modified F-35B would make more senses.
 
Basically Saab can't seem to decide on the future, can't leave Gripen behind....


View: https://mobile.twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/1563129008354897920

"“We are not out of the programme, but there has been a hibernation period for Sweden while we see how the UK, Italy, and potentially Japan set up the programme. I am not sure how this will play out.”

I suspect this means that the initial studies were looking too far ahead to help Gripen with its near-term upgrade path.

Here is Sweden now:

Could this independent study be a first step in looking at "how the UK, Italy, and potentially Japan set up the programme" and whether/how it might be compatible with Sweden's requirements?

On the issue of export restrictions, this has been a deal breaker in the past. But with everybody forgetting WWII enmities and coalescing around a NATO increasingly focused on today's threats, it is becoming less of an issue as time goes by.
 
Could this independent study be a first step in looking at "how the UK, Italy, and potentially Japan set up the programme" and whether/how it might be compatible with Sweden's requirements?
The danger is that it is all divvied up by the time they decide to engage (and I'm sure they're aware of that and have it factored in)...I don't think the UK and Japan, in particular, are willing to wait. That could have a good outcome in that Sweden is forced to make a decision fast or it could drive them away further.
 
The only thing I worry about is whether we'll see a repeat of the Paris-Berlin tussles over exports.

BAE Systems likes to export to anyone who has petrodollars to spare and who have shifted more Typhoons than its partner nations (though let's be honest has a strong whiff of corruption dogging many of its deals since the 1980s and HMG blithely skipping along with whatever deal is done as it boosts industry) and Japan who constitutionally has been even less willing to export than Germany and who has no track record of military exports at all. There may well be tensions when it comes to agreeing a marketing strategy.

SAAB isn't going to be doing much on its own unless the Swedish government is going to throw resources at it like Turkey does at TAI or South Korea at KAI.

I think this part from the Asia Nikkei article will allay some concerns. No way BAE (or Italy) is going into this without firm guarantees that it will be able to export to the usual customers..

"The Defense Ministry's "Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology" currently limit exports to transport and surveillance equipment. An amendment to the rules could allow offensive equipment such as fighter aircraft to be exported under certain conditions.

Due to the current rules, which effectively limit the market to the country's Self-Defense Forces, the domestic defense industry has sent almost zero exports to other countries. Many contractors have withdrawn from the industry.

Exporting fighters will also ease production costs. Although Japan aims to significantly expand its defense budget, there is concern that rising costs on the new fighter could pressure the government's finances. Increasing sales through British and Italian channels would ease some of that pressure.

The Defense Ministry will discuss revising the export rules with the ruling Liberal Democratic Party during national security strategy discussions at the end of the year."
 
Could this independent study be a first step in looking at "how the UK, Italy, and potentially Japan set up the programme" and whether/how it might be compatible with Sweden's requirements?
The danger is that it is all divvied up by the time they decide to engage (and I'm sure they're aware of that and have it factored in)...I don't think the UK and Japan, in particular, are willing to wait. That could have a good outcome in that Sweden is forced to make a decision fast or it could drive them away further.
Sort of. If UK/Japan wait for Sweden, who are professedly waiting for them, then both are waiting for each other just like me and Senior Management getting ready for a car journey.
 
Geopolitics is always fun.

Interesting to see tons of criticisms of Qatar around a footie contest and yet most people are probably blissfully unaware that there are currently two bi-national RAF units with the Qatari EAF - the AJT Training Squadron at Leeming with Hawks (now with MOD designation T2A) and 12 Sqn at Coningsby on Typhoon.
 
Looks like we need soon to be opened a new thread titled "UK-Italy-Japan Global Combat Air Programme" or something.

Japan, the UK and Italy are close to announcing a political agreement on a new jet fighter, joining forces to fund a multi-billion dollar program capable of competing with the next generation of warplanes from the US and elsewhere.

The accord on the project, to be called the Global Combat Air Program, is expected next week, according to people familiar with the issue. Parties involved had said in July, when Japan’s likely involvement was announced, that the aim was to seal an agreement by year-end. The date could slip to later in the month, one of the people said.

 
Looks like we need soon to be opened a new thread titled "UK-Italy-Japan Global Combat Air Programme" or something.

Japan, the UK and Italy are close to announcing a political agreement on a new jet fighter, joining forces to fund a multi-billion dollar program capable of competing with the next generation of warplanes from the US and elsewhere.

The accord on the project, to be called the Global Combat Air Program, is expected next week, according to people familiar with the issue. Parties involved had said in July, when Japan’s likely involvement was announced, that the aim was to seal an agreement by year-end. The date could slip to later in the month, one of the people said.

That title really trips off the tongue doesn’t it!
 
Looks like we need soon to be opened a new thread titled "UK-Italy-Japan Global Combat Air Programme" or something.

Japan, the UK and Italy are close to announcing a political agreement on a new jet fighter, joining forces to fund a multi-billion dollar program capable of competing with the next generation of warplanes from the US and elsewhere.

The accord on the project, to be called the Global Combat Air Program, is expected next week, according to people familiar with the issue. Parties involved had said in July, when Japan’s likely involvement was announced, that the aim was to seal an agreement by year-end. The date could slip to later in the month, one of the people said.

That title really trips off the tongue doesn’t it!

What was wrong with Tempest? Calling it the Global Combat Air Program is just plane daft, unless they are planning to do a competition to name the plane in the future. Oh Help!!!
 
Looks like we need soon to be opened a new thread titled "UK-Italy-Japan Global Combat Air Programme" or something.

I do wonder how long the UK will keep the FCAS side of things going. At some point where the co-operation with Sweden is minor and Japan and Italy are in Tempest/GCAP you'd surely want the tech to stop being shared and concentrated within the main programme.
 
Looks like we need soon to be opened a new thread titled "UK-Italy-Japan Global Combat Air Programme" or something.

I do wonder how long the UK will keep the FCAS side of things going. At some point where the co-operation with Sweden is minor and Japan and Italy are in Tempest/GCAP you'd surely want the tech to stop being shared and concentrated within the main programme.

I would say to Sweden you are either in Tempest/GCAP or you are out, there is no middle ground. We are moving forward with the next stage of development.
 
Looks like we need soon to be opened a new thread titled "UK-Italy-Japan Global Combat Air Programme" or something.

I do wonder how long the UK will keep the FCAS side of things going. At some point where the co-operation with Sweden is minor and Japan and Italy are in Tempest/GCAP you'd surely want the tech to stop being shared and concentrated within the main programme.

Surely that's in large part what this new Swedish study is about: is that crystallised programme a good fit to Swedish needs?
 
Surely that's in large part what this new Swedish study is about: is that crystallised programme a good fit to Swedish needs?
Politics is never good for timing anything, but it does seem to be a little out of step with the other partners...
 
Surely that's in large part what this new Swedish study is about: is that crystallised programme a good fit to Swedish needs?
Politics is never good for timing anything, but it does seem to be a little out of step with the other partners...
Well, that's why Sweden want to take a closer look: now that tempest has crystallised its direction, is it still in step with Sweden or not? You know, if Sweden always followed the herd we would never have had Draken, Viggen or Gripen. But it would worry me if the new plane was christened Yggdrasil ;)
 
A lot has happened in the past years that may influence Sweden's final decision:
- Britain left the EU
- Ukraine war
- Sweden (and Finland) joined NATO

Recently the EU called on member states for more cooperation on weapons production and reduction of the large amount of different weapon systems in use.
It is a matter of time before Sweden and Italy will be pressured by the EU to join the French/German/Spain fighter program and leave Tempest/GCAP.
The EU will not allow the French/German/Spain fighter program to fail and will in future throw as much money at it as necessary.

Instead of Sweden joining the EU project it may also decide to simply buy F-35s in future, like all their neighbors Norway, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and even Britain (F-35B) do.

As much as I would like to see Tempest to be produced I doubt it will happen, unless the British government will also do "whatever it takes". In view of the past attitude of British governments towards the aviation industry that seems unlikely.
 
The EU is irrelevant to who builds a fighter. These are national government programmes, nothing to do with the EU. Whoever builds these is building them for national prestige and national defence and to boost their own export earnings.
What matters now is who can stump up the billions and who can bring something to the table in terms of industrial and technical capability.

There is no way Trappier wants any more partners, he wouldn't want SAAB muscling in on his workshare - or provoking Airbus to renegotiate theirs - and he has Plan B blackmail lined up ready.

Recently the EU called on member states for more cooperation on weapons production and reduction of the large amount of different weapon systems in use.
Yeah, NATO been doing that since 1950 and haven't got very far...

NATO is the beast nobody has talked about. Typhoon and Rafale have failed to have any impact on NATO nations beyond the 'home' nations who designed them. The USA has swept up all the NATO airforces, and continue to do so with F-35 (Sweden will have F-35s years before it has Tempest or Dassaults).
The UK and Italy (themselves with a lot of skin in the F-35 game) have gone big - leapfrogged Europe and tied up with Japan, another nation who has been drip fed US technology for years.
SAAB tried to get into the little NATO nations, got beat up by cut-price F-16s and ended up selling to Brazil.
Dassault and BAE make millions selling to oil rich Emirate air forces (who also buy US).

The big question is; what are Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, Poland, Romania and Greece going to buy post-F-35? Are they going to be wooed back to buying European? Arguments about "can I sell to despots with deep pockets" isn't really a marketing strategy that should be number one priority given these two programmes are the last throw of the dice for European military aircraft production.
 
A lot has happened in the past years that may influence Sweden's final decision:
- Britain left the EU
- Ukraine war
- Sweden (and Finland) joined NATO

Recently the EU called on member states for more cooperation on weapons production and reduction of the large amount of different weapon systems in use.
It is a matter of time before Sweden and Italy will be pressured by the EU to join the French/German/Spain fighter program and leave Tempest/GCAP.
The EU will not allow the French/German/Spain fighter program to fail and will in future throw as much money at it as necessary.

Instead of Sweden joining the EU project it may also decide to simply buy F-35s in future, like all their neighbors Norway, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and even Britain (F-35B) do.

As much as I would like to see Tempest to be produced I doubt it will happen, unless the British government will also do "whatever it takes". In view of the past attitude of British governments towards the aviation industry that seems unlikely.

One thing you've missed from that list is one of the most important...(and I think you're massively understating the importance of Tempest for the UK and Italy, and Sweden's desire to protect its sovereign capability)

After Sweden and Finland decided to join NATO it was clear that there was going to be a gap between their stated intention of joining and actually getting fully accepted by NATO and covered by the mutual defence it offers (which lets not forget is still ongoing...with an EU member one of the 2 countries holding it up...). To say they felt a little vulnerable at the time, having abandoned neutrality and previous agreements with Russia, is understating things...the UK Government immediately offered and agreed a Mutual Security Agreement, essentially extending UK military support to both countries if they were attacked by Russia. An attack on either would bring the UK in on their side. To say this allayed fears in both countries and was well received does not come close to describing the goodwill and reassurance it created, within the population and politics. The US followed suit recently for both countries. Such support from continental european countries has been very noticeable by its absence...and before anyone asks.....the EU Mutual Aid agreements come nowhere close to that offered by the UK and US in the 'watertightness' or intent of the agreement, or to be frank in their military ability.

 
Let's not forget that FCAS, as it is, is probably overly complex and too big for Sweden.

Then, if Sweden can build something with parts and bits taken out of it (communality), then maybe.
 
Post F-35 is a long way away. I'd be pretty sure that whatever USAF builds to replace 1,000+ F-35As is also the answer for most European countries, much like F-35 itself and F-16 before.

Anyone buying significant numbers of "Tempest" or "NGF" is going to spend a large portion of their defence budget doing so

Sweden barely afforded Gripen A/B development in the 80s (more of "cashflow" issue than total), and seems to have had to sell half the programme to Brazil to fund the E.

Where does the money come from?
 
SAAB tried to get into the little NATO nations, got beat up by cut-price F-16s and ended up selling to Brazil.
To be fair Sweden did get some headway with Eastern European air forces but needed to use surplus Gripen and clever lease financing to do it.However Czechia appears to be going to F-35 when the lease expires.
 
Instead of Sweden joining the EU project it may also decide to simply buy F-35s in future, like all their neighbors Norway, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and even Britain (F-35B) do.
I forgot to mention that also Poland has ordered F-35s.
Sweden will soon be surrounded by NATO countries that all have F-35 stealth fighters, and will realize that their Gripens are completely outdated. They can't wait 15 years to replace them until finally a European stealth fighter comes available. They will soon order a couple of dozen F-35s.

Sweden was always neutral and that justified an expensive fighter industry so they could say to the USSR, and then Russia: look we are really neutral, we don't use fighters produced by NATO members.
But now they are also NATO member so the Swedish government doesn't need to keep up appearances anymore.
The EU is irrelevant to who builds a fighter. These are national government programmes, nothing to do with the EU.
The EU is not irrelevant because they will lend money or subsidize the project.
It is already starting: in response to the American "Inflation Reduction Act", which has nothing to do with inflation reduction but everything with subsidizing US industry, the EU now also considers industry subsidies.
One thing you've missed from that list is one of the most important...(and I think you're massively understating the importance of Tempest for the UK and Italy, and Sweden's desire to protect its sovereign capability)
Sweden is no longer neutral so they don't really need that sovereign capability anymore. They may want to preserve and progress design know-how but being an EU member that can better be done within an EU project than within a project outside the EU.
Italy already ordered and operates F-35As en F-35Bs. They can easily order more. Moreover Italy heavily depends on the ECB printing press (quantitive easing) and is therefor easy to convince that they should leave Tempest and join SCAF.

I would love to see both Tempest and SCAF go into series production, but I don't think that will happen. Look at the size of the EU (inhabitants and GDP) versus that of the UK, assuming there will still be a UK by the time Tempest is supposed to fly. Sooner or later Scotland will become independent and join the EU, and Northern Ireland will reunite with EU member Ireland.

The glory days of British aviation are long gone, and so is the British Empire, but some forum members still don't want to see that. Tempest lost its future as soon as Boris took the UK out of the EU.
 
Last edited:
I think there are a few assumptions in the scenario above (as it relates to the Tempest program) that probably aren’t correct.

Sweden has only started buying/ deliveries of the Gripen E/F which is a quality aircraft.
I don’t see any likelihood of a F-35 order any time soon. In that context there is a potential miss-match between when other current/ prospective Tempest members/ customers (UK, Japan, Italy) actually need deliveries to begin versus Sweden. Essentially Sweden is in less of a rush apart from an awareness they may “miss the boat” from an industrial/ project perspective.

Italy is clearly in Team Tempest rather than the equivalent France/Germany/Spain project for industrial rather than primarily requirement or political reasons (i.e. everything else being equal they likely would have preferred to be in the France /Germany/Spain project - which very much indicates all things were not equal from their perspective). Hence Italy jumping ships, while not impossible, may well not be easy or readily done (will be interesting to see how Japan’s involvement will impact Italy’s long term level of involvement and views on this).

Re: the UK I think the important factor is if Japan’s involvement is finalised and really holds up over time. In theory a UK, Japan & Italy joint project (potential then adding Sweden) picking up other export orders should have enough critical mass to survive. Just a UK & Italy project with Sweden as a maybe would be questionable in this regard (particularly given likely pressure on the UK to “go American” and on Italy to go the same US route or to get involved in the France/ Germany/ Spain project).

There are broader macro- political and economic factors that encourage near-term strengthening of military capabilities while also impeding the ability to pay for this. This is seen across the world, particularly Europe and the UK. The UK has underling political and economic issues (worsened but not necessarily all created by the “B” word, when compared to those faced by most of their neighbours). In that context it is right to point to the need for more realism re: the Tempest project and for rather less jingoistic cheerleading-presented-as-analysis from some sources (many of the same sources who take such a noticeably different approach/ view re: the France/ Germany/ Spain project). As an outsider looking in all that bluster gets rather sad then rather annoying rather quickly. However I think it would also be wrong to write off the UK or the Tempest project quite yet - time will tell.
 
The Typhoon survived simply because the F22 was a leap too far for the RAF when the Cold War ended. A continued Cold War might have seen more F22 users starting withIsrael and Japan, and later the RAF and Bundeswehr.
Tempest and co have two challenges. F35 like F16 is going to get many upgrades and be able to match anything Russia and China can build for decades.
If the US builds another F22 there will be plenty of room for cheaper alternatives.
For those who bring in nationalism BAe is about as British as Mcdonalds. If Tempest fails BAe will get work on US programmes.
France is hoping to get the Germans to helppay to re equp their air force much as UKdid with Tornado and Typhoon which were unaffordable as national programmes.
The experience of working with the German government on Typhoon even more than Brexit rules out UK doing it again.
Italy, Japan, and Sweden like the UK have the option of going US. So that oddly makesit easier for them to work together .
Way things are going Poland and Ukraine may be partners by 2030.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom