UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 7973
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 03 Nov 2018, 09:06

SW1 wrote: All for debate open and honest the problem is the answer usual is right we must have more navy


If that 'mark' thing is on the mark, I must say I enjoyed the 'contrarian' views stirring up the discussion a bit.
- there were half-serious suggestions, at times, that TD should have been renamed ' RN Board'
- luckily here the tendency is (but only) slightly less pronounced

As we only have a forum, no one's had the chance to go all in, and suggest what a 'seriously unbalanced' force, for serving a maritime nation would look like
- who knows, the MDP might be leaning that way... we will still need the future combat a/c :) , though

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Caribbean » 03 Nov 2018, 09:28

SW1 wrote:It appears humour is the first thing to go online!

Written and verbal humour operate differently - most people who try to be "funny"online, either don't understand that, or posses the writing skills to convey their meaning adequately, which is why emoticons developed. ;)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

SW1
Member
Posts: 278
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby SW1 » 03 Nov 2018, 09:31

Caribbean wrote:
SW1 wrote:It appears humour is the first thing to go online!

Written and verbal humour operate differently - most people who try to be "funny"online, either don't understand that, or posses the writing skills to convey their meaning adequately, which is why emoticons developed. ;)


I’m an engineer never had any writing skills or would of been a lawyer!!! So I’ll need lots of emoticons!!

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Caribbean » 03 Nov 2018, 09:45

SW1 wrote: would of been a lawyer

No - don't do that to yourself! The world needs more engineers.............
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 361
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby whitelancer » 03 Nov 2018, 10:31

Caribbean wrote:No - don't do that to yourself! The world needs more engineers.............


and far fewer lawyers!

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5289
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby shark bait » 05 Nov 2018, 09:07

SW1 wrote:On engines you could have an engine option of an ej200 or f414 for example should you wish but this would need to be agreed very early and a common set of interfaces for both power plants. The one thing this future jet needs to ensure is the power plants have sufficent power and thrust growth for the life of the product ej200 has this in spades.


What would be the benefit of engine options? Has that ever been offered on a fighter before?

I have seen proposals to update the EJ200 by 30%, that is a shit load of power on a 2 engine aircraft, so perhaps it could live through another generation. Rolls have said they're working on embedding a generator in the turbine, unknown if that's inside the EJ200, or a new engine. I'm hoping its the former for the sake of keeping cost under control.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 7973
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Nov 2018, 11:41

I wonder if nozzle vectoring comes along, too?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5289
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby shark bait » 05 Nov 2018, 11:58

I don't expect it will. It was all the rage a while back, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Tempest team decide it isn't worth the extra cost. I hear that whist it does look bloody cool at airshows in practice is has offered little advantage, with speed and energy being far more decisive.
@LandSharkUK

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1773
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Lord Jim » 05 Nov 2018, 14:29

The EJ200 has already had a 3D Thrust Vectoring systems pretty well tested during its development stage, but it was not taken up by the Eurofighter consortium as the Typhoon was judged to have more than sufficient manoeuvrability and high sub sonic and super sonic speeds.

SW1
Member
Posts: 278
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby SW1 » 05 Nov 2018, 19:19

shark bait wrote:
SW1 wrote:On engines you could have an engine option of an ej200 or f414 for example should you wish but this would need to be agreed very early and a common set of interfaces for both power plants. The one thing this future jet needs to ensure is the power plants have sufficent power and thrust growth for the life of the product ej200 has this in spades.


What would be the benefit of engine options? Has that ever been offered on a fighter before?

I have seen proposals to update the EJ200 by 30%, that is a shit load of power on a 2 engine aircraft, so perhaps it could live through another generation. Rolls have said they're working on embedding a generator in the turbine, unknown if that's inside the EJ200, or a new engine. I'm hoping its the former for the sake of keeping cost under control.


Some potential customers may prefer an American engine especially if they already have a fighter with a supply chain to said American company just as an example especially if you were looking to sell to any Far East customers.

EJ200 has lots of power and is very realisable. If future weapons like meteor/asraam variants allows platform performance to be reduced then thrust vectoring may not be required.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1169
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby seaspear » 05 Nov 2018, 19:34

Does,nt thrust vectoring increase IR signature?

SW1
Member
Posts: 278
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby SW1 » 05 Nov 2018, 20:05

Seaspear not entirely in itself it will depend on your manoeuvre your attempting it may require more thrust to do it as your now generating either more lift or energy from raw engine power so you maybe at max dry or the like which will increase your IR signature.

With modern IRST systems like pirate an aircraft flying at 30K feet were its -40 has a difficult time not being spotted, air friction alone will generate a heat signature as will venting heat from onboard systems let along the big donk out the back. The sudden interest in the US of getting such systems on its fighter fleet is no coincidence.

Little J
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Little J » 05 Nov 2018, 20:17

Didn't they try and market VT as a fuel saving device not so long ago? Not needing the control surfaces, etc...

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 7973
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Nov 2018, 20:47

seaspear wrote:Does,nt thrust vectoring increase IR signature?


Depends on how it is done. F-22 has 2-D and you can still structurally do a lot to hide it. Once you go to the Suhoi super-manoeuvreable 3-d, how do you hide anything (without melting the plates)
- up/ down assumes no one is looking from behind
- add sideways, and suddenly you become very visible, 180 degrees

Then there are the other heat sources, mentioned by SW1

SW1
Member
Posts: 278
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby SW1 » 05 Nov 2018, 21:00

Little j

That’s because it can, the aircraft can be cleaner aerodynamically during cruise.

Thrust vectoring has benefits on low observable platforms because you don’t like having high lift devices (flaps and slats) on low observable platforms because they generate gaps and radar spikes. Thrust vectoring can aleviate some of the issues this can cause. This factor is a reason why f35s landing speed can be higher than comparable aircraft and drove the larger wing on the c variant.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5289
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby shark bait » 06 Nov 2018, 09:32

SW1 wrote:If future weapons like meteor/asraam variants allows platform performance to be reduced then thrust vectoring may not be required.


This is a great point, and one I had not considered before. Let the missile to the 'hard work' whilst the aircraft can concentrate on maintaining its energy?
@LandSharkUK

Timmymagic
Member
Posts: 952
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Timmymagic » 07 Nov 2018, 10:58

Little J wrote:Didn't they try and market VT as a fuel saving device not so long ago? Not needing the control surfaces, etc...


The BAe/MDD/Northrop JSF proposal (which was by far the most interesting, and by the best design houses) incorporated a tailless design and relied on thrust vectoring for some control. I suspect the recent BAE MAGMA demonstrator is a little too soon to be incorporated into any Tempest project, its main use appears to be for future UCAV's. Potentially to be incorporated alongside conventional surfaces as a sort of ultra LO mode.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 7973
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Nov 2018, 12:59

shark bait wrote: Let the missile to the 'hard work' whilst the aircraft can concentrate on maintaining its energy?

The old adage: let the missiles (w/o a human onboard) do the turning!
Timmymagic wrote: to be incorporated alongside conventional surfaces as a sort of ultra LO mode.

That could be the thing, because what you compromise in IR (IRST being, allegedly, effective out to 50 km as of today?) you gain in LO at the ranges that Meteor (or more to the point, its Chinese equivalent) offers, in extending the BVR engagements.

Timmymagic
Member
Posts: 952
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Timmymagic » 07 Nov 2018, 13:11

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The old adage: let the missiles (w/o a human onboard) do the turning!


And that's why a lot of the super manoeuvrability that is demonstrated at low speed at airshows really makes zero sense in the real world. Why lose all of your energy in a Cobra manoeuvre to get off a missile shot if you can get the missile to go over your shoulder? Only the Asraam and AIM-9X have actually demonstrated that capability to date.

Little J
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Little J » 07 Nov 2018, 14:34

Seem to remember that's why the F-22 lost to tiffies at red flag (close range), the raptor just bleed energy...

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2037
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby RetroSicotte » 07 Nov 2018, 15:00

Little J wrote:Seem to remember that's why the F-22 lost to tiffies at red flag (close range), the raptor just bleed energy...

Pilot skill. Raptor has no need to lose any more energy than other aircraft if it doesn't want to. It stems mostly from less experienced pilots over-using the vectors.

There's an excellent video discussing vector engines and why the US has quickly turned away from them as WVR utilities. I'll see if I can dig it out when I'm home.

Basically, it's a guy discussing how F-22 and Indian Su-30MKI pilots were originally burning all their energy trying to make these hugely sharp turns in the air to get nose on point, and the other person (in this case in F-15s) would only have to point the nose up and apply a little burn to have effectively won the engagement. (No sane pilot would attempt to recover from someone having that much of an energy advantage over them and would disengage.)

As the USAF and the Indians got more experience with these engines, they eventually just stopped using them for much of anything, other than in very incidental situations, and regarded them as a "rookie error" to get caught in by losing energy with them.

Defiance
Member
Posts: 445
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Defiance » 07 Nov 2018, 15:11

These two? (If not i recommend them, they're good videos)




I enjoyed the comments about what the French were up to.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2037
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby RetroSicotte » 07 Nov 2018, 15:27

Defiance wrote:These two? (If not i recommend them, they're good videos
I enjoyed the comments about what the French were up to.

That's the ones, well spotted. Been years since I last saw them, glad to know at least the vague content of my memory was accurate to it. :D

And yeah, the bit about the French was somewhat amusing.

topman
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Location: Tokelau

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby topman » 07 Nov 2018, 19:58

I'd be careful about drawing too many strong conclusions from a couple of yt videos. There's plenty unsaid in them.

Timmymagic
Member
Posts: 952
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Timmymagic » 08 Nov 2018, 14:27





Return to “Royal Air Force”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mercator and 5 guests