There's a bit of semantics here

Team Tempest is part of the FCAS TI and is a UK only technology development activity, that is also producing future concepts for the MOD Combat Air Acquisition Programme. The acquisition programme is what will actually produce a future fighter.

Sweden is looking at joining the acquisition programme for a future fighter. The UK has its Outline Business Case for this at the end of next year as the next major decision point (more £bns). This feasibility study with Sweden reports next year and will inform whether they will sign up to the acquisition programme at that point.

Countries don't just decide overnight to commit to tens of £bns cost over a few decades.
 
I know most dontlike this - IMO my opinion - but I see the Tempest already now as a dead project. If matters go really worse with Brexit, the British economy IMO will have so severe issues, that finalising this project is plain impossible. But again, it is my own opinion...
 
I know most dontlike this - IMO my opinion - but I see the Tempest already now as a dead project. If matters go really worse with Brexit, the British economy IMO will have so severe issues, that finalising this project is plain impossible. But again, it is my own opinion...

Before the likely pile on I’d like to both agree and slightly disagree with you :)

As per my comments previous in this thread I would also have real doubts if we will ever see an actual UK-only or even UK lead “Tempest” entering service.
However it might lead to the UK having an equal or junior partnership role in another combat aircraft project down the road in a post-B-word world.
 
However it might lead to the UK having an equal or junior partnership role in another combat aircraft project down the road in a post-B-word world.
This sorta assumes that a UK (as in UNITED Kingdom) would continue to exists long enough in a post-B world. Which may not be the most likely scenario.
 
No idea where that comes from, the Scots are not really going to depart, all hot air and noise.
 
No idea where that comes from, the Scots are not really going to depart, all hot air and noise.

44.7% were ready for it at the Independence poll. Are you willing to bet Brexit hasn't pissed off 5.3% of Scots who previously thought the UK was the best option, but now see the UK shooting itself in the foot and claiming it's good for them?
 
Hmmm. My comment about the UK after Brexit was meant in jest, not to start a discussion on politics.
(which are very important and rather sad, yes, but SPF is not the place for it)
Please, let's not drift into this and let's revert to the Tempest programme.
 
Here’s a article on the news which reads rather differently to what some have been posting on here:


More:

 
Last edited:
Though Brexit, howsoever, without doubt will have consequences for the British aerospace industry,
PLEASE, don't let this thread slip into political debates !
 
Last edited:
...
Doesn't seem very dead given the progress being made and money being spent...

Don't get me wrong and I would really be happy to see the Tempest flying and being successful, my point - and I won't go too much into politics - that given so much irrational behaviour (on both sides) the true consequences of Brexit are barely foreseeable (again for both sides), so that in the end I'm highly sceptical especially if the promised "golden times without the EU" by the Brexiteers will indeed come true ... time will tell.
 
Its a bullish statement, stating that Europe can afford two programmes and that SCAF does not meet the Combat Air Strategy (I wonder in what way? purely industrially?) so co-operation is unfavorable. But of course the government would say that at this early stage.
There is no doubt that there is a critical mass behind the Future Combat Air System Technology Initiative in terms of work.
My only caveat I would point out, is that grand words were spoken about the Anglo-French FCAS effort back in 2010 and that evaporated with little to show for it.
 
Its a bullish statement, stating that Europe can afford two programmes and that SCAF does not meet the Combat Air Strategy (I wonder in what way? purely industrially?) so co-operation is unfavorable. But of course the government would say that at this early stage.
There is no doubt that there is a critical mass behind the Future Combat Air System Technology Initiative in terms of work.
My only caveat I would point out, is that grand words were spoken about the Anglo-French FCAS effort back in 2010 and that evaporated with little to show for it.

Well Europe afforded three separate programmes last time around. A notional cross-Europe Fr-Ger-Spain-Italy-UK-Sweden programme would be very inefficient with so many partners. 6 different final assembly lines? Unless "partnership" means laying off all your national engineers and handing over loads of cash to Dassault.... and you're having to pay for other countries' requirements e.g. carrier capable, different weapons integration. There's an optimum number of partners for this sort of programme and it isn't 6.

The UK-Fr UCAS was a political project and will be interesting for the historians. We've only had the Dassault side of the story released so far after all.
 
...
Doesn't seem very dead given the progress being made and money being spent...

Don't get me wrong and I would really be happy to see the Tempest flying and being successful, my point - and I won't go too much into politics - that given so much irrational behaviour (on both sides) the true consequences of Brexit are barely foreseeable (again for both sides), so that in the end I'm highly sceptical especially if the promised "golden times without the EU" by the Brexiteers will indeed come true ... time will tell.

As stated above without getting into the B-word politics of it all we are commenting at a very uncertain time in UK politics (new prime minister and cabinet in today, new defense minister in this evening replacing another that had been involved office a matter of days, uncertain economic position, likely to be an election in the immediate future, etc.)
And again without getting into the deep politics of it all there are certain factions very keen to promote projects that have more jingoistic resonances and which are currently less interested in international cooperative projects with countries that happen to be members of the EU.
Hence re: Project Tempest a lot may be promised right now; we’ll see how much of it actually works out in the end.
 
Last edited:
I think it is worth noting this quote from the article.

Officials here at the DSEI defense trade show were still unsure as of Tuesday afternoon in what form the government-to-government agreement would be announced, saying that Italy’s and Britain’s turbulent political situations made for little certainty. It appeared that a written statement by the respective defense ministries would be published by Wednesday morning, to be accompanied by a formal event that day.

 

The actual wording of the statement (rather than headlines or sone of the analysis) suggests Italy is, rather like Sweden, somewhat involved and signing up for developing technology etc. but as of yet has certainly not definitively signed up for any specific program leading to common airframe etc.
 

The actual wording of the statement (rather than headlines or sone of the analysis) suggests Italy is, rather like Sweden, somewhat involved and signing up for developing technology etc. but as of yet has certainly not definitively signed up for any specific program leading to common airframe etc.

Italy's is definitely by UK's side in Tempest programme as third partner:


(unfortunately all the news I found out were only in Italian language)
 

The actual wording of the statement (rather than headlines or sone of the analysis) suggests Italy is, rather like Sweden, somewhat involved and signing up for developing technology etc. but as of yet has certainly not definitively signed up for any specific program leading to common airframe etc.

Italy's is definitely by UK's side in Tempest programme as third partner:


(unfortunately all the news I found out were only in Italian language)

I think that what Italy has actually signed up to goes back to earlier discussions above re: the current nature of the “Team Tempest” project (at least initially appears more focused on related technology development rather than a race to build a new airframe).

 
I think that what Italy has actually signed up to goes back to earlier discussions above re: the current nature of the “Team Tempest” project (at least initially appears more focused on related technology development rather than a race to build a new airframe).

Yes, the UK Combat Air Strategy shows the long term thinking for a new aircraft, but currently this is at the Concept / Demonstration phases up till Outline Business Case next year. You don't jump into a 10s £bns / 40 year programme overnight
 
Accelerated development basically but at this stage it will be drumming up money/business for the project rather than anything meaningful.
 
Ok, thks. wasn't familiar with the use of this word...
"put the program in hyperdrive and take global Britain back into the stratosphere"...
Common Mr. Wallace, be more ambitious , pass the stratosphere and go orbital. Not that difficult with an Hyperdrive.
 
Last edited:
red admiral said:
FighterJock said:
I think that as a design it is back to the CAD computers, a total redesign is needed before the RAF will accept this fighter.

Why do you think that? Its obviously an early design iteration and as stated, just a look at what the future could look like.

As a design right now it would not survive for very long in the current close in dogfighting against the likes of the Su-57 with the advanced thrust vectored R-74M.

Well, the benefit of DEWs (in theory at least)... and the benefit of BVR...
 
You ought to try Man Maths, the same system that enables the new car to be much more affordable if it's a sports car rather than and SUV. It also allows for speed faster than thought. Unless you don't know where you're going. Waver, unless the wife is navigating.
 

Trump pressures Tokyo to choose US fighter jet over rival BAE
Japan is looking at UK company to develop an alternative to its F-2 aircraft

http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.upp-prod-eu.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fd6be01dc-1b12-11ea-81f0-0c253907d3e0

A deal to replace Japan's F-2s would be worth tens of billions of dollars © AP


Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington and Robin Harding in Tokyo 3 hours ago


The Trump administration is pressuring Japan to choose a US defence company to develop jointly a replacement for its F-2 fighter jets as Tokyo considers a British alternative to cut its reliance on American weapons.Pentagon officials have stepped up talks with Japan amid concerns the US could lose out to BAE Systems, the UK defence contractor developing a sixth generation Tempest stealth fighter, according to three people familiar with discussions about the F-3 programme.Tokyo wants to replace its F-2s when they retire from around 2035 and plans to start development next year, in a deal that would be worth tens of billions of dollars. It is considering three options: collaborating with BAE; working with Lockheed Martin, the US maker of the F-22 and F-35 jets; or developing a plane domestically.The US air force is worried that choosing a UK fighter would create interoperability issues. American officials are also concerned that opting for a British jet would anger President Donald Trump, just as Washington and Tokyo are engaged in tough talks about how much each should pay towards maintaining their alliance.The US stunned Japan in July when it said it would request a fourfold increase to $8bn when the allies renegotiated the “special measures agreement” that determines their contributions.


Eric Sayers, a Japan expert at Beacon Global Strategies, an advisory firm, said Japan would be making its fighter jet decision just as tensions “could be boiling” over cost sharing. “Tokyo should be able to make its own sovereign decision about which option . . . to replace the F-2,” he said. “But President Trump has a record of taking a transactional approach to alliances and the Abe government should not expect he will view the special measures agreement negotiation and this large procurement decision as separate.” Mr Trump has made Japan — and his own military officials — nervous by threatening to withdraw troops unless Tokyo pays more. He has also frequently touted Japanese purchases of US weapons in his meetings with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Taro Kono, the Japanese defence minister, recently told the Financial Times that he was open to collaboration with a European programme such as Tempest, underlining the concerns in Washington. One senior US defence official stressed that Japan should view interoperability as “a significant factor” to consider. “Because of the importance of the alliance and the current security dynamics in the region, we would obviously prefer the Japanese work with the US on their future fighter programme,” the official said. “There are a few examples of going it alone that have taken too long, cost too much and not done much for interoperability.”


Michael Green, a former top White House official with close ties to the Abe administration, said the Pentagon’s lobbying was paying dividends after Tempest gained early momentum. “The US government is organising itself around a campaign for an American fighter. And in the Japanese government, some of the big pieces have shifted so that the momentum is shifting towards a capabilities-based decision which would benefit a design based on an already existing US platform,” said Mr Green. “But it is not over. The momentum could shift back since there are lots of variables.” Japan has long dreamt of building a domestic aircraft to match its famous second world war-era Zero fighter. The project to build its own plane gained urgency last year when Mr Abe opted to buy 105 fully-assembled F-35s from the US. One Japanese executive said that had left local industry desperate for a new fighter programme to work on. The US has proposed jointly developing a fighter based on the F-35 and F-22. But it would limit the use of Japanese technology, resulting in a “black box” fighter with no access to the source code required for independent upgrades — something the Japanese air force would like and many lawmakers consider essential to sovereignty. “The most important thing for a future fighter aircraft is capability,” said Itsunori Onodera, a Diet member and two-time defence minister. “Then there is data links, including to US networks. And then it is also necessary to have freedom to upgrade.” Mr Onodera said Japanese industry did not have the capability to go it alone and the cost per unit of building exclusively for the domestic market would be prohibitive. He added the similar timeline of the Tempest made collaboration with the UK a “reasonable possibility” but the decision would depend on capability, cost and the potential for upgrades. The decision will be up to Mr Abe, who will have to choose between independent technology and nationalist hopes or the US alliance and his prized relationship with Mr Trump.

Follow Demetri Sevastopulo and Robin Harding on Twitter: @dimi and @RobinBHarding
 
Last edited:
Non instrumented cockpit. The only issue I see is whether they would want to go with a totally virtual reality display or to use an augmented VR display which lets you see the real world in addition to all the information.

 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom