Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by LordJim »

That's the way I would like things to develop, with 3 to 4 squadrons of F-35 owned by the FAA but pilots exchanged with he RAF and the RAF with 6 Typhoon squadrons with the platform incrementally improved to maximise its potential.

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by S M H »

LordJim wrote:That's the way I would like things to develop, with 3 to 4 squadrons of F-35 owned by the FAA but pilots exchanged with he RAF and the RAF with 6 Typhoon squadrons with the platform incrementally improved to maximise its potential
The R.A.F. v F.A.A ownership of the airframes is not the burning issue. The loss of F.A.A, fixed wing aviation was caused by the stealth cuts.While funding of two wars from the procurement budget by Brown and co. With the Bollinger boys not protecting the defence budget. The R.A.F. - F.F.A. burning issue is getting a reasonable no of F35 on the carriers. With carrier qualified aircrews and maintainers. The delivery of aircraft numbers needs to be a drumbeat. Thus ensuring we have enough to ensure carrier ops and R,A,F ops. The major lesson of the harrier force being to small and easy to remove. would be repeated by the treasury forcing defence cuts. Advocating a smaller F35 F.A.A. procurement with additional Typhoons for the R.A.F. would allow this again. A large fleet of one type makes it harder to cut carrier ops. The M.O.D. requires to procure F35 at a set rate per year when full rate production starts. To the full !38.

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by LordJim »

Giving the FAA ownership of the F-35s should reduce (hopefully) the issues there were with the Joint Harrier Force, so the carrier ops are their core role and all other secondary but still an option. With two Typhoon wings there would be enough airframes, especially if all T3 to support the majority of operations with the F-35s being available if the need arises.

As for consistent deliveries of the F-35, this will need to stepped up to avoid what I fear may be on the card with there only ever being 3 to 4 squadrons operational at any one time after Tornado departs, as newer airframes replace older worn out and lower tranche ones.

With the deliveries of the Protectors (very PC name), I cannot see any UCAV coming into service with the RAF until these are replaced, say 2035 at the earliest.

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 »

Protector and UCAV are totally different classes of aircraft.
@LandSharkUK

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by LordJim »

They are not though some people think UCAVs are only the stealthy platforms like the X-47. Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle covers the role of the Protector and Reaper that precede it. Yes Predator and Reaper started out a UAVs but became UCAVs when some bright spark in the CIA asked if you could weaponise them. As yet there are no dedicated UCAVs designed from the ground up in service that I can think of though it was in the mind of those responsible for the Reaper. Just to clarify, Protector will have the same role as the Reaper, but will also be able to operate in controlled airspace like over the UK in an ISTAR role, though I doubt it will carry Hellfire/Brimstone in this role.

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 »

They are very different platforms, with no reason they cant coexist.

On is a non-survivable, long endurance surveillance platform, whereas the other occupies a space closer to today manned fighters.

Im sure MALE UAV's and combat drones will feature in the future RAF, just like Typhoon and Reaper operate alngside each other today, different tools for different jobs.
@LandSharkUK

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by S M H »

LordJim wrote:Giving the FAA ownership of the F-35s should reduce (hopefully) the issues there were with the Joint Harrier Force, so the carrier ops are their core role and all other secondary but still an option.
That would almost confirm a 60 airframes operational requirement with 1 O.C.U and later airframes being early airframe replacements. That would 24 airframes for ! carrier and 12 for the second when deployable as a L.H.P. Totally undermining the need for the full requirement. Emasculating the R.A.F. from any cleverly contested environment. The beauty of the present plan is that with a common fleet covering the carrier requirement is only a quarter of the airframes. Should maximum carrier embarked airframes be required the Navy can call on airframes and qualified aircrews
The problem with using Protector is that in a contested environment its going to not be effective other than as target practice. The son of Turanis will effectively be the Tornado replacement It would a huge leap in offensive capability when it enters service. But till then we are going to have dedicated offensive platform holiday. If the development and procurement with the French works as well as the Jaguar did in the 1970s we could have a very effective platform. Till then we will have to use the F35s supported by the later trance Typhoons for offensive ops.

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 »

S M H wrote:The problem with using Protector is that in a contested environment its going to not be effective other than as target practice
Yep
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)

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by LordJim »

I totally agree that protector is vulnerable in any contested environment but weighing the odds we it will probably see a lot of use in other areas, either as an ISTAR platform or a stand in UCAV. What I was inferring is that having the Protector in service will probably mean we will not see a true UCAV in service of a long time, with the treasury saying you already have a platforms plus all those expensive manned toys you made us pay for, and the F-35 is probably going to be the last headline big budget programme for the RAF whilst funds are moved to the Army (hopefully) and the RN with the Dreadnought class and new escorts (again hopefully).

Still top of my RAF wish list over the next couple of decades is the consolidation of the Typhoon fleet at 6 squadrons, all at Tranche 3 with all the improvements available fitted across the fleet. I strongly believe this will give the RAF a very strong and capable core able to handle 85% of tasks handed to it with he FAA F-35s and Protectors filling in the gaps.

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 »

LordJim wrote:having the Protector in service will probably mean we will not see a true UCAV in service of a long time, with the treasury saying you already have a platforms plus all those expensive manned toys you made us pay for,

and the F-35 is probably going to be the last headline big budget programme for the RAF whilst funds are moved to the Army (hopefully) and the RN with the Dreadnought class and new escorts (again hopefully).

Still top of my RAF wish list over the next couple of decades is the consolidation of the Typhoon fleet at 6 squadrons, all at Tranche 3 with all the improvements available fitted across the fleet.
I agree on all three accounts (and just to be clear about what they are, I took the liberty to divide the 1st para in the above into 2).
- on the first one, true UCAVs are still far off (Europe's aerospace companies realise this and have made the rare effort to pool resources, because w/o doing hat it would all fizzle out)
- you dont say which "hopefully" is stronger so I will have to speculate: The three pillars of the navy (CASD, continuous carrier capability and the somewhat overlapping capability for Littoral Manoeuvre) are the right ones, and somewhat cast in stone. And they require enough of capable escorts...Check, Mate, a smaller army then as debits do equal credits in the broader (2% of GDP) defence framework (heh-heh: the Marines and the Bde of Gurkhas did not figure in that 82k regulars stupidity, so they are easier to build back "without ruining the targets, ie. hitting the numbers agreed as performance targets).
- that (3rd point) is the only sensible way to go (enough of resource has been squandered by poor strategic assessment and then the chaos in procurement that followed ... like night would follow day... that is only logic)

Let us leave the sordid facts behind and get back to the headlined matter: what if Raptor production was given a new lease of life, after the LM dvlpmnt team will have finished the (rather long) snagging list? The last Raptor rolling off the line had a unit cost of only $150m, and the prgrm cost has been paid way-yy back.

Not bothering ourselves with the minutiae of setting up the production line again as in
"The disassembled Raptor tooling was placed in storage, and every F-22 assembly process was videotaped, photographed and recorded in case production ever needed to be resumed" - a Lockheed news release from 2012.
-- remember the years when the whole F-35 prgrm (then esp. the B) was looking a bit wobbly
-- and with the B, possibly with the C, falling off production schedules, suddenly the unit costs for an "A" only run would not look like what was on the contract

we could actually bring that unit cost further down by reusing the next-gen elements gone into the F-35 (the elements themselves, some of them, now being next (or 2nd, to be exact) gen, just within the project):
- data links (Raptor was made jam-proof (must be "breakfast next" sneaking into my mind) in a way that, by now, has been rendered obsolescent
- helmet-mounted display
- EO DAS
- EW and several-frequency radars (singular or plural, by the time this would come about, technology would yield a definitive answer)

Hmmm? The US cannot afford it, LM does not want it... and us? We dont need it. But other than that, a good idea 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)

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 »

If the Su-35 (while waiting for the PAK-FA to come into service) doubles the F-35 A2A missile loadout (making salvos a feasible method), Boeing is proposing a "one-upper" on that... almost triple!

https://tacairnet.com/2016/05/23/boeing ... ly-badass/

Not likely that we will get any, but just interesting to compare what else will be up and participating during the 2030s.
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
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 »

Japan-UK Fighter Project Sign Of Closer Defense Partnership
Britain and Japan will look at jointly developing a fighter, probably for entry into service in the 2030s. The surprising move is the latest bringing the two countries closer in defense technology. Even if an Anglo-Japanese fighter does not emerge in the end, BAE Systems is likely to be interested in assisting Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) in an indigenous combat aircraft program. But in seeking cooperation, Tokyo probably hopes for a cost-sharing national partner, not just a ...
Read More: http://m.aviationweek.com/combat-aircra ... artnership (subscription required)

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 »

I posted a photo (cannot remember the thread anymore) of the Japanese sub-size stealth prototype already flying. And BAE building, what, 15% of the physical components of the F-35s and the Japanese assembling most of their own order
- lots of relevant expertise, including the Replica
- as a curiosity, BAE was pitching to build parts for the Japanese assembly, but did not win it. May be we will see that decision reversed now?
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

When the co-operation agreement was announced, it was supposedly focussing on small arms
- was not believable even then
- what came instead:
An MPA entry
A seeker head for a BVR missile
A stealth fighter

"my foot!" comes to mind more than often with the MoD press releases. Don't get me wrong: this is very good news, in its present "form".
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)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

have the Americans mentioned anything about the F15 replacement in terms of the C but mainly the E?

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 »

marktigger wrote: F15 replacement in terms of the C but mainly the E?
The "C" here is C2040, another F-15
- have posted about it (and how it would look like, relative to the (F-15)C of today
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 »

would say its preferable being in the driving seat with japan, rather than being in the back seat with the Americans. Positive news there, especially for opening new oppoirtunites outside of Europe, I hope something actually comes into fruition.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

shark bait wrote:would say its preferable being in the driving seat with japan, rather than being in the back seat with the Americans. Positive news there, especially for opening new oppoirtunites outside of Europe, I hope something actually comes into fruition.
Why would we be in the driving seat?
Wouldn't the 2030s be a bit early for us to be looking to bring a new figure into service? We will still be receiving deliveries of the F35 at that point

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

I'm dreaming of a super stealthy Typhoon replacement.....early-mid 2030 :D to rival the F22 & beyond.

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 »

The typhoon is here until 2040, so a replacement entering service in the 30's sounds about right.

We will never be an equal partner working with the Americans, but we are working with France or Japan, that probably better for protecting our national interests. The F35 has done a great job of deconstructing European competitiveness, we will do well do avoid falling into that trap again.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

shark bait wrote:The typhoon is here until 2040, so a replacement entering service in the 30's sounds about right.

We will never be an equal partner working with the Americans, but we are working with France or Japan, that probably better for protecting our national interests. The F35 has done a great job of deconstructing European competitiveness, we will do well do avoid falling into that trap again.
Got ya, but I suggest that "being in the driving seat" might be a bit of an overstatement. Clearly we will be equal partners but we obviously will still have to make a lot of compromises.

How effective will we be at protecting our national interests and workshare for UK plc?

It's clear that the French will be highly protectionist, judging by past form, irrespective of what is best for the project they will want to use as many French components as possible, and certainly have a (the?) production line in France. If they don't get it they will drop us in a heartbeat. Would we then be able to take the programme forward on our own? We can already see that there will be both UK and French demonstrator aircraft, which one do you think the French will consider to be superior?

Even if we do progress to building a joint aircraft, with the less than 50% workshare we are likely going to get (perhaps significantly less than 50%), and the relatively small numbers likely to be purchased by us and the French we will not achieve much in the way of economies of scale. Thus further purchases of F35s (perhaps the F35A) at that point will look quite cost effective.

As for the collaboration with the Japanese, I have no idea if they are easier to work with and more willing to compromise. I hope so, and I hope we develop something world class which will benefit both UK and Japanese plc. Again, the economies of scale is likely to be an issue, unless the Japanese significanly increase their defence budget in the coming decades to counter Chinese aggression....and we up our game post Brexit.

As for the cooperation with Turkey, are we assuming that this will not lead to something suitable for us? Do we anticipate being able to secure a small, but not insignificant, workshare for UK plc

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 »

I must say that I prefer the NG way of communicating to the LM's one, the latter mainly filled with superlatives.

As this is about sensors, I put it here (rather than on the F-35 thread as that would make it too specific):


First thought: what will be the sensor load on our Protectors as they would give persistence w/o risking the piloted strike units?

Second thought: the UCAV wingman, without the pilot and thereby capable of more Gs might be a good idea in a world filled with wide off-the-bore & over the shoulder launched A2A missiles.
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 »

@dmereifield,

Yes, we could attain Parity with the French or Japanese, but we will always be small fry to the Americans, which clearly effects our influence in the project.

We have done very well out of the F35 programme, I think largely due to the harriers legacy, something that wont be repeated with the next gen.

I'm confident the UK will not bend over and be taken for one over work share, we've never done bad so far, for example even though every airbus is assembled in France, big chunks of each is built here, so I think we have a strong precedence to build upon.

As long as carrier ops are off the table there shouldn't be too much friction. I would say the French are still better partners than the Germans.

You mention the demonstrator aircraft, are they going to be different aircraft? I assumed they would be identical, one for each country to test in their own way.

Japan is a wildcard, I don't believe there is any precedent with them having being so fiercely independent in the past.

Personally I'm not expecting anything good to come out of this Turkish deal, but it might. It seems like we have a lot of cards on the table at the moment, which is surely a positive for the future.
@LandSharkUK

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Defiance »

shark bait wrote:@dmereifield, We have done very well out of the F35 programme, I think largely due to the harriers legacy, something that wont be repeated with the next gen.
P.1216 had significant clout as well, it dealt with supersonic STOVL operation with a single afterburning nozzle and associated FCS logic issues. Significantly different airframe layout but the mechanics of what happened under-the-hood were quite useful.

It feels like the UK is in a good position with potentially 2 new aircraft development contracts which aren't even from BAE's core customer as long as IP considerations are made appropriately.

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:You mention the demonstrator aircraft, are they going to be different aircraft?
I am under the impression that there is a milestone like this (no where have I seen a statement that they would need to be "flyable") before the best design is agreed on (one, the other, or pooled by picking the best of each, be it a design or a reusable module/ component).
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