What definition is that then?shark bait wrote:By definition air superiority is achieved over hostile territory, not defending friendly territory.Lord Jim wrote:an interceptor also achieves air superiority over the territory it is to defend
Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Interceptors don't "do" air superiority. They intercept intruders that intrude or stray into home airspace. As this video demonstrates:
A fighter and its fellow squadron aircraft, would claim air superiority if they have sufficent numbers and strength where they outnumber, control and dominate an area of airspace versus those of enemy forces.
A fighter and its fellow squadron aircraft, would claim air superiority if they have sufficent numbers and strength where they outnumber, control and dominate an area of airspace versus those of enemy forces.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Getting back to the threat, is it still the belief of some that any future fast jet platform developed for and purchased by the RAF MUST have two engines?
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
I refer the honourable member to the reply I gave at just before 09:00 this morning....
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
I think AI is going to have a much greater role. I can envisage a fighter with an "engage AI" button that gets hit when combat seem imminent and the AI takes over and fights the aircraft. Similarly, I think missiles will use AI to both aid in ID-ing the target and to enable the best maneuvers to hit the target. Both would mean that even the lowliest pilot (and there's always someone that passed at the bottom of the class) would fight with the skill of the best.cky7 wrote:Also just thinking aloud here - the way I see a2a weapons are gonna be going through the biggest change since the dawn of the missile age over the next couple of years, sensors and targeting too are Changing hugely. You’ve obviously got all the talk of lasers, but also missiles like meteor and at the other end Cuda/T3/whatever the US finally go for are actually very different concepts for BVR and I wonder will this effect the idea of what characteristics an air superiority fighter will need.
Traditionally you wanted to be as high and fast as you could for a BVR fight to give your missiles maximum energy with the limited burn then thrust of near every previous missile. Meteor being powered all the way Changes this. Will this mean this becomes less important? With Cuda/T3 ( am sure the us are gonna bring out someth8ng along these lines for their next BVR missile), they’re happy to give uo range for being able to carry more. I agree as when your enemy can’t see you before you see them surely having more is a better bet for at least the USAFs stealthy f22s and f35s and NGAD is gonna be stealthy.
I’m not actually saying it will change things. More ask8ng if others think it will. And if these factors don’t, what will? What characteristics do folks want to see in the next gen fighter? From what I said above the first thing that springs to mind is a bigger weapons bay. As for characteristics, I think a massive increase in range is gonna be important and adaptability to be upgraded as easily as possible with sensors, weapons etc as cheaply as possible is the best possible future proofing. I think it needs to have the classic characteristics of high TWR and a high energy bird. As menti’ned by RR the engine needs to be able to provide much more electrical power. It also needs to be designed around its weapons. We need to really work out what it could use over its lifetime and build the design to be as capable as poss of covering all options as well as possible. This (along with giving it the typical air superiority characteristics) has the added benefit of meaning it can be a swing/multirole fighter and gives you a fighter that’s top class at every role. I’m not sure hyper sonic is gonna be a thing on platforms but am sure it will be on weapons.
It's all software so as long as the 'puter is powerful enough.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
AW&ST opinion article: The time may be right for Tempest.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
That is simply not true, there are levels of the control of the air, which for some reason we keep changing the definition of, however none have geographic boundaries. Considering the range of some modern weapons it is very easy to lose Air Superiority over your own territory, its how far that effect goes beyond a border/FLOT that is key. If you are really, really bored JDP0-30 contains the UK stance, with occasional operational dits to keep the reader going.shark bait wrote:By definition air superiority is achieved over hostile territory, not defending friendly territory.Lord Jim wrote:an interceptor also achieves air superiority over the territory it is to defend
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Its a really interesting area of debate, and as far as the military goes I think that the main barriers aren't technical at the moment but legal and the question of resilience. I also don't think that the military will be first in AI. Even if you assume that the 'man-in-the-loop' has to stay, we can be far better at automating some processes.Ron5 wrote: I think AI is going to have a much greater role. I can envisage a fighter with an "engage AI" button that gets hit when combat seem imminent and the AI takes over and fights the aircraft. Similarly, I think missiles will use AI to both aid in ID-ing the target and to enable the best maneuvers to hit the target. Both would mean that even the lowliest pilot (and there's always someone that passed at the bottom of the class) would fight with the skill of the best.
It's all software so as long as the 'puter is powerful enough.
Its always good to inform your coalition allies that Skynet is going live when you start up your UK satcom terminal......
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Finally, thank you.indeid wrote:That is simply not true, there are levels of the control of the air, which for some reason we keep changing the definition of, however none have geographic boundaries. Considering the range of some modern weapons it is very easy to lose Air Superiority over your own territory, its how far that effect goes beyond a border/FLOT that is key. If you are really, really bored JDP0-30 contains the UK stance, with occasional operational dits to keep the reader going.shark bait wrote:By definition air superiority is achieved over hostile territory, not defending friendly territory.Lord Jim wrote:an interceptor also achieves air superiority over the territory it is to defend
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
We might see the opposite where the AI handles the mission, but if air combat is imminent then a person in the loop takes over. The cockpit of the F-35 (when it works) gives an idea of the way forward where the Pilot's helmet allows him or her to see 306 degrees on all axis. This would alleviate the issues of situational awareness for the remote operator. AI in radar AAMs would also be interesting, imagine one tracking a target, and assessing where it is likely to be in the future based on what it has seen and what the sensors on the launch platform have observed prior to and during launch, and then cutting the corner so to speak. The same could be done to SAMs, acting as one way UCAVs to counter ECM, stealth and so on. The future is dangerous for the war fighter.Ron5 wrote:I think AI is going to have a much greater role. I can envisage a fighter with an "engage AI" button that gets hit when combat seem imminent and the AI takes over and fights the aircraft. Similarly, I think missiles will use AI to both aid in ID-ing the target and to enable the best maneuvers to hit the target. Both would mean that even the lowliest pilot (and there's always someone that passed at the bottom of the class) would fight with the skill of the best.cky7 wrote:Also just thinking aloud here - the way I see a2a weapons are gonna be going through the biggest change since the dawn of the missile age over the next couple of years, sensors and targeting too are Changing hugely. You’ve obviously got all the talk of lasers, but also missiles like meteor and at the other end Cuda/T3/whatever the US finally go for are actually very different concepts for BVR and I wonder will this effect the idea of what characteristics an air superiority fighter will need.
Traditionally you wanted to be as high and fast as you could for a BVR fight to give your missiles maximum energy with the limited burn then thrust of near every previous missile. Meteor being powered all the way Changes this. Will this mean this becomes less important? With Cuda/T3 ( am sure the us are gonna bring out someth8ng along these lines for their next BVR missile), they’re happy to give uo range for being able to carry more. I agree as when your enemy can’t see you before you see them surely having more is a better bet for at least the USAFs stealthy f22s and f35s and NGAD is gonna be stealthy.
I’m not actually saying it will change things. More ask8ng if others think it will. And if these factors don’t, what will? What characteristics do folks want to see in the next gen fighter? From what I said above the first thing that springs to mind is a bigger weapons bay. As for characteristics, I think a massive increase in range is gonna be important and adaptability to be upgraded as easily as possible with sensors, weapons etc as cheaply as possible is the best possible future proofing. I think it needs to have the classic characteristics of high TWR and a high energy bird. As menti’ned by RR the engine needs to be able to provide much more electrical power. It also needs to be designed around its weapons. We need to really work out what it could use over its lifetime and build the design to be as capable as poss of covering all options as well as possible. This (along with giving it the typical air superiority characteristics) has the added benefit of meaning it can be a swing/multirole fighter and gives you a fighter that’s top class at every role. I’m not sure hyper sonic is gonna be a thing on platforms but am sure it will be on weapons.
It's all software so as long as the 'puter is powerful enough.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
I did go googling the definition and found the same publication you reference.indeid wrote: If you are really, really bored JDP0-30 contains the UK stance, with occasional operational dits to keep the reader going.
To me that reads as an effect that should be achieved everywhere, and as such it needs to be offensive, because an offensive air combat platform can conduct air policing, but it is not true the other way around.JDP0-30 wrote:a. Air superiority. That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another, which permits the conduct of operations by the former, and its related maritime, land and air forces at a given time and place, without prohibitive interference by the opposing force.
@LandSharkUK
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
That sounds highly likely.Ron5 wrote:I think AI is going to have a much greater role. I can envisage a fighter with an "engage AI" button that gets hit when combat seem imminent and the AI takes over and fights the aircraft.
I was almost expecting 2 seaters making a comeback in the next generations to help handle the workload. Pilot workload looks set to steadily increase as the officer becomes responsible for unmanned assets and their own aircraft. However we see no mention of a second seat on Tempest, so is more likely that AI will replace the second seat?
@LandSharkUK
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
I've seen it mentioned that the reliability of twin engined fighter aircraft actually isn't any different from single engined aircraft. Apparently the issue is that engines are that reliable these days that when there is a catastrophic failure of one it usually affects the other one as well (i.e. a fire or explosion).SKB wrote:It's not just about power. It's also about redundancy and survivability. If one engine fails, you have at least the other working one to get you home or to the nearest landing area. Only twin engines gives that option, otherwise you'll drop like a brick. Anyway, Tempest IS (if built) going to have twin engines, the speakers at the announcement specifically mentioned so.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Surely the whole single engine twin engine convo shouldn't be based around reliability or the progression of engines now compared to 20-30 years ago.
Rather the desission should be base on what our potentioal enemy's will have.
It's all well and good saying a single engine today can give the same proformance of a twin engine 30 years ago so we don't need a twin engine, but if our enemy's build twin engine jets then we'd be out classed as they will not be using 30 year old engine tech.
Tempest is to replace the typhoon, so its core role is to proform air superiority and a secondary swing role.
Rather the desission should be base on what our potentioal enemy's will have.
It's all well and good saying a single engine today can give the same proformance of a twin engine 30 years ago so we don't need a twin engine, but if our enemy's build twin engine jets then we'd be out classed as they will not be using 30 year old engine tech.
Tempest is to replace the typhoon, so its core role is to proform air superiority and a secondary swing role.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Without a huge investment and increase in defence spending "Tempest" could produce the RAF's equivalent of the RN's T-31e, being a relatively cheap, lightweight low vis platform aimed primarily towards Air Defence but with a rudimentary air to ground capability. Either that or the RAF will get even smaller. Unless more funding is forthcoming all three services are going to have to mover away from all top of the line equipment and have more of a high low mix, or suffer reductions. Even then the RAF will probably be down to six operational squadrons and two OCUs with only two main bases for fast jets with the northern QRA being a detachment operating out of Lossiemouth.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
[/quote]
To me that reads as an effect that should be achieved everywhere, and as such it needs to be offensive, because an offensive air combat platform can conduct air policing, but it is not true the other way around.[/quote]
The 'time and place' bit is important, it acknowledges that you can't protect everywhere all the time. OCA and DCA are distinct missions, although I would argue that with the exception of the Passive AD in DCA, the equipment needs between the two can't be completely separated.
Air policing is a peacetime mission, becoming part of DCA in transition. It does raise the question that if aircraft are going to get more expensive to buy and run, would an Air version of the RN River Class be needed? Cheaper to buy, operate and run (current issues aside) and could maybe use Reserve/FTRS manning to protect the Combat Ready Fleet of high end 'war goers'. Fine for peacetime intercepting airliners and bears but with the 1st XI sat behind if things get complicated. Or maybe I just remember the Mixed Fighter Force..........
To me that reads as an effect that should be achieved everywhere, and as such it needs to be offensive, because an offensive air combat platform can conduct air policing, but it is not true the other way around.[/quote]
The 'time and place' bit is important, it acknowledges that you can't protect everywhere all the time. OCA and DCA are distinct missions, although I would argue that with the exception of the Passive AD in DCA, the equipment needs between the two can't be completely separated.
Air policing is a peacetime mission, becoming part of DCA in transition. It does raise the question that if aircraft are going to get more expensive to buy and run, would an Air version of the RN River Class be needed? Cheaper to buy, operate and run (current issues aside) and could maybe use Reserve/FTRS manning to protect the Combat Ready Fleet of high end 'war goers'. Fine for peacetime intercepting airliners and bears but with the 1st XI sat behind if things get complicated. Or maybe I just remember the Mixed Fighter Force..........
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Burn the witch!Lord Jim wrote:RAF's equivalent of the RN's T-31e
@LandSharkUK
-
- Member
- Posts: 780
- Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Could we be seeing the emergence of an Anglo-American project perhaps??
https://www.janes.com/article/82256/uk- ... et-concept
I personally doubt it, but involvement from US industry would be no bad thing in my books.
https://www.janes.com/article/82256/uk- ... et-concept
I personally doubt it, but involvement from US industry would be no bad thing in my books.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Hope not, turning to the US should be a last resort, doing so would seriously run the risk of killing BAE as a main contractor.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
I may have miss understood, is this separate to their own 6th gen project? If so that would be a bad thing, every time the two go up against each other for sale's the septics will pull the ITAR card.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Agree although BAe systems are doing ok in the American Market and are world leaders in Aviation technology, any new plane would need considerable investment from Government. So cant see this project progressing beyond perhaps a prototype.shark bait wrote:Hope not, turning to the US should be a last resort, doing so would seriously run the risk of killing BAE as a main contractor.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
If theirs too much american content the UK would require US approval to sell the aircraft internationally.Little J wrote: If so that would be a bad thing
If that sale happens to be in competition with a US aircraft it gives the Americans control over the UK tender as well as their own. Not good.
Yes, extra cash needed, just not American cash. Hopefully the UK can woo the Japanese, Italians, Swedish, Saudis or a combination to buy into the project.bobp wrote:any new plane would need considerable investment from Government. So cant see this project progressing beyond perhaps a prototype.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Indeed as long as we maintain control, unlike the EFA which ended up in too many final assembly lines.shark bait wrote:Yes, extra cash needed, just not American cash. Hopefully the UK can woo the Japanese, Italians, Swedish, Saudis or a combination to buy into the project.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Paranoid rubbish. If tempest is ever built, of course it will have US content. Jeesh.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Why will it? The company I work for always offer a variant with low US content to get around US export controls, I bet BAE are similar.
@LandSharkUK