By: FBW
- 27th July 2018 at 05:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Don't know.
I thought it was solely developed by the Marconi division of the Selex subsidiary if Leonardo.
If under British government contract, then the British own the know how.
I'm not sure if it applies to SAAB.
Can a company hire a foreign company to do research for their government, and expect it to be their govrnment'sjurisdiction ?
The short answer is yes, that’s why defense contractors set up subsidiaries. The IP is owned by the party that set the contract. One easy example is the F-16 block 60. UAE paid for development, hence L-M has developed newer blocks that don’t include the same avionics set.
BAE systems is an independent subsidiary of BAE. In other words, the country of origin of the parent company is largely irrelevant, the intellectual property is usually owned by that nation who contracted the development and not proprietary to the contractors country of origin....unless it includes technology paid for and under control of the parent and company.
By: matt
- 27th July 2018 at 07:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To put things into perspective...
As of 2017, Lockheed-Martin and Boeing are the 1st and 2nd largest defense contractors in the world.
BAEsystems is the 3rd.
Airbus is 7th at about half the revenue of BAE.
Leonardo is 9th at 75% of the revenue of Airbus.
SAAB is 38th at less than a third of the revenue of Leonardo.
And what I found really hard to believe, Dassault is 51st ( and they developed the Rafale alone )
Interestingly, a combined BAE/Leonardo would be the world's second largest defence contractor.
Ahead of Boeing, but quite a ways behind L-M.
By: matt
- 27th July 2018 at 08:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It make sense as BAE is backed by the UK, Dassault is backed by France...And airbus not clearly backed by a one country. They are the weakest link and are looking for an industrial alliance to maintain their R&D offices and skills. Surely BAE is more "compatible" than with Dassault which is a big high tech SME compared to other multinational.
However this would be politicaly sensitive as Airbus is also working on SCAF with Dassault. But if in the end SCAF and Tempest can fuse in a single fighter program that will be good news for Europe.
It seems that there is some kind of a remake of the early eighties with competing demonstrator which eventualy lead to Typhoon and rafale programs. Hope this will end well !
Interesting times ahead...But decision must be taken quickly as it will be more difficult to join forces if already a lot of work and effort have been invested in respective programs.
Considering the amount of British tax payer money still going into Airbus and the recent interference by Tom Ender's in British political matters my opinion would be that Airbus can carry on on their own. That comment by Mr Ender's was a cynical way of accessing more British tax payer money nothing else. Airbus were late on A400M and the Typhoon was a pain to get into flight. I don't know what tranche they are in UK service now.
By: TomcatViP
- 27th July 2018 at 12:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is no things like better. The fact that some lazy managers had in mind that the structure of European defense has tethered their customer to their organizations doesn't make cooperation with one nation better than an other one. I have been advocating the present state of the UK situation for long and will still insist that this is not a matter of nation (or people). It's a mix of compatible military needs (obviously) but also political and cultural situation that turns a potential cooperation beneficial for all the parties involved. In Other words, it's a windows of potentiality that need to be used on time and in a timely fashion.
All those talks of with who to work whith could worth nothing if no decision is taken on time.
By: halloweene
- 27th July 2018 at 13:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Considering the amount of British tax payer money still going into Airbus and the recent interference by Tom Ender's in British political matters my opinion would be that Airbus can carry on on their own. That comment by Mr Ender's was a cynical way of accessing more British tax payer money nothing else. Airbus were late on A400M and the Typhoon was a pain to get into flight. I don't know what tranche they are in UK service now.
Better to work with SAAB, JAPAN, Boeing.
Hilarious considering how mauch money Airbus is pouring INTO british taxpayers pockets...
By: Sintra
- 27th July 2018 at 14:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Considering the amount of British tax payer money still going into Airbus and the recent interference by Tom Ender's in British political matters my opinion would be that Airbus can carry on on their own. That comment by Mr Ender's was a cynical way of accessing more British tax payer money nothing else. Airbus were late on A400M and the Typhoon was a pain to get into flight. I don't know what tranche they are in UK service now.
Better to work with SAAB, JAPAN, Boeing.
Facepalm, massive facepalm
Fifteen thousand direct jobs in the UK, twenty five sites, biggest commercial aerospace company in the UK, four thousand different company suppliers in GB, 8 billion pounds of value added contribution to the UK GDP... Like Hallo noticed Airbus is a net contributor (and a decently sized one) to the UK budget.
By: mrmalaya
- 27th July 2018 at 14:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As I mentioned elsewhere, if Boeing can say that they are working with the UK and partners on the Tempest programme, that puts them in a much stronger position for a future US competition than they are currently.
The Japanese have now officially stated that they are interested in looking into cooperation on this too (for what that is worth).
When combined with SAAB's interest and likely future Saudi interest/money, Tempest seems to have a bit more impetus behind it than the Franco/German project. Germany can't afford to run its Typhoons and most of its Navy at the moment (which is a matter of funding priority and might explain why Airbus is sounding a bit desperate at the moment).
By: Spitfire9
- 27th July 2018 at 15:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A a side not, IMOHO, Japan is must to go for UK.
I would be worried about teaming up with a country that produced a 'home grown' F-16 (the F2) where each F2 cost an extremely large amount of money to produce. I'm sure I've seen a figure of $200 million somewhere but cannot find the source. A repeat of this kind of performance would make a future Tempest involving Japan in design/manufacture so overpriced that only the countries involved in its development would consider buying it.
I appreciate that the F2 project may have had the objective of keeping aeronautical skills alive in Japan (so cost was not so important) but Tempest would need to be a more commercial exercise IMO.
I wonder if any or all countries that are interested in being involved would expect their own assembly line as per Eurofighter.
By: Marcellogo
- 27th July 2018 at 17:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@BlackArcher
Exactly what I was wondering..they produced the Rafale, which has to be one of the most beautiful designs of all time..and then the next gen fighter turns out to be so disappointing..Typhoon was quite a looker as well, but this Tempest looks downright ugly. The front fuselage seems similar to that of the J-20, another fugly fighter.
Still is one of the few so called gen 6th that almost has a remain of rudders, all other sketches (because there still NOTHING nowhere near to even a first flying prototype) feature tailless design, didn't know if just for appearing substantially different from actual ones even at a first glance or because there is a requisite of get rid of them for increasing stealth.
Personally I am quite dubious it will work as i think that the effort to get to an acceptable tailless configuration would be much more challenging and would take much more time that the one needed to pass from GaAs to GaN AESA if not to even to get functioning Photonic Radars.
By: FBW
- 27th July 2018 at 17:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Personally I am quite dubious it will work as i think that the effort to get to an acceptable tailless configuration would be much more challenging and would take much more time that the one needed to pass from GaAs to GaN AESA
Fluidic thrust vectoring. BAE being one of (if not) the leaders in developing and testing the technology. The exhaust of next generation propulsion systems will look significantly different from the traditional nozzle. The "nozzle" will be part of the airframe, blended in, likely using FTV technology. This eliminates a major source of drag, the nozzle, also a major RF signature contributor. Designers can better shape the trailing edges and better mask the exhaust gasses.
The fluidic thrust vectoring can provide flight control in pitch/yaw without having a nozzle mechanically diverting the thrust and subsequent loss of efficiency. TVFC solves the issues with yaw instability of aircraft without vertical stabs at supersonic speeds (hence why flying wings are subsonic).
By: swerve
- 27th July 2018 at 18:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Spitfire9:
I would be worried about teaming up with a country that produced a 'home grown' F-16 (the F2) where each F2 cost an extremely large amount of money to produce. I'm sure I've seen a figure of $200 million somewhere but cannot find the source. A repeat of this kind of performance would make a future Tempest involving Japan in design/manufacture so overpriced that only the countries involved in its development would consider buying it.
I appreciate that the F2 project may have had the objective of keeping aeronautical skills alive in Japan (so cost was not so important) but Tempest would need to be a more commercial exercise IMO.
I'm sure I read somewhere that manufacturing cost of the F-2 was quite reasonable, & it was only exorbitantly expensive per unit because of spreading fixed costs over a very short production run.
By: swerve
- 27th July 2018 at 18:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
mrmalaya:
Germany can't afford to run its Typhoons and most of its Navy at the moment (which is a matter of funding priority and might explain why Airbus is sounding a bit desperate at the moment).
Germany can afford it very easily. Just spend some of the budget surplus. It could bump defence spending up to 2% of GDP (i.e. about a 50% increase) overnight, & it'd still have a healthy surplus. The government chooses not to give the MoD enough money.
By: JSR
- 27th July 2018 at 18:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Really? I think it more likely that the government of the UK would step in & tell the Italians that for reasons of national security, it was ordering the British operations of Leonardo (which are essential suppliers to the British armed forces) to disregard all Italian government orders - & Sweden would get its radars.
I don't think you understand EU after brexit and Italian role played in Germanic control of EU. Any action against Italian investment will have much wider counter reaction EU wide. Than there is different kind of Germany and Italy importance to Israel.
I have no doubt if Germany want to impose its own fighter on Sweden they can do so very easily or reshuffle Gripen supply chain to benefit Germany.
By: MadRat
- 28th July 2018 at 04:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Germany impose a fighter on Sweden. Phfft.
Until there is a drastic re-awakening of the German public, don't expect military spending to increase drastically any time soon. Its a shame such a beautiful country is being stolen underneath their noses. The Russia-friendly Merkel government loved shifting money to their equivalent of socialist welfare. Do it for the poor children. Do it for the helpless elders and the invalids. Do it for the innocent migrant children. Putin just laughs at the west and how easy they've made it for him to run his scheme. Lots of German government spending sucked directly to Moscow for oil & gas supplies. Allegedly. Everyone knows Merkel is a Putin puppet. Even if America sells LNG to the EU, the fake eco-friendly German government will justify buying the dirtier supplies from Russia. German ministers lied to their population about green energy and money went east. I hope Typhoon technology doesn't get sucked up, too.
By: Spitfire9
- 28th July 2018 at 08:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Until there is a drastic re-awakening of the German public, don't expect military spending to increase drastically any time soon.
After World War II the victorious allied powers wanted the people of Germany to abandon their support for militarism. They did. I think that a lot of Germans do not want their government to spend heavily on the German military machine.
I believe that NATO members have an obligation to spend 2% of GDP on defence so the German government could push the line to the citizens of Germany that it has to increase spending on defence (especially with Trump's recent pressure to do this). Perhaps that could provide funds for an involvement in another fighter project. Would that please the USA? Doubt it. They would much prefer to have less competition for their own products. The American line seems to be that they would like countries like Germany to spend more on defence and for as much as possible to be spent on supporting the US defence industry at the cost of their own.
You talk of the risk involved with using Russia as an energy supplier. Russia could break supply contracts. What about the risk of using USA as a supplier of military materiel? You can't rely on USA not to break contracts. Congress takes a dislike to you being supplied and suddenly your contracts with US suppliers are unilaterally broken. The lesson: don't buy from Russia or America unless you are prepared to have them trying to control your internal and external policies and actions.
For energy independence develop indigenous wind, solar etc energy supplies. The technology is becoming cost effective - for example studies show that it would be cheaper to generate energy through wind rather than nuclear where a new nuclear power plant is proposed in the west of England.
For defence independence develop national/multinational weapons systems.
By: Marcellogo
- 28th July 2018 at 09:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@FBW
Yes, I'm not saying that it cannnot be done and that's there wouldn't be an advantage in doing it.
I'm just wondering how such great an advantage it would possibly be in terms of RCS reduction compared to the money and the time you would spend solely on it.
Probably there is a push to have a "multiband" stealth there and a flying wing is probably seen as the sole possible solution but again, can such an effort compensate for the huge gains in performances radars are expected to get in the next 10 years?
What I fear is that we would get a repetition of the F-22 case, surely having better stealth than others 5gen planes but absolutely not worth the extra cost, not just in money but also in maintenance and lack of operational flexibility (due to cancellation of previously envisaged features to the Moloch of "just more stealth").
By: mrmalaya
- 28th July 2018 at 09:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@Swerve- Yes that was the bit about "funding priorities". The German political system at the moment can't support its Typhoon fleet and Airbus must be desperate to get something underway that allows them concrete funds for the future, whether that's Typhoon development or a future fighter.
As to vertical stabilisers, BAE knows how to get rid of them and has gone so far as to fly demonstrators that point the way for LO flight control systems (which we all know about). If the majority of designs being considered are have some form of vertical tail surface, it must be down to cost versus benefit for a supersonic fighter design.
Or they don't want to scare the MoD at this stage with an uber-stealthy ,laser mothership design that is meant to be "affordable".
By: Marcellogo
- 28th July 2018 at 10:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, it's not intended as a "stealth is an useless garbage" gig, just let's compare the relative gain of a given innovation with the added costs (in any sense) of implementing it.
A certain level of RCS reduction can certainly to be achieved but probably in the sense of multi-band sensitivity that regarding absolute numbers.
By: MadRat
- 28th July 2018 at 14:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
From a performance standpoint, it looks like Tempest is going maximum lift at minimal drag. As much as people say its ugly, it's actually a composition of minimal performance compromises with modular utility and functionality taking precedent. It's not a terrible design in any way. And I bet it will look much better in practice. I just dislike the name.
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 27th July 2018 at 05:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The short answer is yes, that’s why defense contractors set up subsidiaries. The IP is owned by the party that set the contract. One easy example is the F-16 block 60. UAE paid for development, hence L-M has developed newer blocks that don’t include the same avionics set.
BAE systems is an independent subsidiary of BAE. In other words, the country of origin of the parent company is largely irrelevant, the intellectual property is usually owned by that nation who contracted the development and not proprietary to the contractors country of origin....unless it includes technology paid for and under control of the parent and company.
Posts: 4,441
By: matt - 27th July 2018 at 07:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MBDA
Posts: 4,441
By: matt - 27th July 2018 at 08:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Considering the amount of British tax payer money still going into Airbus and the recent interference by Tom Ender's in British political matters my opinion would be that Airbus can carry on on their own. That comment by Mr Ender's was a cynical way of accessing more British tax payer money nothing else. Airbus were late on A400M and the Typhoon was a pain to get into flight. I don't know what tranche they are in UK service now.
Better to work with SAAB, JAPAN, Boeing.
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 27th July 2018 at 12:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is no things like better. The fact that some lazy managers had in mind that the structure of European defense has tethered their customer to their organizations doesn't make cooperation with one nation better than an other one. I have been advocating the present state of the UK situation for long and will still insist that this is not a matter of nation (or people). It's a mix of compatible military needs (obviously) but also political and cultural situation that turns a potential cooperation beneficial for all the parties involved. In Other words, it's a windows of potentiality that need to be used on time and in a timely fashion.
All those talks of with who to work whith could worth nothing if no decision is taken on time.
A a side not, IMOHO, Japan is must to go for UK.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 27th July 2018 at 13:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hilarious considering how mauch money Airbus is pouring INTO british taxpayers pockets...
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 27th July 2018 at 14:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Facepalm, massive facepalm
Fifteen thousand direct jobs in the UK, twenty five sites, biggest commercial aerospace company in the UK, four thousand different company suppliers in GB, 8 billion pounds of value added contribution to the UK GDP... Like Hallo noticed Airbus is a net contributor (and a decently sized one) to the UK budget.
Posts: 4,619
By: mrmalaya - 27th July 2018 at 14:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As I mentioned elsewhere, if Boeing can say that they are working with the UK and partners on the Tempest programme, that puts them in a much stronger position for a future US competition than they are currently.
The Japanese have now officially stated that they are interested in looking into cooperation on this too (for what that is worth).
When combined with SAAB's interest and likely future Saudi interest/money, Tempest seems to have a bit more impetus behind it than the Franco/German project. Germany can't afford to run its Typhoons and most of its Navy at the moment (which is a matter of funding priority and might explain why Airbus is sounding a bit desperate at the moment).
Posts: 2,626
By: Spitfire9 - 27th July 2018 at 15:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would be worried about teaming up with a country that produced a 'home grown' F-16 (the F2) where each F2 cost an extremely large amount of money to produce. I'm sure I've seen a figure of $200 million somewhere but cannot find the source. A repeat of this kind of performance would make a future Tempest involving Japan in design/manufacture so overpriced that only the countries involved in its development would consider buying it.
I appreciate that the F2 project may have had the objective of keeping aeronautical skills alive in Japan (so cost was not so important) but Tempest would need to be a more commercial exercise IMO.
I wonder if any or all countries that are interested in being involved would expect their own assembly line as per Eurofighter.
Posts: 1,765
By: Marcellogo - 27th July 2018 at 17:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@BlackArcher
Still is one of the few so called gen 6th that almost has a remain of rudders, all other sketches (because there still NOTHING nowhere near to even a first flying prototype) feature tailless design, didn't know if just for appearing substantially different from actual ones even at a first glance or because there is a requisite of get rid of them for increasing stealth.
Personally I am quite dubious it will work as i think that the effort to get to an acceptable tailless configuration would be much more challenging and would take much more time that the one needed to pass from GaAs to GaN AESA if not to even to get functioning Photonic Radars.
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 27th July 2018 at 17:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fluidic thrust vectoring. BAE being one of (if not) the leaders in developing and testing the technology. The exhaust of next generation propulsion systems will look significantly different from the traditional nozzle. The "nozzle" will be part of the airframe, blended in, likely using FTV technology. This eliminates a major source of drag, the nozzle, also a major RF signature contributor. Designers can better shape the trailing edges and better mask the exhaust gasses.
The fluidic thrust vectoring can provide flight control in pitch/yaw without having a nozzle mechanically diverting the thrust and subsequent loss of efficiency. TVFC solves the issues with yaw instability of aircraft without vertical stabs at supersonic speeds (hence why flying wings are subsonic).
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 27th July 2018 at 18:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Spitfire9:
I'm sure I read somewhere that manufacturing cost of the F-2 was quite reasonable, & it was only exorbitantly expensive per unit because of spreading fixed costs over a very short production run.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 27th July 2018 at 18:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
mrmalaya:
Germany can afford it very easily. Just spend some of the budget surplus. It could bump defence spending up to 2% of GDP (i.e. about a 50% increase) overnight, & it'd still have a healthy surplus. The government chooses not to give the MoD enough money.
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 27th July 2018 at 18:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't think you understand EU after brexit and Italian role played in Germanic control of EU. Any action against Italian investment will have much wider counter reaction EU wide. Than there is different kind of Germany and Italy importance to Israel.
I have no doubt if Germany want to impose its own fighter on Sweden they can do so very easily or reshuffle Gripen supply chain to benefit Germany.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 28th July 2018 at 04:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Germany impose a fighter on Sweden. Phfft.
Until there is a drastic re-awakening of the German public, don't expect military spending to increase drastically any time soon. Its a shame such a beautiful country is being stolen underneath their noses. The Russia-friendly Merkel government loved shifting money to their equivalent of socialist welfare. Do it for the poor children. Do it for the helpless elders and the invalids. Do it for the innocent migrant children. Putin just laughs at the west and how easy they've made it for him to run his scheme. Lots of German government spending sucked directly to Moscow for oil & gas supplies. Allegedly. Everyone knows Merkel is a Putin puppet. Even if America sells LNG to the EU, the fake eco-friendly German government will justify buying the dirtier supplies from Russia. German ministers lied to their population about green energy and money went east. I hope Typhoon technology doesn't get sucked up, too.
Posts: 2,626
By: Spitfire9 - 28th July 2018 at 07:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
swerve:
thanks for clarifying F2 costs
Posts: 2,626
By: Spitfire9 - 28th July 2018 at 08:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
After World War II the victorious allied powers wanted the people of Germany to abandon their support for militarism. They did. I think that a lot of Germans do not want their government to spend heavily on the German military machine.
I believe that NATO members have an obligation to spend 2% of GDP on defence so the German government could push the line to the citizens of Germany that it has to increase spending on defence (especially with Trump's recent pressure to do this). Perhaps that could provide funds for an involvement in another fighter project. Would that please the USA? Doubt it. They would much prefer to have less competition for their own products. The American line seems to be that they would like countries like Germany to spend more on defence and for as much as possible to be spent on supporting the US defence industry at the cost of their own.
You talk of the risk involved with using Russia as an energy supplier. Russia could break supply contracts. What about the risk of using USA as a supplier of military materiel? You can't rely on USA not to break contracts. Congress takes a dislike to you being supplied and suddenly your contracts with US suppliers are unilaterally broken. The lesson: don't buy from Russia or America unless you are prepared to have them trying to control your internal and external policies and actions.
For energy independence develop indigenous wind, solar etc energy supplies. The technology is becoming cost effective - for example studies show that it would be cheaper to generate energy through wind rather than nuclear where a new nuclear power plant is proposed in the west of England.
For defence independence develop national/multinational weapons systems.
Posts: 1,765
By: Marcellogo - 28th July 2018 at 09:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@FBW
Yes, I'm not saying that it cannnot be done and that's there wouldn't be an advantage in doing it.
I'm just wondering how such great an advantage it would possibly be in terms of RCS reduction compared to the money and the time you would spend solely on it.
Probably there is a push to have a "multiband" stealth there and a flying wing is probably seen as the sole possible solution but again, can such an effort compensate for the huge gains in performances radars are expected to get in the next 10 years?
What I fear is that we would get a repetition of the F-22 case, surely having better stealth than others 5gen planes but absolutely not worth the extra cost, not just in money but also in maintenance and lack of operational flexibility (due to cancellation of previously envisaged features to the Moloch of "just more stealth").
Posts: 4,619
By: mrmalaya - 28th July 2018 at 09:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@Swerve- Yes that was the bit about "funding priorities". The German political system at the moment can't support its Typhoon fleet and Airbus must be desperate to get something underway that allows them concrete funds for the future, whether that's Typhoon development or a future fighter.
As to vertical stabilisers, BAE knows how to get rid of them and has gone so far as to fly demonstrators that point the way for LO flight control systems (which we all know about). If the majority of designs being considered are have some form of vertical tail surface, it must be down to cost versus benefit for a supersonic fighter design.
Or they don't want to scare the MoD at this stage with an uber-stealthy ,laser mothership design that is meant to be "affordable".
Posts: 1,765
By: Marcellogo - 28th July 2018 at 10:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, it's not intended as a "stealth is an useless garbage" gig, just let's compare the relative gain of a given innovation with the added costs (in any sense) of implementing it.
A certain level of RCS reduction can certainly to be achieved but probably in the sense of multi-band sensitivity that regarding absolute numbers.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 28th July 2018 at 14:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
From a performance standpoint, it looks like Tempest is going maximum lift at minimal drag. As much as people say its ugly, it's actually a composition of minimal performance compromises with modular utility and functionality taking precedent. It's not a terrible design in any way. And I bet it will look much better in practice. I just dislike the name.