The only way is Tempest
Tempest was designed to be export-orientated from the start (BAE Systems)
If you want to know the reasoning and the rationale behind the (so far) three-nation GCAP/ Tempest programme, look no further than the strapline for the:
‘Freedom of action, freedom of modification, and freedom of export.’
So what? Well, if the three nations (Italy, Japan and the UK) could get any of these from the F-35 programme, why on earth would any of them be committing to spending many billions of Pounds/Euros/Yen in developing a totally new, different next-generation combat air system?
If F-35 was where it is at, there would be absolutely no point in this expense. But this is the point: F-35 is not where it’s at. Indeed, it is looking like a financial and operational liability for those operators who have had it longest.
To take ‘freedom of action’ first, I won’t even attempt to go into the ‘kill switch’ debate – that several Middle East nations say that there is such is enough to leave it with.
However, the wording of the UK’s recent accident investigation report on the crash of the F-35B off the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth in November 2021 is worth noting:
“The F-35 Special Access Programme (SAP) prevented unauthorised and uncontrolled access to all elements of the F-35 system. The GSSO team’s task was to supervise SAP facilities…They were responsible for the Ship’s SAP compartments, as well as F-35B dedicated hardware and software installed on QNLZ.
“On rare occasions, if flying activity was not being conducted, the deck was opened for recreation to other personnel. Such events added another dimension to the requirement to ensure aircraft were physically protected, and ensure security was maintained.
On one of these recreation days a DASOR was raised due to recreational activities infringing aircraft security.”
So, despite the Royal Navy talking about the carriers as being ‘eight acres of sovereign territory’, the truth is that the use of its prime strike asset is firmly under US control, and access of RN sailors to the hangar and flight deck is dictated by US regulations.
Very sovereign! ‘Freedom of modification’ is vital to GCAP as there is absolutely no such facility in the F-35 programme whatsoever. You might – just might – be able to buy, at significant cost, a derogation to adapt F-35, but to do this, a country will have to hand over all its software for, say, a new missile, to Lockheed Martin/Joint Program Office to do the integration.
Crown Jewels? Handed over… This is before one even considers the fact that industrially, a US F-35 company, let alone the Pentagon, might not want a weapon/electronic system on F-35 that is a competing option for an export customer, and so smothers it – this happens all too frequently on other US platforms.
‘Freedom of export’ doesn’t need any explanation – it speaks for itself. And the ‘15% of every F-35 is British’ claim is a tired saw. The largest, by value British F-35 system, the BAE Systems electronic warfare suite, is made in New Hampshire.
This results in jobs, revenue, IP and taxes all benefiting the US. The next biggest, the F-35B R-R LiftFan, is more than 80% built in the US, and the final assembly line is in Indianapolis. So, the idea that British companies benefit massively from F-35 export sales is empty.
Some claim: “The development costs for GCAP will be at least $50bn, $60bn – that’s what F-35 has cost!” No: F-35 cost that because the US procurement system only has two metrics: jobs in which States, and the size (the bigger the better).
Just because F-35 cost $50bn to develop (and with TR-3 and Block 4, it’ll be up to more than $80bn), there is absolutely no reason why GCAP will cost that – the waste levers that dominate US procurement are not present with GCAP.
Luckily, GCAP has an unexpected patron saint in St Frank of Kendall, the USAF Secretary. In his March 2023 speech at the Air Warfare Symposium, he stated that the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter for the USAF would have an offtake of around 200, a one-for-one replacement for the F-22.
At the same time, he was also stating that 200 offtake was perfectly economic for such a platform. In which case, can one see the current three GCAP partners buying 200 Tempests? Yes, it is very easy, and this is before other partners come along. GCAP is an economic programme.
I was recently in e-mail discussion with an old acquaintance, who has followed the F-35 programme near man and boy, and has worked in US companies deeply involved with designing and building the type.
He had just read the September Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on F-35 support, and said: “Stephen King never wrote anything as long or as full of horrors.”
He ended his message by summing up the GAO report by saying: “If the Hurricane and Spitfire had been supported that way [in the same manner as the F-35], Ich würde heute Deutsch sprechen.”
If one required a simple, two-sentence summation as to why GCAP is going ahead, these two sentences are as good as you’ll get: The GCAP partners have woken up – they’ve had more experience with operating the F-35 than those who have rushed to buy it over the past two/three years, and their solution? Build a new fighter system.
So what are the threats to GCAP? An awakened US administration that tries to pressure all the partners to drop Tempest (think TSR-2/F-111 and Blue Steel/Skybolt – there is form for this pressure.
More insidious? His Majesty’s Treasury, home of short-sightedness and short-termism. For GCAP to succeed, it needs to proceed at a pace that will not fit the templates that the Treasury like to bind capital programmes with.
In 1982, at the start of the Falklands War, then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, denied the Treasury a seat at the War Cabinet table – whoever is prime minister come late-2024 needs to copy her.
Tempest was designed to be export-orientated from the start (BAE Systems)
If you want to know the reasoning and the rationale behind the (so far) three-nation GCAP/ Tempest programme, look no further than the strapline for the:
‘Freedom of action, freedom of modification, and freedom of export.’
So what? Well, if the three nations (Italy, Japan and the UK) could get any of these from the F-35 programme, why on earth would any of them be committing to spending many billions of Pounds/Euros/Yen in developing a totally new, different next-generation combat air system?
If F-35 was where it is at, there would be absolutely no point in this expense. But this is the point: F-35 is not where it’s at. Indeed, it is looking like a financial and operational liability for those operators who have had it longest.
To take ‘freedom of action’ first, I won’t even attempt to go into the ‘kill switch’ debate – that several Middle East nations say that there is such is enough to leave it with.
However, the wording of the UK’s recent accident investigation report on the crash of the F-35B off the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth in November 2021 is worth noting:
“The F-35 Special Access Programme (SAP) prevented unauthorised and uncontrolled access to all elements of the F-35 system. The GSSO team’s task was to supervise SAP facilities…They were responsible for the Ship’s SAP compartments, as well as F-35B dedicated hardware and software installed on QNLZ.
“On rare occasions, if flying activity was not being conducted, the deck was opened for recreation to other personnel. Such events added another dimension to the requirement to ensure aircraft were physically protected, and ensure security was maintained.
On one of these recreation days a DASOR was raised due to recreational activities infringing aircraft security.”
So, despite the Royal Navy talking about the carriers as being ‘eight acres of sovereign territory’, the truth is that the use of its prime strike asset is firmly under US control, and access of RN sailors to the hangar and flight deck is dictated by US regulations.
Very sovereign! ‘Freedom of modification’ is vital to GCAP as there is absolutely no such facility in the F-35 programme whatsoever. You might – just might – be able to buy, at significant cost, a derogation to adapt F-35, but to do this, a country will have to hand over all its software for, say, a new missile, to Lockheed Martin/Joint Program Office to do the integration.
Crown Jewels? Handed over… This is before one even considers the fact that industrially, a US F-35 company, let alone the Pentagon, might not want a weapon/electronic system on F-35 that is a competing option for an export customer, and so smothers it – this happens all too frequently on other US platforms.
‘Freedom of export’ doesn’t need any explanation – it speaks for itself. And the ‘15% of every F-35 is British’ claim is a tired saw. The largest, by value British F-35 system, the BAE Systems electronic warfare suite, is made in New Hampshire.
This results in jobs, revenue, IP and taxes all benefiting the US. The next biggest, the F-35B R-R LiftFan, is more than 80% built in the US, and the final assembly line is in Indianapolis. So, the idea that British companies benefit massively from F-35 export sales is empty.
Some claim: “The development costs for GCAP will be at least $50bn, $60bn – that’s what F-35 has cost!” No: F-35 cost that because the US procurement system only has two metrics: jobs in which States, and the size (the bigger the better).
Just because F-35 cost $50bn to develop (and with TR-3 and Block 4, it’ll be up to more than $80bn), there is absolutely no reason why GCAP will cost that – the waste levers that dominate US procurement are not present with GCAP.
Luckily, GCAP has an unexpected patron saint in St Frank of Kendall, the USAF Secretary. In his March 2023 speech at the Air Warfare Symposium, he stated that the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter for the USAF would have an offtake of around 200, a one-for-one replacement for the F-22.
At the same time, he was also stating that 200 offtake was perfectly economic for such a platform. In which case, can one see the current three GCAP partners buying 200 Tempests? Yes, it is very easy, and this is before other partners come along. GCAP is an economic programme.
I was recently in e-mail discussion with an old acquaintance, who has followed the F-35 programme near man and boy, and has worked in US companies deeply involved with designing and building the type.
He had just read the September Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on F-35 support, and said: “Stephen King never wrote anything as long or as full of horrors.”
He ended his message by summing up the GAO report by saying: “If the Hurricane and Spitfire had been supported that way [in the same manner as the F-35], Ich würde heute Deutsch sprechen.”
If one required a simple, two-sentence summation as to why GCAP is going ahead, these two sentences are as good as you’ll get: The GCAP partners have woken up – they’ve had more experience with operating the F-35 than those who have rushed to buy it over the past two/three years, and their solution? Build a new fighter system.
So what are the threats to GCAP? An awakened US administration that tries to pressure all the partners to drop Tempest (think TSR-2/F-111 and Blue Steel/Skybolt – there is form for this pressure.
More insidious? His Majesty’s Treasury, home of short-sightedness and short-termism. For GCAP to succeed, it needs to proceed at a pace that will not fit the templates that the Treasury like to bind capital programmes with.
In 1982, at the start of the Falklands War, then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, denied the Treasury a seat at the War Cabinet table – whoever is prime minister come late-2024 needs to copy her.
