UK Defence Forum

SW1 wrote:When the government has the swingers to commit to a production contract.

At least a prototype to test all the new technologies.

bobp wrote:At least a prototype to test all the new technologies.

Already in the works with the 757 they have obtained. As for a prototype or demonstrator, like the EAP was for Typhoon, that could be quite a few years away

Hopefully a repeat of EAP won't be needed.

Agreed, using the computer modelling software SAAB has developed, plus the flying testbed should allow them to hit the ground running when a prototype gets built, probably almost at full spec from the outset.

SCAF/NGF are pursuing a flying demonstrator for 2025. Although it won't have the right avionics ... or engines ... or shape ...but i'm sure it's worth the cost right? ...

I'm happy with the route we are going down. Flying test bed is easier to demonstrate mission systems and manufacturing demonstrations can be done on smaller test pieces. We don't have a bottomless bucket of money, it needs to be spent in a smarter way.

Ron5 wrote:Hopefully a repeat of EAP won't be needed.

My guess is that given the purpose of Sweden's involvement we're likely to see a Gripen outfitted as at least a partial tech-demonstrator at some point.

Britain’s Next Fighter Jet Could Be Powered by Batteries

By Charlotte Ryan
July 15, 2020, 5:03 AM MST Updated on July 15, 2020, 7:37 AM MST

BAE studies alternatives including hybrid, electric power

Plane, competing with Airbus design, aimed at 2035 debut

BAE Systems Plc, the developer of Britain’s next fighter jet, said it’s considering powering the planned warplane using alternative propulsion such as hybrid or fully electric systems.

BAE, which is working with engine-maker Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc and others, is “examining all options” to power the plane, manufacturing director Dave Holmes said on a webcast Wednesday. The Tempest is due to join the Royal Air Force fleet from 2035.

“I wouldn’t rule anything out,” he said. “If you’re looking at something that’s going to be in service out to 2050 to 2060 and beyond, all of those options are very feasible.” relates to Britain’s Next Fighter Jet Could Be Powered by Batteries

Electric flight is still in its infancy. One of the biggest challenges remains the weight of the batteries required to get anything othe than a very small plane into the air. Rolls-Royce developed a hybrid-electric commercial-aircraft concept called E-Fan X with European planemaker Airbus SE, though the project was suspended this year as the coronavirus pandemic weighed on the sector.

BAE envisions using newer manufacturing techniques such as 3D printing on the Tempest. It said Wednesday it will also work with Williams Advanced Engineering to adapt battery-management and cooling technologies used in Formula E race cars. The company, part of Formula 1 supplier Williams Grand Prix Holdings Plc, aims to deliver energy at lighter weights, according to its technical director, Paul McNamara.

Technology has transformed aerial warfare since the Tempest’s predecessor, the Typhoon, first came into service in the early 2000s. While plans are fluid, the U.K.’s Ministry of Defence has said it’s looking at designs for unmanned drones that can fly alongside fighters like the Tempest.

Drones have helped to speed electrification, though battery power is usually used on smaller craft requiring stealth. Larger ones typically have conventional turbofan engines.

The E-Fan X demonstrator replaced one of four jet engines with an electric motor and has a high power battery pack to provide energy storage.

Airbus is working on a French-German rival to the British Tempest project with Dassault Aviation SA. The European planemaker has said its next narrow-body commercial aircraft, also targeted for the mid-2030s, will use alternative power.

BAE, which is also working with Italy’s Leonardo SpA and missile maker MBDA, said it’s not focused on the competition but on meeting its own goals, and continues active discussions with other potential partners.

Sweden’s Saab AB signed a memorandum of understanding to join the Tempest project last July.

I do like the wing on the CGI !! better looking than a normal delta wing, would it be called a cranked delta wing ?

serge750 wrote:I do like the wing on the CGI !! better looking than a normal delta wing, would it be called a cranked delta wing ?

A cranked delta would be more a bend along the leading edge like a saab draken. The planform shown would probably best described as a lambda planform.

SW1 wrote:

serge750 wrote:I do like the wing on the CGI !! better looking than a normal delta wing, would it be called a cranked delta wing ?

A cranked delta would be more a bend along the leading edge like a saab draken. The planform shown would probably best described as a lambda planform.

Cropped delta with an inward-kinked tailing edge?

To add some of the views of the French on merging the programs this article uses the word competitor
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... te-reports

seaspear wrote:To add some of the views of the French on merging the programs this article uses the word competitor
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... te-reports

No other way to call it. If there is no merger then both aircraft will be competing against each other for decades

I don't see how they can be merged.

I'd rather the industries compete transparently in the market rather than politically behind closed doors. An attempted merger would mean a political competition between Snecma and Rolls, Leonardo MW and Thales, etc 5 years of horse trading

If it’s agreed at the start you can offer an engine option or major systems/like a radar option on an airframe.

If your pragmatic on requirements and tech readiness/selection you can do it yourself as Sweden has proven. You probably get the best trade off with a two country program.

Offering any country the sovereign option to test design integrate and upgrade what they want on any aircraft will probably sell the best.

Don't think the will ever merge programs ,think UK wants pure stealth fighter longer range and the French want same but suitable for carrier opps ,not sure how that changes the design criteria between them both but that's the difference ,plus personally I'd have a rolls designed engine over a french one every day of the week

inch wrote:Don't think the will ever merge programs ,think UK wants pure stealth fighter longer range and the French want same but suitable for carrier opps ,not sure how that changes the design criteria between them both but that's the difference ,plus personally I'd have a rolls designed engine over a french one every day of the week

In fairness, if you remove the weight of the carrier specific alterations and factor in the generally higher thrust to weight ratio of RR engines compared to Snecma then a British version of any joint venture would at least have the advantage of being a proper speed demon.

But, but, but, who will the French steal the F-35 stealth and manufacturing advances from?? (before dumping them)

Aye teaming up would be just for political purposes and no other benefit but would be a massive step backwards for our tech know how sake basically we don't need them or should give our knowledge away as Ron5 says just to be nicked ,im quessin now but I bet engine tech RR are well ahead and I'm guessing on Stealth tech also , electronics maybe not but equal I'm guessing

One thing which has always puzzled me its how do you know what a 6th generation combat aircraft should look like if you've never operated a 5th generation one and thus don't necessarily what it can do?

France and Germany must surely be considering this unknown hard, because the danger must be that their FCAS might end up having 5th generation capabilities in the 6th generation era, and at a cost of €tens of billions. And one doubts that the US would help competitors' industries by giving them the know-how they need.

J. Tattersall wrote:One thing which has always puzzled me its how do you know what a 6th generation combat aircraft should look like if you've never operated a 5th generation one and thus don't necessarily what it can do?

J.Tattersall wrote:France and Germany

Or won a war?!

How absurd.

J. Tattersall wrote:One thing which has always puzzled me its how do you know what a 6th generation combat aircraft should look like if you've never operated a 5th generation one and thus don't necessarily what it can do?

The whole concept of aircraft generations' is pretty flawed. Particularly that of the '5th Generation', which is largely a concept invented by certain American aerospace companies (Lock-Mart).

Certain countries have adopted the phrase to make it seem like their latest combat aircraft can be compared to F-22/35, when probably they can't.

In the olde days the separation between generations was a mixture of speed and operating environments (day/night, weather conditions etc.). Then it became more about combat capability, and the ability to either switch roles on the same airframes till eventually being able to perform multiple roles even in the same mission. With the arrival of stealth it became further complicated with the concept of a "4.5 gen" fighter of even "4.75 gen", effectively doing everything but stealth.

It's frankly gotten ridiculous and many countries claiming to have designed or to be building a 5th gen fighters (KF-X, TF-X) are only really making them 'look stealth', rather than delivering it to the level of F-22/35.

With regard to the Franco-German FCAS/SCAF project, both counties have some degree of stealth expertise despite never having had a '5th gen fighter'. Germany did a lot of research in the 70s/80s and France went further with reducing the Rafale's RCS than the Typhoon ever did. (EDIT: See below, I've clearly been reading too many interviews with patriotic Rafale pilots!)

Still neither of them has the level of experience of the UK, which as a country hasn't delivered a domestic combat aircraft since the Sea Harrier or the Hawk 200 lightweight fighter. Both of whom might as well be Sopwith Camels, in comparison to Tempest. Instead by collaborating with other countries we've built up a patchwork of experience and knowledge which very nearly covers the entire process of designing a 'next generation' combat aircraft.

Still got to be paid for though.....

Jensy wrote: and France went further with reducing the Rafale's RCS than the Typhoon ever did.

Your post is mostly correct, except for this. Typhoon has broadly been seen to have a lower RCS than Rafale, due to having a full composite frontal aspect (Rafale's entire engine inlets are non-RAM metal), recessed missile hardpoints, a retratable refuelling probe, and a larger frontal aspect.

Not the largest difference in the world, no-one can talk about exacts, it may even be wrong, but most sources discussing it point to Typhoon for those reasons.

RetroSicotte wrote:Your post is mostly correct, except for this. Typhoon has broadly been seen to have a lower RCS than Rafale, due to having a full composite frontal aspect (Rafale's entire engine inlets are non-RAM metal), recessed missile hardpoints, a retratable refuelling probe, and a larger frontal aspect.

RCS reduction was also a programme goal during Typhoon development, not from the outset, but changes were made to the design that significantly reduced the RCS, with that as the aim, which by any accounts out there is far smaller than Rafale (and although these things are always a moving feast you could take that to the bank based on the fact the Dassault have never made any claims around it...). What that should tell everyone is how you can make really significant reductions to an aircrafts RCS by some simple measures, but at some point the law of diminishing returns sets in and a totally stealth design is the only way to push the RCS lower.