Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

Dave Armstrong from MBDA has been quoted as saying the Meteor design modifications will involve "cropping the top of the fin and moving it elsewhere to retain the same surface area - and so the performance remains unchanged."

So the new fin becomes slightly longer and drops in height. The missile software is also updated.

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Aethulwulf wrote:Dave Armstrong from MBDA has been quoted as saying the Meteor design modifications will involve "cropping the top of the fin and moving it elsewhere to retain the same surface area - and so the performance remains unchanged."

So the new fin becomes slightly longer and drops in height. The missile software is also updated.
Cheers, same surface area makes sense now.

sunstersun
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by sunstersun »

UK absolutely needs a typhoon replacement project independent from the USA imo. Be it with ger/fra or Japan.

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Aethulwulf wrote:So the new fin becomes slightly longer and drops in height.
What, no canards? :)
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)

necessary evil
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 31 Jan 2016, 14:49
Spain

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by necessary evil »

Going back to the theme, if the swarm idea turns out to be best for 6th generation combat, the f-35 might do the job if surrounded by drones. We do not have the same range requirements as the USA, so if we could get the drones to have a similar range to the f-35 that would work fairly well. The f-35 could carry LRAAMS like a future Meteor derivative with the Japanese seeker, and possibly CUDA-like missiles to defend against swarms, whilst the drones could either carry CUDA-like missiles or some other new type of weapon.

If swarming is not the answer, we need to co-operate with either Japan or France-Germany, or just buy American (if they let us, remember the f-22).

necessary evil
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 31 Jan 2016, 14:49
Spain

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by necessary evil »

Of course, that would rely to a large extent on the f-35 being stealthy enough not to be taken out by the LRAAMS of the other side. And having the software to control a swarm of drones, obviously.

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

I thought the UK was offered the F-22?

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by LordJim »

We are probably going to see the Typhoon in its FGR 4/6 mode soldier on until the 2040s at least regardless of present OSD. Funding will not be easily found to bring in a new manned platform before then, but it could all go terribly wrong and we end up with 3 to 4 F-35 Squadrons, the Protectors and that is it. I said manned because a UCAV that compliments the Typhoon and F-35 will probably be the next major RAF programme in addition to fixing the Sentry and Sentinel replacements and so on. It ahs already been demonstrated that Typhoon and the F-35 work well together and will be able to cope with all but the highest tier opposition for some time to come. Adding a UCAV into the mix will improve this considerably. Imagine UCAVs in the vanguard supported by and supporting the F-35s with the Typhoons backstopping both and being the long range ordinance package. SPEAR will also increase the effectiveness of this scenario if the programme bears all the fruit promised.

necessary evil
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 31 Jan 2016, 14:49
Spain

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by necessary evil »

LordJim wrote:will
I agree about the lack of a need for urgency. If you look at it, the only nations that are currently pursuing a 6th gen fighter either do not have the f-35, like France and Germany (and their solution is unlikely to be much superior to the f-35) or have China to worry about (the US and Japan). Since Russia probably won´t even bring significant numbers of 5th gen aircraft into service before 2030, I don´t think we need to worry about a Russian 6th gen platform anytime soon.

I think the UCAV will complement the f-35 well, but I think for air-to-air a smaller swarming drone may well be selected to accompany the f-35.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

I understand the U.S is looking at "the Bullfrog" a sixth generation under studies , long range drones that are stealthy that can take off from a carrier ski ramp could be useful

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by LordJim »

Unfortunately unless the USMC decide they need a STOVL UCAV the F-35 is going to be it for our Carrier for the length of their service unless funding materialises out of no where to convert them CTOL sometime in the future.

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by SKB »

Ron5 wrote:I thought the UK was offered the F-22?
The F-22 has a US export ban.
Description: H.Amdt. 295 — 105th Congress (1997-1998)All Information (Except Text)

Page 100, after line 15, insert the following new section: \ SEC. 8103. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to approve or license the sale of F-22 advanced tactical fighter to any foreign government.

Purpose:
An amendment to prohibt the sale of F-22 aircraft to any foreign government.
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/105t ... ndment/295

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Certainly an X47-B would need arresting cables ,but which is more cost effective, rebuilding the carriers to accommodate future aircraft or building aircraft to suit the carriers ?

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Also there is an Anglo -French program under the Future Combat Air System that is due to start preliminary design and development phase before the end of this year and expected to take 2-3 years ,the expected aircraft as large as the Rafael with a longer wing span ,The French Navy has been interested in this since 2015 with a view to using it from their carrier, this program may have different versions for the respective countries needs ,the craft may have a resemblance to the X47-B

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

seaspear wrote:Certainly an X47-B would need arresting cables ,but which is more cost effective, rebuilding the carriers to accommodate future aircraft or building aircraft to suit the carriers ?
Given the ongoing downgrading of the MQ-25 to an AAR platform with potential to be made into an ISTAR platform at a later, unplanned for date it's all a bit of a moot point. There are plenty of very interesting VTOL or STOVL UAV's in the offing that should offer a lot of capability for the RN without the huge expense of CATOBAR e.g. the TERN and LightningStrike.

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote: e.g. the TERN
- very promising
- but in a different category (big frigate/ destroyer for launching... whatever for recovering; so that the aforesaid can be launching more and more)
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)

cky7
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by cky7 »

Wasn't TERN 900 mile radius of action with usable load (seems very high to me?), if so for our needs I think jt would be brilliant for the QECs, designed to operate from frigates and destroyers just makes it even more of a no brained for the RN to acquire. Bit of TD commonality! :D no reason why the RAF//AAC couldn't make use of them too, bit of investment in a modern version of the harrier forward basing and you've got a really promising joint force aircraft that will be useful on its own and increase the effectiveness of other air, ground and naval assets. Being able to share sensor data with fF35s, astute's, GMLRS and others would offer real potential surely?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

LordJim wrote:Unfortunately unless the USMC decide they need a STOVL UCAV the F-35 is going to be it for our
Lucky for us they do! Pretty much looks like a tilt-rotor Reaper, which would be a fantastic addition to the RN, something we must jump on board with if the USMC take it further.

It looks impossible to get any stealthy combat drone on the carriers for many decades.
Timmymagic wrote:Given the ongoing downgrading of the MQ-25 to an AAR platform with potential to be made into an ISTAR platform at a later,
I don't believe that part, they're sneaking in a combat drone through the back door. The sensing and software is the real important bit here, and politically that tech easier to push, so the focus is there for now, give it a decade and it will be a full combat drone.

Smart move IMO.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:I don't believe that part, they're seeking in a combat drone through the back door
But both are true, just that the MQ-25 is production ready (and will replace buddy-buddy... without the need for a pilot) and the combat drone will still take some developing
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13 ... california
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

From that same link/ author as above:
"In summation, Northrop Grumman could be using the X-47B as a test vehicle for a final, stealthy tanker design that could be more readily adapted to intelligence or strike missions, if necessary. "

Buddy-buddy, to improve the sortie generation (especially the packing together of launch sequencies) does not require stealth. Nor does the external pod (as used on Hornets and S-3s previously) afford it.
- I believe there will be another, stealthier and longer ranged model to help recover the Raiders
- the unmanned companion was part of the Raider concept from the beginning, though more focussed on verifying the targets beforehand and assessing the damage after (air defences fully awake, you won't need to go back "yourself" nor take the bn $ plane over that area)

Will we have any of these, of either type? Doubt it. And sortie generation with the option for vertical recovery would benefit less, anyway.
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)

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

Recent press reports suggest that the development of the B21 in the US is going well. Although details are sketchy, indications are that the US is looking to acquire a fleet of at least 100 aircraft at a unit cost of maybe $500m and an IOC of around 2030.

Should the UK consider buying a small number of B21s for the RAF in the 2030s? Maybe cap the F35b purchase at 80 aircraft and try to buy 12-20 B21s for a true long range strike capability - possibly under similar arrangements to the purchase of the 3 Airseakers?

Any thoughts?

sunstersun
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by sunstersun »

Aethulwulf wrote:Recent press reports suggest that the development of the B21 in the US is going well. Although details are sketchy, indications are that the US is looking to acquire a fleet of at least 100 aircraft at a unit cost of maybe $500m and an IOC of around 2030.

Should the UK consider buying a small number of B21s for the RAF in the 2030s? Maybe cap the F35b purchase at 80 aircraft and try to buy 12-20 B21s for a true long range strike capability - possibly under similar arrangements to the purchase of the 3 Airseakers?

Any thoughts?
Would the USA sell the B-21 to the UK?

maybe?

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Aethulwulf wrote: cap the F35b purchase at 80 aircraft and try to buy 12-20 B21s for a true long range strike capability - possibly under similar arrangements to the purchase of the 3 Airseakers?

Any thoughts?
Their range would put the carriers at risk :shock:
sunstersun wrote:Would the USA sell the B-21 to the UK?

maybe?
Why not? One more USAFE sqdrn, but "on the cheap"
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)

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Defiance »

No chance, no chance at all. Nobody wants a low number of extremely expensive silver bullets, not the MOD or the RAF.

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Defiance wrote:Nobody wants a low number of extremely expensive silver bullets
... like 2 :D
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