Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

[Timmymagic]

It's been reported Rolls are already working with Turkey on the TAI engine

No idea whether this has anything to do with the Tempest engine, I suspect no.

In terms of Turkey exporting fighters to KSA - well maybe after hades has frozen etc

Yes it was first reported a few years ago. Contract for c£100m which gets you very little in the military engine world...

No relation to the GCAP work.

[serge750]

Shamelessly stolen from elsewhere...this is Concept 5. The nose shape in particular looks very like the cockpit section tested in the recent trials. This could be how the demonstrator looks...



Concept 5 planform, but different cockpit section.

[serge750]

Shamelessly stolen from elsewhere...this is Concept 5. The nose shape in particular looks very like the cockpit section tested in the recent trials. This could be how the demonstrator looks...



Concept 5 planform, but different cockpit section.

Thankfully not the rather heated argument that came with it!

So yeah handing the turks a state of the art adaptive cycle engine would be an act of sheer stupidity but I wouldn't put it past the geniuses running the FCO.

Well we certainly have form at selling our crown jewels to far more hostile and dangerous states than Erdogan's Turkey:

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hans ... eign-sales

[SD67]

At risk of another heated argument - that thing looks big

[Jensy]

At risk of another heated argument - that thing looks big

Part of me wants to start calling it the TSR-3...

Must be approaching F-111 length.

[SD67]

At risk of another heated argument - that thing looks big

Part of me wants to start calling it the TSR-3...

Must be approaching F-111 length.

I was thinking same - waiting for the strike focussed TSR-3 version!

[Timmymagic]

Thankfully not the rather heated argument that came with it!

I'm avoiding that...

At risk of another heated argument - that thing looks big

Part of me wants to start calling it the TSR-3...

Must be approaching F-111 length.

Actually based on the Ejection Seat cockpit trial it appears to be around 18 metres long. But this could be the demonstrator only...which makes sense with EJ-200. Based on the ducting shown the other day a full version would be more like 21-22 metres long.

[Timmymagic]

So yeah handing the turks a state of the art adaptive cycle engine would be an act of sheer stupidity but I wouldn't put it past the geniuses running the FCO.

Luckily RR are not that daft.

[serge750]

Perhaps they will go down the F15 route & call it "Strike Tempest" seriously though, not sure 2 distinct versions would viable on a smallish production run...but still looks good

[Little J]

Tempest Strike and Reconnaissance... 3...

[Pseudo]

At a rough guess, something the size of PW F-35, so 40,000lbs or there abouts...

My best but would be a turbojet in the 30,000 lbs class and substantially smaller than F35's lower plant.
It will be influenced by EJ200, but using new technology

EJ200 was based on a 1980's RR design, wasn't it? I would be surprised if the GCAP engine was not a clean sheet, variable cycle engine with optimised electrical generation. Sure, if there are elements of the EJ200 design which cannot be significantly surpassed in an all new design, why re-invent them?

If GCAP needs an engine designed to produce around 30.000 ibs thrust, it would be a great fall back for the TAI KAAN, should Turkey fail to secure a co-developer to help it design, develop and build its own engine. But there would be a big problem with supplying Turkey with the GCAP engine: Turkey would want to offer its 'Muslim fighter' to Muslim countries like... (oh, no!)... Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

Evening mate, by EJ200 influence I mean compact and powerful, power output will be as much about power generation for its systems, as raw performance.

I think we can expect a power plant that's as compact as EJ200, but producing 30,000 lbs of thrust in reheat, with high levels of dry thrust for super cruise, giving excellent range.

EJ200 will pass the baton onto this next generation engine as it's natural parent...

[SW1]

The EJ2000 has growth margin of around 30% from current baseline. It’s arguably one of the finest engines on the market.

[mrclark303]

The EJ2000 has growth margin of around 30% from current baseline. It’s arguably one of the finest engines on the market.

It's an excellent turbojet, no doubt, I'm sure the Tempest technology demonstrator will fly with EJ200's.

I always thought it was ashame the proposed EJ230 of 23,000 lb didn't get selected for Gripen E.

It was always mapped into future Thypoon variants, but it seems unlikely it will be further developed now, as the next generation is firmly in the works..

Apparently EJ200 is capable of 26,000 lb + thrust with only minor changes.

[Spitfire9]

It's a shame that such a fine engine as the EJ200 only found one application. It was considered for the Indian Tejas Mk2 but GE F414 was chosen. IIRC GE F414 was preferred on cost grounds.

If the Eurofighter partner countries were prepared to supply EJ200 to India - a country struggling to produce a fast jet engine of similar power to EJ200 - why would it be a problem supplying the GCAD engine to Turkey, a country aiming to produce a fast jet engine in the 30,000 lb thrust range?

Were the GCAD engine to be used in the TAI KAAN, one would expect 300+ would be needed for 150+ aircraft (plus same again for replacement engines over the years). My guess is that represents $9 billion extra revenue to the engine producers (@ $15 million per engine). The increased production should lower production cost of the engine.

India has a defective procurement system, well short of being fit for purpose and will most likely fail to develop an engine to power its planned AMCA Mk2 design, leaving it with 2 options - produce an underpowered aircraft using GE F414 or buy an alternative engine. Should India opt to buy the GCAD engine, one would expect 400+ engines to be needed including replacements - another $6 billion revenue for the GCAD engine producers @ $15 million per engine.

Does the UK just want to sell engines to GCAD and forego the chances of being sourced by other airframers throughout the world?

[Anthony58]

Interesting article

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/06/fca ... e=hs_email

[Phil Sayers]

Perhaps they will go down the F15 route & call it "Strike Tempest" seriously though, not sure 2 distinct versions would viable on a smallish production run...but still looks good

My fantasy air-fleet would be 80 F-15C equivalents (but with a decent non-specialised ground attack ability), 80 F-15E equivalents (specialising in a strike role but still being a very capable interceptor) and 80 F-35Bs with the majority having a primary FAA tasking such that we can routinely deploy 24 as a standard carrier airwing. A total, well-balanced strength of 240 5th and 6th generation fast jets would be formidable and might just about be affordable (although probably not....).

[Spitfire9]

Perhaps they will go down the F15 route & call it "Strike Tempest" seriously though, not sure 2 distinct versions would viable on a smallish production run...but still looks good

My fantasy air-fleet would be 80 F-15C equivalents (but with a decent non-specialised ground attack ability), 80 F-15E equivalents (specialising in a strike role but still being a very capable interceptor) and 80 F-35Bs with the majority having a primary FAA tasking such that we can routinely deploy 24 as a standard carrier airwing. A total, well-balanced strength of 240 5th and 6th generation fast jets would be formidable and might just about be affordable (although probably not....).

Mmmm... F-15 a 5G/6G jet?

[Phil Sayers]

Mmmm... F-15 a 5G/6G jet?

No, I meant Tempest but split into two variants; one with a similar (but broader) role to the F-15C and one with a F-15E role.

[Spitfire9]

Mmmm... F-15 a 5G/6G jet?

No, I meant Tempest but split into two variants; one with a similar (but broader) role to the F-15C and one with a F-15E role.

Understood. I should have paid more attention to what you wrote.

[mr.fred]

No, I meant Tempest but split into two variants; one with a similar (but broader) role to the F-15C and one with a F-15E role.

Given that Typhoon runs as a swing-role aircraft, wouldn’t we expect and prefer, that Tempest is the same?

[Phil Sayers]

No, I meant Tempest but split into two variants; one with a similar (but broader) role to the F-15C and one with a F-15E role.

Given that Typhoon runs as a swing-role aircraft, wouldn’t we expect and prefer, that Tempest is the same?

If we could have 160 fast jets that are world-beaters in both air combat and ground attack penetrating heavily defended airspace then that would be the better way to go but I wonder whether it might be more affordable / effective to have two different variants (despite the additional cost of having to develop both variants) which are each capable of both roles but are each specialised towards one of them?

[SW1]

It is an Interesting question First and foremost the aircraft needs to be air superiority orientated.

Does that lend itself to being the best penetrating strike a/c not sure. Does it need to be, again not sure.

If we are designing it against a high end threat what am I penetrating to strike which isn’t don’t with long range stand-off missile? It won’t have the tactical nuclear role.

Is a tactical a/c the best choice to deliver those stand-off weapons now they have very long range and our very capable in themselves.

Also are we really using them for close air support or is this something that will be handed over more to unmanned systems able to fly in controlled airspace and long range artillery systems in the future.

While there will be cross over across these areas we may more discrete answers in a joined up system of systems to coin a phrase.

[mr.fred]

If we could have 160 fast jets that are world-beaters in both air combat and ground attack penetrating heavily defended airspace then that would be the better way to go but I wonder whether it might be more affordable / effective to have two different variants (despite the additional cost of having to develop both variants) which are each capable of both roles but are each specialised towards one of them?

I guess it would depend on how different the two variants would be. If the majority of the difference could be achieved by modular components fitted to a common airframe then that would be preferable to having to qualify two radically different airframes and having to maintain different fleets.

Although you could mitigate the worst aspects of that if you focus on using common equipment such as radars, engines, actuators etc.

[mrclark303]

If we could have 160 fast jets that are world-beaters in both air combat and ground attack penetrating heavily defended airspace then that would be the better way to go but I wonder whether it might be more affordable / effective to have two different variants (despite the additional cost of having to develop both variants) which are each capable of both roles but are each specialised towards one of them?

I guess it would depend on how different the two variants would be. If the majority of the difference could be achieved by modular components fitted to a common airframe then that would be preferable to having to qualify two radically different airframes and having to maintain different fleets.

Although you could mitigate the worst aspects of that if you focus on using common equipment such as radars, engines, actuators etc.

Certainly an interesting idea, I do think Tempest will be an F22 sized, long range air dominance and strike fighter with a large internal weapons load.

When you look at how capable weapons like Spear 3 are, you can only imagine what the next generation will be like.

Let's just hope we get enough....

[Ron5]

If we could have 160 fast jets that are world-beaters in both air combat and ground attack penetrating heavily defended airspace then that would be the better way to go but I wonder whether it might be more affordable / effective to have two different variants (despite the additional cost of having to develop both variants) which are each capable of both roles but are each specialised towards one of them?

I guess it would depend on how different the two variants would be. If the majority of the difference could be achieved by modular components fitted to a common airframe then that would be preferable to having to qualify two radically different airframes and having to maintain different fleets.

Although you could mitigate the worst aspects of that if you focus on using common equipment such as radars, engines, actuators etc.

Sure, look how well that worked out for the F-35