• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Tempest - UK Future fighter programme

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,014
Reaction score
50
The HoC paper referenced in UKDJ article:

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8391
 

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
281
Reaction score
14
Website
www.youtube.com
Harrier said:
Article from the Financial Times:

https://www.ft.com/content/5d3bff26-ac55-11e8-94bd-cba20d67390c

There is a pay wall, but by going via the FT's tweet about it @FinancialTimes I could get access.
https://twitter.com/FT/status/1036449303148027904
And here's a link to the actual tweet, if you don't like sifting through 100 tweets to find the right one.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,014
Reaction score
50
Thanks totoro. I lost the tweet and could not find it again (there are several others), not helped by the Financial Times having two Twitter accounts!

The HoC paper makes the point that Tempest is not the aircraft name. Perhaps mods can change the thread name to reflect this:"...fighter technology programme"?
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,806
Reaction score
262
Williamson several times call it Tempest in his speech, Williamson and Bebb call it Tempest in numerous interviews, Team Taranis was in charge of Taranis, more - if it was not original intention to call a final FCAS system manned component a Tempest, now that name is stick to it forever in mass media and public opinion.

https://youtu.be/JrhCHwuDARc
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,371
Reaction score
222
There are at least one general election before the 2025 final investment decision, with another two until the fighter enters service in 2035.
The average Chancellor of the Exchequer last about 8-10 years in post and Secretary of State for Defence serves about 3 years, so by 2025 its likely both posts will be filled by new people. So between now and 2035 that's two chancellors and five Secretaries of State and possibly two changes of government before the IOC date and probably at least three defence reviews. The political dimensions to success are slim unless the project can be tied into a multinational effort.

Add to this, FCAS has been running since 2011 and there's been nothing to show for it, except now the UCAV aspect has moved from being the prime aspect to an integral, but secondary, part. Has the Future Combat Air System Technology Initiative (FCAS TI) replaced the original FCAS or still part of the wider concept?
These briefing reports still seem to show industry is the driving force rather than the MOD.

Its worrying that the government doesn't seem to know what the status of the Anglo-French FCAS programme is. Although both nations wanted to develop an UCAV strike platform, both have now decided to put their efforts towards manned fighters. So there is still ground for cooperation on the same basis and scope to change the demonstrator programme to a manned platform. The harsh reality is that Brexit whether we like it or not has rather overshadowed the Lancaster House agreements made by the Cameron-Hollande governments.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,806
Reaction score
262
FCAS acronym AFAIR first has appeared in ETAP documents back in 2001. Then FCAS would be EU SoS in post-2020 world.
But already in 2009 Dassault's Trappier described FCAS/SCAF as national program to replace Rafale after 2030 - and I doubt that he was talking of UK-FR FCAS then.
Now everyone has its own FCAS...from UK to Sweden.
 

mrmalaya

Consider it done.
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
322
Reaction score
1
Yes I have to say that the name Tempest was clearly chosen to be evocative of a fighter, and whether or not it refers solely to an aircraft, the programme we have at the moment is called Tempest.
 

Jackonicko

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Actually the programme is FCAS-TI. The team running it is called Team Tempest. As yet there is no aircraft, only an aspiration for one.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,014
Reaction score
50
The Combat Air Strategy is pretty clear what is going on. Team Tempest is a trial of a new way of doing things that is hoped to give the UK a lead in whatever collaborative aircraft/system results. If it does not work other ways will be tried:

26. Changing behaviours in industry and
Government is vital to achieving these
objectives. These include new, collaborative
ways of working which will align incentives,
minimise transactional costs and ensure all
sides are held to account for performance.
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.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/725600/CombatAirStrategy_Lowres.pdf
 

mrmalaya

Consider it done.
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
322
Reaction score
1
I stand corrected.

At some point we have to admit that this programme is about developing an aircraft and associated systems. I understand that the official title for something is FCAS related, but Tempest is being used as shorthand for the effort.

Whilst Tempest is not and may never be lurking in a hanger, the whole thing is about putting a name to an effort that distinguishes it from everybody else's FCAS.

The title of the thread is still relevant.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,806
Reaction score
262
I wonder how much Eurofighter R&D figure was?
 

foiling

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
275
Reaction score
3
Terrific artwork by both Jemiba & PaulM. Thank you.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,371
Reaction score
222
That's a good question Flateric. Having four funding partners seems to have widened the accounts and I've never seen a reliable single estimate for the whole programme. I suppose the work on ACA and EAP should be included as well.

The best figures, patchy at best, I could find on R&D and production costs is; the UK has spent £22.9 billion already and perhaps as much as £37 billion by completion. Germany had spent €21.3 billion by 2004 (around €120 million unit cost, lately reduced to €90 mil), the Spanish have paid €11.7 billion (roughly resulting in €160 million per airframe).
So the £2 billion for FCAS-TI and the £1.54 billion committed to the full scale Anglo-French demonstrator programme seems fairly small scale by comparison.
 

mrmalaya

Consider it done.
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
322
Reaction score
1
It will be interesting to see if they do actually make anything of the cost saving/productivity increase techniques that they are talking about, or if it is just so much marketing hot air.

As was pointed out before, this isn't the first time that a new programme has been given life with promises of cost-saving business miracles attached.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,014
Reaction score
50
given life with promises of cost-saving business miracles attached
Quite.

The issue here is not the F-35 that has resulted*, but the design and cost thinking that made it seem possible that 'this time it will be different'.

Team Tempest need to avoid that. The new air frame/engine/lasers model at Farnborough does not fill me with hope of this, but some of the thinking around it does.

I am looking forward to hearing more about LANCA.

* So no anti-F-35 thread hijacking please!
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,806
Reaction score
262
https://www.instagram.com/p/BnRwReoHmWF/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=19u8s9tg8jsap
 

mrmalaya

Consider it done.
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
322
Reaction score
1
Which says that Tempest will be at the forefront of things for some time to come (rather than being a "flash in the pan" as some commentators have suggested).
 

datafuser

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/131216w0001.htm

Armed Forces: Aircraft
Questions
Asked by Lord West of Spithead

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the total cost of the Typhoon project up to the end of 2012.[HL3805]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con): The total expenditure on the Typhoon project to 31 March 2012, as published in the Major Projects Report (MPR) 2012, was £19.050 billion. This includes Typhoon Assessment, Demonstration, Manufacture and Support phase expenditure.

Asked by Lord West of Spithead

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Typhoon airframes the United Kingdom had in its inventory on 31 December 2012.[HL3806]


Lord Astor of Hever: As at 31 December 2012 the Ministry of Defence had taken delivery of 108 Typhoon aircraft.
 

datafuser

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
flateric said:
I wonder how much Eurofighter R&D figure was?
Management of the Typhoon Project at https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1011755.pdf says

" Development costs are currently estimated at £6.7 billion (107 per cent higher than the £3.2 billion originally approved) and production costs estimated at £13.5 billion (which is within the original approval level of £13.5 billion made in 1996). "

The report was published in March 2011.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,806
Reaction score
262
Many thanks indeed. And proposed FCAS R&D figure I've seen is £10 bln. (where's my inflation calculator?)
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,014
Reaction score
50
These are UK-only Typhoon costs. Each nations' spending may be proportionate to their work-share, although on Tornado it proved impossible to work them out and the UK paid much more in some areas, e.g. on the engine.

Typhoon also suffered major increases due to delay and re-scoping of the project, which need to be stripped out before comparing to any notional FCAS.

Different accounting practices between countries, exchange rates etc. make real costs almost impossible to work out. At least the JSF uses a much clearer US system.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,371
Reaction score
222
Typhoon development costs were estimated at Euros 18 billion ($20.3 billion). Source: The Industrial and Economic Benefits of Eurofighter Typhoon: Final Report, Prof. Keith Hartley, Centre for Defence Economics, University of York, 2006.

Given most of the costs were 2004 figures in the report, the relevant currency conversion GBP to Euros was 1.47, the total cost was roughly £12.2bn, so the UK paid 55.8% of the R&D cost (£6.7bn).
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,806
Reaction score
262

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,806
Reaction score
262
Anyone around Kleine Brogel AFB for a small walkaround?

https://twitter.com/ModelingDutchmn/status/1038008878687027201?s=19
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,023
Reaction score
216
As nobody took over during my holidays, I tried to incorporate some of the clues given by Jackonicko:

- The canopy is narrower

- The landing gear of the Tornado was used as pattern (drawing from http://greenairdesigns.com/ejcgallery/displayimage.php?album=57&pid=1744,
the front wheel actually is a bit bigger, thanks for the clue !
With regards to the landing gear, it is noticeable, I think, that for the Tornado, both, main and
nose landing gear retracts forward, whereas here, it could only retract backwards, juding the position
of the wheel well doors (actually more pointed). And the main gear legs ? Somehow sideways ? The wheel
well doors really are too small, but comparison with (really good !) photos brought no other result.

- Using the top view here https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,30547.msg333939.html#msg333939,
the inlets are a bit wider now, the tail fins remained in size and position, because of the same drawing and
the video of the "Roll out" (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,30547.msg335141.html#msg335141
which gave a very good side view.

- Tried to change the underside of the inlets, unsure about the result.

- The tail cone is a bit slimmer and more pointed now, you're right.

- About those six panels, I wasn't sure at first, too, but got an excellent picture ( thanks Flateric !), see below.
But ... that's a mock-up, and details like the landing gear, wheel well doors and others, to my opinion show quite
clearly, that this shouldn't be taken too literally. So, no need to discuss panel lines, I think ! ;)

- Let's see, maybe we actually get a walk-around ! Attached is the svg-file, too, so there's no need to start from scratch.
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,806
Reaction score
262
Jens - look at the bottom view at the inlet area...
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,30547.msg335560.html#msg335560
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,023
Reaction score
216
flateric said:
Jens - look at the bottom view at the inlet area...
I'm afraid, I need help here . :-[
My main error was, that the edges in the vertical plane shouldn't be shown just parallel to the
flight path. A clue, please, if I'm approaching the solution. Or soemone taking a photo directly
from below of that thing !
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,806
Reaction score
262
https://twitter.com/Stoonbrace/status/1038381715390124033
 

Attachments

Sintra

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hood said:
That's a good question Flateric. Having four funding partners seems to have widened the accounts and I've never seen a reliable single estimate for the whole programme. I suppose the work on ACA and EAP should be included as well.

The best figures, patchy at best, I could find on R&D and production costs is; the UK has spent £22.9 billion already and perhaps as much as £37 billion by completion
The R&D and production costs for the UK bit of the Eurofighter program, including 160 airframes, the "Typhoon Future Capability Programme" (AKA "austere capability" ATG program) and project Centurion was 18189 million pounds according to the National Audit Office "Major Projects Report 2015" (since then the NAO has not publicly released the project summary sheets that described in detail the costs related to individual programs).
The £22.9 billion were estimates for the R&D and production of 232 airframes and the 37 billion pounds number was released in the NAO 2011 "Management of the Typhoon Project" document and included every penny spent with the Phoon fleet "by the time the aircraft leaves service".

Cheers
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,806
Reaction score
262

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
560
Reaction score
252
Website
galgot.com
Jemiba said:
flateric said:
Jens - look at the bottom view at the inlet area...
I'm afraid, I need help here . :-[
My main error was, that the edges in the vertical plane shouldn't be shown just parallel to the
flight path. A clue, please, if I'm approaching the solution. Or soemone taking a photo directly
from below of that thing !
My guess is that it's because there is a change in the fuselage section bottom half at the intakes level. There is some added volume that makes like a bump. it's not visible from a profile view cause the intake outer lips mask it, but can be seen on the pictures posted by Flateric here :
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,30547.msg335560.html#msg335560

Here is my try at these pesky intakes, modified on your drawing.
 

Attachments

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,023
Reaction score
216
galgot said:
Here is my try at these pesky intakes, modified on your drawing.
Many thanks ! Yes, that looks much more plausible. I've started a point-by-point attempt, but some points
just have to be guessed. And though I still didn't come to a conclusion, what I have so far, is much nearer to
your drawing, than to mine ... well, must admit, that on Sunday evening I threw in the towel. Maybe, I'll start
another attempt with cardboard, scissors and tape. :-\
 

Attachments

ADVANCEDBOY

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
288
Reaction score
3
Is there at least one photo ( not CGI) with top view so I could see wings? So far I am semi convinced:)
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
560
Reaction score
252
Website
galgot.com
Only complete top views I know are CGIs (already posted here), moreover at an angle, but manageable enough to make a estimated scale-plan i think.
Plus the small infographics from BAe presentation, hoping they show an accurate plan view.
Pictures of the mockup showing the top of the wings are all stretch cause taken inside at wide angle, difficult to get an accurate shape from these
Unless someone use a drone to make picts from above the mockup when its outside, difficult to have a good overall plan view of the mockup.
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,806
Reaction score
262
1). I highly doubt that renderings closely match mockup (and even each other)
2). Top view from infographics is obviously a crap.

Interesting how low interest (judging from amount of public photos) Tempest mockup has attracted at BAFD'18 (unfortunately)...
 

TsrJoe

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
343
Reaction score
27
https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/bae-raf-tempest-3d-model-1319643#
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,375
Reaction score
42
would like to believe Tempest has that much internal payload. also has vertical surfaces :(
 
Top