Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Trouble with partnering with Sweden is that they will want a single engine, short ranged, lightweight fighter. Think F-16, Gripen.

The RAF will want a twin engined, long range heavyweight. Think F-22.

Incompatible.

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 »

True point.

Maybe we should produce a family of aircraft that looks similar but is very different. What could go wrong?
@LandSharkUK

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Ron5 wrote:It should be pretty obvious to anybody here that this is bollox.
If it was bollocks, then we would still all be using 8086 processors and 64k of memory to run Microsoft products (and DOS :lol: ).

For me, the impetus to upgrade my personal PC has always been because of how slowly new releases of software run. Usually because of the additional "features" that almost no-one wants and the changed "graphical user experience" that means you have to re-learn all the shortcuts that you just spent the last couple of years mastering and now needs a moderately powerful graphics co-processor to run.

The reality is, of course somewhere in the middle, with bloatware acting to markedly decrease the performance gains from hardware improvements. On the IBM hardware that I use professionally, the impetus to upgrade has always been because we are handling a greater number of transactions, not because of an operating system or application package upgrade (in fact they usually get better tuned as time goes on).

As the saying goes "Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away"
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

Caribbean wrote: As the saying goes "Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away"
That wasn't bollocks :D

Of course you can sometimes add spice to life and link 9 of the biggest mainframes that IBM has made for other than "show" and link them at memory level... like one of me projects did (only a couple of hundred $ mlns and saved that many times over).
- I love it when people talk "big" outside their zone of expertise... it is very amusing
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)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:link 9 of the biggest mainframes that IBM has made for other than "show" and link them at memory level
Good grief - what were you doing? Modelling nuclear explosions? :shock: Or playing chess :D
Sounds like fun, whatever it was
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

Just taking over Europe... no need to say in what (my colleague linked up the national simulation models, for NATO to be able to "play" at the aggregate level)
- sorry to say that Visa did not buy into the proposal of segregating a similar core TP environment from their comms & trans validation edge; have you noticed any Visa problems lately (it wasn't me :shh: )

I do this kind of stuff for fun - as in the end I am only a simple economist... with some fleeting interest in the bloody waste with my tax monies (as far as it goes for defence - which is many, many miles)
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)

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Caribbean wrote:If it was bollocks, then we would still all be using 8086 processors and 64k of memory to run Microsoft products (and DOS :lol: ).
Say what? I fear you did not understand the original post or my response.

The fact is that up to date versions of Windows and Office running on up to date computers are seriously faster and more capable.

By the way,"memory linked IBM mainframes" is gobbledygook of the highest order.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Ron5 wrote:Say what? I fear you did not understand the original post or my response.
I didn't think I was being particularly subtle, and that the point should have been fairly obvious. Were it not for software bloat, we could still be running everything on 8086s (the DOS comment was to point out that the O/S itself plays a part in the process), as there would be no need to use a faster processor unless more CPU cycles were needed. No-one disputes that modern processors are faster, or that there are more features in modern software. Most of the additional code is of benefit (particularly within the OS, where it has gone towards automating setup and utilisation of features that previously needed manual configuration and technical knowledge), but some is not. Most of the ire is reserved for software that implements more and more features that will never be used by the average user, who still uses a tiny proportion of the feature-set, most of which were in the earliest releases of both Office and Windows, though perhaps less easy to use.
Ron5 wrote:By the way,"memory linked IBM mainframes" is gobbledygook of the highest order.
Not to put words into his mouth, but I understand ACC to be talking about features like DMA. A sample of quotes below are from the IBM website (the horse's mouth, so to speak), though there are a lot of other technologies involved, both in hardware and software.
DMA (direct memory access)
DMA allows data to move directly from the OSA-Express microprocessor to the host memory. This bypasses three layers of processing that are required when using ESCON and OSA-2 features, dramatically improving throughput.
and
The OSA-Express and OSA-Express2 cards provide redundancy capability, as well as throughput improvements when running in QDIO mode. QDIO mode allows direct access to central memory. QDIO mode can be emulated within a CPC by allowing memory to memory data transfer among LPARs running z/VM, Linux, or z/OS.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

Ron5 wrote: By the way,"memory linked IBM mainframes" is gobbledygook of the highest order.
You don't ever seem to give up easily? Even though the above
was already demolished, I am tempted to add that some of us have to build these things in a handy-crafted way, and the IBMs then commercialise them through their labs.

That is very much the same way that cutting-edge military applications are created - how else could they be cutting edge? The trick is to stay at the cutting edge, as building from scratch, every time someone else has caught up, gets to be monumentally expensive... as we have seen many a time.

So, without naming names
- capable of handling more than 24,000 transactions per second
- an average (not the peak :) ) of 1150 billion (and not in JPY, either :D ) of transaction daily value

Keep talking yourself into a paperback, but remember to pull the drawstring tightly closed :roll:
- as I said earlier, this is highly amusing (better than an average day in the "office")
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)

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'm a software engineer by profession.

1. Computers running 1970's software 8086's were as fast as today's? Sure thing dude. Go to your nearest computer museum and try that theory out.

2. Gobbledygook of the highest order. You two clearly don't understand the quotes you are embedding.

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 »

Three strikes and out?
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
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Pseudo »

Ron5 wrote:2. Gobbledygook of the highest order. You two clearly don't understand the quotes you are embedding.
The memory-linking thing rang a bell and it isn't gobbldeygook, the talk of IBM mainframes and the slug-like by modern standards 24,000 transactions per second should clue you in. Do you remember decades ago when computers where so big that RAM was held in a separate cabinet to the processor? I think that's what's being talked about.

Though if that is the case, I've no idea what relevance its got to the computing requirements of a future combat aircraft, it seems like you might as well be talking about GCHQ's computing requirements for modern cryptography in terms of Turing's Bombe.

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by SKB »

Older PAL (UK/Europe & elsewhere) computers run faster than NTSC (US, Canada, Japan) computers because of their need to run greater number of scan lines on the higher resolution PAL CRT tv/monitor screens than NTSC had.

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

That's enough computer chatter, folks. Try to stay focused what with this topic becoming a bit more specifically known and understood via announcements these days.

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... rce-chief/

Not much more information, other than two points.

- The fourth company investing in technology in the UK for a future aircraft to replace Typhoon is indeed MBDA.

- The name of the project is Tempest. Fitting.

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 »

Fighter, bomber, ISTAR, that really misses the point. The objective should be to avoid producing some hardware for a specific role, instead the objective should be building an agnostic platform that can be used to develop software on. This need to be a software development project, that coincidentally needs to new hardware to run on.

The focus should be to get something in the air to 'play' with, to allow the RAF to develop and define how unmanned manned teaming is going to work, because so far no one really has a clue beyond some fluffy concepts. Get it in the air, try a bunch of things, and develop the roles where the biggest advantage manifests itself.
@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:the objective should be building an agnostic platform that can be used to develop software on. This need to be a software development project, that coincidentally needs to new hardware to run on.

The focus should be to get something in the air to 'play' with
Agreed, and this is where we started the discussion on as to what is the key factor that determines how quickly transformational technologies can be matured:

" Aethulwulf wrote:
The BAE Magma UAV"

and your comment then seems to run counter to what you are now saying? It was

"....is a remote control hobby aircraft with a novel control surface. That technology is no where near the maturity required to propose it for an aircraft today."

However between us we differed on the time scale: basically I hold that what is proposed today might be in service c.2035.

And then I proceeded to point out what the key enabler for such FAST track is (if and) when we are talking about transformational technologies. In today's terms even the Nighthawk - the most studied aircraft "signature" of all time - could be classed as "a hobby aircraft", but by setting a new category in performance it sure did make an impact when it came along.
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
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 »

BAE's flapless flight concept represents the biggest change to flight control since the birth of powered flight. It is an absolutely cosmic leap, which will take decades to mature.

It's such a huge leap even BAE's MAGMA remote control aircraft people a fapping over still used flaps. The MAGMA aircraft did not demonstrate flapless flight, it demonstrated bleeding air from the engine to power flaps.

No way are we going to take the biggest change to flight in 100 years from the lab to operational in 15 years, its cookoo to suggest otherwise.
@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: from lab to operational in 15 years
My last comment on the topic as we clearly disagree (which is absolutely fine: what would there be, to discuss, with perfect agreement on everything?).

You may or may not agree that innovations not only come faster, but especially are applied faster?
Go back 15 years from the moon landing. Korean War had "ended" so "waste" a year just de-mob'bing. Next year the microchip was invented https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/69132
- it took 11 years for it to make it into handheld calculators
- but only 3 years from that to put man onto the moon
and ever since... [END]

Btw: As for Tempest, from the RAF side only our next-gen strategy has been promised, but 4+12 months funding (not clear to me if these months overlap or are 16 in total) for collaborative exploring of options is a good "supporting act"
- we seem to be learning as for keeping the "what" and the "how" better separated
- and to qualify, unlike with the moon prgrm, there is no burning platform and thus open check book for the RAF. So we will be eaking out the last flight hours from the tiffies around 2040 and (from some variant of) F-35s around 2060. What is possible to do and what actually happens only every so often meet.
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 »

First, I think you (Shark bait) need to understand the difference between flaps, and ailerons and rudders.

Second, 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.

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.

The long gestation period of the Eurofighter had everything to do with funding and politics among the international partners, not any engineering or technical problems.

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 »

When was it demonstrated? It certainly wasn't on MAGMA
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

The only public announcement I have seen...

https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/f ... ght-trials

And

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... gma-444720

I'd expect some further announcements in the not too distant future.

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 »

Let's extend the 15 years backwards, by 5 (that's when Taranis first flew). Tim Robinson asked the flight team commander about the degree and ease of control a year later. Taranis Pilot/ Mission Commander said, Bob Fraser, said:
"The biggest surprise to me, because I’ve been involved in other programmes, is how well this aircraft flew. Aerodynamically, it was absolutely sound. It was very crisp in its pitching and in roll, speed control was excellent, it got airborne exactly where we expected it to and in exactly where we expected it to land. So, in many ways it was, as I’ve said before, routine. There was no major excitement other that the fact than this thing which looks a little space age got airborne and came back."

So, one proof of concept gets a "tick" in the box. Next: Magma, with a different thing to prove (the announcements in January this year were pointing to "within months" rather than e.g. "during this year".
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)

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Air Chief Marshal Stephen Hillier - DefenseNews

“I don’t feel the U.K. role is to chase after France and Germany. We want to define what’s best for us and we will bring other nations with us. If in the future it includes France and Germany, that will be healthy as well,“ he said.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... rce-chief/

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 the above link
"The Air Force chief was noncommittal over the timing of the release of the defense review and the combat air strategy, saying they would be released when ready."
the bolded part is what I was referring to earlier
- as far as I am aware that is all that has been promised;
- funding for research projects might be part of it, sure
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