Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
MRCA
Member
Posts: 186
Joined: 29 Apr 2017, 22:47
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by MRCA »

A fluff piece with the aurthors personnel preferences ranked in order. Interesting top trumps debate but not set in reality.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

MRCA wrote:A fluff piece with the aurthors personnel preferences ranked in order. Interesting top trumps debate but not set in reality.
Are there any better rankings for a lay person to peruse? Or, are they all flawed due to lack of critical info on performance and differences on what the reader (or user, rather) would actually want from the aircraft?

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by LordJim »

It does appear to be more top trumps than a definitive survey, especially when the F-16 and F-18 can go head t head with most if not all of the Russian and Chinese platforms listed. More importantly they numbers of later models of the F16/18 are far greater than those of the later Russian designs. With both China and Russia, both a very good at PR, announcing technical advances almost on a weekly basis, but how many of these actually reach large scale service?

Putting the Typhoon in third place seems fair in the BVR category but the F-35 would swap places in WVR, probably.

MRCA
Member
Posts: 186
Joined: 29 Apr 2017, 22:47
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by MRCA »

First off we don't fight just based on what a single a/c can do its a combined effort. Awacs sigint ground radars, jamming aircraft the like.
Second f35 is and remains an a/c in test with a number a significant challenging being experienced around its sensors and its ability to fuse that data. F22, F15 and typhoon all loft extremely large fighter radars very high and very fast offering considerable advantages in that regime and in my opinion better in bvr than all the rest.
Su 30 is very capable in the bvr arena also.

Tornado f3 with jtids and awacs were very gd at bvr yet derided by many when in reality they did exactly what most champion f35 for as the future of air combat.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

LordJim wrote:It does appear to be more top trumps than a definitive survey
Absolutely. It's a very strange measure. BVR, but against what? Any aircraft or just fighter size? The only aircraft on that list with a true long range missile AND a long range radar to actually use that range is the MiG-31, but it's marked down in the ratings. The F-15 is one place below the Rafale despite the F-15 having a bigger AESA radar and better missile than Rafale at present (no Meteor operational yet).....it's nonsense.

If the scoring is just based on how far and effectively an aircraft can engage another it's clear that Meteor (if it actually works as advertised) is a game changer. That puts Typhoon in the top spot in 2018 when it goes operational. Captor, AESA or not, is a big very capable radar and with Typhoon's high end speed, height and ability to carry 4 Meteor with a 2 way datalink it's the best Meteor carrier out there, as it should be. When the AESA eventually arrives the gap grows, it's a chasm when Meteor gets an AESA. Rafale and Gripen will always suffer from small radars, limited carrying ability for long range AAM's and lesser performance, particularly at height. Rafales lack of a 2 way datalink leaves it behind Gripen. And the size of Gripens radar means it may not be able to exploit Meteors range. F35 with Meteor will be better than either. The big questions are where F22,F18E/F and F-15 with AIM-120D go, and where the Chinese go with their new long range AAM's. Until the Russians demonstrate that the can deploy active homing on their R-77's and a new version with greater range is seen they shouldn't be on the list except with MiG-31.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Very well put @Timmymagic.

It is good to know Typhoon is maturing very nicely through mid life, some would say its coming a little late, but its good to see investment to keep it at the sharp end through life. Looks to be finally reaping the rewards of a complicated multi national project. Between the F35 and Typhoon the RAF is in a strong position, as long as they don't drop below the critical mass.
@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Now we know British procurement has turned a corner. Two platforms using the same weapon system? What madness is this?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

shark bait wrote:It is good to know Typhoon is maturing very nicely through mid life, some would say its coming a little late, but its good to see investment to keep it at the sharp end through life. Looks to be finally reaping the rewards of a complicated multi national project. Between the F35 and Typhoon the RAF is in a strong position, as long as they don't drop below the critical mass.
I think you may be underplaying it a little. When Meteor gets integrated in 2018 the UK will have the finest BVR fighter on earth bar none. With the eventual integration of an AESA in place of the already excellent CAPTOR it just gets better, and it will remain so until the potential opposition has large numbers of LO fighters, which may well be never. Even then it seems Typhoon also has the best IRST solution out there. We've never been in that position before. Tornado F3 with Skyflash was a pretty good combo when Foxhunter's issues were ironed out, but by then Amraam had just emerged on the scene so if it held the title it was just briefly (I'm discounting the Phoenix as in the same time frame every shot from USN F-14's failed, admittedly F3's never fired Skyflash either, but there seems to have been more confidence in it than Sparrow or Phoenix). Add to that it increasingly looks like Asraam's raison d'etre of high speed and long range, instead of very extreme manoeuverability, has been validated by the US desire to extend the range and speed of AIM-9X to counter modern threats. And the new production Asraam will get an even better seeker (not sure if they'll have a CAMM data link though). In terms of air to air capability of a platform and its weaponry we've never had it so good. In short Typhoon with Meteor and Asraam has pretty much the best air to air load out ever seen.

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
France

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Frenchie »

http://www.janes.com/article/69272/brex ... rbus-warns

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ht-438111/

As Macron is very committed to a European defense industry, the idea of making a combat aircraft with Germany is very plausible, especially since the years 2035 - 2040 correspond to the moment when the French army gradually withdraws the Rafale from the service.

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by LordJim »

The French would like nothing better than the keep BAe out of any future programme, ensuring they take the lead. We will probably stick to the F-35 and team up with the US on any operational UCAV they deploy as it will probably be designed to work with the F-35.

andrew98
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:28
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by andrew98 »

Personaly I'd rather partner the Japanese on a 6th gen aircraft, opposite side of world, but similar island nation, long range useful.
Maybe stop European competitors procrastinating, sucking up UK funding then nicking the tech for their own competing product..... Cynical, moi? Oh yes.!

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by LordJim »

Thing is Japanese projects and products tend to end up being very expensive.

andrew98
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:28
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by andrew98 »

But do they work in the end? Because euro projects always end up expensive, then people pull out...

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

andrew98 wrote:But do they work in the end? Because euro projects always end up expensive, then people pull out...
No one really knows. Everyone assumes because of Japanese manufacturing excellence, skill with electronics etc that they do work rather well.

But it's all rather murky. They often appear to be direct analogues of other systems and make you wonder if the Japanese have in fact bought a licence for domestic manufacture only. A case in point being the Type 91 MANPAD. It's a near clone of Stinger, but is actually replacing Stinger (which is odd in itself, nobody else seems to be doing that) and is claimed to be better. But that lack of knowledge is the reason why they hardly appear when people do 'top 10' lists. The Japanese don't tend to release much information about tests and performance and often the kit looks very similar to other nations kit. The AAM-5 looks like an IRIS-T, but could be better. The AAM-3 looks like Python mashup but if its good why did they then build AAM-5, The AAM-4 looks like Amraam and is probably better, the F-2 is probably better than an F-16 (but wasn't worth the time and cost put into it) and on and on. No-one doubts that their ships are very well built. The Japanese are willing to pay the price of some very gold plated kit in order to protect their domestic manufacturing base. In many ways they're very similar to us in that regard. I think every one is intrigued as to how JNAAM proceeds.

This confusion is also present on South Korean and Taiwanese systems. We've all talked about the replacement of Harpoon and concluded that NSM/JSM and LRASM are the only options. No-ones mentioned XASM-3, the Type 90 that is replacing Harpoon on Japaense warships, the Taiwanese Hsiung Feng III or the ROK Haeseoong missiles.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Sorry I have two types of comments.

Japanese equipments tend to "add" some special thing, to say "it is better than inporting US/Europe design" to Treasury.

- Type91 MANPAD is IR and optical CCD homing. New version (type-B) used IR imager. In this sense, it is different from stinger.
- AAM4 has longer range than AMRAAM, with the size the same as sparrow.
- F2 introduces "many" improvements over F16, such as CFRP wing, Japanese fly-by-wire, AESA radar, and so on, but it made it very expensive.
- We also have many kind of ATMs ( not good in logistics point of view).

The main problem also lies there. We tend to "add" difference, which is not neccessarily needed. In military point of view, procurement and maintenance cost shall be one of the top priorities. We lose it by procuring our own, with small amount.

However, nowadays, situation is becoming a little better.

- Type-03 area defence SAM was using independent missile of their own. But, now it shifted to a family of AAM-4 (look like ESSM but with AAM4B's AESA homing head). The missile will also be used for JMSDF (Navy) and AAM4B (AAM4 with new AESA warhead), is also under production. So, it looks like Japanese mid-range SAM/AAM is going to be unified with AAM4 series. This is good.
- In addition, Meteor x AAM4 seaker will be nice AAM missile to follow AAM4B.
- Type-12 SSM is new generation subsonic SSM for JGSDF (Army). Now modified version is in development, with data link, and increased range (300+ km). It will be bought for Army, Navy, and also maybe Air Force.
- XASM-3 is a Mach 3+ ASM, under development. Currently, it is assume to be bought by only Air Force.

Finally, Japan is now starting to think about exporting weapons, which was not "allowed" after 1945. SM-3 BMD missile (with USA) is the 1st example and Meteor with AAM4 seeker (with UK) will be another good candidate. Not sure about SSMs, because our missile lacks land attack capability from political reason.

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by LordJim »

So do you think the we could co-operate on a next-gen platform with japan, but in such a way so that there is a vanilla platform then we diverge with Japan adding its bespoke items and we look to install UK, European or US items for commonality with out closer allies?

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
France

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Frenchie »

The French government would like in the future that Europe produce a single battle tank, a single IFV, a single APC, a single aircraft, etc..., but when we see that all European countries choose the F-35 and that the European projects like the Eurofighter and the A400M are a source of problems, the French industrialists and the French military are very septic.

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Defiance »

France has to play ball if they want another multinational program, they can do Rafale 2.0 if they want to pay up.

Frankly pushing so aggressively to be the lead on so many design elements tells you things about the health of their business portfolio.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Gabriele »

The French government would like in the future that Europe produce a single battle tank, a single IFV, a single APC, a single aircraft, etc..., but when we see that all European countries choose the F-35 and that the European projects like the Eurofighter and the A400M are a source of problems, the French industrialists and the French military are very septic.
Correction: France wants Europe to buy a french product en-masse.
Italy originally developed the M-346 Master for the "Euro Trainer" project, connected with the years old ambition for a unified training system in Europe. Got shafted rather big time since, who knows why, Euro Trainer went tits up in the meanwhile. And that is despite France having made no comparable trainer at all. Had it made one, the whole thing would have died twice, not just once.

In some measure, all countries would want not so much a single product, but more specifically they want to be the producer of that single product. It is obvious that nothing will ever really progress if this does not change.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Gabriele wrote:Correction: France wants Europe to buy a french product en-masse.
Italy originally developed the M-346 Master for the "Euro Trainer" project, connected with the years old ambition for a unified training system in Europe. Got shafted rather big time since, who knows why, Euro Trainer went tits up in the meanwhile. And that is despite France having made no comparable trainer at all. Had it made one, the whole thing would have died twice, not just once.
I think we should all be grateful that the Germans and French may get together on a project like this. The 2 European champions of messing joint projects up are finally united. With any luck the ensuing development, political and procurement hell they'll get into may distract them from messing up any other joint projects that may be going on. Hopefully they'll both bring their A game of political delay, arguments, tantrums, lies, espionage and deceit to the table...

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Defiance wrote:France has to play ball if they want another multinational program, they can do Rafale 2.0 if they want to pay up.

Frankly pushing so aggressively to be the lead on so many design elements tells you things about the health of their business portfolio.
Can they? Have they ever? Has there been any joint programme in living memory where they haven't caused umpteen problems? The fact that they're willing to sacrifice the quality of the finished product in order to protect their 'interests' should be a cautionary tale.

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Defiance »

Timmymagic wrote: Can they? Have they ever? Has there been any joint programme in living memory where they haven't caused umpteen problems? The fact that they're willing to sacrifice the quality of the finished product in order to protect their 'interests' should be a cautionary tale.


Personally I think it might be our own narrative with 'France is being an *rse' in these matters which makes it look like we're whiter than white which we aren't. Are we any worse? No idea, but i'd likely say we're just as aggressive at pushing our own business interests as France are when push comes to shove.

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
France

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Frenchie »

Gabriele wrote:
The French government would like in the future that Europe produce a single battle tank, a single IFV, a single APC, a single aircraft, etc..., but when we see that all European countries choose the F-35 and that the European projects like the Eurofighter and the A400M are a source of problems, the French industrialists and the French military are very septic.
Correction: France wants Europe to buy a french product en-masse.
On the contrary, the Minister of the Armed (new name for the Minister of Defence), which wants to build the Europe of defence, think that there will be a restructuring to operate, to do choices of compatibility and ultimately to do choices that could lead to privilege consortiums in which the French are not leaders.
The French MoD could buy Chinooks for example.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Gabriele »

Buying Chinooks might well happen, but that doesn't mean anything as no one in Europe has an alternative to that. Basically, it is down to CH-47 or CH-53 for that kind of class.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
France

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft General Discussion

Post by Frenchie »

The purchase of Chinooks would be an earthquake in France, we buy that the helicopters that build Airbus, France only buys what it produces, buying the HK416 made a scandal.

Post Reply