Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
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.
So the new fin becomes slightly longer and drops in height. The missile software is also updated.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
Cheers, same surface area makes sense now.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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 363
- Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
UK absolutely needs a typhoon replacement project independent from the USA imo. Be it with ger/fra or Japan.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
What, no canards?Aethulwulf wrote:So the new fin becomes slightly longer and drops in height.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Member
- Posts: 24
- Joined: 31 Jan 2016, 14:49
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
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).
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).
-
- Member
- Posts: 24
- Joined: 31 Jan 2016, 14:49
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
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.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 24
- Joined: 31 Jan 2016, 14:49
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
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.LordJim wrote:will
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.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
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
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
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.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
The F-22 has a US export ban.Ron5 wrote:I thought the UK was offered the F-22?
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/105t ... ndment/295Description: 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.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
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 ?
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
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
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
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.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 ?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
- very promisingTimmymagic wrote: e.g. the TERN
- 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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
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! 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?
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
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.LordJim wrote:Unfortunately unless the USMC decide they need a STOVL UCAV the F-35 is going to be it for our
It looks impossible to get any stealthy combat drone on the carriers for many decades.
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.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,
Smart move IMO.
@LandSharkUK
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
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 developingshark bait wrote:I don't believe that part, they're seeking in a combat drone through the back door
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
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.
"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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
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?
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?
-
- Member
- Posts: 363
- Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
Would the USA sell the B-21 to the UK?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?
maybe?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
Their range would put the carriers at riskAethulwulf 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?
Why not? One more USAFE sqdrn, but "on the cheap"sunstersun wrote:Would the USA sell the B-21 to the UK?
maybe?
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
No chance, no chance at all. Nobody wants a low number of extremely expensive silver bullets, not the MOD or the RAF.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
... like 2Defiance wrote:Nobody wants a low number of extremely expensive silver bullets
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)