Tempest Manned Unmanned Fighter Concept

It's an American aircraft with significant content provided by British firms (note that some of these British firms are making their contribution via facilities in the US - the question of whether the 15%+ UK content means 'British built' has been floating around a bit recently).
I raised the content quite some time ago, on here and elsewhere. People assured me it was 15%, some even touted 25% but when I asked for breakdowns...nada....

Be interesting to see a full breakdown, if it's less than 15%, how does that affect our investment argument?
 
Fair play to BAe and Air Command* though - they’ve played an absolute blinder in securing a massive wedge at the expense of others here.
It may well turn out that they've sacrificed 60 odd F-35, so which others?
If (when) it doesn’t work out, some of that cash can just be pushed sideways into another US export order, so they won’t have to do without - like all those AMRAAMs we bought to cover for lack of Meteor.
The work may well be to let us get onboard the NGF that the US eventually decides on, it looks like they're going to try to go the whole way though.

Meteor? I have no technical experience of it but, the AMRAAM buy was sensible for what we needed at the time. An interim buy would have been needed no matter what BVR solution was chosen and I'd imagine they're lifex now. How many Meteor have been sold? 14 operators/buyers so far and a stepping stone to cooperation with Japan. Which may be a win or not.
* Not forgetting that little FCAS programme office in FMC, which just so happens to have a direct line into Mil Cap’s office next door...
Imagine actually looking ahead and planning procurement? How crimplene can you get?
 
I raised the content quite some time ago, on here and elsewhere. People assured me it was 15%, some even touted 25% but when I asked for breakdowns...nada....

Be interesting to see a full breakdown, if it's less than 15%, how does that affect our investment argument?

It’s meant to be a minimum of 15%, with a bit more for the B model because of RR’s involvement. The distinction between ‘British built’ and ‘built by British firms’ has only started to emerge as a question relatively recently. It’s also, I observe on reviewing a few notes, become 15% of the value in more recent times. We do still get quite a lot of UK jobs out of this, though 15-20K being a generally agreed sort of level dependent upon how you count them (I don’t know what metrics are used, I should note).
 
It’s meant to be a minimum of 15%, with a bit more for the B model because of RR’s involvement. The distinction between ‘British built’ and ‘built by British firms’ has only started to emerge as a question relatively recently. It’s also, I observe on reviewing a few notes, become 15% of the value in more recent times. We do still get quite a lot of UK jobs out of this, though 15-20K being a generally agreed sort of level dependent upon how you count them (I don’t know what metrics are used, I should note).
@Magic_Mushroom did say that UK weapon sales could affect it. I've got no problems with it overall, 15% or even 10% of the sales is going to be worth more than 100% of no sales or the foreign aid hoopla work of France.
 
The distinction between ‘British built’ and ‘built by British firms’ has only started to emerge as a question relatively recently.

What are the differences and implications ? (Genuine question)

Built by British firms is just licence built or is there something else ?
 
It may well turn out that they've sacrificed 60 odd F-35, so which others?

The work may well be to let us get onboard the NGF that the US eventually decides on, it looks like they're going to try to go the whole way though.

Meteor? I have no technical experience of it but, the AMRAAM buy was sensible for what we needed at the time. An interim buy would have been needed no matter what BVR solution was chosen and I'd imagine they're lifex now. How many Meteor have been sold? 14 operators/buyers so far and a stepping stone to cooperation with Japan. Which may be a win or not.

Imagine actually looking ahead and planning procurement? How crimplene can you get?

My point was that although they may be sacrificing 60 F-35 on paper (if indeed the stories are true), the fact is that this is a big enough wedge to enact a ‘stopgap’ buy if and when things don’t turn out as planned.

Like you, I’m seriously skeptical that we can match or surpass anything the US can build in the same timeframe - given the many lessons learned in the building of two 5th gen combat aircraft in the last few decades.

My Main Building jibe was directed (slightly unfairly) at that fact that once something is sufficiently high profile to become a MoD ‘strategic programme’ - it is bound to be prioritised in any capability review, because they people staffing them are all intrinsically linked. That’s not necessarily a bad thing - but let’s not kid ourselves that anything but a small range of capabilities will ever sit in that hallowed space.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
My point was that although they may be sacrificing 60 F-35 on paper (if indeed the stories are true), the fact is that this is a big enough wedge to enact a ‘stopgap’ buy if and when things don’t turn out as planned.
It's more like 90 but I don't think 138 were ever really on the cards. If it all goes tits RAF and possibly FAA, will be fecked. There was no money before covid.
Like you, I’m seriously skeptical that we can match or surpass anything the US can build in the same timeframe - given the many lessons learned in the building of two 5th gen combat aircraft in the last few decades.
Dunno, perhaps they've learnt a lot and have gained from F-35 participation. Salemsbury has had lots thrown at it and we aren't new to this game. The inclusion of Sweden will help as well. Gripen wasn't a solo effort by them BTW.

So, if we can build something which we can sell to those not able to get onboard US efforts it could be a big win. Worth going for. If it's a Typhoon v F-22 like comparison in capability then it's good enough, as long as we don't go to war against them.

Don't forget that Tornado and Typhoon earned gazillions for us and are still doing that.
My Main Building jibe was directed (slightly unfairly) at that fact that once something is sufficiently high profile to become a MoD ‘strategic programme’ - it is bound to be prioritised in any capability review, because they people staffing them are all intrinsically linked. That’s not necessarily a bad thing - but let’s not kid ourselves that anything but a small range of capabilities will ever sit in that hallowed space.
I agree on the small range of capabilities but was making the point that the RAF and RN have service plans and forecasts which are pretty much out there. The Army has been all over the shop as far as public perception goes.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I agree with @Graculus, here.

Remember: REPLICA was an indication of what we could do. On some levels, it was a way of saying to the Americans, "If you don't let us in, we can do something credible."

Caveat: The next sentence is a something of a simplification but a lot of stealth is about getting the manufacturing tolerances right. We can do that. Salmesbury has been mentioned. I wrote an article up there years ago about the the use of diffusion bonding/superplastic forming to make Typhoon fore-planes. Back then, it was cutting-edge and we're still up there.

People may deride BAE but it's still capable of top-flight stuff. The limiting factors, in many instances, are money and political will.

That said, a lot is moving on quite quickly in development and design - gamification and so on.

I'd expect Tempest to be credible.
 
I agree on the small range of capabilities but was making the point that the RAF and RN have service plans and forecasts which are pretty much out there. The Army has been all over the shop as far as public perception goes.

I think the Army gets blown about on the winds of defence politics (expeditionary vs collective defence vs campaign etc etc), whereas the RAF and RN are the wind.

You can maybe pin that on some long-term vision in the other services, but I think it’s also fair to say they have a much more ‘marketable’ output - be that flying the flag, trade protection or sub-threshold interventions.

Ever since the end of the Cold War, the question of “what is the Army for” is one we seem to have vacillated on - but I think it is not one the Army can really answer by itself - aside from being (as the good book of Doctrine says) the ultimate expression of commitment to an operation, or deterrence of potential aggression in places like the Baltics. I think it’s also fair to say that whenever it does get wind of a potential greater purposes, there are those who do everything in their power to strangle it at birth...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
What are the differences and implications ? (Genuine question)

Built by British firms is just licence built or is there something else ?

There are several British defence concerns (and BAE, which is a multinational now) which have manufacturing facilities in the US. Questions have been asked as to how much of the 'British' content is made in these locations - i.e. the cash goes to a British firm, but the workers making the content are paid in dollars and operate under the misapprehension that 'football' is a game played by Tom Brady.
 
I think the Army gets blown about on the winds of defence politics (expeditionary vs collective defence vs campaign etc etc), whereas the RAF and RN are the wind.

You can maybe pin that on some long-term vision in the other services, but I think it’s also fair to say they have a much more ‘marketable’ output - be that flying the flag, trade protection or sub-threshold interventions.

Ever since the end of the Cold War, the question of “what is the Army for” is one we seem to have vacillated on - but I think it is not one the Army can really answer by itself - aside from being (as the good book of Doctrine says) the ultimate expression of commitment to an operation, or deterrence of potential aggression in places like the Baltics. I think it’s also fair to say that whenever it does get wind of a potential greater purposes, there are those who do everything in their power to strangle it at birth...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From my own experience, nearly a decade out of date now and only as a casual observer at that, the Army at all levels is far too busy shooting itself in the foot by politicking at lower levels to do the top level stuff effectively.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I think the Army gets blown about on the winds of defence politics (expeditionary vs collective defence vs campaign etc etc), whereas the RAF and RN are the wind.

You can maybe pin that on some long-term vision in the other services, but I think it’s also fair to say they have a much more ‘marketable’ output - be that flying the flag, trade protection or sub-threshold interventions.

Ever since the end of the Cold War, the question of “what is the Army for” is one we seem to have vacillated on - but I think it is not one the Army can really answer by itself - aside from being (as the good book of Doctrine says) the ultimate expression of commitment to an operation, or deterrence of potential aggression in places like the Baltics. I think it’s also fair to say that whenever it does get wind of a potential greater purposes, there are those who do everything in their power to strangle it at birth...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was pointed out, quite rightly imo, that in the Army has been the only service that has seen comeption baked into the procurement system, whilst both the RN and Air Force has benefitted from a procurement stragegy that prioritises their sectors of industry.

The neglect of land systems in procurement policy, has led to the atrophication of this sector in the UK making in harder for Land to make it's case for XYZ
 

Slime

LE
Picking and chosing sentences and rearranging them to suit your purpose is not making a point, it is creating confusion.

If I listed 6 generations of aircraft, it was in answer to an assertion that France had no reason to claim it was in a better situation to produce a modern combat aircraft compared to Germany.

France has produced the Mirage IIIC, which has way over 306 air to air kills and as such is the most succesful Mach 2 fighter ever.

Unlike you who throws figures in without any reference, every single Mirage III C or Nesher kill is documented in the listing below.

Israel Air Force Record in Battle

With additional info here:


You will note, reinforcing my assertion that France has every reason to believe it has more expertise in modern fighter design than Germany, that French jets were already racking air to air victories long before the Mirage III was produced.

If I just look at this source again, you will find another 25 air to air kills by Ouragan, Mystère IV, Super Mystère B2 or Vautour.

In other locations, in different times, you can also add Mirage F-1 air to air kill in Iraq, Angola, Peru as witnesses to French seniority over Germany in the field of fighter design.

I made one factual error regarding EF2000 exports because Austria uses its Tranche 1 so little it had escaped my mind.

lt’s certain there will be more Rafale customers or orders, over 300 are already built or ordered so you assertion of Rafale not neing an export success is blatantly false .

There are currently the same number of Rafale and Gripen on order or produced yet no-one ever writes Gripen is a commercial failure.

France has ordered a small batch of 2 C-130J and 2 KC-130J to compensate for the delay of the Atlas and the development time of the RW AAR capability.

l have written earlier that for niche capability, France buys from the US (AWACS, Hawkeye, MQ-9). These purchases make economical sense, who is going to develop a carrier-borne AWACS when only 3 are needed ?

You should give up to be honest, as you are just making this worse.

Feel free to tell me how the aircraft you listed will help in the design of a sixth gen carrier capable fighter.

Bear in mind some of the aircraft you listed were, or contained.

Pre area rule aircraft.
Pre instability design aircraft.
Pre computer designed aircraft.
Pre computer controlled aircraft.
Pre low IR signature aircraft.
Ore ECM or ECCM aircraft.
Pre LO radar signature aircraft.
Pre missile or long range missile aircraft.
Pre modern avionics aircraft.
Pre night vision equipped aircraft.
Pre effective radar or EASA radar.
Pre data linked aircraft.
Pre carbon fibre aircraft.
Etc etc.

You did list a lot of aircraft, but even though many of the people who designed the earlier aircraft you mentioned will no longer be working in the industry, there is also the glaring fact that a sixth gen fighter with all round LO and composite materials won’t be benefitting from info from lots of the aircraft you mentioned. If you are unsure about corporate memory loss it does very much exist, and even worse, designers who worked with older materials can make mistakes with new tech. Look at the tail surfaces of the Harrier as an example, and how the switch from metal to composite caused issues.

I‘m getting the impression that you think throwing the figure of 300 Rafales being delivered or ORDERED is something really good as it’s only 250 fewer than the number of Eurofighters already delivered??

As for me not backing up my F4 stats, do I need to? Does Archimedes need to? They are all listed for anyone to see. It’s like the fact you posted a link for Nesher stats, an aircraft with better avionics and weapon variety than French built Mirage IIIC aircraft. I already know what a Nesher and who built it etc.

You can keep going round and round the houses, but like like the fact France only has one aircraft carrier, cash is the issue with this whole subject. If cash, or lack of it wasn’t an issue (with the obvious point that partners bring orders......which reduces airframe cost) then France would have gone it alone from day one, and kept 100% of the profits and benefitted 100% from the increase in jobs or R and D budget.

Japan is looking to partner. Russia is looking to partner. the U.K. is looking to partner. Italy is looking to partner up. The USA had foreign involvement in F35.

Oh, and France has already said it wants partners............It’s all about the money :)
 

Slime

LE
Guys, move on. Please.

Good point.
Fantassin will cling to adding the extra 140 kills from the Nesher to make up the numbers..........while ignoring their Israeli avionics fit and different weapon capability.

We may as well add the Kfir :)
 

Puss

Clanker
I have a dream that my four little children will one day read interesting ARRSE threads without having to sift through pages of boring bickering.
 
It was pointed out, quite rightly imo, that in the Army has been the only service that has seen comeption baked into the procurement system, whilst both the RN and Air Force has benefitted from a procurement stragegy that prioritises their sectors of industry.

The neglect of land systems in procurement policy, has led to the atrophication of this sector in the UK making in harder for Land to make it's case for XYZ

Correct.

Given what I read on MilTwitter, I’m never entirely sure whether the Army is supposed to be dumb for not buying foreign COTS, or dumb for not investing in a sovereign supply base.
(and missing to point that in terms of sourcing policy, it has the power to do neither...)

The truth is, the UK cannot afford to maintain a sovereign supply base in everything, but land equipment seems in a particularly difficult place, in that the government seems to want a magical combination of competition and UK inwards investment - but without the guarantee of long-term work...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Team Tempest now doing podcasts for those who like that sort of thing

 

Latest Threads

Top