Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

[ArmChairCivvy]

sneaking in a large payload strike drone

... with TWO bombs?

[shark bait]

Surely as a tanker it will have a lager payload.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Yep! When flying in circles around the carrier

I don't think they will do anything major to the physical dimensions? Originally it was meant to be a 2/3 scale POC... a living proof, so to say

[shark bait]

So our three-legged stool seems to be quite balanced,

For the time being yes, but once we take Typhoon out it doesn't look too good.

Son of Taranis is not shaping up to be a fighter, instead coming as more of a Tornado replacement, so that leaves us with 2 strike aircraft and no real fighter.

A new manned fighter will be monstrously expensive, leading to even fewer units. The other option is an unmanned fighter, but that's not what FCAS is shaping up to be unfortunately.

[RetroSicotte]

The F-35 is a fighter, though. It's very capable in A2A. Just in different ways, relying more on BVR initially and on AoA and DAS when at WVR. It's not like it'd be going to what just Tornado would have been.

However, continuing to have a high altitude, high speed (at 5th gen levels in the future, given the F-35 is anything but slow in the present day) interceptor capable plane is of great worth to the UK. So that would be eagerly sought.

Plane design is moving away from such things, however. Even the US's 6th gen rumblings weigh more on endurance, information and stealth than they do on speed and agility.

[MRCA]

F35 is a strike fighter it is not a air superiority fighter and there is a difference. The likes of the typhoon,f22,f15,su30 onward are air superiority fighter they take lots of missiles v high and fast, with big radars. F35 is a f16 replacement which like f16 lacks missile loadout for peer high end air to air combat especially if self escorting. Is it good enough for the UK the A version probably the b version we shall see but if we are committing ourselves to 138 f35 then it will be the manned element of the typhoon replacement the other bit being a future UCAV.

[RetroSicotte]

F35 is a strike fighter it is not a air superiority fighter and there is a difference.

It's a multirole fighter, not a strike fighter. Air to air is a big part of its capability.

The likes of the typhoon,f22,f15,su30 onward are air superiority fighter they take lots of missiles v high and fast, with big radars. F35 is a f16 replacement which like f16 lacks missile loadout for peer high end air to air combat especially if self escorting.

Numerically incorrect. Especially given the time frame being discussed which would then include CUDA, permitting the F-35 to carry 10 A2A missiles internally (8x CUDA, 2x AMRAAM) along with what it wants externally. It's got one of the most powerful radars around, more advanced than the F-22's for example, and vastly superior emissions stealth for the BVR setup. Even without CUDA, the internal bays can carry multiple missiles, putting it in total on a par with the F-22's missile loadout. The whole "it can't carry much" is pretty much in the same realm as "the US controls Trident".

There is a role for things that go higher or faster, but to pretend the F-35 is some bomb truck is completely ignoring a massive portion of what the platform offers. There's a reason that even F-15C pilots almost universally considered it a better A2A platform when they were questioned on their experiences with it.

[marktigger]

having seen the model the multiple internal missiles is about 2 Amraam and possibly 2 asraam so a grand total of 4 AAM add to that no cannon and does the B have a good enough performance?

[MRCA]

No it's a strike fighter. Nor am I interested in some potiential missile the US may or may not be developing that may be integrated into f35 sometime in a decade or so. "vastly superior emission stealth", the fact you used the term stealth means thats probably from some marketing blurb somewhere, because that's the only time you use it unless your trying to wind up American engineers who tutt and shake heads and politely correct you when you mention stealth. I don't think I mentioned the term bomb truck simply pointing out it's not a high end air superiority fighter because that's not what was asked to be designed.

Currently f22 flying 6 amraam 2 sidewinder and a cannon, typhoon similar or in the QRA loadout of 4 amraam and 4 asraam. Yes f35 has a gd radar but both f22 and typhoon have larger radar apertures. It's what they were designed to do and they take them higher than f35.

Yes mark f35 can have 4 amraam internal, that's your lot or you can start adding missiles on the wing but then it's just a regular f16 with a fancy radar and systems when you do that. Say the f35 b was configured in the standard uk qra outfit with the gun pod we would have to see if it meets the current qra response targets if not we can see if the a version which doesn't need the gun pod and has more power and fuel can which I suspect it might, then you can make your mind out or reduce your requirements.

[RetroSicotte]

No it's a strike fighter.

It has never been described, designed or implemented as one, ever.

Nor am I interested in some potiential missile the US may or may not be developing that may be integrated into f35 sometime in a decade or so.

Given the context of the discussion was about that timeframe, you do have to consider it, and as I said, even without CUDA, the F-35 can carry more than enough

"vastly superior emission stealth", the fact you used the term stealth means thats probably from some marketing blurb somewhere, because that's the only time you use it unless your trying to wind up American engineers who tutt and shake heads and politely correct you when you mention stealth. I don't think I mentioned the term bomb truck simply pointing out it's not a high end air superiority fighter because that's not what was asked to be designed.

You haven't heard of what the new Link 16 enhancements allow it to then, have you? To be able to broadcast, communicate and emit much less than older networking systems is a massive advantage in the A2A theatre when it's much more about who had what information these days.

Currently f22 flying 6 amraam 2 sidewinder and a cannon, typhoon similar or in the QRA loadout of 4 amraam and 4 asraam. Yes f35 has a gd radar but both f22 and typhoon have larger radar apertures. It's what they were designed to do and they take them higher than f35.

Yes mark f35 can have 4 amraam internal, that's your lot or you can start adding missiles on the wing but then it's just a regular f16 with a fancy radar and systems when you do that.

Wrong on all accounts. Again, the timeframe of the discussion is out past 2030, by that time the F-35 has both CUDA and enhanced layouts planned for its internal bays, permitting up to 6 AMRAAMs in there. Aperture is by far not the only thing that determines the power of a radar, especially not when considered purely on similar scale fighters. There are a lot of other factors at play, and the F-35's is separated from the F-22's by a factor of many years for minimilisation of technology. It is a very naive move to underestimate its radar.

Adding missiles externalls by no means makes it "just a regular F-16". It wouldn't do so in RCS, it wouldn't do so in flight kinematics and it wouldn't do so in terms of payload. Remember that no matter what an F-16 or F-35 are carrying, the F-35 will ALWAYS come off better in terms of drag, as it carries a significant portion internally. Not just missiles, but also ECM, fuel and targeting pods, all of which the F-16 mounts externally or carries less internally of (such as fuel).

Say the f35 b was configured in the standard uk qra outfit with the gun pod we would have to see if it meets the current qra response targets if not we can see if the a version which doesn't need the gun pod and has more power and fuel can which I suspect it might, then you can make your mind out or reduce your requirements.

Now you're strawmanning. I explicitly said above in my very first post in this that there is a role for planes that go higher, go faster and have a greater focus on interception and quick response. My point from my first post is that casting the F-35 off as some "it doesn't do A2A" is like trying to say Typhoon can't do A2G even after its upgrades. F-35 is a better air to air fighter than anything else out there with the sole exceptions of the F-22 and Typhoon.

That is a capability worth respecting, and criminally underappreciated amongst the internet's own "opinions" on what they think it is, as opposed to what it actually is by design, intent, brief and execution. So implying that retiring Typhoon leaves us with only ground attack strike fighters is incredibly inaccurate.

[Defiance]

No it's a strike fighter.

It has never been described, designed or implemented as one, ever.

JSF?

*Ducks for cover*

[MRCA]

Really it's in the title what does JSF stand for.

Is link 16 new to f35 or it MADL that shares data with other f35s which is having some issues at present the one you referring to. Is both CUDA and weapons bay door changes designed, funded agreed test plan integration and on the MODs order book or even thought about. Perhaps we could include the role of airborne high energy weapons being discussed in the marketing blurb too. We will, see what when it's on contract.


No not strawmanning talking to marktigger not you.

I can say with 100% certainty that I know what the design intent was and how it was being implemented without recourse to the internet.

[MRCA]

The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program, formerly the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) Program, is the Department of Defense's focal point for defining affordable next generation strike aircraft weapon systems for the Navy, Air Force, Marines, and our allies. The focus of the program is affordability -- reducing the development cost, production cost, and cost of ownership of the JSF family of aircraft.


The JSF will fulfill stated Service needs as follows:
U. S. Navy First day of war, survivable strike fighter aircraft to complement F/A-18E/F
U.S. Air Force Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground) to replace the F-16 and A-10 and complement the F/A-22
U.S. Marine Corps STOVL aircraft to replace the AV-8B and F/A-18 as their only strike fighter
United Kingdom Royal Navy & Royal Air Force STOVL aircraft to replace Sea Harriers & GR.7s as a supersonic strike fighter
Other Countries Potential JSF customers include current operators of F-16, F/A-18, and AV-8B
Prior to the start of System Design and Development (SDD) in Fall 2001, the program facilitated the Services' development of fully validated, affordable operational requirements, and it lowered risk by investing in and demonstrating key leveraging technologies and operational concepts. Upon SDD contract award to Lockheed Martin on 26 October 2001, the program embarked on full development of three affordable and effective JSF variants.

http://www.jsf.mil/program/index.htm

[RetroSicotte]

That is something I had stupidly overlooked in my rush to reply and get out, but while the original name says one thing, the actual capability of the plane is another, like how Typhoon was an air superiority fighter, but is now a multirole fighter. A strike fighter is by definition primarily focused on A2G. That is no longer true of the platform. When it's quite comfortably in contention for one of the best A2A platforms out there, it most definitely isn't considered "just something it can kinda do".

The program's result has improved drastically since then. My point originally was that posting in the sounding of "If we only have F-35 we won't really have any good A2A" is enormously underestimating the capabilities the RAF/FAA will have with the jet even on its own.

[cky7]

ACC,

IF all that happens it would be great. Trouble is UK defence products have a history of never reaching their potential, I have strong fears we won't see this run broken on this score . Look at Typhoon, with an engine upgrade, AMK/TVC, AESA, improved ECM, concformal tanks and a few of the other at times muted improvements we'd have a fighter that's still the best there is (outside of a close F22) out past 2030. Will any of it happen? AESA possibly, the rest? No chance

Shark bait,

Unfortunately the USN UAS resulting from the x47 is only gonna be a tanker with some ISR capability, not VLO/full stealth and not designed to carry weapons. Even if it's adapted to in future it's not gonna be much more than a slightly upgraded reaper. The US and west are in danger of letting our lead slip. I guess the problem is that the US have been decades ahead of everyone for so long they've become complacent. Unfortunately china won't take too long to close thAt gap if they don't start pulling their socks back up. The only excuse I can think of is there's a black program we've not been told about yet.

F-35 is a better air to air fighter than anything else out there with the sole exceptions of the F-22 and Typhoon.
.

Agree the f35 will be able to hold its own against most in a2a but on the above I think a rafale isn't at all outclassed and most times the difference between it and any opponent will be the pilots skill level and tactics/situation they're in. We do have a tendency to not give the rafale the credit it deserves.

[RetroSicotte]

The issue with the Rafale when it comes to the F-35 is that the Rafale lacks several high end technologies that tie right into A2A. No HMD, only a one-way datalink for Meteor and it's radome is very small (Even at highest estimates, its AESA only has around ~1,000 t/r modules on it, others put it more around ~800 based on photographs) with even Gripen's bring notably more powerful. It doesn't have a lot of transmitter power backing it either.

I'm certainly not underselling it. Rafale is another plane that is often unfairly considered "more for air to ground" than it really will be post-Meteor integration. Just the F-35 has a good deal of higher end capabilities that it doesn't.

[ArmChairCivvy]

A good discussion here, let me insert some observations/ assertations:

Yes f35 has a gd radar but both f22 and typhoon have larger radar apertures.

There is no point comparing apertures of mechanically scanned radars and AESA/ PESAs. Within those categories such comparison is still valid.

F-35 is a better air to air fighter than anything else out there with the sole exceptions of the F-22 and Typhoon.

Typhoon will be able to hang on to this select group by virtue of
- already having a MADL gateway proven on it ( stealth fighters were supposed to be sole owners of that advantage of directed, stealthy communications; btw. Gripen E/F is not one of those and the Swedes have their own such, not often mentioned)
- getting the AESA seeker head for its long-ranged/ fast/ & retaining end game kinetics Meteors (err: when? Before or at the same time as CUDA will come along, assuming that it will)

or it MADL that shares data with other f35s

- a good correction, and , btw, our tiffies are getting that gateway as a by-product of solving the F-35 tp F-22 and vv. comms
- when I say gateway, the F-35s themselves do not need it (built into the overall architecture)

No not strawmanning talking to marktigger not you.

- incredibly rude as this is a forum and we are all talking to each other (it's in the design spec!)

The focus of the program is affordability -- reducing the development cost, production cost, and cost of ownership of the JSF family of aircraft.

and, to

complement the F/A-22

and these two (above) points together explain why some compromise has been on the table all through (of course as little as possible). It also explains why PCA is already on its way (this time delivering Penetrating Counter Air capability, to complement the "penetrating, against everything" capability now being delivered)

and a few of the other at times muted improvements

- some such in my commentary to the second quote

Even if it's adapted to in future it's not gonna be much more than a slightly upgraded reaper

- also to be the unmanned companion to the Raider, to do damage assessment "after the visit" when the defences (what remains of them) will be fully awake. Of course to achieve this, a tanker chain a la Black Buck will be needed (to be done by the stealthy "companions" of the same design; all of these - the penetrating companion included - launched from a carrier, so compared to the Raiders needing to cross half of the Pacific, and not ditching like the original Raiders, the range requirement is doable for the smaller a/c, too. They are, after all, a scale model for something bigger that was supposed to be able to fly missions out of Hawaii).

The only excuse I can think of is there's a black program we've not been told about yet.

- a visible window gives us SR-72. Also somewhat visible other hyper strike weapons. Not long thereafter, the technology will be applied to A2A

No HMD

- will be in F4 (now it looks like that will be the end of the road for Rafale as well, but F4 will end up above the capabilities of what tiffie has (now). We might even provide the AESA Meteors; but will the US sell the MADL gateways!

whereas this one

it's radome is very small (Even at highest estimates, its AESA only has around ~1,000 t/r modules on it

is a weakness that is more difficult to rectify, as AESA was an afterthought, not baked into the original design (or to put it more mildly, there was not enough detail available, at the time, to do so)

[Pongoglo]

Adding missiles externalls by no means makes it "just a regular F-16". It wouldn't do so in RCS, it wouldn't do so in flight kinematics and it wouldn't do so in terms of payload. Remember that no matter what an F-16 or F-35 are carrying, the F-35 will ALWAYS come off better in terms of drag, as it carries a significant portion internally. Not just missiles, but also ECM, fuel and targeting pods, all of which the F-16 mounts externally or carries less internally of (such as fuel)

To me the key question here is that when at sea in UK service F35 will not just be our primary strike fighter in delivering Carrier Strike but also our primary (only) fleet defence fighter as was SHAR in its day. To this end surely it is much more akin to the F18 in UK service than when being compared to F16, F22 or even Typhoon ? What concerns me is that to date in all the images/videos I have seen of trials etc I have only ever seen Air to ground weapons carried on the external pylons, including UK Paveway IV. The exception of course being a single ASRAAM/AIM9X on the tip of each wing?

zhGRhG5.jpg

Question: Can the F35 carry AAW, AMRAAM, ASRAAM or AIM9X on the other pylons externally which in this role would be highly desired, or only in positions 1 and 10; also as ASRAAM/AIM9X would seem to be key to the much vaunted off bore sight capability (certainly when it comes to WVR) how much does external carriage compromise stealth ??

F35B ASRAAM.jpg

[ArmChairCivvy]

AMRAAM, ASRAAM

6 AMRAAMs ("D"s) will be the end game in Block 4x (this one is not just a sw question, though).
- I thought ASRAAM was the current Champ in off-bore launching (only 2 of them, admittedly)

I think that the mere existence of CUDA as a project is a recognition that this is a problem. And where are our folding-wing Meteors, if I may ask in the same breadth - or rather, the funding for them?

Compare with PAK-FA that can use an Izdelie 810, a derivative of the R-37M designed to kill High Value Targets and AWACS at a distance of 400 km... and still have enough missiles for ripple launching radar & IR guided ones simultaneously, which might be a problem in the way of countermeasures to be employed...
https://theaviationist.com/2015/08/19/i ... -armament/

standing by for Typhoon news re Praetorian from EuroDASS:
3 Technik (sounds, at the headings level, a bit like what the new French IFV carries, but is not for shooting back. That is in the first instant)

3.1 Defensive Aids Computer
3.2 Elektronische Kampfführung
3.2.1 ESM-ECM
3.2.2 Schleppstörsender
3.3 Raketenwarner
3.3.1 AMIDS
3.3.2 PIMAWS
3.4 Dispenser
3.4.1 BOL
3.4.2 Cobham
3.5 Laserwarner
... I am sure that with the RAF announcement we will get a nice text in English

[Pongoglo]

Still begs the question do the external ASRAAM delete the advantage of stealth ? If not then for the Fleet defence role we could easily carry 4 AMRAAM or Meteor internally and 4/6 ARSAAM externally giving a pretty respectable load out when it comes to air to air?. Alternatively 6 AMRAAM/Meteor, 4 internal, 2 external and 4 external ASRAAM would get my vote...

[ArmChairCivvy]

Still begs the question do the external ASRAAM delete the advantage of stealth ?

Sure does. And here it is difficult to tell what is fact and what is propaganda:
For stealth (ie. not giving in for the protruding weapons/ extra fuel temptation under the for-stealth-optimised self-lifting body or under the wings - a third of the lift coming from the body helps to cut down the wing size and to form them optimally - LM have developed a very low rcs pylon + rail for the Aim-9x/Asraam on stations 1 and 11.
- so going beyond (those) two in number does not sound like a good idea
- having only two (near BVR is the claim for ASRAAM, so make it BVR+, but only just) sounds more like for self-defence on a bombing mission. Translate that as self escorting.

I would also say that flying CAP around a task force diminishes the relative value of stealth to your weapons loadout; who ever is coming in knows that you are there... And there might be more of them than you (airborne) so running out of missiles is not a tempting idea. In the longer run 6 in the bay and two on the wing tips should be OK (with respectively more fuel , to stay on station, as long as we do not have any effective means to fill the CAP planes up, other than tankers from (perhaps too) far away

[MRCA]

Hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars were spent ensuring composite panels joins were perfect, access panels and system apatures kept to a bare minimum, flaps and slat size and configuration all set on maintaining an extremely strict planform configuration. So yes external stores of any description cost you your radar configuration. It won't make it say as bad as a harrier or tornado but it will be like a f18 super hornet for example. If you doubt that see B2, F22, F117 in combat configuration.

[shark bait]

The F-35 is a fighter, though. It's very capable in A2A. Just in different ways, relying more on BVR initially and on AoA and DAS when at WVR. It's not like it'd be going to what just Tornado would have been.

I have no doubt the F35 is able to fight, my doubts lie with UK air superiority in the in 2040 when typhoon has gone. It is difficult to see how the F35 will be a world class fighter in the late 30’s, with only one engine it will struggle to regain energy as quickly as its competitors, especially the B which has to carry around a lift fan with it all the time.

Unless we are looking to develop another aircraft in parallel with son of Taranis we will have a gap, with no high energy long range combat aircraft.

Plane design is moving away from such things, however. Even the US's 6th gen rumblings weigh more on endurance, information and stealth than they do on speed and agility.

That is exactly the way we should be heading too. Manned combat aircraft are becoming prohibitively expensive, next generation we will be able to afford so few tat individually they must become larger and more capable.

That leaves a gap for a smaller more agile drone to fill in the gaps, perhaps even escorting the larger manned aircraft. Unfortunately we don't appear to be going down that route with FCAS.

[shark bait]

Still begs the question do the external ASRAAM delete the advantage of stealth ?

Doesn't delete, stealth isn't on or off, it just increases the observability of the aircraft at certain angles.

The fit they have at the moment isn't a particularly clean one, so the effect is worse than it has to be, at one point there was talk of a new stealthy pylon, but it never got funded.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Unless we are looking to develop another aircraft in parallel with son of Taranis we will have a gap, with no high energy long range combat aircraft.

So will everyone else, with the exceptions of
- PCA
- PAK-FA (only time will tell if the new engine will make it into what it was meant to be)
- and the Japanese stealth dvlmnt is headed that way (to be able to fight over Korea and China).
Nobody (in the public domain) knows yet what the spec for the Franco-German plane will be.

difficult to see how the F35 will be a world class fighter in the late 30’s, with only one engine it will struggle to regain energy as quickly as its competitors

Don't you think the angle of attack compensates somewhat?

stealth isn't on or off

Not sure about the bits of The Times article posted here (was there more to it?) but has the LPI function of its radar even been mentioned? Quite a major feature as radars are detectable from a longer distance than what they themselves can detect at.