BAe Tempest and other pre-GCAP studies

[Flyaway]

This design looks more like a 5.5 generation aircraft than a true 6 generation.

 

[GARGEAN]

Rolls engine

Well-well-well, what we have here under number 1? Is that radar blocker?

 

[Mike Pryce]

There are definitely large pods which appear to be designed to bolt on under or on the side of the aircraft, and that is definitely a weapons bay full of UCAVs- which might answer some questions.

As to which other design I am channelling, it's mainly when I see the graphic of the aircraft from above, but the other design was black. I'm definitely thinking American and not a fighter, but no matter.

These?

 

[red admiral]

This design looks more like a 5.5 generation aircraft than a true 6 generation.

Difficult to define either of those. What is 6th generation? 5th gen but tailless and with a laser?

What's needed is something sufficiently ahead of the threat at an affordable cost

 

[GARGEAN]

This design looks more like a 5.5 generation aircraft than a true 6 generation.

Is it even 5+? What makes it that way? We don't know anything about it's LO chars, about its weaponry, its sensors, its software fusion...

 

[FighterJock]

I think that as a design it is back to the CAD computers, a total redesign is needed before the RAF will accept this fighter.

 

[muttbutt]

I don't mean to be a downer but......no bucks, no Buck Rodgers. I'm not sure where the cash for this is supposed to come from.
2 Billion won't come close to cutting it.

 

[Mike Pryce]

https://airforcesmonthly.keypublishing.com/2018/07/16/uk-launches-combat-air-strategy-with-team-tempest/rs79846_it8a5414/

 

[kaiserd]

This appears to be more an attempt to remain credible and sustain some design capacity until the eventual international partnering to actually build something somewhat or completely different.

As mentioned above by other contributors not clear who’s going to paying for this to be much more than an interesting design exercise and a brief entry in a future BSP book.

 

[Flyaway]

This design looks more like a 5.5 generation aircraft than a true 6 generation.

Is it even 5+? What makes it that way? We don't know anything about it's LO chars, about its weaponry, its sensors, its software fusion...

I tend to think of sixth generation fighter designs as being tailess.

 

[Stargazer]

"Tempest"? Seriously? After Typhoon, Texan, Black Widow, Avenger and a few others, deciders prove without a doubt their lack of imagination... Or is is something else? Nah... Surely they wouldn't try to play on the sensitive nostalgic patriotic chord to render the public and the politicians sympathetic to highly expensive military acquisitions, would they? : ;D

 

[GARGEAN]

I tend to think of sixth generation fighter designs as being tailess.

Eh... By far not necessary. There are still definitions to be made (and remade, as they are mostly speculations: see old "supermaneuverability" and "supercruise" graphs that magically dissapeared when F-35 came), but being tailess is hardly one that will be included. There probably will be things like "high(Mach 3) speed", "optional pilot or UAV", "energy weapons", "extended survivability due to next gen ECM and DIRCM" and so on. One could only imagine now.

 

[red admiral]

I don't mean to be a downer but......no bucks, no Buck Rodgers. I'm not sure where the cash for this is supposed to come from.
2 Billion won't come close to cutting it.

£2bn isn't meant to though. The bulk of development and production spend will be around 2025-2035, after the Dreadnought peak has passed. But this is still quite a bit of cash in comparison to other projects around the world e.g. UK's contribution to Typhoon development was around £8-10bn in today's money I believe.

 

[red admiral]

I think that as a design it is back to the CAD computers, a total redesign is needed before the RAF will accept this fighter.

Why do you think that? Its obviously an early design iteration and as stated, just a look at what the future could look like.

 

[red admiral]

http://aviationweek.com/farnborough-airshow-2018/uk-future-fighter-hinges-cooperation

A bit of analysis and further details in this Aviation Week article

UK-Japan-Sweden programme 40:40:20?

 

[Mike Pryce]

I don't mean to be a downer but......no bucks, no Buck Rodgers. I'm not sure where the cash for this is supposed to come from.
2 Billion won't come close to cutting it.

£2bn isn't meant to though. The bulk of development and production spend will be around 2025-2035, after the Dreadnought peak has passed. But this is still quite a bit of cash in comparison to other projects around the world e.g. UK's contribution to Typhoon development was around £8-10bn in today's money I believe.

The original UK cost for EFA was to be £3bn in today's money. Even a national programme was to cost only a little more. Much of the increase was due to politics. Avoiding such things can save a lot, and speed things up.

 

[Mike Pryce]

http://aviationweek.com/farnborough-airshow-2018/uk-future-fighter-hinges-cooperation

A bit of analysis and further details in this Aviation Week article

UK-Japan-Sweden programme 40:40:20?

UK carriers are here to stay. Japan has STOVL capable carriers, sorry helicopter, er, destroyers (ahem). Sweden likes to go off road. So maybe...!!!

 

[Mike Pryce]

http://www.janes.com/article/81766/farnborough-2018-saab-open-to-fighter-partnership-if-gripen-e-tech-included

 

[FighterJock]

I think that as a design it is back to the CAD computers, a total redesign is needed before the RAF will accept this fighter.

Why do you think that? Its obviously an early design iteration and as stated, just a look at what the future could look like.

As a design right now it would not survive for very long in the current close in dogfighting against the likes of the Su-57 with the advanced thrust vectored R-74M.

 

[mrmalaya]

Analysis from RUSI's Justin Bronk to add to the pile:
https://rusi.org/publication/rusi-defence-systems/enter-tempest

 

[SteveO]

Yay! the UK still has the capability to build a mock-up ;D

BBC article mentions that the hardware and systems for Tempest will start life as Typhoon upgrades. Mature hardware and systems into a new airframe always sounds like one of those good ideas. Hopefully they will give it a nose job or maybe it just needs to bulk up to look more in proportion!

It reminded me of this article someone posted on SP a while back - Recent Combat Aircraft Life Cycle Costing Developments with DERA (page 5 fig 7 and the Low Support Vehicle.

 

[red admiral]

As a design right now it would not survive for very long in the current close in dogfighting against the likes of the Su-57 with the advanced thrust vectored R-74M.

Shoot it with the laser?

 

[mrmalaya]

There has been quite a lot of work already towards the ideas illustrated, whether it's the flexible payload bay, new engine or the energy requirements for DEW.

I think it's fair to say that the team will have an excellent idea of what airframe design will be required to meet the RAF requirement and this is going to be an A2A specialist.

The use of vertical fins is actually the bit I find hardest to swallow, but as has been said before, the airframe is designed so as not to increase development time/risk and let the systems and weapons do the heavy lifting.

 

[Flyaway]

Only issue is going to be funding this probably means buying a lot less F-35s and in turn upsetting the Americans. Maybe that’s a price we’ll just have to pay.

 

[Moose]

The "_ Gen" thing is, at this point, hard to get too worked up about given all the static about which planes are in which generation. I will say that lasers and advanced engines are good ambitions to have and I'd put those as more "generation defining" features than tail/no-tail.

Only issue is going to be funding this probably means buying a lot less F-35s and in turn upsetting the Americans. Maybe that’s a price we’ll just have to pay.

I wouldn't say that, this might effect out-year purchases of F-35 but nothing immediate.

 

[Flyaway]

Flightglobal seem to have quite a few quotes I haven’t seen before in other articles.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-tempest-concept-underscores-uk-fighter-450327/

 

[Mike Pryce]

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22190/the-u-k-s-new-tempest-stealth-fighter-project-already-faces-serious-challenges

 

[kcran567]

Is this air superiority, Typhoon replacement? Is the F-35 going to overlap with this program?

 

[mrmalaya]

It is aimed at the Typhoon replacement requirement, although I don't imagine that it will be strictly A2A in role (as with Typhoon).

 

[Blitzo]

Gotta say the nose chines on this thing are distinctive.

2035 is quite a while away, and not an unreasonable in service date for a new clean sheet project of its ambition. Can't help but wonder what "5+" generation aircraft US, China, Russia may be flying by then though.

The development timelines of current and new 5th gen fighters reminds me of 4th gen and 4+ gen fighters of past decades where the US and USSR were the first to arguably put out the first iterations of 4th gen fighter aircraft, and then succeeded by the so called "4+" generation of fighters emerged from Europe, Asia, and in forms of new variants of existing US and Russian fighters.

Not too dissimilar this time around with 5th gen fighters where US led the pack followed by Russia but also this time with China, who will field the first major types of 5th gen fighters, but with Europe and Asia fielding their own 5+ gen fighters some years after, likely to be accompanied by upgraded variants of F-35, Su-57, J-20 in a similar period. History certainly does rhyme.

 

[galgot]

Why do I have that deja vu feeling…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj9OYFkB2y8
When BAe presented his EAP mockup, and Dassault his Rafale models.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Any shiny pdfs on this beast?

 

[datafuser]

The Bank of England electronically created new money worth £435 billion to buy, mostly, UK government bonds in 2008-2016.

Can the UK government issue bonds in this way again to pay for the development of a new fighter?

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/quantitative-easing

 

[mrmalaya]

It's funny how the development of a fighter is apparently so political for some people. I suppose they become totemic of that countries perceived success and role in the world.

 

[CJGibson]

Why do I have that deja vu feeling…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj9OYFkB2y8
When BAe presented his EAP mockup, and Dassault his Rafale models.

Beat me to it!

Chris

 

[Hood]

My further thoughts and doubts having read more about the Tempest.

Is this actually a military requirement or a strategic industrial requirement? To my mind its the latter. All the major European aircraft companies are jumping up and down waving brochures and pretty looking CAD models hoping to attract the Air Marshalls of Europe to influence their political minsters to sign off some big cheques. I've yet to see any rational defence planning from the major countries about what they actually want.

It looks as though FCAS as we knew it via Taranis and Nueron is dead. Both France and now Britain have gone down the manned fighter route (optionally manned seems a useful get-out clause but it seem badly inefficient). Is this because the defence staffs found no need for an unmanned strike platform or is it because they are unwilling to commit to unmanned combat aircraft (a bit like the Blue Streak silo theory)? Team Tempest, as far as I know, were created to look at FCAS options and they obviously came firmly down on the side of a manned fighter.

How serious is the Tempest design? We've recently discussed all the BAE Systems FCAS concepts since 2014, all have looked completely different and seem to have been designed for slightly different requirements. How solid any of them actually were as opposed to interesting artwork designed to attract attention is open to question. Tempest looks quite different from what BAE has been recently offering, it even looks quite different from TF-X. It is obviously larger than the F-35 but its not clear what the role of this airframe is, a pure fighter or a strike platform? The F-35 seems to be the strike option of choice for the RAF at the moment and probably will remain to be so. I don't think the F-35 can be ruled out of remaining an effective air defence fighter with further systems and engine upgrades (assuming the RAF has to money to buy upgrades for F-35 and Typhoon). Does the RAF really need to duplicate its manned fighters in 20 years time?

The money is important. Williamson has been trying to prise money from the Treasury and Cabinet but without any success so far. Collaboration is a must, but I get the sense public stunts like the unveiling of Tempest are attempts to force the government to release more funds in the longer term by whipping up public interest, just like the P.106 and P.110 'Spitfire II' two decades ago. Whether that is possible remains to be seen. There still a lot of maneuvering to be done, I don't think we'll get a clearer picture until 2020 when everyone by then will have chosen their sides.

Rolls-Royce has clearly been working on new engine technology for some time, but the Franco-German fighter looks likely to have an MTU-led engine consortium. Rolls-Royce need to get onto a programme and perhaps an Anglo-Swiss fighter programme is the only chance they have.
Part of me can't help wondering if some kind of US-Japan-UK hybrid F-22/F-35 wouldn't be another option to keep and captialise on BAE's buy-in to the F-35 programme.

 

[mrmalaya]

I know it must be sorely tempting to see this in the context of programmes from decades before (what choice do we have?), but to view it in isolation for a moment:

Billions of pounds have been committed to the first stage which gets us through the "business case" and then into a decision to go forward with a project by 2020! The IOC date of 2035 is relatively ambitious and plenty of words have been expended on the need to break the long development cycle and it's associated spiralling costs.

The project is designed to be upgraded throughout it's life, with software and hardware easily transferred onto the airframe.

Team Tempest have already spent significant time and money (before the launch of the project) in demonstrating key aspects such as flexible weapons bay and evolution of avionics and weaponry.

This programme is designed to upgrade Typhoon in RAF service, and those upgrades and experience will then feed into the systems used on the future fighter.

Whilst the illustrated aircraft differ from the mock up, it is clear that they are not proposing a revolutionary airframe (although I am told that in pre-launch breifings BAE had 2 such designs which they admitted were less likely to make it into the air).


All in all, it's going to get headlines because of the industrial implications. If Taranis is indeed now in the long grass, this programme is merely an extension of the oft stated desire to do it for ourselves. Even is Japan or Sweden jump in for the big win, the programme and it's timelines are already defined to a greater extent than the projects from the past 40 years.

 

[CJGibson]

I know it must be sorely tempting to see this in the context of programmes from decades before (what choice do we have?), but to view it in isolation for a moment:

 

[shedofdread]

Not unlike this FOAS concept..?

One wonders if there were the bits to make a mock-up for same floating around the 'back of the shed'?

I promise that's the last cynical thing I'll post re Tempest....

 

[sferrin]

It's funny how the development of a fighter is apparently so political for some people. I suppose they become totemic of that countries perceived success and role in the world.

Not "perceived". I take it you hail from a country that can NOT develop it's own fighter independently?