UK Defence Forum

Lord Jim wrote:And this is the key to keeping developmental cost down and speeding up said programme. Hopefully it will also be applied to both ground and naval programmes in future.

"By virtually designing a digital version of a physical aircraft, they’ve been able to use their high-performance computers to put it through its paces and work out how it performs. Getting this right will slash costs and testing time to a game-changing extent. This is transformational."

If it works for aerospace with the most demanding Def Stans. then the other domains should easily adapt.

Unfortunately its software development that has been the Achilles heel of the F-35 program. This new digital prototyping doesn't help with that.

Were you can hope to improve the software development is by separating the flight control software from the weapons and sensor software, so that when you need to modify things your flight critical software doesn’t need to be touched and re certified at each stage.

We’re the digital twins help is in thru life cost and operation of the aircraft were changes and configurations can be run thru. The civil manufacturers have been using it in there recent clean sheet designs.

SW1 wrote:Were you can hope to improve the software development is by separating the flight control software from the weapons and sensor software, so that when you need to modify things your flight critical software doesn’t need to be touched and re certified at each stage.

They don't already do this??????????????????????

Ron5 wrote:Unfortunately its software development that has been the Achilles heel of the F-35 program. This new digital prototyping doesn't help with that.

Not with the F-35 to be sure, but with the Red Hawk And Gripen E/F is has. Also Tempest seems to be doind things in reverse compared to the F-35, in that it is getting all the systems sorted and working together and then work on the airframe to house it all. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

SW1 wrote:Were you can hope to improve the software development is by separating the flight control software from the weapons and sensor software, so that when you need to modify things your flight critical software doesn’t need to be touched and re certified at each stage.

We’re the digital twins help is in thru life cost and operation of the aircraft were changes and configurations can be run thru. The civil manufacturers have been using it in there recent clean sheet designs.

I'd imagine there would be a fair bit of a performance penalty in doing that though.

SW1 wrote:Were you can hope to improve the software development is by separating the flight control software from the weapons and sensor software, so that when you need to modify things your flight critical software doesn’t need to be touched and re certified at each stage.

Wasn't that the approach that Textron took with the Scorpion? Can't comment on the quality of the aircraft, but it seems to have worked software-wise.

From my basic knowledge of avionics I would thought there would be performance drop off. However I’m told they use a very compartmentalised software layers to make things work and it allows the user to modify things without needing to go back to the oem all the time. I don’t know how true it is.

Not sure on scorpion but I know saab have done it on the new gripen and the US are experimenting with the U2 with updating software to systems while in flight.

I seem to remember BAE did something similar in the dying day of the Tonka:

I don't really see it as a BDR area at all, but it is something that could be used to shorten turn around times for items especially in areas of the aircraft that suffer from flex/stress.

I wonder what the cost of one these vs a conventionally made panel would be?

Process repeatability questions and the flight hour restrictions/inspections that design signatories would put on these in any loaded areas will make them of limited use until there is significantly more data.

That should have been areas that *don't* suffer from stress/flex.

Perhaps start with bungs, blanks and covers using this process, if it's significantly cheaper. Some of the prices we pay for them are crazy money.

topman wrote:That should have been areas that *don't* suffer from stress/flex.

Perhaps start with bungs, blanks and covers using this process, if it's significantly cheaper. Some of the prices we pay for them are crazy money.

Have u seen the picture doing the rounds of an airline using a paddling pool as an engine cover on there 737s due the numbers grounded and the cost of the real thing! Future cost saving measure hahaha.

https://teamtempest.podbean.com/e/episo ... advantage/

With the title ‘Global Britain in a Competitive Age’, the Integrated Review has been described as the most radical assessment of the UK’s place in the world since the end of the Cold War and reveals a seismic shift in emphasis towards science and technology.

We discuss the implications of these publications for Tempest and the wider aerospace industry.

Host Zevi Watmough is joined by Richard Berthon OBE, Director Future Combat Air at the Ministry of Defence; Tim Ripley, freelance journalist and a prolific author on military and defence subjects; and Phil Townley, Director Future Programmes, Rolls Royce Defence.

Link goes to error page

Oops hope this one works better

https://uk.leonardocompany.com/en/innov ... st/podcast

Thanks SW1

latest US 6th gen ..

What or wheres that pic from ron5 ,is that what it going to look like or just possibly look like ?cheers fella

Old graphic, Lockheed showed it off in a promo in 2017 (~1:04)



USAF 6 gen pictures seem to go in cycles, when the current crop get exhausted then they republish some older ones people have forgotten

Ron5 wrote:latest US 6th gen ..

Looks smutty

Are the US going for a flyoff between different companys or are those days gone ? more of a fan of the YF23 rather than the f22, but then they did choose the X35 over the X32 so not all bad

inch wrote:What or wheres that pic from ron5 ,is that what it going to look like or just possibly look like ?cheers fella

Aviation Week today in a story that didn't say anything but was titled: air force 6th generation fighters graduate from drawing board or something close to that.

serge750 wrote:

Ron5 wrote:latest US 6th gen ..

Looks smutty

Are the US going for a flyoff between different companys or are those days gone ? more of a fan of the YF23 rather than the f22, but then they did choose the X35 over the X32 so not all bad

I expect these days it will be a digital virtual fly off

Three companies in the race!

3 companies ! i will have to do a bit of research....

http://teamtempest.podbean.com/

n this third episode of the six-part series, we look beyond the core Tempest partners to shine a spotlight on how the project is becoming a true national endeavour. We meet some of the many high-tech companies and academic minds supporting Team Tempest and discuss how their innovation and ideas are helping transform the way we are developing technology to realise the benefits of Tempest both for and far beyond the military air sector.

We’re joined by Alex Robinson, Chief Engineer at Leonardo and Sam Farrow, Principal Design Engineer at MBDA. Alex and Sam have been collaborating on some of the most cutting edge radar innovation and system integration in the world, so they’re going to break down the technology for us, to explain how they’re building innovation from the inside out.