Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 773
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by mrclark303 »

SW1 wrote: 04 Jan 2024, 08:11
mrclark303 wrote: 04 Jan 2024, 00:16
SW1 wrote: 30 Dec 2023, 15:52 Italy have used long range aircraft over a number of years. Tornado, loaned tornado adv, typhoon and now f35a which in particular is a long range aircraft.

Just out of interest how much fuel are people expecting the tempest to be able to carry?
Sufficient for a ROA of 800 to1000 miles, I would surprised at less than the former.

It's going to be a large aircraft.
F35a already makes it into your 800-1000 mile range in certain configurations.
The difference will be carrying significantly more and remaining on station at very long range for longer.

Perhaps they will design low signature conformal tanks from the off, significantly increasing range to 1200 plus.

Range is absolutely vital to Japan, if god forbid war broke out in the Far East, military operations against Chinese targets, might well prelude tanker support due to their vulnerability.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1084
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by new guy »

SW1 wrote: 04 Jan 2024, 08:11
mrclark303 wrote: 04 Jan 2024, 00:16
SW1 wrote: 30 Dec 2023, 15:52 Italy have used long range aircraft over a number of years. Tornado, loaned tornado adv, typhoon and now f35a which in particular is a long range aircraft.

Just out of interest how much fuel are people expecting the tempest to be able to carry?
Sufficient for a ROA of 800 to1000 miles, I would surprised at less than the former.

It's going to be a large aircraft.
F35a already makes it into your 800-1000 mile range in certain configurations.
No it doesn't, at least not in a stealth configuration with a weapons payload

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5530
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

new guy wrote: 04 Jan 2024, 16:30
SW1 wrote: 04 Jan 2024, 08:11
mrclark303 wrote: 04 Jan 2024, 00:16
SW1 wrote: 30 Dec 2023, 15:52 Italy have used long range aircraft over a number of years. Tornado, loaned tornado adv, typhoon and now f35a which in particular is a long range aircraft.

Just out of interest how much fuel are people expecting the tempest to be able to carry?
Sufficient for a ROA of 800 to1000 miles, I would surprised at less than the former.

It's going to be a large aircraft.
F35a already makes it into your 800-1000 mile range in certain configurations.
No it doesn't, at least not in a stealth configuration with a weapons payload
Yes it does with an internal an air to air configuration.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1084
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by new guy »

SW1 wrote: 04 Jan 2024, 17:04
new guy wrote: 04 Jan 2024, 16:30
SW1 wrote: 04 Jan 2024, 08:11
mrclark303 wrote: 04 Jan 2024, 00:16
SW1 wrote: 30 Dec 2023, 15:52 Italy have used long range aircraft over a number of years. Tornado, loaned tornado adv, typhoon and now f35a which in particular is a long range aircraft.

Just out of interest how much fuel are people expecting the tempest to be able to carry?
Sufficient for a ROA of 800 to1000 miles, I would surprised at less than the former.

It's going to be a large aircraft.
F35a already makes it into your 800-1000 mile range in certain configurations.
No it doesn't, at least not in a stealth configuration with a weapons payload
Yes it does with an internal an air to air configuration.
A source?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5530
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

new guy wrote: 04 Jan 2024, 17:08
SW1 wrote: 04 Jan 2024, 17:04
new guy wrote: 04 Jan 2024, 16:30
SW1 wrote: 04 Jan 2024, 08:11
mrclark303 wrote: 04 Jan 2024, 00:16
SW1 wrote: 30 Dec 2023, 15:52 Italy have used long range aircraft over a number of years. Tornado, loaned tornado adv, typhoon and now f35a which in particular is a long range aircraft.

Just out of interest how much fuel are people expecting the tempest to be able to carry?
Sufficient for a ROA of 800 to1000 miles, I would surprised at less than the former.

It's going to be a large aircraft.
F35a already makes it into your 800-1000 mile range in certain configurations.
No it doesn't, at least not in a stealth configuration with a weapons payload
Yes it does with an internal an air to air configuration.
A source?
I’m sure you can Google some of the f35 sar showing demonstrated f35a range with 2 amraam and 2 jdam. Prob tell you its range was something like 670 nm which equates to about 770 miles. Swap the bombs for missiles you’ll get to around the 800 miles target.


It’s 30k lb airframe carrying 18k pounds of fuel. It may have many issues but range is not one of them.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Jensy

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1009
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SD67 »

Interesting, that range is enough for a return trip from Tel-Aviv to Baghdad or Dharan airbase to Tehran, with about a 10% margin.

Almost as if it may have been a design objective

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7156
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

Comment from the Telegraph. At least one vote for Tempest vs a warmed up Typhoon.
Ukraine shows that Britain needs fighter jets more than ever

Ukraine and China show that airpower is still unmatched. If you want peace – prepare for war
Mike Sutton

‘If we lose the war in the air, we lose the war, and we lose it quickly.” Zelensky’s desperate pleas for military support show that General Montgomery’s words, uttered 80 years ago, are as relevant as ever.

In modern Britain, this is easily forgotten. Air war is a type of conflict that is rarely seen first-hand. It embodies the extremes of modern warfare: high-tech equipment, supersonic speeds, and devastating precision weaponry. But the activity mostly occurs on secret radar screens, or hidden above the clouds, or analysed imperfectly through the dusty haze of an airstrike.

Defence issues are frequently taken for granted. Outside of stuffy lectures in military colleges, Air Forces are not good at explaining their role, or the timescales and efforts required to set the conditions for success.

Ukraine, meanwhile, is being hammered daily by air attack. In October the Israeli Iron Dome was saturated by over 5,000 simultaneous Hamas rockets and missiles. In the Red Sea Houthi rebels are firing missiles at international shipping. In these places, it is understood that airpower has to set the conditions in order for the other arms to thrive.

Nowhere is this clearer than in Ukraine, where the ongoing horror of Russian Flanker jets pounding glide bombs into Ukrainian troops, who are hunkering eye deep in frozen trenches, reveals a sickening contrast between modern warfare and an ancient defensive strategy. Despite the hopes offered by air defence missiles and budget drones, Russian airpower retains the upper hand.

Drones – however compelling – cannot stop Flankers. Ukrainian air defences can only push so far towards the threat. Portable systems are short range, and long-range Patriots are expensive strategic assets that cannot be lost. The Flankers can release their glide weapons just outside of these system’s ranges with near impunity.

Without mastery of the air environment, to quote Air Marshal Edward Stringer, we are asking Ukraine “to fight in a way that we would not, and take casualties we would not.”

There is a lesson here for Britain. Russian air defences, including the modern S-400 systems, are not impenetrable. Wars are often won not on the frontlines, but in the deep, dictated by supply lines and the ability to apply mass to a given point. Air forces excel in the sort of the complex targeting necessary to disrupt these.

Yet defence cuts have left UK combat air spread extremely thin, and we have a clear problem of mass. The 33 fighter squadrons we had available in 1991 have been reduced to just eight.

British Typhoons are currently engaged on UK Quick Reaction Alert 24/7, patrolling the eastern flank of Nato, shepherding intelligence aircraft that have been shot at by the Russians, and sustaining continuous operations over Iraq and Syria. Squadrons roll weekly from one, to the other, to the next.

Investment in capabilities is needed. If Russia was the wake-up call to the West to pay attention to the state of airpower, China is the rising threat that poses an even greater challenge. Brinkmanship in the Indo-Pacific can seem distant to London, but as we’ve seen in the Red Sea the economic cost of disruption can be considerable. Given the timelines involved, we need to start building forces now.

We’ve made an excellent start with the Global Combat Air Programme, headquartered in the UK, that will see the development of a 6th generation combat aircraft with Japan and Italy due to be fielded in 2035. The timeline seems depressingly optimistic, and the Ministry of Defence will almost inevitably need to work through the set of unforeseen and expensive setbacks accompanying any major defence project.

But if successful, the aircraft will be world-class, and give the UK a top-tier sovereign capability, matched only by the US, China and Russia. Fast jets frequently draw critical commentary from the armchair general brigade, nearly all of which is defeatist nonsense.

In 2023, Ukraine learnt brutally that Montgomery’s analysis of the ends of airpower remains intact. In 2024, it is up to us to provide the means for the RAF to operate at the top level – and set the conditions for our Armed Forces to succeed. While the next war may seem distant, this thinking – and spending – needs to be done ahead of time. As Ukraine has found to its cost, when the balloon goes up, it’s already too late.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post (total 4):
serge750SD67Anthony58inch

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2761
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by dmereifield »

Matched by Russia and China? Seems a stretch. And, seems to be forgetting that it will also be matched (exactly) by Italy and Japan...

User avatar
Ian Hall
Member
Posts: 401
Joined: 18 Jun 2023, 14:55
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ian Hall »

These users liked the author Ian Hall for the post (total 4):
jedibeeftrixSD67inchserge750

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5530
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 2):
SD67Jensy

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1023
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jensy »

I see JSF Justin has chimed in:
feels to me like the UK concentrating all Air Ministry resources on Avro Vulcan development in 1936 rather than Hurricanes, Spitfires, Blenheims, Whitleys and Wellingtons.
How on earth is Bronk taken seriously? By his own dodgy analogy we should be buying nothing but Typhoon and maybe Gripen to boost numbers. Which is certainly not the tune that he's been playing for the last few years.

Tusa definitely still going for the F-35 jugular. Though I'm not sure any of his points can be easily denied. Even this glib anecdote!
If the Hurricane and Spitfire had been supported that way [in the same manner as the F-35], Ich würde heute Deutsch sprechen.
Also some pertinent warnings from Bill Sweetman on sovereignty, mission systems and upgrades.
These users liked the author Jensy for the post (total 3):
SW1bobpjedibeeftrix

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1009
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SD67 »

Bronk's analogy is seriously dodgy.

I'd put GCAP more in the category of the B29 - transformational and pioneering a whole range of new technologies.
These users liked the author SD67 for the post:
Jensy

Jdam
Member
Posts: 901
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jdam »



Reassuring considering the software has been the issue on other aircraft.
These users liked the author Jdam for the post:
serge750

Spitfire9
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 21 Dec 2022, 22:05
Norway

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Spitfire9 »

An update on setting up the organisational structure of the GCAP entity

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/gc ... 82.article
These users liked the author Spitfire9 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7156
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

Jdam wrote: 30 Jan 2024, 11:31

Reassuring considering the software has been the issue on other aircraft.
It still will be for the production aircraft. I am very confident in saying so. Software development on that scale is really hard.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1009
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SD67 »

Spitfire9 wrote: 30 Jan 2024, 12:45 An update on setting up the organisational structure of the GCAP entity

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/gc ... 82.article
I like this bit :

We are looking at setting up a single entity that is authorised to act on behalf of the three companies,” he said during a UK parliament Defence Committee hearing in London on 24 January. “We’re doing that through a governance construct, so in effect it becomes almost a company.”

So it's going to be a real JV company rather than a loose consortium - very positive

Here's the transcript

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralev ... 14156/pdf/
These users liked the author SD67 for the post (total 4):
new guybobpjedibeeftrixmrclark303

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 773
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by mrclark303 »

SD67 wrote: 30 Jan 2024, 15:48
Spitfire9 wrote: 30 Jan 2024, 12:45 An update on setting up the organisational structure of the GCAP entity

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/gc ... 82.article
I like this bit :

We are looking at setting up a single entity that is authorised to act on behalf of the three companies,” he said during a UK parliament Defence Committee hearing in London on 24 January. “We’re doing that through a governance construct, so in effect it becomes almost a company.”

So it's going to be a real JV company rather than a loose consortium - very positive

Here's the transcript

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralev ... 14156/pdf/
The lessons of Eurofighter have been learnt - hopefully.

The Japanese will bring strict management efficiency to GCAP, that's possibly the most vital ingredient.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3217
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Timmymagic »

Hawk sized, 1,500nm combat radius, modular with sensor and weapon paloads carried internally in 2 bays. 1/10h the cost of a manned aircraft...very stealthy....allegedly demonstrator flying in 2 years...


new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1084
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by new guy »




Dear god BAE Are still using the same old, weird looking, show model. I Thought a new one would be commissioned by now, all the GCAP renders look completely different.

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1308
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by inch »

Maybe that's the tempest demonstration model that base are going to use as test in a couple of years but the GCAP model will be totally different in future

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1084
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by new guy »

inch wrote: 06 Feb 2024, 01:27 Maybe that's the tempest demonstration model that base are going to use as test in a couple of years but the GCAP model will be totally different in future
IDK to be honest, I thought of that too, but we have already seen the 10m+ inlets for the tempest demonstrator and I don't think those will fit. Plus that model is like 5 years old before a lot of the development has happened.
These users liked the author new guy for the post:
mrclark303

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 773
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by mrclark303 »

new guy wrote: 06 Feb 2024, 07:26
inch wrote: 06 Feb 2024, 01:27 Maybe that's the tempest demonstration model that base are going to use as test in a couple of years but the GCAP model will be totally different in future
IDK to be honest, I thought of that too, but we have already seen the 10m+ inlets for the tempest demonstrator and I don't think those will fit. Plus that model is like 5 years old before a lot of the development has happened.
It looks as if GCAP is going to be a good 30% bigger than the plastic shape concept model.

That was already a fairly large aircraft.

I wonder if they are going for one large simplified weapons bay, or a smaller ordnance bay and two cheek mounded AA bays?

I think keeping it simple with a large central weapons bay personally....

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1084
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by new guy »

mrclark303 wrote: 06 Feb 2024, 10:36
new guy wrote: 06 Feb 2024, 07:26
inch wrote: 06 Feb 2024, 01:27 Maybe that's the tempest demonstration model that base are going to use as test in a couple of years but the GCAP model will be totally different in future
IDK to be honest, I thought of that too, but we have already seen the 10m+ inlets for the tempest demonstrator and I don't think those will fit. Plus that model is like 5 years old before a lot of the development has happened.
It looks as if GCAP is going to be a good 30% bigger than the plastic shape concept model.

That was already a fairly large aircraft.

I wonder if they are going for one large simplified weapons bay, or a smaller ordnance bay and two cheek mounded AA bays?

I think keeping it simple with a large central weapons bay personally....
One bay would be way better to outfit a viarity of loads, should aircraft geometry allow.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5530
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

mrclark303 wrote: 06 Feb 2024, 10:36
new guy wrote: 06 Feb 2024, 07:26
inch wrote: 06 Feb 2024, 01:27 Maybe that's the tempest demonstration model that base are going to use as test in a couple of years but the GCAP model will be totally different in future
IDK to be honest, I thought of that too, but we have already seen the 10m+ inlets for the tempest demonstrator and I don't think those will fit. Plus that model is like 5 years old before a lot of the development has happened.

I wonder if they are going for one large simplified weapons bay, or a smaller ordnance bay and two cheek mounded AA bays?

I think keeping it simple with a large central weapons bay personally....
This drives a lot of design considerations. Having a big bay usually in the middle leads to lots of headaches around engine placement and route of the engine duct to get from intake to fan face, it may need to curve a lot and increase its length, the engines may need to be moved further off the centre axis of aircraft which can lead to control surface size increases to deal with asymmetric thrust conditions. It can also complicate landing gear placement and how you get the loads into the wing spar and centre wing box area.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
mrclark303

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 773
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by mrclark303 »

SW1 wrote: 06 Feb 2024, 17:46
mrclark303 wrote: 06 Feb 2024, 10:36
new guy wrote: 06 Feb 2024, 07:26
inch wrote: 06 Feb 2024, 01:27 Maybe that's the tempest demonstration model that base are going to use as test in a couple of years but the GCAP model will be totally different in future
IDK to be honest, I thought of that too, but we have already seen the 10m+ inlets for the tempest demonstrator and I don't think those will fit. Plus that model is like 5 years old before a lot of the development has happened.

I wonder if they are going for one large simplified weapons bay, or a smaller ordnance bay and two cheek mounded AA bays?

I think keeping it simple with a large central weapons bay personally....
This drives a lot of design considerations. Having a big bay usually in the middle leads to lots of headaches around engine placement and route of the engine duct to get from intake to fan face, it may need to curve a lot and increase its length, the engines may need to be moved further off the centre axis of aircraft which can lead to control surface size increases to deal with asymmetric thrust conditions. It can also complicate landing gear placement and how you get the loads into the wing spar and centre wing box area.
I think the suspected overall size, with a large wide fuselage will render a large single bay possible.

On a GCAP related note, it's interesting to see that BAE Systems has been working on a Loyal wingman quietly.

Prototype to fly in two years, I wonder if this will be folded into the GCAP system of systems?

A capable LW will be a shot in the arm for the RAF, finally bringing back some mass.
These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post:
new guy

Post Reply