Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

[ArmChairCivvy]

As we are all aware, surveillance drones end up armed.

Sounds like a reasonable approach, introduce a low observable intelligence drone, and then develop the more complex combat abilities in a later block.

I would say that survivability has to be designed in; rather than trying to retrofit it?

[shark bait]

If the MOD are going to the effort of developing a low observable surveillance drone I think it's safe to say they expect it to fly in hot zones, and will have survivability features built in.

Starting to sound like they want a stealthy Reaper that wont be a sitting duck against an enemy with air capabilities.

What we know so far;

• Sub sonic
• Low observable
• Twin leading edge planform (cranked kite)
• Single engine
• Slightly shortter than a rafale
• Slightly larger wingspan than a Rafale
• Tailored towards ISTAR

[RetroSicotte]

Sigh, how typical. More cutting cutting cutting to try and save money by going after a program that has little public knowledge and can play off the "nasty drone hate" to not get MPs debating too hard in support of it.

Bloody typical.

[Caribbean]

Starting to sound like they want a stealthy Reaper that wont be a sitting duck against an enemy with air capabilities.

Develop that thought slightly and take the next step and it becomes a LO drone that can not only survive, but also fight back against other aircraft. Maybe it's a realistic step on the way to developing a UCAV

[shark bait]

That sounds reasonable.

Following that route it's unlikely to ever turn out as a world class dog fighter, but equipped with meteor and playing it's part in a distributed sensor network maybe it doesn't need to be ?

[RetroSicotte]

Bit too ambitious, if the writing is becoming clear that they just want another ISR platform.

Developing the sort of UCAV that had been hoped needs to be built in to begin with. They aren't going to make something with internal weapons bays simply to not fill them with anything until eventually converting it.

This stinks of the "death of ambition" that has plagued the UK Forces for a decade now.

[Caribbean]

Following that route it's unlikely to ever turn out as a world class dog fighter, but equipped with meteor and playing it's part in a distributed sensor network maybe it doesn't need to be ?

They aren't going to make something with internal weapons bays simply to not fill them with anything until eventually converting it.

I guess if it ends up being a stealthy Watchkeeper, then it will be pretty disappointing, but I would have thought that even the unambitious UK would be aiming for an improvement over past equipment and aim for something that is closer to a faster, stealthier Predator, implying the need for weapons bays (initially for air-to-surface weapons). As the system matures and software capability improves, then the bays can be filled with Meteor or whatever and basic air-to-air combat manoeuvres added, particularly for use against other drones and slower aircraft

That said, I could see a lurking LO platform armed with Meteor and networked with F35b and other sensors as something that might give even considerably more capable opponents a few uneasy moments.

[shark bait]

Bit too ambitious, if the writing is becoming clear that they just want another ISR platform.

Don't be silly.

The RAF want an intelligence drone just about as much as the US Navy want a tanker drone. It's just an easy starting point to launch a software project.

[RetroSicotte]

Bit too ambitious, if the writing is becoming clear that they just want another ISR platform.

Don't be silly.

The RAF want an intelligence drone just about as much as the US Navy want a tanker drone. It's just an easy starting point to launch a software project.

The original plan was a VLO UCAV with an internal weapons bay, capable of both ISR and strike missions.

To move to only ISR is a cut in ambition and capability, and giving that initiative to peers. There's no way to twist that into something better. Cuts are cuts.

[ArmChairCivvy]

To move to only ISR is a cut in ambition and capability

Too true.

And we certainly are short of ISR drones... as the Navy hasn't got any yet

[shark bait]

@ArmChairCivvy
Navy aren't going to get any either. Pretty much dependent on the USMC for that.


@RetroSicotte
I don't see an intelligence drone being a bad starting point.

I expect the RAF are steering it towards a Tornado + Raptor replacement. If they deliver a high endurance, low observable platform, with an internal bay big enough for a Raptor pod (or equivalent), that is a bloody good base platform to develop combat roles for later on.

Sensor pod out, Spear in.

[Gabriele]

I know i will only reinforce my (false) fame of RAF hater with this, but i really can't help thinking that this "ISR platform" drivel is pushed by the same RAF bells that want to switch the F-35 purchase to the A variant.

"We really really want the A to carry two bombs. It is stealth and has a longer range than the F-35B"

"Why not carry the bombs on FCAS, then...?"

....

"FCAS is ISR only".

[shark bait]

haha! The plot thickens

[RetroSicotte]

I expect the RAF are steering it towards a Tornado + Raptor replacement. If they deliver a high endurance, low observable platform, with an internal bay big enough for a Raptor pod (or equivalent), that is a bloody good base platform to develop combat roles for later on.

Sensor pod out, Spear in.

That is an incredibly huge leap of logic to something that matches no known designs, no known plans, no known concepts and no known intentions.

There is no way that can be "I expect" on something that has no hint of existing. Fantasy, rather.

[shark bait]

What do you mean no hint?

We know they're after a single engine, low observable drone, that is sized between Taranis and Typhoon and should initially carry an internal intelligence gathering payload.

[RetroSicotte]

What do you mean no hint?

We know they're after a single engine, low observable drone, that is sized between Taranis and Typhoon and should initially carry an internal intelligence gathering payload.

(Edit - Changed up some wording below, was not my intention for it to sound the way it did.)

Can you link to them stating they want to carry a RAPTOR size recon pod on a single compartment internal weapons capable bay, please? I don't believe I ever saw that specification.

I feel like you're reading into things that aren't there, if I'm honest. If it's ISR only, then it'll be ISR built into the machine itself. Not in a Taranis/Neuron style bay that opens up. There is no hint to suggest they are going this "first we make this and it'll take munitions later in a convenient bay" at all. Forgive me, but it feels very much like "this things been cut, how to we try and make adjust this to still work?" theory on our part rather than observed intent from the RAF.

It's optimism, I admire it, I wish I shared it more. But in this case, removal of weapons would be just that. They're not going to design a UCAV only to put no weapons into it but still have it completely capable of doing so by basic design. It's not as simple as just hanging munitions off the wings like on Watchkeeper/HERMES.

[shark bait]

I made the Raptor bit up, but I know the RAF don't want that capability to disappear once Tornado goes.

It would be foolish to build a new intelligence aircraft with the payload fixed in the platform, the equipment will be out of date by the time the aircraft is in service. (See F35)

In the old days the solution would be a podded sensor, but that does not allign with the stealthy aspirations, so it should be a pod in a bay. If Textron can do that BAE sure can.

[Caribbean]

It would be foolish to build a new intelligence aircraft with the payload fixed in the platform

True in this and many other arenas

If Textron can do that BAE sure can

An LO unmanned "Scorpion" would be a good base model for a future ISR/ light attack drone (not specifically in physical form, but in concept). Build it, from the ground up, for ease of integration with "offboard" systems. If each part of the payload has it's own intelligence, the launch platform becomes nothing more than a taxi that allows the sensor and the effector to interface with each other.
The taxi may need to go through an evolutionary process, to upgrade it's capabilities (speed, endurance, payload, software, manoeuverability etc), but that is a separate track to the developmental process of the different payloads.

[Zero Gravitas]

Prospects for combat air: What follows Typhoon and Lightning?

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ ... y/CBP-8304

From the ever estimable House of Commons Library.

[Gabriele]

On defence at least, there is no doubt the british one is the worst informed parliament in the world. The little it knows has to come from Jane's and Telegraph etcetera. Unbelievable.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Did not read the full report, but the 2nd sentence in the summary
"The aerospace sector accounted for 70% of UK defence exports in 2016 "
is sort of a misconception as the Tiffies sent out are counted at 100% (in value) when the local (UK) value-add is about 25%.
- so in net terms, a gross overstatement
- but then again, serves the purpose of underlying the importance of the investigation/ Strategy

[Lord Jim]

Unless it affects those that vote them into office, the vast majority of MPs don't give a damn about defence. Most only wake up and take notice is a Manufacturer announces they are closing a site and jobs could be lost.

[Ron5]

I win ....

DeXTuSdWAAALCoy.jpg large.jpg

[RetroSicotte]

Well, if it worked for Boxer.

[Ron5]

Well, if it worked for Boxer.

I've seen 3 iterations so far: Bae Challenger upgrade, Boxer, Bae/Cammell Laird Leander. Let's hope it works for all three.