Yeah, but I expect that the initial Italian involvement is via their British arm. It includes the old Ferranti radar operation, & makes the Seaspray, Osprey, PicoSAR Vixen 500E, ES-05 Raven (for Gripen), etc. radars & has a share in the Typhoon radars (CAPTOR & the AESA successor), as well as various other military electronics, decoys, & so on.
Royal Air Force [RAF] discussions and updates
- Thread starter neil
- Start date
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Wonder what possible partners other than the US would be a fit for a ABC fighter?
Sweden and Italy along with the UK as principal lead in the project seems less stressful than Franco- German collaboration with the UK given the Brexit, situation. That being said, two 6th Gen projects in Europe is a duplication of effort at a time when money is limited. With three potential Western 6th or 5+ jets being considered ( not including the US), IMO the cost will doom all them to failure as the biggest market (the US) won’t buy. One non Us program yes, two doubtful, and three, a receipe for failure.
Sweden and Italy along with the UK as principal lead in the project seems less stressful than Franco- German collaboration with the UK given the Brexit, situation. That being said, two 6th Gen projects in Europe is a duplication of effort at a time when money is limited. With three potential Western 6th or 5+ jets being considered ( not including the US), IMO the cost will doom all them to failure as the biggest market (the US) won’t buy. One non Us program yes, two doubtful, and three, a receipe for failure.
Interesting . . . the chief exec of BAE says that systems will start life on the Typhoon then move to Tempest.
UK unveils new Tempest fighter jet model
So rather than a Big Bang all-at-once new development, the plan seems to be to develop new systems & upgrade Typhoon, while developing an airframe for which those systems can be the initial fit-out. I can see a certain logic in that.
UK unveils new Tempest fighter jet model
So rather than a Big Bang all-at-once new development, the plan seems to be to develop new systems & upgrade Typhoon, while developing an airframe for which those systems can be the initial fit-out. I can see a certain logic in that.
the concerned
Active Member
Thinking about this has the MOD or RAF actually issued what set of capabilities they want in a new aircraft. If not then you have a company telling the customer what it wants and that would not work.
A couple of old Hawker names that very much deserve to come back. Of the two the Tempest was the better aircraft because it addressed problems that affected the Typhoon and like the Typhoon it could pack a punch.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
I agree with John..on economics of scale of the potential Market..don't see how two 5th or 6th gen fighter projects in Western Europe can be sustainable..
On paper..Combine French and German in one side and UK, Italy and probably Spain on other side..seems can provide initial market for each fighter project, but it won't be enough to sustain long term sustainable production without export outside Europe..
However then they will face crowded export market..With East Asia already on their own Projects...Australia already in long term commitment with F-35..then it left with shrinkin potential market in Middle East and India.
Then they will faced similar thing that facing Typhoon and Rafale at this moment on global export market facing whatever US, Russian or China can give to the market..more expensive price tag due to smaller economics of scale..
It's still doable for 2 seperate Euro project like Typhoon and Rafale now..But again the Euro's should learn by now..they have to get behind on one project to effectively competitive in global market against US, Russia or China in the future..
On paper..Combine French and German in one side and UK, Italy and probably Spain on other side..seems can provide initial market for each fighter project, but it won't be enough to sustain long term sustainable production without export outside Europe..
However then they will face crowded export market..With East Asia already on their own Projects...Australia already in long term commitment with F-35..then it left with shrinkin potential market in Middle East and India.
Then they will faced similar thing that facing Typhoon and Rafale at this moment on global export market facing whatever US, Russian or China can give to the market..more expensive price tag due to smaller economics of scale..
It's still doable for 2 seperate Euro project like Typhoon and Rafale now..But again the Euro's should learn by now..they have to get behind on one project to effectively competitive in global market against US, Russia or China in the future..
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
As long as they never use Spitfire or Hurricane again(Sacrilege), i would be fine with Tempest. Although Britain is leaving the EU, they are still all members of NATO so security stays the same.
the concerned
Active Member
What about the MOD looking to India to look towards contributing. What is the timeline to replace their flankers
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
India has been trying for sometime to create a domestic fighter industry, on their and with Dassault without much success. The next fighter competion is ongoing and LM is offering the F-16 production for India. Future fighters 5-6th Gen will require too much Indian content so it probably limits India as a future partner, especially after the collapse of the India-Russia joint project on a 5th Gen jet.
One concern will be to avoid bureaucratic complications which could hold up development. Involvement with the Indian MoD would virtually guarantee such complications.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Yep, and perhaps that is the one difference between Canada and India. Canada will throw in the money for development just like we are doing with the JSF. Where Canada mirrors India is in placing a P.O. in a timely manner for the working product.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
If your starting point is a direct port of Typhoon avionics, this means that you are not developing an airframe and the systems at the same time. I'm assuming that this would significantly reduce the initial costs, and the systems can be upgraded as an ongoing thing once the airframe is in the air and in production.
Would be interesting to see a rough breakdown of costs for the F-35 (A only) development.
Would be interesting to see a rough breakdown of costs for the F-35 (A only) development.
Yes, that's my take on it. Typhoon avionics will be upgraded over the years, & the latest iteration (perhaps incorporating input from Tempest partners) will be ported to Tempest when the airframe & engine are ready, to be replaced by new developments later.
Isn't that pretty much what was done with the F-18C/D & E/F?
Isn't that pretty much what was done with the F-18C/D & E/F?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
AND
Honestly if the goal is a 6th gen fighter aircraft, I would be worried about the effectiveness of such a strategy.
The avionics used in late production F/A-18 Hornets had a high degree of commonality with Block I (early production) F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, but not with Block II Super Hornets. As an example, the APG-73 pulse-doppler radar fitted to the C/D model Hornets was also fitted to Block I Super Hornets, while Block II/III Super Hornets and the similar Growler are fitted with the APG-77 AESA radar. AFAIK the APG-79 was not backfitted to Block I Super Hornets manufactured with the APG-73 because the aircraft nose could not accommodate the newer radar. I have heard a rumour that there was to be an upgrade to Block I Super Hornets to fit them with the APG-79, but so far I have not been able to confirm that, and I have come across contracts from this year where the USN contracting for upgrades to the APG-73 still in use on some Hornets and Super Hornets. The USMC also put out a RFI about replacing the radars on legacy Hornets still in service with a new AESA radar, also from earlier this year. Given that one of the possible contenders was a Raytheon entry based off the APG-79, that does indeed sound like the space for an APG-73 is inadequate for an APG-79.
The reason I mention all this is that with the commonality of avionics between late production Hornets and early production Super Hornets, one is dealing with avionics commonality between different aircraft of the same generation (4th), and it is not really until one gets into the Block II Super Hornets that it would really be considered a 4.5 gen fighter IMO. The Typhoon's are also 4th or 4.5 gen fighter aircraft and expecting to be able to 'jump' an entire generation and then some IMO will not work.
Once specific systems and configurations are developed, they might be able to get installed and tested aboard a Typhoon, but that is about it I suspect. As a side note, IIRC during some of the development and testing for the F-35 avionics, a special Boeing 737 was modified to serve as a testbed for some of the avionics configurations
I would also be interested to see what the definition and expected/planned capability set for a 6th gen fighter will be.
We'll see- one serving colleague described Tempest as very embryonic which is probably fair. I'm dubious as to if the political will and financial means can be found for a solo project of this type but there's every chance that this and the Franco-German project will merge at some point in any event.
A4kscooter
Member
Ministry of Defence blows £10.5billion on jets, only for them to be used to take Brits abroad | Daily Mail Online
It's seems that the current Secretary of Defence has concluded the deal isn''t cost effective.
I wonder if the Bristow SAR contract will also prove to be a mistake as apart from Australia & NZ? most counties use their military or other government agency to undertake this role
It's seems that the current Secretary of Defence has concluded the deal isn''t cost effective.
I wonder if the Bristow SAR contract will also prove to be a mistake as apart from Australia & NZ? most counties use their military or other government agency to undertake this role
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
That article looks to be (aside from a beatup) one of the reasons why members who have been around awhile urge so much caution when quoting prices for aircraft.
Even if the article was accurate about the 2007 price for an A330 being £50 mil. I would not expect a military configuration A330 MRTT to have the same flyaway cost as the civilian airliner version. Then of course the article has very little breakdown on what the £10.5 bil. "price" covers, or over what span of time. From what I have read, it seems likely that the £10.5 bil. was or is the total projected cost over the entire life of the programme. If that is the case, then that is an entirely different situation from what the article appears to be presenting when it suggested that the cost for the MoD to purchase the aircraft outright would likely have been "only" £700 mil.
One of the "messaging" issues that Defence Forces have is that they will continue to be bashed by the media if they promote the whole of project cost in their originating press releases. We saw that just recently in New Zealand with the P-8A purchase where the MSM breathlessly reported $600 million dollar warplanes and a whole bunch of non specialist lefty commentators in Op Ed's went into states of derangement. Journalists are not that cognitively developed much past playdough and crayons so Defence Forces should publicly release both figures if they want to make life a whole lot less difficult for themselves - the government furnished MDE as per the manufacturers invoice and then the whole of life project costs (which a fair chunk comes out of OpEx and not CapEx anyway).
Maybe one of the UK Mods can comment, but I don't think that the Daily Mail is anywhere as reputable as The Times.