Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

http://www.janes.com/article/81711/raf- ... uav-swarms

Not directly connected to this program, but likely to be part of the connectivity with it and the F-35.

Unfortunately, I feel this will just be another "we're investigating it..." as with all the others.

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 »

Aethulwulf wrote:The only public announcement I have seen...
"Flown with traditional controls"
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by cky7 »

Aethulwulf wrote:, Fluidic Thrust Vectoring has been in development for a long time. I first saw a presentation about the concept and lab reasearch 15 years ago. The science is now very well understood and most of the key engineering challenges have been addressed, as demonstrated by the flight of the small scale UAV..
That was my understanding also. A quick google of fluidic thrust vector brings up several freely available NASA reports if anyone is interested. IIRC the first project to study it was NASA’s F.L.I.N.T. Which kicked off in the 90s. This and subsequent efforts were more research lab and nozzle research concept projects and didn’t actually produce a prototype aircraft (that I’ve heard of - though my knowledge is far from absolute!) so Magma is a first from that point of view. Aethulwulf is correct in saying that it has been fairly well understood for some time though as a concept. The three main methods are shock vector control, throat shifting and counter flow methods. My understanding was that throat shifting appeared to be the most efficient.

Aethulwulf wrote:How long it takes to transition to a full scale aircraft is anyone's guess. It will be driven by funding and appetite for innovation/risk.
Again 100% agreed, I don’t think one can make arbitrary statements on how long it will take to make something operational without knowing the above, if we look at current TVC of the Type seen on the f22 and Russian types most research kicked off in the 70s and began being seriously fielded in the 90s/2000s but could have been in service much earlier were the desire/impetus there. This is the same for any new technology.

If we’re talking about Flapless Aircraft (a different but in this case at the very least related topic) then you’re talking something newer. AFAIK the first released info was around 2010 with the BAE/Cranfield research that lead to the demon UAV - interestingly though this was controlled by the coanda effect which is the Tendency of a stream of fluid to stick to a curved surface (run your tap across the back of a spoon and you’ll see it in action :) ), which was researched thoroughly in the above mentioned NASA research in conjunction with shock vector control.) on demon the team were able to use air blown by an engine to alter the direction air left the wing, thereby controlling lift direction and allowing control of the aircraft without flaps. The obvious stealth benefits make me think this will probably appear on military types first but there are big noise reduction benefits that could be of particular importance to commercial aircraft in the future meaning that it’s entirely feasible additional funding could become available. Whatever, the project cost only £10million so would hardly take 40years to become operational in full sized production aircraft were sufficient effort be put into it.

I do remember a quote by an aircraft designer that went something like you should have either a revolutionary engine or airframe in a new type but not both, so perhaps this is analogous to what sharkbait is saying with the software development and airframe? I’m nothing more than an interested observer and am a long way from having enough knowledge to make such calls in a project this cutting edge though!

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 »

cky7 wrote:I do remember a quote by an aircraft designer that went something like you should have either a revolutionary engine or airframe in a new type but not both
It's very true, we can only put so much risk into a project before it becomes unmanageable.

Developing the autonomous systems and integrating that with the manned fighter's it's a big enough challenge, so let's use the EJ200 in a 'simple' body, and perhaps we'll end up under the £100m mark for a change.
@LandSharkUK

Ares
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: 04 Dec 2017, 19:19
Japan

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Ares »

Lockheed Martin officially proposed F-22 + F-35 hybrid plan to the Japanese government yesterday.

And looks like Boeing and BAE systems offered F/A-18 and Eurofighter remodeling plans which are kinda disappointing.

But the article says that the possibility of the joint development of UK-Japan fighter still in discussing so I'm looking forward to it. :think:

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Intern ... xt-fighter

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 »

This
" Lockheed has apparently pitched an aircraft that brings together the best of the F-22 tactical fighter jet, known for its advanced stealth capabilities and supersonic speeds, and the F-35, which has network capabilities"
is a long running story and has something to do with the Congress [long ago]not allowing the exporting of F-22... even to Japan

So, a hybrid that could reach much further out than an F-35 (that Japan already has), but with similar tech in it.

Or, a twin-engined, long-ranged, and able to carry a massive missile loadout... thingy-bob. Done together with BAE

What is it gona be?
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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:So, a hybrid that could reach much further out than an F-35 (that Japan already has), but with similar tech in it.

Or, a twin-engined, long-ranged, and able to carry a massive missile loadout... thingy-bob. Done together with BAE

What is it gona be?
When I look at the timescales mentioned in that article I’d say definitely the f22/35 hybrid, especially offered a deal similar to what they got with the Mitsubishi f1 or at least some sort of colllaboration. Perhaps Donald will be able to offer a hint?

A shame as I’d love us to at least seriously explore the possibility of working with the Japanese. I know their lack of experience in independent fighter design is a problem, but I do wonder if their are ways round/other sides to that one?

Before I start i think I ought to clarify that for me FCAS - if it’s gonna be a son if Taranis as that’s where we appeared to be heading when we looking like working with France- should be a separate project to any future typhoon replacement with Japan. The designs are just too different. I know they say in future hyper agility will be less important, but I don’t believe you can do air superiority with unmanned in the foreseeable and think being able to fly high, fast with at least good agility will remain important for this mission. A flying wing is totally the wrong design if you want something supersonic, just too much lift. I don’t see how skmethjng launching a2a missilies won’t want the energy supersonic and high thrust to weight gives you.

Let the French and Germans do their typhoon/rafale replacement whilst we go elsewhere. Meanwhile get son of Taranis/FCAS out first with or without France, even if it means it’s just a stealthy and surivable future replacement/version of protector.

Getting back to Japan... One of the (many!) areas where the biggest problems have arose in previous multinational projects has been that each of the members are looking for different things that either leads to fall outs or cost over runs where it gets more and more technically complicated. Perhaps with Japan you’ve got someone whose looking for something concept of operations wise very similar to us - ie in a2a both island nations looking for something long ranged that’s both interceptor and air superiority. Even once you know you’re looking for primarily a2a or a2g you got problems with Europe in that our geography means we’d be operating differently to them. Even if one forgets France falling out of euroofighter over carrier capable or not, the Germans and Italians (and French has they stayed) were thinking about the Cold War when the aircraft concept was developed and wanted something that would get in the air very quickly to deal with sudden threats primarily from smaller fighter/attack type aircraft, working at medium and low level as often as your typical air superiority high level heights, they had in mind something like an f16/18 with more a2a emphasis. Where we’d have more warning time and be hoping to fight over the sea as much as possible and therefore be attacking from high up, similar operating concept to the f15. Thankfully we got more input in the end hence eurofighter being best at above 45-50k feet (here tiffy’s generally dominate rafales for exampbut lower down the advantage shifts rafales way). Compromising did effect the size of the typhoon though as I’m sure we’d have made it slightly bigger and more rangey were it just us. So in a very l9ng and convoluted manner I’m trying to say of any potential partners I think there’s a possibility Force agreeing exactly on what we’re looking for with Japan.

If we could then find a way to get past one of the other pitfalls of multinational projects the stupid squabbling and repetition that makes things needlessly expensive we might find a way last Japan’s lack of experience in some areas. Could both sides be adults and say for example the U.K. has more expertise in wing design, aircraft shaping and engines so they do that, but Japan is really good at radars and systems so that’s all on them? Could this be made fair financially? I don’t know, but surely it’s worth exploring? We could even offer other partners different levels of project buy in like what was done with the f35 and the chance to do x or y if they have the expertise and can add value to the project.

Sorry if this post is a bit of a rambling stream of consciousness I’ve had a long day at work!

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 »

You are saying exactly what I have been thinking.
cky7 wrote:Let the French and Germans do their typhoon/rafale replacement whilst we go elsewhere. Meanwhile get son of Taranis/FCAS out first with or without France, even if it means it’s just a stealthy and surivable future replacement/version of protector.
- yes, don't let the unmanned (momentum) lapse, and yes: do not rely on these COIN constructs in a real war
- so far the Germans have said: long-ranged, twin-engined, good in penetrating (offensive counter-air) missions
- so the French go: Ahh, that's a Rafale XL then, when do we start ;)
cky7 wrote:both island nations looking for something long ranged that’s both interceptor and air superiority.
- there is the clear difference. The Japanese want to fight far out, but A2A rather than offensive counter-air (The American 6th gen seems to have the penetrating missions included with high priority... which just shows for how long they think the F-35 will remain as cutting edge).
cky7 wrote:I’m trying to say of any potential partners I think there’s a possibility Force agreeing exactly on what we’re looking for with Japan.
- absolutely right
- the snag is that if we don't achieve that, partners will be in short supply. Korea & Turkey? No good. Sweden: They still have their hands full with their 4+ gen fighter: adding A2G is years away.
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)

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Sounds like the MoD are getting serious if this article is accurate:

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti ... ighter-jet

Project Tempest:

"Williamson is expected to announce that 2 billion pounds ($2.65 billion) in government funding will be earmarked in the 10 years to 2025 to oversee the design and build of the aircraft, which will be operational in 2035. The plane -- nicknamed the Tempest after the team working on the plans -- is a joint venture with British aerospace companies BAE Systems Plc, Rolls Royce Holdings Plc, MBDA UK Ltd and Anglo-Italian firm Leonardo SpA."

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Dahedd »

Gets my vote on name alone :thumbup:

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Dahedd wrote:Gets my vote on name alone :thumbup:
It is a very appropriate one.


RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

I expected a CGI, not an actual full size mock up!

Looks essentially to be an F-35...wonder how it differs. I had been expecting tailless, personally. France/Germany demoed as such.

Gotta wonder if a 2035 plane looking so very "current" isn't being a little under-ambitious. (I say with the literally no information we have right now, to be fair.)

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 »

Sounds exciting, a mock up behind a curtain and a promise of cash, that's far more than I was expecting.
RetroSicotte wrote:Gotta wonder if a 2035 plane looking so very "current" isn't being a little under-ambitious. (I say with the literally no information we have right now, to be fair.)
Or something we can afford to buy more than 20 of.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

And some more...


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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

RetroSicotte wrote:I expected a CGI, not an actual full size mock up!

Looks essentially to be an F-35...wonder how it differs. I had been expecting tailless, personally. France/Germany demoed as such.
Agreed. Bit of a rabbit out of the hat. Stolen a bit of a march on the Germans and French there.

The tailless aspect is also a surprise to me as BAE were very keen on tailless back in their JCA proposal with McDonnell Douglas, which was by far the most interesting proposal (probably would have worked better as well...).

But strewth....Spear and Meteor alongside as well....

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Best pic so far...


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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Yet more detail...


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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

And a full frontal..


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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by SKB »

Is there a carrier variant for an angled deck cats 'n traps QE future refit?

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Curse my work blockers. Can't see the pics other than Armchairs. Would be delighted if someone could Imgur them in here. :)

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SKB »

It looks very much like a delta-winged BAE Replica, the twin tails have the same clipped angle on them. There aren't any canards like a Typhoon, but has a tapered edge around the cockpit sides like an F/A-18

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

RetroSicotte wrote:Curse my work blockers. Can't see the pics other than Armchairs. Would be delighted if someone could Imgur them in here. :)
Image

Image

Other ones got taken down it seems.

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

RetroSicotte wrote:Curse my work blockers. Can't see the pics other than Armchairs.
Go to the Guardians Business Live report, there are a few in there, unlikely to be blocked.

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

SKB wrote:s there a carrier variant for an angled deck cats 'n traps QE future refit?
Haha...

But hang on...it does have twin nose wheels....

Post Reply