Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

[shark bait]

I know the EJ2000 is overpowered

for a single engine drone the power of the EJ2000 would be about spot on, add in uprating work that is ongoing, the preliminary thrust vectoring work, plus the reasons mentioned above it is the clear choice.

Why in the blithering hell would we let the UCAV be downgraded in spec so much from its original concept just to satisfy them?

They are some real odd choices, especially with different software and sensors on board. The software is the difficult bit here, so real bizarre its going to be different. Perhaps this is hinting we're sharing the demonstrator costs and then going our separate ways.

Perhaps the Brits are being coy, we're the only ones who have developed the software to take a drone through the sound barrier. Transitioning between two control modes like that is quite a tricky task, and maybe that's a card worth keeping close to our chest.

Hopefully we can go back to something super sonic with enough power to be a credible air combat platform.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Perhaps it will only be the demonstrators using the M88?

[RetroSicotte]

Sounds to me more like the UK Gov's usual limp wristed approach of barely caring. Same reason Typhoon sales get missed by them ignoring it until its too late.

Gee, what a trend.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Still waiting for one example of it.

Jaguar?

[RetroSicotte]

Jaguar?

A project designed to create a joint training plane, that they then repeatedly and endlessly insisted become more of a light fighter and then "mysteriously happened" to have a new trainer plane to fill the gap in the market it left that saw quick sales.

[MRCA]

The ej200 is not a UK engine. It's a UK, Italian, Spain, German consortium engine. 3 nations who are not involved with this highly classified program. The m88 is a French engine entirely within the control of the current 2 partner nations.

[Frenchie]

Safran and Rolls Royce have agreed to design a single engine for FCAS. But the M88 includes design facilities allowing it to be quickly adapted to the project, so it is a joint decision.
The M88, which allows a thrust of 7.5 tons, could possibly short or medium term see its power increase up to 8 or 9 tonnes of thrust.
This would benefit in the first place to the Rafale indeed. It is even a request that was emitted by export customers and that correspond to the F4 standard of the Rafale.

[cky7]

Don't think FCAS was ever likely to be supersonic, at least if designs had any similarities to those impressions we've seen thus for. Flying wing is an excellent shape for lots of things but not the one you'd go for if you wanted supersonic - too much lift.

I would imagine engine will,be chosen for fuel economy and stealth aid. Too early to panic, as frenchie stated going m88 makes sense. Will not be the final choice. EAP had tornadoe engines...

[shark bait]

Taranis went supersonic, and remains the only drone to do so.

That was a big achievement, developing the software that can operate in two different aerodynamic states, and handle the transient behavior in between is quite a challenge. I wonder if it proved to be too much? or are the Brits just not wanting to share that bit?

If FCAS is fixed to slower than the speed of sound, it looks a lot like we're developing a Reaper replacement that can operate in contested airspace, rather than the Typhoon replacement it should be.

[ArmChairCivvy]

looks a lot like we're developing a Reaper replacement that can operate in contested airspace, rather than the Typhoon replacement it should be.

The US Road Map for UAV/ UCAV develoment was equally balanced between the two kinds (the latter: a stealthy. penetrating -ie. capable of operating against air defences ) and it was only circumstances (Afghanistan) that tipped the balance.

So, going for a gap in the market (rather than a "me too") should be the direction of travel. And so it seems when you listen to the French and the Germans (the latter not in on the most serious dvlmnt prjct - yet).

[Gabriele]

Taranis went supersonic

I'm afraid it is just a myth born on the press that no one from BAE and MOD has bothered to officially deny. It would have been the first supersonic flying wing ever.

[SKB]

Not likely. Taranis has the same engine as a Red Arrow Hawk.

[LordJim]

I suppose it depends on what version of Adour they want to install on the Taranis. Could it be they initially installed the non-afterburning variant but had plans for full monty later in the programme.

[MRCA]

There effectively designing a mini b2 a truck for weapons and sensors which is exactly as it should be. It's design for range and endurance a certified reaper b for contested environments is a gd description hopefully with reduced manpower requirements.

[cky7]

As I said before the engine is irrelevant to some extent in terms of taranis being supersonic. As gabi says it would be the first time a flying wing ever broke the sound barrier. The design whilst excellent, is very high lift making it a REALLY inefficient shape if you want to be zipping about beyond the speed of sound. One of the disappointing things about taranis is where it's so secret a lot of the reporting was speculation and misinterpretations that got repeated a lot. The bomb bay was another one. They similuated weapon strikes but there wasn't an actual weapons bay (to be fair it's not something particularly important on a learning exercise like this IMO).

I'm still hopeful FCAS will be more than a reaper replacement able to operate in contested airspace. It might not be typhoon replacement, but there's a lot to be decided in terms of what strategy and tech etc will be available and what road we go down on that front. The best and IMO most likely goal for the project is as a ground attack and strike bird to work along side the jsf (like the unmanned wingman concepts). It might end up able to defend itself quite ably but don't see it taking on the air superiority role.

Unfortunately with the idiots we have running the country id say cancellation is a more likely outcome but we really should try and accelerate this project, the US have dragged their heels and had us euros got anything about ourselves or serious interest in defence we ought to be using the chance to close the gap and even take a lead in the field.

[MRCA]

Taranis is more a delta wing with the V Stab removed than a flying wing, flying wings would usually be associated with a high aspect ratio which is why they don't go supersonic. Taranis is more Concorde/typhoon esq in wing planform the ideal shape for high speed flight.

[shark bait]

I'm afraid it is just a myth born on the press that no one from BAE and MOD has bothered to officially deny. It would have been the first supersonic flying wing ever.

That's a shame, not quite as impressive as I thought then.

[ArmChairCivvy]

not quite as impressive as I thought then.

Were you thinking of the intercontinental range? The press had that, too.

[shark bait]

I do remember seeing that, but we can tell from the size it is almost certainly not going to come with intercontinental range.

[shark bait]

There effectively designing a mini b2 a truck for weapons and sensors which is exactly as it should be. It's design for range and endurance a certified reaper b for contested environments is a gd description hopefully with reduced manpower requirements.

Yes, it is shaping up to look a lot like an autonomous mini b2, so at least we might get a Tornado replacement in a decades time, a 10 year capability gap is becoming standard for the RAF.

Must say, it's a little unambitious. The USAF demonstrated a pair of autonomous strike aircraft that could cooperatively search and engage targets by them self, and that was back in 2005. We're now looking at introducing that capability operationally 30 years later.

I do agree attack is the right place to start for autonomous aircraft, but to deliberately superpower the platform so it could never be a capable fighter is an odd choice. The best thing to do is develop the platform as a stealthy reconnaissance and attack platform, and then slowly expand its software capabilities to include air combat. Unless the programme comes with a big engine uprate, that doesn't look possible.

[cky7]

Taranis is more a delta wing with the V Stab removed than a flying wing, flying wings would usually be associated with a high aspect ratio which is why they don't go supersonic. Taranis is more Concorde/typhoon esq in wing planform the ideal shape for high speed flight.

I see why you're saying this and thought one of the major differences between taranis and neuron was taranis looked designed to operate slightly higher and faster. If you look closely though it's a completely different plan form to a delta. Removing a v shape section from a triangle shaped delta makes. Big difference and makes it no longer a delta. The body of a delta wing traditionally doesn't do any lifting and is shaped towards reducing drag not adding lift too IIRC. Yes, the wing is highly swept and doesn't have the same sort of high span to chord ratio a traditional flying wing would have. However, I got the impression that's more to give it decent subsonic agility /performance. There's the body lift to factor in with it too - like you would with a fw - and when I looked at it from all angles I got the impression they've really gone out if their way to make the entire aircraft one very efficient lifting body. Starting with the US, quite a few nations have produced similarly shaped concept aircraft/drones and none of them have spent anytime at all trying to make this type of design supersonic, which also points towards it being more high lift flying wing than high speed delta. I also got the impression that along with the usual unmanned advantages this is perhaps where the long range ideas had come from? Whilst not intercontinental, I do think taranis could have legs one hell of a lot longer than what we've had in our strike fighters before.

I'm not in anyway trying to be deriding toward taranis here, I'm sure if that's what they wanted they could produce a supersonic ucav, but IMO everyone seems to be looking at something long ranged, with a decent payload to loiter over defended enemy territory, whilst still being able to manoeuvre a little if needed. Stealth and other features coming before speed seems to be a fairly broad theme when ever I've heard people talk about future aircraft concepts other than any hyper sonic ones.

[cky7]

Must say, it's a little unambitious. The USAF demonstrated a pair of autonomous strike aircraft that could cooperatively search and engage targets by them self, and that was back in 2005. We're now looking at introducing that capability operationally 30 years later.

To be fair whilst I'm sure fear over the x45 being too capable in comparison played a part in its demise I do think the technology just wasn't there at the time. The US still haven't actually got anything in service or even the pipeline that we know of outside of the far less ambitious now recon and refuelling focussed x47 follow on have they? So to have something like what FCAS could be were we to push it to its full potential would still be very exciting and ambitious (a little sooner would be better but as things stand that's probably fantasy fleet talk. The west really need to pull our socks up or we'll see China over take us in the next decade or so when we ought to be miles ahead of them).

[MRCA]

Once you go for a tailless delta/ flying wing design you automatically have the most efficient lift producing body. But it was designed as a delta or more accurately a smooth diamond. The benefit of a delta is you can carry quite a bit more fuel than a similar sized more traditional wing layout. The two combined improve range however I would suggest that given what the current design for the future ucav looks like you will see that the wing has widen as range and more importantly endurance has grown in importance.

High speed does not have to mean supersonic speed, investigation around .9 Mach number has been of interest for certain mission profiles. Taranis shape was to investigate its effectiveness against certain radio frequencies on certain mission profiles with flight software that could workout the best path to fly to get to a target identify said target and transmit a request to fire a weapon. The difficulty to do this in a contested environment should not be underestimated.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The USAF demonstrated a pair of autonomous strike aircraft that could cooperatively search and engage targets by them self, and that was back in 2005. We're now looking at introducing that capability operationally 30 years later.

- well, they seem to be wanting something else (as a capability) now
Penetrating
Counter
Air... so much more than what we would call "an air superiority fighter"

Before the Franco-German announcement the the Germans seemed to be aiming for a stealthy, twin-tail, two-man "Strike Eagle"
... could turn out more multi-role now

The Japanese on their part seem to be aiming for a long-range' heavy weapon load "F-22"

So our three-legged stool seems to be quite balanced, if you take the angle of how much risk it entails (for not delivering an all-round, capable force)
- the work horse (in numbers)
- a penetrating day one asset (that is also carrier capable, though imposing a fleet-in-fleet cost for achieving that). Note that the Americans do not count on the penetrating aspect of this package remaining "bomb proof" into the '40s... but for us retiring the Typhoons about then will create financial leeway to plug that gap (and alternatives will be better known by then)
- FCAS (the German project carried the same name. Now that "nuisance" is probably going to be eliminated)

Bridging our future from here to 2040? Other than making the budget available,well, the co-operation with Japan
for improving the ramjet powered Meteor, which is extremely fast and retains its kinematic capabilities to the edge of its range comes to mind. As Popular Mechanics put it, when surveying this field in broad brush terms a quarter ago:
"Japan on the other hand has been a leader in missile seekers, producing the AAM-4B, the first missile with a built-in active electronically scanned array radar—the same kind of radar that rides on modern fighter planes such as the F-22. A joint effort would produce an exceptionally deadly missile: a ramjet-powered, AESA-equipped guided weapon capable of fitting in the internal weapons bay of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which both countries are purchasing."
- not bad
- get the internally fitting JSF (also for the RN to bridge their gap), on the deal get triple the range vs. SPEAR 3 and also gain in ECM resistance

What's there not to like?

[shark bait]

To be fair whilst I'm sure fear over the x45 being too capable in comparison played a part in its demise I do think the technology just wasn't there at the time. The US still haven't actually got anything in service or even the pipeline that we know of outside of the far less ambitious now recon and refuelling focussed x47 follow on have they?

The X45 was definitely ahead of its time, but that's what a tech demo is suppose to be, its suppose to prove what can be the way forward. The Brits took another 10 years to get to the same stage.

I don't believe the x47 is for refueling only, that is just sneaking in a large payload strike drone by the back door. It's quite a sensible development approach, perfect the vehicle, than add the strike mission, all whilst keeping F35 skepticism in the shadows.