UK Team Tempest

Discussion in 'World Armed Forces' started by Brumby, Aug 23, 2019.

  1. SamuraiBlue
    Offline

    SamuraiBlue Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,074
    Likes Received:
    1,965
    Aughhh, How about J-20? How about the Harrier?
    There are so many various examples it's just ridiculous to even argue about it.
     
    Dizasta1 likes this.
  2. Pmichael
    Offline

    Pmichael Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    201
    I'm not getting the Harrier... which got various upgrades within the same family. And the J-20 is a prime example how a subpar enigne holds the entire plane back.

    You post is confusing, especially when previous attempts of multinational developement didn't work out because Japan made specific requirements regarding having fully domestic systems on the fighter.

    Also the plain fact that Japan announced a close relationship to the USA regarding a next generation fighter, while nothing ever happened regarding Tempest.

    https://www.janes.com/article/88387/japan-us-deepen-fighter-technology-talks
     
  3. Brumby
    Offline

    Brumby Major

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,575
    Likes Received:
    3,680
    BAE Envisioning Future Factory For Tempest

    Source : AWST August 27, 2019
     
    Air Force Brat and Jura like this.
  4. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    23,017
    Likes Received:
    27,455
    the first sentence contains a partial answer to Friday at 1:23 PM
    how much the UK already has spent on the Tempest?
    question:
    "Britain’s Team Tempest consortium now has hundreds of millions of pounds invested ..."
     
    Brumby likes this.
  5. Pmichael
    Offline

    Pmichael Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    201
    The framing is absurd again. They didn't invest hundreds of millions of pounds into Tempest but to modernize production facilities, where F-35 and Eurofighters are produced right now.
    Or do people believe bringing your facilities on a similiar level of Airbus, Boeing, Lockheed gonna impress anyone in 2040?
     
  6. Pmichael
    Offline

    Pmichael Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    201
  7. SamuraiBlue
    Offline

    SamuraiBlue Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,074
    Likes Received:
    1,965
    That is what you call variants in the manufacturing world.
    Whether it is an upgrade or a sub-par engine if you share the air frame then it will be a variant of the original. Automobile offers various variants which offers different engine displacements and components. If component shares interfaces then it is called a modular variant since it can be swapped easily with other components with the same interface.
     
    Air Force Brat likes this.
  8. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    10,635
    F16A/B models have a different engine than C/D models C/D models Block 30 and 40 have a different engine than Blocks 25,32 and 42 and Blocks 50,52 and 60 don’t share any engines with any other blocks.

    Individual nations will often request that military heavy equipment be tailored to there specific wants and logistics. This may include changing engines.
    —————————————

    The Japanese F2 Program has left the JSDF once bitten twice shy. Many of the problems in that program could have been avoided to be blunt, but end of day it happened and Japan has been skeptical of Lockheed Martin since.
    The fact they got in on the F35 came about Was not a sign of faith so much as lack of choice and need. Japan wants some degree of control and choice on its next fighter program. They want to be in the cockpit so to speak. F2 and F35 left them chafed by limits imposed by there own policy preventing exports of combat arms and lack of control on the end product.
    At this point in time both US Sixth gen programs are less solid than the European programs. F/A-XX and F-X in R&D without signs of external partnering. For Japan to jump in on those as yet would be a shot in the dark. The Tempest concept at least gives a form of its aims. Where depending on who is talking F/A-XX goes from stealthy Advanced fighter to F/A35F.
    And F-X sometimes sounds like a space fighter sometimes a bomber and sometimes a Raptor 2.0.
     
    Air Force Brat and Brumby like this.
  9. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    23,017
    Likes Received:
    27,455
    the US first should fix the biggest military procurement mess program in history of warfare that is the F-35 game-changer
     
  10. Brumby
    Offline

    Brumby Major

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,575
    Likes Received:
    3,680
    If you think F-35 is a mess then I can assure you that the NGF will be Godzilla size "mess" by your definition.

    Such programs will continue to get more complex and consequently much more expensive until no military service on the world can afford to buy them in sufficient numbers. Such a future had been written in the wall except that there is a reluctance to understand why and to accept such a future state. The development path cannot be based on historical models as they clearly demonstrate a trend that is unstainable. If you don't understand the underlying factors then every future program will simply be a "mess" by definition because they will be expensive, complex and prone to issues by our own myopic view of capabilities and outcomes.

    One of the fundamental lesson with the F-35 and it serves as an insight why such a model is unsustainable is because it is too platform centric. Essentially the approach is to build all the capabilities to cater to present and future threats into the platform. If this is the approach does anybody seriously think any future platform will be any better in terms of development and sustainment cost? The game in town is that the upscale technology chain and the cycle is evolving quickly and the time cycle is compressing. A platform centric approach is too inflexible to cope with technological changes in order to remain relevant against future threats. It is the main driver why the emphasis has shifted to a concept of system of systems because development work can be undertaken concurrently on all the systems and not sequentially.

    This brings me to the news of the day.

    Next-Generation Air Dominance Doesn't Mean New Aircraft, Air Force Official Says
    https://www.defense.gov/explore/sto...nt-mean-new-aircraft-air-force-official-says/

    IMO, the US is best placed to exploit and effectively roll out any NGF program whatever form it may turned out to be viz a viz the Tempest or the European program. The main reason is because operating in a 5th gen environment transforms the way you operate and how decisions are shared and made. It is fundamentally different from that of a 4th generation force. As such, it will be easier to migrate from a 5th generation operating structure to a future state which is likely to be more decentralised in nature. As an example, a system of systems is dependent on robust communication links and you cannot gel different systems working together without it. The US with the F-35 is finding itself insufficiently invested in communication infrastructure to operate coherently with things like 5th to 4th gen com issues. Additionally the data pipes are simply not big enough to handle required data throughput, latency and volume as will be more demanding in a system of systems environment. Does anybody seriously think the Europeans can easily jump from a 4th gen to a 6th gen environment without having gone through the investment of a 5th gen operating infrastructure?
    .
     
    Air Force Brat likes this.

Share This Page