Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

[Ron5]

The UK is also in an odd position, being committed to a F-35B only fleet. Other operators already have aircraft with 1/3 rd more internal fuel / range, larger capacity internal weapons bays, and significantly higher levels of maneuverability; 9g compared to 7G.

Other operators have F-35 variants with more fuel etc. but compared with non-f-35 aircraft, the F-35B is very well endowed with internal fuel & internal weapon storage.

7G vs 9G strengthened airframe says nothing about the maneuverability of the aircraft just when it will start falling apart. I suspect in A2A, it doesn't confer much of an advantage especially when the other guy is carrying big old wobbly drop tanks. But always willing to be corrected by any of our resident experts.

[Halidon]

Did Perun's video on 6th-gen programs get any discussion here?

[Ron5]

No. Do we care what an Australian gamer has to say?

PS yes Karen, I googled him. Never heard of him before.

[JakobS]

Looks like Sweden is a bit pissed. Guessing they are out.

Saab's setback - misses out on the giant project with Great Britain

Saab is outmaneuvered from the joint development of a new future combat aircraft that the Swedish government agreed with Great Britain in 2019. It would have secured the next generation of Swedish combat aircraft. Instead, with its FX aircraft, Japan has taken over the main role Affärsvärlden can tell.

"We have felt marginalized in the negotiations and therefore decided to hibernate the cooperation without directly ending it", was the message when Saab's CEO Michael Johansson had a special meeting with the defense media at the head office in Stockholm in August this year.

According to the defense site Janes, which attended the meeting, the Saab chief explained that the original benefits of the agreement had not materialized and that Saab and Sweden now took a back seat to consider their own future options while the other parties chiseled out the future direction of the development program.

SAAB invested 566 millions

It was in July 2019 that the Swedish and British governments presented a "Memorandum of Understanding" to jointly create a collaboration for Future Combat Air Systems, FCAS. That is, to jointly develop the next generation of combat aircraft.

In addition to Saab and British BAE Systems, FCAS also included Italian Leonardo, European missile company MBDA and engine manufacturer Rolls Royce.

Saab considered participation in FCAS to be of such strategic importance for the future that a year later, in 2020, it decided to open a center in Great Britain at their own expense of just over SEK 566 million. In the same year, the three countries Sweden, Italy and Great Britain signed an agreement to jointly develop the British fighter plane Tempest.

"Saab made the decision to create a new FCAS center so that we can be closer to our industry partners and authorities in the FCAS collaboration. This center emphasizes the importance of both FCAS and the UK to Saab's future," explained Michael Johansson when the new center was unveiled.

The plans have been shattered

Two years later, the bright future plans have been crushed. In the meeting with the defense media on August 26 this year, the Saab boss explained, according to the defense site Jane's report, "that we have ended up on the sidelines in FCAS and our participation has not been as intense as we thought it would be. We have not left the program but it has become a hibernation period for Sweden where we have seen how Great Britain, Italy and potentially also Japan designed the program. I don't know how this will end," said the Saab boss at the meeting.

On December 9 this year, TT announced in a notice that "Japan, Great Britain and Italy will develop new fighter aircraft". Not a word is mentioned about Saab.

When Affärsvärlden asks Saab what happened to Saab and the collaboration in FCAS, it is referred to "government and relevant authorities". After further questions to Saab about what happened to the originally grandiose collaboration, Saab's press manager Mattias Rådström returns with the following comment:

"Sweden and Saab have been involved in the FCAS initiative since 2018, first with the UK and then with both the UK and Italy. This year, Sweden has focused on reviewing the consequences of the changed global situation. Saab's focus is to support the Swedish authorities in reviewing the Swedish FCAS context".

Will upgrade Gripen

The business world has also unsuccessfully sought the Ministry of Defense for a comment on why the Swedish cooperation in FCAS failed.

Saab is now outside a major international collaboration for the development of the next generation fighter aircraft. The fact that Saab can no longer count on FCAS in its development work seems to have resulted in new development money from the Swedish state. This summer 250 million SEK was received from the Defense Materiel Works for "studies for future fighter aircraft development". Since then, Saab has also received an order to upgrade the Gripen C/D worth 3.4 billion SEK.

https://www.affarsvarlden.se/artikel/sa ... britannien

[jedibeeftrix]

seems like a bit of a F up on the part of the swedish govt.

saab seemed like it could have carved out a useful niche in fcas subsystems like ecw, that it failed here must surely reflect on swedish govt commitment to the programme in terms of money, orders, and common requirements.

might they crash back into the franco-german programme? politically, it might be very useful to peel sweden away from the anglo-centric JEF/Nordic bloc.

[Halidon]

No. Do we care what an Australian gamer has to say?

PS yes Karen, I googled him. Never heard of him before.

Does being a gamer make the rest of someone's resume irrelevant? I asked if it had been discussed and linked it in case anyone might give it a look having seen me mentioning it, I apologize if that was upsetting to you. If it helps, he doesn't talk about diversity or equity.

As to "Karen," well you tried at least.

[JakobS]

seems like a bit of a F up on the part of the swedish govt.

saab seemed like it could have carved out a useful niche in fcas subsystems like ecw, that it failed here must surely reflect on swedish govt commitment to the programme in terms of money, orders, and common requirements.

might they crash back into the franco-german programme? politically, it might be very useful to peel sweden away from the anglo-centric JEF/Nordic bloc.

THB I think it has more to do with the industrial benefits. Remember that Sweden and Saab is used to doing it all when it comes to fighter jets.

I remember that Saabs CEO said a few years ago that they would never participate in France and Germanys project because they would only be allowed to design "the right wing pylon".

I don't think they would accept to only handle subsystems etc.

[SD67]

Looks like Sweden is a bit pissed. Guessing they are out.

Saab's setback - misses out on the giant project with Great Britain

Saab is outmaneuvered from the joint development of a new future combat aircraft that the Swedish government agreed with Great Britain in 2019. It would have secured the next generation of Swedish combat aircraft. Instead, with its FX aircraft, Japan has taken over the main role Affärsvärlden can tell.

"We have felt marginalized in the negotiations and therefore decided to hibernate the cooperation without directly ending it", was the message when Saab's CEO Michael Johansson had a special meeting with the defense media at the head office in Stockholm in August this year.

According to the defense site Janes, which attended the meeting, the Saab chief explained that the original benefits of the agreement had not materialized and that Saab and Sweden now took a back seat to consider their own future options while the other parties chiseled out the future direction of the development program.

SAAB invested 566 millions

It was in July 2019 that the Swedish and British governments presented a "Memorandum of Understanding" to jointly create a collaboration for Future Combat Air Systems, FCAS. That is, to jointly develop the next generation of combat aircraft.

In addition to Saab and British BAE Systems, FCAS also included Italian Leonardo, European missile company MBDA and engine manufacturer Rolls Royce.

Saab considered participation in FCAS to be of such strategic importance for the future that a year later, in 2020, it decided to open a center in Great Britain at their own expense of just over SEK 566 million. In the same year, the three countries Sweden, Italy and Great Britain signed an agreement to jointly develop the British fighter plane Tempest.

"Saab made the decision to create a new FCAS center so that we can be closer to our industry partners and authorities in the FCAS collaboration. This center emphasizes the importance of both FCAS and the UK to Saab's future," explained Michael Johansson when the new center was unveiled.

The plans have been shattered

Two years later, the bright future plans have been crushed. In the meeting with the defense media on August 26 this year, the Saab boss explained, according to the defense site Jane's report, "that we have ended up on the sidelines in FCAS and our participation has not been as intense as we thought it would be. We have not left the program but it has become a hibernation period for Sweden where we have seen how Great Britain, Italy and potentially also Japan designed the program. I don't know how this will end," said the Saab boss at the meeting.

On December 9 this year, TT announced in a notice that "Japan, Great Britain and Italy will develop new fighter aircraft". Not a word is mentioned about Saab.

When Affärsvärlden asks Saab what happened to Saab and the collaboration in FCAS, it is referred to "government and relevant authorities". After further questions to Saab about what happened to the originally grandiose collaboration, Saab's press manager Mattias Rådström returns with the following comment:

"Sweden and Saab have been involved in the FCAS initiative since 2018, first with the UK and then with both the UK and Italy. This year, Sweden has focused on reviewing the consequences of the changed global situation. Saab's focus is to support the Swedish authorities in reviewing the Swedish FCAS context".

Will upgrade Gripen

The business world has also unsuccessfully sought the Ministry of Defense for a comment on why the Swedish cooperation in FCAS failed.

Saab is now outside a major international collaboration for the development of the next generation fighter aircraft. The fact that Saab can no longer count on FCAS in its development work seems to have resulted in new development money from the Swedish state. This summer 250 million SEK was received from the Defense Materiel Works for "studies for future fighter aircraft development". Since then, Saab has also received an order to upgrade the Gripen C/D worth 3.4 billion SEK.

https://www.affarsvarlden.se/artikel/sa ... britannien

SEK 556 million is about 40 million quid - hardly going to break the Swedish economy. And BAE have given SAAB alot of help over the years. IMHO they should adjust their expectations, inject some Tempest technology into Gripen and get BAE to help with marketing - Swedes are too honest to compete with Dassault and LM

[tomuk]

And BAE have given SAAB alot of help over the years.

Yes and that fell apart because BAE tried to grease the wheels of the Gripen sales with some payments to 'agents' these payments would be better known to us as bribes.

[jedibeeftrix]

seems like a bit of a F up on the part of the swedish govt.

saab seemed like it could have carved out a useful niche in fcas subsystems like ecw, that it failed here must surely reflect on swedish govt commitment to the programme in terms of money, orders, and common requirements.

might they crash back into the franco-german programme? politically, it might be very useful to peel sweden away from the anglo-centric JEF/Nordic bloc.

THB I think it has more to do with the industrial benefits. Remember that Sweden and Saab is used to doing it all when it comes to fighter jets.

I remember that Saabs CEO said a few years ago that they would never participate in France and Germanys project because they would only be allowed to design "the right wing pylon".

I don't think they would accept to only handle subsystems etc.

i understand the logic, but are they in a position to self develop a 5th gen jet (let alone a 6th - given it would come into service in 2045!), when all possible partners are working on competing projects?
and who would buy them apart from sweden when most of the world is buying F35 right now, or investing in replacement programmes for existing fleets that will go out of service in the late thirties.

and if you can't build the whole thing, is it so bad to be an extremely competitive supplier of key subsystems? uk seems to have done quite well in this manner with F35.

[Spitfire9]

Does Sweden want to stick to its strategy of having fighters that can be dispersed to operate from roads? If that is the case, the fighter that emerges from GCAP will not meet one of Sweden's basic requirements, so would Sweden be interested in ordering it? Perhaps a couple of squadrons for a hi-lo mix with mostly Gripen E? I'm not sure how much involvement in the project that would buy but at least Swedish industry would be involved in an advanced project (as opposed to 4G+ Gripen E).

Incidentally, how many aircraft would the partners order -

Japan 150?
UK 100?
Italy 80?
Sweden 40?

[SW1]

I’d rather have Sweden involved than Italy. Would reduce program execution risk

[Little J]

They are being foolish, the Tempest maybe to big for their needs but being involved in the program would help pay to put the subsystems developed into their own airframe (Gripen or something newer).

[tomuk]

I’d rather have Sweden involved than Italy. Would reduce program execution risk

Where would you get the radar from?

[inch]

Think Sweden will have to cut it's cloth just like the rest of us smaller countries and collaborate, even if get a smaller slice of the build pie , everyone would like to start to Finnish build themselves,but hey unless USA budget it ain't going to happen ,so yes would love Sweden to have a slice of the GCAP pie and be a great valuable partner in the project, better sorting it out now than years down the line getting less of a cut that's left ,there's no point in cutting nose of to spite face for a few years in between ,plus it will cost Sweden a shit load if they try go it alone again and I'm surmising that wouldn't be as good a product as FCAS with the 3 budgets throwing in the pot

[wargame_insomniac]

They are being foolish, the Tempest maybe to big for their needs but being involved in the program would help pay to put the subsystems developed into their own airframe (Gripen or something newer).

Absolutely, it had been hypothesised that SAAB would lead design of a single engine smaller machine, using the engine, avionics and new construction techniques within Tempest, creating a highly scalable high low mix that could have played well to the market.

Sweden, Italy, GB and Japan would all bring key enabling skills to Tempest, it's a shame it appears Sweden are now backtracking.

Re the numbers game, it used to be said that 400 units represents the break even point in modern combat aircraft.

With that in mind....
GB 150
Japan 150
Italy 85
(A quite plausible Saudi Arabian buy) 55

[SW1]

I’d rather have Sweden involved than Italy. Would reduce program execution risk

Where would you get the radar from?

Edinburgh!

[Ron5]

Does Sweden want to stick to its strategy of having fighters that can be dispersed to operate from roads? If that is the case, the fighter that emerges from GCAP will not meet one of Sweden's basic requirements

How can you be so definitive when the full requirements have not been agreed?

PS Sounds like SAAB's CEO has a beef about how the Japanese companies have stolen his future work. But that's the nature of things when an industrial partnership expands - participation dilutes as much as the risks fade. How confident are we that this attitude extends to the Swedish government? Maybe they just decided GCAP is a tad too expensive for them at the moment.

[Spitfire9]

Absolutely, it had been hypothesised that SAAB would lead design of a single engine smaller machine, using the engine, avionics and new construction techniques within Tempest, creating a highly scalable high low mix that could have played well to the market.

I think that the KAI KF-21 is in the order of 25 tonnes, as is the not-yet-launched HAL AMCA. What would SAAB design to avoid competing with these? How small can a fighter be and still carry a meaningful weapons load internally?

Re the numbers game, it used to be said that 400 units represents the break even point in modern combat aircraft.

With that in mind....
GB 150
Japan 150
Italy 85
(A quite plausible Saudi Arabian buy) 55

I follow Indian military aviation. It is possible that their own 5G AMCA project will end up being cancelled through India's inability to organise (and reluctance to finance) development of a suitable engine. It may be very advantageous for the GCAP group to keep talking to India about possible involvement in the program either as a co-developer or as a customer. india will need to start replacing 250+ Su-30 fighters from mid/late 2030's(?) so might be in the market for 100-150 frames if AMCA is cancelled/abandoned.

[Ron5]

Re the numbers game, it used to be said that 400 units represents the break even point in modern combat aircraft.

"Break even"? What the heck does that mean in this context?

The only way it might possibly make sense is if the tax on the profit on export orders paid for the upfront government development costs of the partners.

Good luck figuring out what that might be but as a hint, it would be a shit load more than 55 exports to SA would supply.

[Ron5]

How small can a fighter be and still carry a meaningful weapons load internally?

Good question

[Spitfire9]

Does Sweden want to stick to its strategy of having fighters that can be dispersed to operate from roads? If that is the case, the fighter that emerges from GCAP will not meet one of Sweden's basic requirements

How can you be so definitive when the full requirements have not been agreed?

Indeed, I can't be at all definitive but I have never heard any hint of austere operation being a requirement of Tempest/GCAP.

[Spitfire9]

Does Sweden want to stick to its strategy of having fighters that can be dispersed to operate from roads? If that is the case, the fighter that emerges from GCAP will not meet one of Sweden's basic requirements

How can you be so definitive when the full requirements have not been agreed?

Indeed, I can't be at all definitive but I have never heard any hint of austere operation being a requirement of Tempest/GCAP.

I'm just suggesting that if the Swedes joined the program, they could make STOL a hard requirement. No idea if that's incompatible or impractical. Timmie would know better.

[Spitfire9]

Does Sweden want to stick to its strategy of having fighters that can be dispersed to operate from roads? If that is the case, the fighter that emerges from GCAP will not meet one of Sweden's basic requirements

How can you be so definitive when the full requirements have not been agreed?

Indeed, I can't be at all definitive but I have never heard any hint of austere operation being a requirement of Tempest/GCAP.

I'm just suggesting that if the Swedes joined the program, they could make STOL a hard requirement. No idea if that's incompatible or impractical. Timmie would know better.

That is an idea.

[mrclark303]

Re the numbers game, it used to be said that 400 units represents the break even point in modern combat aircraft.

"Break even"? What the heck does that mean in this context?

The only way it might possibly make sense is if the tax on the profit on export orders paid for the upfront government development costs of the partners.

Good luck figuring out what that might be but as a hint, it would be a shit load more than 55 exports to SA would supply.

Break even point...

An often used industry metric in new military aircraft programmes was a build of 400 units to make a program economically viable and not cancelled due to spiralling costs at birth.

it's particularly relevant when discussing very high end fighters like this, as fail to get sufficient numbers under contract at the start, then the unit cost becomes unacceptably high for the partners and into the bin it goes.

From a UK context Ron, Saudi Arabia is good bet, a typical UK export customer for high end military aircraft. An initial order to replace Typhoon, followed by further orders to replace the various F15 derivatives they operate perhaps.

So an initial 55 order is quite plaussable for a sufficiently capable machine.

The Gulf states in general are prime targets for exports of a high end long range Gen6 fighter.