It won't lead to a new aircraft. But it will keep the design teams together and busy for a while, and thats a good thing.shark bait wrote:ersonally I'm not expecting anything good to come out of this Turkish deal, but it might. It seems like we have a lot of cards on the table at the moment, which is surely a positive for the future.
Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
What's wrong with incremental development of the Typhoon?
It seems a pretty good platform, and surely has potential for further development.
It seems a pretty good platform, and surely has potential for further development.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
It will for the Turks, if it means anything to us depends on a bunch of factors.Timmymagic wrote:It won't lead to a new aircraft. But it will keep the design teams together and busy for a while, and thats a good thing.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
There's nothing wrong with incremental development of the Typhoon, it's exactly what we should be doing.
However at some point in the future the higher observability and human on board are going to become limiting factors so the RAF must also be preparing to move on.
However at some point in the future the higher observability and human on board are going to become limiting factors so the RAF must also be preparing to move on.
@LandSharkUK
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
Today I have this Frank Sinatra feeling:shark bait wrote:There's nothing wrong with incremental development of the Typhoon, it's exactly what we should be doing.
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/typhoo ... t-to-come/
The article is from 2013, but includes a lot of detail that isn't in "general circulation":
- in 2012 Saudi Arabia took on a bigger role on the programme [, with a seat on NETMA (NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency) and increased power in deciding development priorities. This has already borne fruit. BAE’s MAI were reluctant to comment but it is understood that the RSAF,] for example, [is] funding the French-built Damocles targeting pod to integrate with the Typhoon.
- 3A Typhoon [, destined for the RAF.] From the outside [, this] looks like a single-seat Typhoon. However, two small bumps on the rear of the fuselage are a giveaway that this is not your normal Eurofighter. These humps are rear mounting attachments for conformal fuel tanks (CFTs). The Tranche 3, with increased fuel capacity, there is also new fuel dump nozzles under each wing. Key fuselage frames are also strengthened for the extra weight of the 4,500lb CFTs.
- what might any hypothetical ‘Super Typhoon’ of 2045 look like? First, for the UK customer it will have to be interoperable with the F-35 to allow both platforms to be able to complement each other, providing the RAF with a flexible and dynamic air control capability. [ Further, bringing in the Franco-British UCAV into the picture... well before we will get to the year 2045... will benefit from the] already undertaken ‘UAV wingman’ trials using a Tornado and BAC-1-11 (as a surrogate UAV). Indeed, one could also imagine that the Eurofighter’s direct voice input (DVI) system (where the pilot can already set radio frequencies, check fuel and even designate targets) could even be used to command robot UCAV wingman.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Member
- Posts: 780
- Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
http://www.janes.com/article/69077/japa ... r-aircraft
Will be interesting to see how far this one goes. Even if it doesn't bear fruit, it's still very good to see the increasing levels of cooperation between the UK and Japan.
Will be interesting to see how far this one goes. Even if it doesn't bear fruit, it's still very good to see the increasing levels of cooperation between the UK and Japan.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
A couple of more thoughts for the coming (rather long) era when the Typhoon will be the mainstay of UK airpower and the JSF a supporting, specialist act.
It is pure fantasy that against a peer/ near-peer opponent glide bombs will be dropped from high altitude, in the style of the Libya operation. SAM ranges counted in 100s of km will force the operations back to low altitude. The penetration ops (be they SEAD/DEAD or battlefield interdiction) will be done by JSF (or the unmanned Tiffie "wingman"). There won't be that many units (a/c) to allocate for such ops and therefore Typhoons plinking from a distance, from behind these "penetrating" operators, with SS and A2A with Meteors will be the main act. Hence, being able to carry enough fuel, to stay in the game for long enough (with a heavy load and a lot of drag) will be a decisive advantage
... await for the order for conformal tanks (less drag, too, and won't take up the pylons needed for heavy ordnance)
... may have been in the latest SDSR (classified version) as the uses for the substantial Typhoon monies remained unspecified
So what is the advantage of JSF flying within the reach of OpFor SAMs? Due to its lower observability it does not need to scratch the paint on the belly against tree tops, in order to use its sensors effectively (and provide also other assets with that sensor fusion). Taking out the "eyes" of the enemy (radars etc.) can be done with the internally carried Spear (3) as they are so small that numbers carried will be sufficient and the much lower yield on impact (vs SS) does not matter against "soft" targets, like radars.
Spear3 might be in service from 2020 and from 2024 we will have 48 JSFs in service, so packing one carrier with them will leave a handsome 24 for other ops (assume an optimistic 2/3s availability; that is 16 in effect)
... onto reading how our Japanese friends might help to alleviate the situation a bit further out to the future (the new link appeared while I was typing)
It is pure fantasy that against a peer/ near-peer opponent glide bombs will be dropped from high altitude, in the style of the Libya operation. SAM ranges counted in 100s of km will force the operations back to low altitude. The penetration ops (be they SEAD/DEAD or battlefield interdiction) will be done by JSF (or the unmanned Tiffie "wingman"). There won't be that many units (a/c) to allocate for such ops and therefore Typhoons plinking from a distance, from behind these "penetrating" operators, with SS and A2A with Meteors will be the main act. Hence, being able to carry enough fuel, to stay in the game for long enough (with a heavy load and a lot of drag) will be a decisive advantage
... await for the order for conformal tanks (less drag, too, and won't take up the pylons needed for heavy ordnance)
... may have been in the latest SDSR (classified version) as the uses for the substantial Typhoon monies remained unspecified
So what is the advantage of JSF flying within the reach of OpFor SAMs? Due to its lower observability it does not need to scratch the paint on the belly against tree tops, in order to use its sensors effectively (and provide also other assets with that sensor fusion). Taking out the "eyes" of the enemy (radars etc.) can be done with the internally carried Spear (3) as they are so small that numbers carried will be sufficient and the much lower yield on impact (vs SS) does not matter against "soft" targets, like radars.
Spear3 might be in service from 2020 and from 2024 we will have 48 JSFs in service, so packing one carrier with them will leave a handsome 24 for other ops (assume an optimistic 2/3s availability; that is 16 in effect)
... onto reading how our Japanese friends might help to alleviate the situation a bit further out to the future (the new link appeared while I was typing)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
How many countries will deploy such SAM systems though? And in sufficient quantities? Most if they can afford it in the first place will have minimal numbers that will be priority target number 1. They're not that mobile either, as soon as they're radiating thats when Storm Shadows start winging their way in. I agree that 'glide bombs' need to have more standoff range. It's worth noting that PWIV has a greater range than JDAM due to its larger wing surfaces. I do wonder why the RAF hasn't (as part of the CW initiative) looked at an enhanced glide kit for PWIV. It seems to offer a lot of capability for little cost, particularly as they have been in keen on other developments of PWIV.
https://mbdainc.com/products/diamond-back/
http://www.leighaerosystems.com/Products.html
https://mbdainc.com/products/diamond-back/
http://www.leighaerosystems.com/Products.html
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
I think we will have our house in good order by the late '20s, whereas
against the steady progress (F-117 Nighthawk 1983, B-2 1997, F-22 Raptor 2005) the OpFor is badly lagging behind the published goals:
Suhoi T-50 (PAK FA) first prototype took to flight in 2010, a token service squadron of 12 is all that is in the plans for the end of the decade
... and, wait for it, the new engine that can help to relaunch the project will come out in 2027. And the Chinese stealth fighters rely on engines from Russia.
So a UCAV into our force mix roughly around 2030, when the Typhoons will still be going strong for another decade... about right.
against the steady progress (F-117 Nighthawk 1983, B-2 1997, F-22 Raptor 2005) the OpFor is badly lagging behind the published goals:
Suhoi T-50 (PAK FA) first prototype took to flight in 2010, a token service squadron of 12 is all that is in the plans for the end of the decade
... and, wait for it, the new engine that can help to relaunch the project will come out in 2027. And the Chinese stealth fighters rely on engines from Russia.
So a UCAV into our force mix roughly around 2030, when the Typhoons will still be going strong for another decade... about right.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
going back to low level raids/attacks has it's own drawbacks the planes are more susceptible to loses from ground fire from the likes of Zsu 23-4 Shilka, ZSU 23-2 and the 2K22 Tunguska
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
What deploys to the carrier or anywhere else for that matter will depend on the force elements at readiness and will only 2 operational sqns that number will be something like 16-18 a/c total and if you sent them all it would probably take 18 months to reconstitute the capability. Pilots and engineers will be the limiting factor.
Low level flying is the highest demanding skill set and a valid operational capability. Far far to much is being made of the inability of none f35 fastjet a/c being unable to operate in contested environments. The marketing department at Lockheed appear to have done a gd job.
Low level flying is the highest demanding skill set and a valid operational capability. Far far to much is being made of the inability of none f35 fastjet a/c being unable to operate in contested environments. The marketing department at Lockheed appear to have done a gd job.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
or even AK, RPK, PK or DSHK pointed skywards in large numbers and fired.FuNsTeR wrote:going back to low level raids/attacks has it's own drawbacks the planes are more susceptible to loses from ground fire from the likes of Zsu 23-4 Shilka, ZSU 23-2 and the 2K22 Tunguska
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
From what material I have seen, the F-35 relies on avoiding the radars as much as its stealth abilities. Using its passive sensors it can detect emissions, their strength and avoid getting close enough to be painted on the way to the target. Add to that pencil beam jamming, where individual transmitters are jammed by a targeted countermeasure, stand off jamming and stand foo weapon systems and even at medium altitude the F-35 should be able to do what it says on its tin. Going low and fast is probably going to be the realm of actual weapons or UCAVs if at all as it reduces situational awareness and terrain blocks line of sight data transfer, both of which are becoming more and more important.
Saying all that I don't like how SEAD has dropped off the RAFs radar as a capability. Having a radar homing mode on at least one of our planned weapon systems we are developing is a mistake. Having a capability on a Brimstone 2 or its SPEAR successor as a self defence option if the carrier is actually targeted could have some merit, with the seeker replacing the MMW one currently fitted. Replacing one standard round with one of these on a load out, given it could still be fired at other targets if needed through its laser guided option, would be an added capability. As mentioned this is for self defence not for sending a platform on dedicated SEAD missions though a Stealth UCAV would open possibilities.
Saying all that I don't like how SEAD has dropped off the RAFs radar as a capability. Having a radar homing mode on at least one of our planned weapon systems we are developing is a mistake. Having a capability on a Brimstone 2 or its SPEAR successor as a self defence option if the carrier is actually targeted could have some merit, with the seeker replacing the MMW one currently fitted. Replacing one standard round with one of these on a load out, given it could still be fired at other targets if needed through its laser guided option, would be an added capability. As mentioned this is for self defence not for sending a platform on dedicated SEAD missions though a Stealth UCAV would open possibilities.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
SEAD hasn't dropped off completely, the RAF are confident an F35 equipped with spear will be a greater SEAD capability than anything that came before.
Using decoys and the F35 it self, a pilot should be able to tempt a radar operator to light up his area of sky, thus revealing its location to the F35 which can guide spear to the target, with the missile pin pointing the target with its own radar. All that is suppose to happen before the bad guys can get a proper track on the F35. Further more a group of F35 are suppose to cooperate, acting as a large passive radar array, increasing the changes of accurately determining the location of EM emissions.
If that last point works well, it will make them seriously good in the anti-shipping role, able to detect a surface combatant well before it can see the F35's.
Using decoys and the F35 it self, a pilot should be able to tempt a radar operator to light up his area of sky, thus revealing its location to the F35 which can guide spear to the target, with the missile pin pointing the target with its own radar. All that is suppose to happen before the bad guys can get a proper track on the F35. Further more a group of F35 are suppose to cooperate, acting as a large passive radar array, increasing the changes of accurately determining the location of EM emissions.
If that last point works well, it will make them seriously good in the anti-shipping role, able to detect a surface combatant well before it can see the F35's.
@LandSharkUK
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
Australia and Norway are jointly adding a seeker head to the JSM that will seek (and classify) targets based on their electronic signature. So turning off the radar may be too late as an AD command node will not go completely silent even after that event.shark bait wrote:Further more a group of F35 are suppose to cooperate, acting as a large passive radar array, increasing the changes of accurately determining the location of EM emissions.
- simple: let's buy some
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
Assuming of course SEAD is kinetic. It maybe in some cases, however the idea is you don't waste missiles (i.e. Sorties generation) shooting at missile sites when youve got more important targets to attack.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
Are the UK forces ever going to see a decoy? I've never seen anything that showed any interest in MALD or any decoy previously.shark bait wrote:Using decoys and the F35 it self, a pilot should be able to tempt a radar operator to light up his area of sky, thus revealing its location to the F35 which can guide spear to the target, with the missile pin pointing the target with its own radar. All that is suppose to happen before the bad guys can get a proper track on the F35. Further more a group of F35 are suppose to cooperate, acting as a large passive radar array, increasing the changes of accurately determining the location of EM emissions.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
Definitely were reports as long ago as 2009 about interest in a MALD derivativeTimmymagic wrote:
Are the UK forces ever going to see a decoy? I've never seen anything that showed any interest in MALD or any decoy previously.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
Anything since though? Pre-2010 SDSR was a happier, better place..Defiance wrote:Definitely were reports as long ago as 2009 about interest in a MALD derivative
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
All quiet beyond BriteCloud (which is a jammer rather than a platform emulator) as far as i'm aware, personally it seems like a no-brainer.Timmymagic wrote:Anything since though? Pre-2010 SDSR was a happier, better place..Defiance wrote:Definitely were reports as long ago as 2009 about interest in a MALD derivative
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
What about the launch platforms? Swarms of MALDs get a meaningful range when launched from B-52s... shall we get some?Defiance wrote:personally it seems like a no-brainer.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
TIL Only strategic bombers can deploy decoys in a meaningful way . . . .ArmChairCivvy wrote: What about the launch platforms? Swarms of MALDs get a meaningful range when launched from B-52s... shall we get some?
Spoiler alert: That's not true.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
Drag them out of the back of transport planes, by chutes? Or neuter the very few in number fast jets, by replacing their cruise missiles with decoys?What about the launch platforms?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
Depends what decoys you have, what the environment is (geographic and threat). Its not a zero sum game . . .
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion
In relative terms, Typhoon is sliding down in the rankings (for BVR, improvements in other respects have not been counted in here):
https://hushkit.net/2017/05/16/the-top- ... vr-combat/
So it is high time to get a mix (F-35 debuting to the 2nd place).
Most improved: Rafale (shows how export success can fund accelerated development/ integration: "In 2018 the Rafale F3R will be in service with both AESA and Meteor" )
and Gripen (being modular, many of the E/F improvements already benefit the "in-service" version).
What the article does not say (as they do this yearly and only amongst the versions in service) is that as more fighters (in the West) get Meteor, the restricted opening for Rafale's AESA will start to weigh against it. In the non-West, the Chinese are hot on the heels with their ramjet missiles for long-ranged BVR engagements.
- in the end, the difference in the future could become from the pure processing power that can be squeezed in (track-before detect radar mode, ie. more efficient filtering of "noise")
https://hushkit.net/2017/05/16/the-top- ... vr-combat/
So it is high time to get a mix (F-35 debuting to the 2nd place).
Most improved: Rafale (shows how export success can fund accelerated development/ integration: "In 2018 the Rafale F3R will be in service with both AESA and Meteor" )
and Gripen (being modular, many of the E/F improvements already benefit the "in-service" version).
What the article does not say (as they do this yearly and only amongst the versions in service) is that as more fighters (in the West) get Meteor, the restricted opening for Rafale's AESA will start to weigh against it. In the non-West, the Chinese are hot on the heels with their ramjet missiles for long-ranged BVR engagements.
- in the end, the difference in the future could become from the pure processing power that can be squeezed in (track-before detect radar mode, ie. more efficient filtering of "noise")
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)