Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

It's the tail area that looks most crappy to me. Tidying that up would be a big help.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by bobp »

Ron5 wrote:It's the tail area that looks most crappy to me. Tidying that up would be a big help.
Its only a drawing not the finished article which may or may not look totally different.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

bobp wrote:
Ron5 wrote:It's the tail area that looks most crappy to me. Tidying that up would be a big help.
Its only a drawing not the finished article which may or may not look totally different.
All the more reason to make it pretty :D

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by TheLoneRanger »

Tempest is beautiful. If it looks right, it will fly right for sure. I am excited that there is still momentum behind this project, though i have fears that the UK may drop this and join the ugly FCAS programme.

I still think BAe should look to de-risk the programme by decoupling the airframe from the avionics and the system of systems elements, similar to what the JF17 programme did and progress the airframe and engine aggressively. Establish facts on the ground and in the air that will be difficult to roll back.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

TheLoneRanger wrote:fears that the UK may drop this and join the ugly FCAS programme
We did drop the FOAS budget line and moved it over as a down payment for the F-35 partnership.

At the time it was the right decision (for many reasons; no need to reiterate here), but I do share your fears
- that would be the end of a sovereign (industrial) capability
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by serge750 »

I am 95% sure with "global Britain" project tempest will come to fruition, hope I am not wrong :crazy:

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »




User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Pseudo »

SW1 wrote:

Would the ideal not be for one programme to concentrate on the manned aircraft and the other the UCAV? Maybe even with a bit of workshare between the programmes to sweeten the deal.

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Roders96 »

The sooner we have an alternative to F35 the better, 7G!

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SD67 »

Sure let’s have a merger when France drops the carrier compatibility requirement and accepts RR as the engine supplier, with workshare handed out according to competence not politics. Seriously SCAF is a French project with some German finance, merger is not going to happen

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

Pseudo wrote:
SW1 wrote:

Would the ideal not be for one programme to concentrate on the manned aircraft and the other the UCAV? Maybe even with a bit of workshare between the programmes to sweeten the deal.
I think there’s really two ways to go, either you would select a common airframe and design specific subsystems nationally, say a RR engine and a Safran one to a common interface. Or you develop common subsystems and design an airframe to your specific needs. + and - for both ways.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SD67 »

In terms of plug and play - Has that ever actually been done in the Jet era? Spey Phantom (not a great success) - what else?

Interested in the cost and weight penalty for a system as important as the engine, and whether it’s technically feasible.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SD67 wrote: Spey Phantom (not a great success) - what else?
That's what they say as the other Phantom was faster and a better high-up interceptor
- the Spey one was better at low altitudes (and could take off from a shorter deck, save for burning thru the 'splash plates' or whatever they are called)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SKB »

Some of those Spey's from old UK Phantoms were salvaged and reused to break the world land speed record with Thrust SSC in 1997.
Flying mile: 1227.985 km/h (763.035 mph). Flying kilometre: 1223.657 km/h (760.343 mph)

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Timmymagic »

SD67 wrote:In terms of plug and play - Has that ever actually been done in the Jet era? Spey Phantom (not a great success) - what else?
F-16 and F-15 have had different engines from different manufacturer. P & W F100, GE J79 and GE F110 in F-16. The F-15 has had P & W F100 and GE F110 as well. F-35 was planned to have 2 engines (F135 and F136) but the GE/RR F136 was cancelled (which has been regretted ever since..).

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote:F-35 was planned to have 2 engines
and will have
- the new one being designed to fit the dimensions of the first one. Do you have a view on whether this - making the upgrade 'Plug & Play' - will constrain what can be achieved
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
SD67 wrote:In terms of plug and play - Has that ever actually been done in the Jet era? Spey Phantom (not a great success) - what else?
F-16 and F-15 have had different engines from different manufacturer. P & W F100, GE J79 and GE F110 in F-16. The F-15 has had P & W F100 and GE F110 as well. F-35 was planned to have 2 engines (F135 and F136) but the GE/RR F136 was cancelled (which has been regretted ever since..).
Not by the US taxpayer.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:Not by the US taxpayer.
Thats debatable...it could have kept P & W honest and even driven the price down.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote:could have kept P & W honest
:thumbup:

... and the nxt-gen engine is/ will be from
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by TheLoneRanger »

Given how France has behaved with Brexit, I really dont see the British people wanting to get into a development project of a new fighter with France or Germany.

If the UK fails to complete Tempest, then lets get into bed with the Americans. Lets avoid the EU under all circumstances..

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Not by the US taxpayer.
Thats debatable...it could have kept P & W honest and even driven the price down.
Nope. The financial analysis was done and concluded the endeavor was not worth it.

Most of the anguish about its cancellation comes from the UK. Over here there's no great controversy. Just a few upset pork barrels.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

TheLoneRanger wrote:Given how France has behaved with Brexit, I really dont see the British people wanting to get into a development project of a new fighter with France or Germany.

If the UK fails to complete Tempest, then lets get into bed with the Americans. Lets avoid the EU under all circumstances..
I don’t really understand this narrative to be honest. The EU is a political construct that is largely unaccountable. Dealing with individual countries in Europe or working with multinational companies developing common products should be absolutely what we’re looking for. A modern day equivalent of the adour engine collaboration for example would be useful.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by bobp »

TheLoneRanger wrote:Given how France has behaved with Brexit,
Brexit maybe, but we have had some good collaborations with the French in the military sphere. As for the FCAS be assured the French will want to make a naval version for their new CV.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jensy »

Ron5 wrote:
Timmymagic wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Not by the US taxpayer.
Thats debatable...it could have kept P & W honest and even driven the price down.
Nope. The financial analysis was done and concluded the endeavor was not worth it.

Most of the anguish about its cancellation comes from the UK. Over here there's no great controversy. Just a few upset pork barrels.
I was going to say, surely the people of the great state of Massachusetts, and their representatives might feel differently?

At the time it seemed like such a drop in the ocean in comparison to the wider F-35 budget. RR/GE even offered to fund the demonstration phase. Still suspect there were domestic issues at play, more than fiscal responsibility...

Hopefully some of the innovation from F-136 will find its way into Tempest. Just in a smaller and less thirsty package.

With regards collaboration, I feel that a joint European powerplant could be a sensible area to avoid duplication. More so than the airframe. However getting everyone to play nice might be a challenge (impossibility?)...

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

TheLoneRanger wrote:Given how France has behaved with Brexit, I really dont see the British people wanting
I don't foresee another referendum (for this)
Ron5 wrote:the anguish about its cancellation comes from the UK. Over here there's no great controversy. Just a few upset pork barrels.
We just have fewer barrels, so sad (someone would say)
Jensy wrote: surely the people of the great state of Massachusetts, and their representatives might feel differently?
Ron lives in the Far West so he cares for that state about as much as he cares for the UK
Jensy wrote: RR/GE even offered to fund the demonstration phase.
+
Ron5 wrote:Nope. The financial analysis was done
and concluded that $ 2bn of not-taxpayer-monies should be answered with a
"Nope"
because bigger barrels had spoken
Jensy wrote:getting everyone to play nice might be a challenge
We know, we know... 8-)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply