British/Italian Tempest (GCAP) Fighter : News and Discussion

Yes, you can. My point is altogether different, Kfir had 220+ numbers made, first prototypes will be very very expensive because you'll need to find parts suppliers and tools and jigs along with designing them. I don't know if there are any airframe manufacturers in India, Only HAL has vendors (e.g Taneja Aerospace) who can supply parts, to get them to adhere to time lines will be difficult even if you place orders to them. The cost will come down only in mass production. Above all you'll need a Team. Your under taking is immense in scale.
The team is being formed and the person to be Team Leader has been given the contract documents. Hold on buddy. I know what I am doing.
 
If the MRCBF is on hold (@Picdelamirand-oil), then Dassault will find it very difficult to start MII with just a potential 36 jets. We can only have assembly then.
No the decision to start MII is already done, and is not dependent of the number, but only of an order. And our defense minister said explicitly that if there was no sale of Rafale during President Macron's visit, it was because it was not deemed clever because of the Indian opposition's opening of a controversy over the price of Rafale. But that will happen later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: randomradio
I am going to *censored* u all very soon. I have appointed one of the best test pilots of Indian navy in my company already. Just two days back. And watch it son, Rafale further orders if not signed by end of 2018, will be a pipe dream.


CONGRATS !
 
MSA will not compete with the MMRCA 2.0 version but will surely be a contender for IN requirements. As of now the plans for MRCBF are on hold as the third carrier is still not on the horizon. the present lot of 46 Mig-29K is sufficient for two carriers.
We are making the MSA-N first in trainer configuration. IN & IAF versions will sahre everything in the fuselage. Only difference will be the landing gear and folding wings. The fuselage will be same for both and the flying hours of the airframe of both aircraft will also be same but the counting of airframe hrs for each deck landing will be a multiplication of the IAF variant. Like every deck landing will be counted as 1.5 landings.


So folding wings in Naval version ?
 
No the decision to start MII is already done, and is not dependent of the number, but only of an order. And our defense minister said explicitly that if there was no sale of Rafale during President Macron's visit, it was because it was not deemed clever because of the Indian opposition's opening of a controversy over the price of Rafale. But that will happen later.

That's good to hear.

As for the follow-on purchase of 36 more, you will have to wait longer. We signed up only in 2016, it's not even been 2 years yet.
 
in stealth mode , wings are usually devoid of pylons.. it wouldn't affect no. of hardpoints & payload much i guess..

will wait for AERO INDIA 2019 for more details..(y)
The outermost pylon is at wingtip folding point which vl b the strongest in the wing and than v hv wingtip pylon only for WVRAAMs. I don't have wing folding but wingtip folding in the design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya
BBC News
menu

The hope is to see it flying by 2035.

Investing in a project that will mature in 17 years of this nature speaks volumes for the UK.
That gives it at least 3 governments to continue the financing. That in itself would be a miracle.
A Corbyn government would halt this immediately. Yet again a waste of £ IMO
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bon Plan
Investing in a project that will mature in 17 years of this nature speaks volumes for the UK.
That gives it at least 3 governments to continue the financing. That in itself would be a miracle.
A Corbyn government would halt this immediately. Yet again a waste of £ IMO

That is what it takes to develop a new fighter. At least they are providing realistic estimates.

If we think we can develop AMCA in a shorter timeframe, we are deluding ourselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bali78 and Bon Plan
That is what it takes to develop a new fighter. At least they are providing realistic estimates.

If we think we can develop AMCA in a shorter timeframe, we are deluding ourselves.

Thats fine and i respect that.
The problem with such a long term project is personnel and in particular decision makers that decide budget dont last 20 years in the same job hence midway through projects like this get hijacked or sidetracked.
We can both name projects that have had issues because of this. I predict this will have issues down the line especially if Corbyn gets in.
 
ROFL:
http://aviationweek.com/farnborough...reps-meet-discuss-britain-s-future-fighter-uk

One day following the announcement of Britain’s future combat air system (FCAS) effort, known as Tempest, U.S. Air Force officials plan to discuss the project this week with UK officials.​
Tempest was revealed on the first day of the Farnborough Airshow. The aircraft is described as a twin-engine, low-observable fighter.​
Air Force Under Secretary Matthew Donovan told reporters interoperability is the most important feature when any partner is building a platform critical to an allied fight.​
“Other folks who are going to develop new technologies, we highly encourage that, because we don’t have the corner on the market for sure,” he said. “But we want to make sure that they are going to fit into the joint coalition warfare fighting system they have in the future, so [that] we can agree on standards moving forward.”​
Will Roper, assistant secretary of the air force for acquisition, technology and logistics, told reporters during the same briefing the U.S. must work with its allies, especially the UK, on the next generation of air dominance.​
“A lot of what we’re going to have to determine about the future depends on the direction that we think threats are evolving, but not just our threats – it’s also the world of commercial technology,” he said. “Now we live in a world where sensors are increasingly propagating because of commercial investment – we have to weigh the pros and cons.”​
Roper is visiting the UK’s Rapid Capabilities Office, which is a mirror of the Pentagon’s, to discuss ways the two entities can work together, he said.​
“To achieve the National Defense Strategy we can’t do it alone. We’re going to have to be able to not just fight with our allies – we’re going to have to be able to build things with them,” Roper said.​

Now, as you know, the UK invested all its pride and defense budget in two royal luxury yachts that can only operate helicopters and F-35B, so it's not like they have any alternative to remaining an F-35 nation. Since the British will operate F-35, and can't afford to replace them with something else, there shouldn't be any worry that the Tempest project, if it were to actually become a real thing, would have networking issues with the F-35. Interoperability isn't going to be a problem, at least on the British side. It's only potentially the American side that can make it a problem, by just refusing to open up their standards enough to let the British engineers make something that works with it.

So when you translate all this lovely diplomatic language in this light, here's what the Americans are saying:
"It's really cute you think you can develop a competitor, but we've got your balls in a vise. Either you give us our cut or you cancel your project. Don't even think you can do anything without us."​
 
ROFL:
http://aviationweek.com/farnborough...reps-meet-discuss-britain-s-future-fighter-uk

One day following the announcement of Britain’s future combat air system (FCAS) effort, known as Tempest, U.S. Air Force officials plan to discuss the project this week with UK officials.​


Tempest was revealed on the first day of the Farnborough Airshow. The aircraft is described as a twin-engine, low-observable fighter.​


Air Force Under Secretary Matthew Donovan told reporters interoperability is the most important feature when any partner is building a platform critical to an allied fight.​


“Other folks who are going to develop new technologies, we highly encourage that, because we don’t have the corner on the market for sure,” he said. “But we want to make sure that they are going to fit into the joint coalition warfare fighting system they have in the future, so [that] we can agree on standards moving forward.”​


Will Roper, assistant secretary of the air force for acquisition, technology and logistics, told reporters during the same briefing the U.S. must work with its allies, especially the UK, on the next generation of air dominance.​


“A lot of what we’re going to have to determine about the future depends on the direction that we think threats are evolving, but not just our threats – it’s also the world of commercial technology,” he said. “Now we live in a world where sensors are increasingly propagating because of commercial investment – we have to weigh the pros and cons.”​


Roper is visiting the UK’s Rapid Capabilities Office, which is a mirror of the Pentagon’s, to discuss ways the two entities can work together, he said.​


“To achieve the National Defense Strategy we can’t do it alone. We’re going to have to be able to not just fight with our allies – we’re going to have to be able to build things with them,” Roper said.​

Now, as you know, the UK invested all its pride and defense budget in two royal luxury yachts that can only operate helicopters and F-35B, so it's not like they have any alternative to remaining an F-35 nation. Since the British will operate F-35, and can't afford to replace them with something else, there shouldn't be any worry that the Tempest project, if it were to actually become a real thing, would have networking issues with the F-35. Interoperability isn't going to be a problem, at least on the British side. It's only potentially the American side that can make it a problem, by just refusing to open up their standards enough to let the British engineers make something that works with it.

So when you translate all this lovely diplomatic language in this light, here's what the Americans are saying:
"It's really cute you think you can develop a competitor, but we've got your balls in a vise. Either you give us our cut or you cancel your project. Don't even think you can do anything without us."​
LOL.
At the end of the meeting/briefing, the conclusion will be : "take some more F35..." :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
ROFL:
http://aviationweek.com/farnborough...reps-meet-discuss-britain-s-future-fighter-uk

One day following the announcement of Britain’s future combat air system (FCAS) effort, known as Tempest, U.S. Air Force officials plan to discuss the project this week with UK officials.​
Tempest was revealed on the first day of the Farnborough Airshow. The aircraft is described as a twin-engine, low-observable fighter.​
Air Force Under Secretary Matthew Donovan told reporters interoperability is the most important feature when any partner is building a platform critical to an allied fight.​
“Other folks who are going to develop new technologies, we highly encourage that, because we don’t have the corner on the market for sure,” he said. “But we want to make sure that they are going to fit into the joint coalition warfare fighting system they have in the future, so [that] we can agree on standards moving forward.”​
Will Roper, assistant secretary of the air force for acquisition, technology and logistics, told reporters during the same briefing the U.S. must work with its allies, especially the UK, on the next generation of air dominance.​
“A lot of what we’re going to have to determine about the future depends on the direction that we think threats are evolving, but not just our threats – it’s also the world of commercial technology,” he said. “Now we live in a world where sensors are increasingly propagating because of commercial investment – we have to weigh the pros and cons.”​
Roper is visiting the UK’s Rapid Capabilities Office, which is a mirror of the Pentagon’s, to discuss ways the two entities can work together, he said.​
“To achieve the National Defense Strategy we can’t do it alone. We’re going to have to be able to not just fight with our allies – we’re going to have to be able to build things with them,” Roper said.​

Now, as you know, the UK invested all its pride and defense budget in two royal luxury yachts that can only operate helicopters and F-35B, so it's not like they have any alternative to remaining an F-35 nation. Since the British will operate F-35, and can't afford to replace them with something else, there shouldn't be any worry that the Tempest project, if it were to actually become a real thing, would have networking issues with the F-35. Interoperability isn't going to be a problem, at least on the British side. It's only potentially the American side that can make it a problem, by just refusing to open up their standards enough to let the British engineers make something that works with it.

So when you translate all this lovely diplomatic language in this light, here's what the Americans are saying:
"It's really cute you think you can develop a competitor, but we've got your balls in a vise. Either you give us our cut or you cancel your project. Don't even think you can do anything without us."​

That's the end right there.