BAe Tempest and other pre-GCAP studies
- Thread starter fightingirish
- Start date
- Joined
- 19 July 2016
- Messages
- 4,051
- Reaction score
- 3,119
1. Why should being in or out of the EU change cooperation on defence projects? Apart from childish mentality I cannot see a single reason. The defence industries of the nations mentioned have collaborated many times and I see no reason this should change.
2. demonstrating a 'model' or 'toy' which is all those things are, does not guarantee it will be funded or even proceed as a concept. This is seen many times in the aviation and automotive industries and this is unlikely to change. The demonstration of intent can drum up cooperation/funding which is the real reason for them, that and giving the media something to talk about.
2. demonstrating a 'model' or 'toy' which is all those things are, does not guarantee it will be funded or even proceed as a concept. This is seen many times in the aviation and automotive industries and this is unlikely to change. The demonstration of intent can drum up cooperation/funding which is the real reason for them, that and giving the media something to talk about.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,149
- Reaction score
- 12,284
Foo Fighter said:
Unfortunately Brussels does not agree with that logical point of view. Scorched earth seems to be the official order of the day so far as the EU Commission is concerned.
Maybe in a world where defence cooperation projects are not driven by national policies. Don’t underestimate the "childish mentality", or just pi$$ed-off sentiment , whatever you choose to call it, toward England policy from Fr and Germany decision makers since brexit. this both in the industry and in politics.
Brexit as broken a lot of the already small confidence that was there…
Brexit as broken a lot of the already small confidence that was there…
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,708
It’s not productive to make this into a pro and anti- Brexit argument, doubt anything said here would change minds on that score.
However the whole Tempest “thing” smells of a PR exercise that won’t long survive contact with reality.
Comparisons with early 80’s (immediately after the Falklands War) proposals for a new UK only “Spitfire” are potentially apt, coming to relatively little until overtaken by what became Eurofighter (built and paid for in partnership with European allies and friends).
However the whole Tempest “thing” smells of a PR exercise that won’t long survive contact with reality.
Comparisons with early 80’s (immediately after the Falklands War) proposals for a new UK only “Spitfire” are potentially apt, coming to relatively little until overtaken by what became Eurofighter (built and paid for in partnership with European allies and friends).
It is worth repeating that there is a lot of money and effort already going into this programme and it's associated demonstrators- both at a corporate and national level. It is not just a mock up with nothing going on behind it.
The programme is not UK only and they are actively courting partners, but at the same time serious money is being spent on making some progress across the board.
The programme is not UK only and they are actively courting partners, but at the same time serious money is being spent on making some progress across the board.
red admiral
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,648
- Reaction score
- 1,949
mrmalaya said:
The UK is putting in a similar amount of money as that spent on YF-22 / YF-23 dem val when you adjust for inflation. Its not peanuts, and not just paper and pr.
NeilChapman
Interested 3rd party
- Joined
- 14 December 2015
- Messages
- 1,302
- Reaction score
- 536
red admiral said:
Perhaps that type of money doesn't purchase what it did then. Even when adjusting for inflation.
USAF is planning significant investments in NGAD.
https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2018/02/15/air-force-wants-invest-heavily-next-gen-technologies.html
"And it plans to start investing heavily in that goal soon, its new budget request for Fiscal 2019 shows. The service asked for $504 million next year for its next-generation air dominance research, development, test and evaluation program.
And that's not all: In its future years defense program [FYDP], showing the next five years of planned spending, the Air Force shows a planned investment of roughly $11 billion over the course of five years for RTD&E on next-gen air dominance.
"
And that doesn't include the "other" money that's being invested in engine tech, etc.
That being said, I applaud the UK for committing the $2.6Billion over the next 7 years to make something happen. If I understand this correctly, it's seed money to see a new airframe come to fruition. Has it been reported what the 2019 and 2020 budget numbers will be?
I know they are talking about industry partners but have they specifically spoken about other nations as partners? e.g. Are they expecting to design a new airframe for 2.6B or are they hoping to get out in front of a Germany/France solution in hopes of getting others to jump on board for a new Eurofighter-type program?
XP67_Moonbat
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 January 2008
- Messages
- 2,263
- Reaction score
- 472
Yeah!
icyplanetnhc (Steve)
Trekking into the cosmic ocean
Good pictures. The placement of the nose landing gear looks rather whacky, as the model isn't restricted by a chin inlet. Goes without saying that the final product probably won't look like this. Hell, I bet the design as it currently is doesn't look like this.
litzj
BLOG : http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2018/08/more-information-for-uks-tempest.html
I have estimated UK's mock up using simple math.
Although its physical size is about that of MiG-29 or Hornet.
Its reference wing area is about that of F-22.
More interestingly, we could figure out size of UCAV for swarm tactics.
<Estimated Specification of Tempest>
Length : 17.5m
Span : 12.8m
Height : 3.7m
Reference Wing Area : 86m^2 (926ft^2)
Size of Internal Weapon Bay : 8.7 X 1.9m
Length of Fuselage : 11.5m
<Estimated Specification of UCAV inside of Tempest>
Length : 1.56m
Span : 1.9m
I have estimated UK's mock up using simple math.
Although its physical size is about that of MiG-29 or Hornet.
Its reference wing area is about that of F-22.
More interestingly, we could figure out size of UCAV for swarm tactics.
<Estimated Specification of Tempest>
Length : 17.5m
Span : 12.8m
Height : 3.7m
Reference Wing Area : 86m^2 (926ft^2)
Size of Internal Weapon Bay : 8.7 X 1.9m
Length of Fuselage : 11.5m
<Estimated Specification of UCAV inside of Tempest>
Length : 1.56m
Span : 1.9m
Attachments
FighterJock
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 29 October 2007
- Messages
- 5,148
- Reaction score
- 5,082
Is there no sign of side internal bays for ASRAAM carriage? As far as I can tell there is no side bays at this moment, perhaps they might be included in a future redesign.
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,639
- Reaction score
- 3,569
Nice ! (your drawing i mean 
)
One thing I noticed is that the front fuselage has kind of a angular concave section on the lower sides, but then when you see the section at the intakes level, the intakes don’t fit inside that concave space. instead there is an added volume to fit the fuselage section to the intake inner sides.
I suppose that concave area is to have some near vertical front fuselage sides to fit antennas while keeping the frontal area/structural weight down as they want ? Dunno…
Edit: or that added volume is a Dsi ?!
)One thing I noticed is that the front fuselage has kind of a angular concave section on the lower sides, but then when you see the section at the intakes level, the intakes don’t fit inside that concave space. instead there is an added volume to fit the fuselage section to the intake inner sides.
I suppose that concave area is to have some near vertical front fuselage sides to fit antennas while keeping the frontal area/structural weight down as they want ? Dunno…
Edit: or that added volume is a Dsi ?!
Attachments
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,128
- Reaction score
- 8,819
Tempest intakes probably miss any kind of diverters at all like Taranis to save weight and be less complex - as RR next gen engines should have "distortion tolerant fan systems" as mentioned at Tempest presentation slides.
UPD Well, at close inspection it's not as simple design as it looks at first sight...
UPD Well, at close inspection it's not as simple design as it looks at first sight...
Attachments
![[1280x720] Go up close with the Tempest demonstrator.mp4_snapshot_00.29_[2018.08.07_13.34.03].jpg](/data/attachments/143/143319-3c7c1546f5f499388fad84530a007fef.jpg)
![[1280x720] Go up close with the Tempest demonstrator.mp4_snapshot_00.27_[2018.08.07_13.30.18].jpg](/data/attachments/143/143318-78c519b55ff87c2a76fc537a2ef79b5f.jpg)
![[1280x720] Go up close with the Tempest demonstrator.mp4_snapshot_00.26_[2018.08.07_13.29.36].jpg](/data/attachments/143/143317-c79dfd43d7fd95c40578748e323046c0.jpg)
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,128
- Reaction score
- 8,819
litzj
BLOG : http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
As cone? of DSI, is it too small and smooth?
As shown in F-35, it should be large
As shown in F-35, it should be large
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,128
- Reaction score
- 8,819
I wonder why you went through a complicated and less accurate way of measuring overall lenght using tire size when you have Meteor lenght that approximately fits distance from NLG to MLG wheel axes...litzj said:
And I wouldn't trust top view/weapons bay size schematics on placard too much.
red admiral
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,648
- Reaction score
- 1,949
The Meteor was 2-3m away from the centreline so with perspective won't give a good measurement. Better to scale from that RIAT sideview in post 150, e.g. from the main landing gear wheel diameter.
There's definitely a bump intake. The lips are more swept than F-35 so more of the bulk of the bump is covered by the lips.
Good effort on the drawing
There's definitely a bump intake. The lips are more swept than F-35 so more of the bulk of the bump is covered by the lips.
Good effort on the drawing
litzj
BLOG : http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
flateric said:
yes, ur idea looks better. If I have any time for doing this again, I'll do this way.
Nice but i think Jemiba's drawing is much better shape wise. Specially the nose part.Deino said:
Looks like they took a F-22 nose for that one.
http://picbear.online/curvature_group
- Joined
- 21 December 2006
- Messages
- 1,180
- Reaction score
- 783
Tempest presentation from BAE at this:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,30663.msg334549/topicseen.html
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,30663.msg334549/topicseen.html
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,128
- Reaction score
- 8,819
Jackonicko
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 4 February 2009
- Messages
- 368
- Reaction score
- 798
On the first page of this thread, Hood said:
It's a concept representing where Team Tempest's thinking was at long enough ago for them to have been able to build a couple of fibreglass mock-ups. One week before Farnborough, BAE Systems showed a group of journalists a slide showing a quartet of FCAS concepts, and AFM have made a pretty good stab at showing these on page 96 of the issue that came out yesterday (the September issue). Might one of these be more likely to become FCAS? Who knows - we're still a way from defining the eventual vehicle.
It's a concept representing where Team Tempest's thinking was at long enough ago for them to have been able to build a couple of fibreglass mock-ups. One week before Farnborough, BAE Systems showed a group of journalists a slide showing a quartet of FCAS concepts, and AFM have made a pretty good stab at showing these on page 96 of the issue that came out yesterday (the September issue). Might one of these be more likely to become FCAS? Who knows - we're still a way from defining the eventual vehicle.
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,639
- Reaction score
- 3,569
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,034
- Reaction score
- 22,310
Jackonicko
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 4 February 2009
- Messages
- 368
- Reaction score
- 798
Jemiba said:I've added the panel lines visible in the CGI and the colour scheme from post #69
(Thank you Flateric, thank you Paul !). The latter certainly not for number crunchers ...
I’ve been admiring your drawings, Jembiba. Great work!
However, I think that you’ve fallen into the trap of improving on reality, and of making the Tempest look as though it had been designed with an eye to aesthetics, and because of that I think that you have missed some of the odd proportions of the aircraft. I hope you’ll take the following observations in the spirit in which they are intended.
Front view:
The canopy seems too wide or the forward fuselage is too narrow. There’s more distance between the edge of the LERX/Chine and the edge of the canopy, and it ‘bulges’ downwards more with heftier ‘shoulders’.
The intakes slope inwards less steeply.
I think that the main wheels should be thinner/narrower, and the wheel track seems narrower than you have drawn.
The lower forward fuselage is narrower than the upper part, and is more U-shaped than you seem to have shown. From below the aircraft has a really pronounced LERX.
The nose gear doors are further apart and ‘toe’ inwards when open.
I think the whole fuselage should be broader and ‘flatter’ over more of its surface.
The tailfins seem too canted, and too close together at the roots.
The nosewheels seem too small. This is a Tornado undercarriage, so the nosewheels should not be that much smaller than the main wheels.
Comparing the drawing with a good Tornado drawing would be interesting – I wonder if the wheelbase/track is the same? I wonder whether it would give a different impression of the aircraft’s overall size?
Side view:
The nose gear doors are more sharply pointed than your drawing shows, I think.
The main gear doors look a little small.
I think that the tail sting looks a little ‘fat’ and ‘droopy’?
Plan view:
I think that the fuselage is too narrow and perhaps too ‘small’. If you look at how far apart the engines are, and then look at how much ‘fatter’ the exhausts are than the engines themselves, it starts to explain how there could be a significant weapons bay between them, and why the top of the fuselage looks so much like a tennis court!
I’m not sure about the six ‘staggered’ square panels on the drawing – I can only see four on most of the released artwork.
- Joined
- 3 June 2006
- Messages
- 2,998
- Reaction score
- 3,381
That certainly adds some context.
The mock-up we have been shown is perhaps the design which is most eye-catching and yet balances impact with lower risk (I can't imagine what the manned Taranis would have done to the "internet").
The 3rd design with the big wing, puts me in mind of this big wing F35 study:
The mock-up we have been shown is perhaps the design which is most eye-catching and yet balances impact with lower risk (I can't imagine what the manned Taranis would have done to the "internet").
The 3rd design with the big wing, puts me in mind of this big wing F35 study:
Attachments
Similar threads
-
-
MBDA Future Cruise / Anti-Ship Weapon (FC / ASW)- Started by Triton
- Replies: 148