Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) UK-Japan-Italy

[timmymagic]

12 miles off Hull is only 150 miles!

But who's to say that appropriate sensors for signature measurement couldn't be in a lorry or camper van?

Or on a satellite?

Or bizjet?

I know there is the expense of transport etc. But the UK does have a fantastic location to test EW or LO aircraft...Mount Pleasant. The effort required to spy on that would be considerable, particularly as there would be no need to leave UK territory, fly over international waters etc. All could be tested out of site. There's huge potential for an EW range down there..

 

[Trident]

Also, the sled test forebody bears evidence of DSI bumps, whereas Concept 5 (if that's what the display model is) has a LERX + caret intake.

 

[Jackonicko]

Also, the sled test forebody bears evidence of DSI bumps, whereas Concept 5 (if that's what the display model is) has a LERX + caret intake.

Well observed.

As I said: "I also know some of the ways in which that Concept 5 shape has changed and evolved. since that model was made -including the nose and intakes."

The intake, which we were not allowed to photograph, and of which photos were not made available is fixed, forward swept, and incorporates DSI bumps.

The Concept 5 design has evolved, and is probably deliberately 'wrong' in some respects for the usual reasons.

 

[Trident]

A Concept 5 with DSI isn't a million miles removed from the configuration shown most recently at the AMI centennial (basically, the tails are slightly further inboard and the wing TE sweep is inverted).

 

[Jackonicko]

@Jackonicko I'll reply just because I don't want to leave you with the mistaken perception that what you said is right or particularly impressive to me.

And then I'll just go back to straight up ignoring you.

1) Touting privileged access is very cool.
Unfortunately some things don't work like osmosis. You don't become an analyst because you are surrounded by analysts.

There was no direct link between any of the concept spread designs illustrated (they were simply four examples of the many dozens being assessed and analysed) and the 2018 Tempest unveiled at Farnborough

This is just so out of left field that wouldn't even need to be addressed. Tempest 2018 was derived by one of the concepts BAE evaluated, that doesn't necessarily mean "one of those four" in the drawing. It surely underwent several different iterations before the 2018 configuration was picked up.

2)

My "record on this thread" is of posting exactly what senior sources in industry and the RCO tell me. And hinting at those things that I might be told but that I might also be told not to attribute directly.

A lot of the claims you've made before, you've been called out on already or got proven wrong by the facts. I don't need to repeat them. You are writing some of them here as well, again.

I'll leave out the personal reference to me because, unlike you, I don't have to shout to the world what I do, or who I am in contact with, or what I have access to, to make me feel important.
I have eyes and a brain, and if what somebody is claiming is not true, they get called out for it.
Regardless of who they are.

3)

I see some similarity between the third concept and 24DMU. I did not say that 24DMU was a British Aerospace or BAE Systems design, just pointed out the apparent similarity.

Alas, English is not my mother tongue, but I suspect this is the complete opposite of what you implied by writing:

If you think 24DMU was a Japanese design in the first place, of course... and not developed from the BAE 'concept spread'

Only one of those statements can be true at any one time, make up your mind, please.

4)

You don't see a resemblance between Concept 5 and the ejection seat test sled. Fair enough. I do. And I've actually seen the thing, in the flesh, yesterday.

Canopy in Concept 5 is a hell of a lot more aft than on the sled model and also has a completely different shape of the glazing.
Claiming, once more, to have privileged access to something, doesn't change the fact that the outer mold line is different.

Please, take into consideration a visit to an optometrist if you really don't see the differences.

5) I'll believe it when I'll see it, i.e. read point 2) above

6) So the GCAP partnership needs to build a demonstrator that won't be representative of the final aircraft, in either shape, materials, etc.. Alright, catch you back in a few years to see how that prediction went down for you.

1) You accused me of cropping the picture I posted and surmised that it was something different. I'm just explaining to you what it was, and what it showed.

There is no such thing as Tempest 2018 except as a configuration picked out to serve as a PR 'pageholder'. Senior programme insiders were always at pains to say that the configuration shown in CGIs and models and mock-ups was never going to be the final design. In 2018, as in 2023, configurations are still being assessed, analysed and iterated, which is why the demonstrator is not representative.

2) What exactly have I been 'proven wrong by the facts' on?

3) Humour, sarcasm and nuance are clearly lost on you. I suggested that 24DMU may well have been influenced by or even derived from BAE work, not that it is a BAE design. I suspect that this is a language thing?

4) Different to the 2022 Concept 5 model and contemporary BAE and Leonardo CGIs but not massively different, and even less different to subsequent CGIs.

You said: "shape and canopy don't even remotely look like any of the released images of the Tempest so far."

Chatting to Tony, Francis and Craig, we all saw some resemblance, and thought that it looked more than remotely like Concept 5. You may not, but that's your problem.

5) I wouldn't dream of contradicting the FCAS Programme Director (Air Commodore Martin Lowe), the BAE Programme Director (Neil Strang) and the head of RR Future Programmes (Conrad Banks) when they said that a second manned platform had not been ruled out. A year ago, the suggestion that there could/should be one was very firmly contradicted (for example by Air Commodore Johnny Moreton, Lowe's immediate predecessor), now they're just as firm in not ruling it out. And do bear in mind that we had conversations with loads of senior programme people yesterday, and no-one sought to quash the suggestion that a second platform had been ruled out.

6) It's not my prediction, I'm not a forecaster, I'm a reporter. When I say what might happen in the future, I'm inevitably just parroting what those who are actually directly involved are saying. What I might think is of little consequence because I'm not employed on the programme, I'm not an engineer, and it's even 40 years since I wore an RAF uniform.

The demonstrator will not be representative of the production Tempest in configuration, because that has not been decided, and won't be set in stone until after this aircraft flies.

It won't be representative in terms of LO performance, because that's not its job - it will be representative of an LO configuration, because handling qualities, FCS, etc. are part of its task.

Making the demonstrator fully LO would also add massively to its cost, make it less safe and would duplicate what the static RCS pole models will achieve.

Air Commodore Lowe confirmed that the demonstrator will look less like Tempest than EAP looked like Typhoon.

Again: These are not Jackonicko's predictions, it's what the programme is saying.

 

[Jackonicko]

A Concept 5 with DSI isn't a million miles removed from the configuration shown most recently at the AMI centennial (basically, the tails are slightly further inboard and the wing TE sweep is inverted).

And like the configuration showed at DSEI Japan.

The wing planform of the demonstrator can only be guessed at. I suspect that they'll be looking at ease/cost of manufacture versus the benefits of flying a more novel and hitherto unexplored trailing edge configuration, though that basic aerodynamic stuff can probably be done by CFD and the wind tunnel?

 

[red admiral]

It's not a language thing. Jackonicko's post 192 clearly states that MHI adopted a BAES design.

If you think 24DMU was a Japanese design in the first place, of course... and not developed from the BAE 'concept spread'

This is clearly total nonsense as 24DMU pre-dates that BAES concept work by multiple years, and overlooks MHI's decade of previous work.

Continuing to minimise Japan's contribution to the programme and their engineering capability is not wise.


Regarding what looks like what, the forebody for the ejection tests is extremely similar to that for F-35 ejection tests; Slightly different chine angle or rigging angle; forebody model is chopped off a bit sooner. I mean they're both even painted orange...

 

[timmymagic]

I mean they're both even painted orange.

To be fair so was the Typhoon rig...

 

[Jackonicko]

It's not a language thing. Jackonicko's post 192 clearly states that MHI adopted a BAES design.

If you think 24DMU was a Japanese design in the first place, of course... and not developed from the BAE 'concept spread'

This is clearly total nonsense as 24DMU pre-dates that BAES concept work by multiple years, and overlooks MHI's decade of previous work.

Continuing to minimise Japan's contribution to the programme and their engineering capability is not wise.


Regarding what looks like what, the forebody for the ejection tests is extremely similar to that for F-35 ejection tests; Slightly different chine angle or rigging angle; forebody model is chopped off a bit sooner. I mean they're both even painted orange...

It may imply that, it does not state it. Honestly Red Admiral, I'd expect you to get the nuance!

Perhaps I should have been less terse and written in full:

"If you think 24DMU was a Japanese design in the first place, of course... and not developed from the BAE 'concept spread' then take a look at this BAE Powerpoint and tell me, hand on heart, that it's not at least possible that there may have been some BAE influence on the design, since we know the two companies have been co-operating for more than a decade."

All ejection seat rigs are orange nowadays - helps with photography at Langford Lodge. Since the seat is a bog standard Typhoon Mk 16A, the only point of the test is to see how it will behave in the flying testbed's actual fuselage. There would be no point in putting it in a generic fuselage, and they didn't.

 

[red admiral]

24DMU was from years before BAES drew any of those concepts or BAES even started "future fighter" work, so it's obviously nonsense that there's any link or influence. There's no nuance about it.

Of course the ejection test isn't for a generic fuselage, it's just that many LO fighter forebodies are very similar shapes due to the highly constrained geometry. So you really can't read into it that something looks like something.

 

[Jackonicko]

Well, FCAS manned fighter work began in 2015, building on FOAS and other studies which began as Typhoon entered service.

And there was co-operation in both directions, and influence.

I have no wish too squabble with you, Red Admiral, but perhaps we could refrain from phrases like 'obviously nonsense'?

Canopies do look quite different, and this one looked like later BAE and Leonardo concept 5 artwork - very 'short' fore and aft.

 

[Kota]

Well, FCAS manned fighter work began in 2015, building on FOAS and other studies which began as Typhoon entered service.

As other have pointed out 24DMU reached public eyes in 2013 and was likely being studied before that. As far as everyone here is concerned 24DMU hit paper before these BAE concepts. If 24DMU was derived from a BAE concept why didn't it appear sooner?

"If you think 24DMU was a Japanese design in the first place, of course... and not developed from the BAE 'concept spread' then take a look at this BAE Powerpoint and tell me, hand on heart, that it's not at least possible that there may have been some BAE influence on the design, since we know the two companies have been co-operating for more than a decade."

I can say that pretty confidently as the only real shared similarities is the tail design which itself is of a YF-23 style. Almost nothing else of the designs are shared. You say "we know the two companies have been co-operating for more than a decade", but who is this we? No formal agreements were signed and almost everyone was predicting Japan to partner with LM up until the last few years. You make these claims like they are fact and then just use the excuse that you are an "insider" to make them "fact".

It may imply that, it does not state it. Honestly Red Admiral, I'd expect you to get the nuance!

That's a terrible excuse to go "actually I was only just implying it". Yeah you implied that it wasn't originally a Japanese design and now you are trying to write in these supposed "gaps" that YOU left out and acting like its everyone else's problem. That is assuming you aren't just backtracking and trying to salvage what was an obviously absurd claim by trying to add this extra "context" onto your original statement.

 

[Jackonicko]

Backtracking? Well I was adding context, but not making excuses.

I think, perhaps, that I have greater insight into my own thought processes than you do, Kota, though I could be wrong.

Look up the meanings of the words 'excuse' and 'explanation' and you might vaguely understand.

I would not agree that the only real shared similarities between 24DMU and that BAE concept was the tail design. While L/E and T/E sweep angles were different, the trapezoidal wing was similar, and the

Some limited visibility of UK future programmes was afforded as part of the abortive Typhoon campaign in the late Summer/early Autumn of 2007. And vice versa - there's little doubt in my mind that Japan influenced the UK's early AESA work (on Captor).

I don't think it was anything like the levels of co-operation we're now seeing on the flying demonstrator (in which Japan is not formally involved) though those of us at Warton on Tuesday were told that there were (for example) IHI personnel at Warton wearing BAE ID (meaning that they didn't have to be escorted) just like some of their Rolls Royce partners.

My point is that until you get a glimpse under the curtain you don't know precisely what's happening on any of these programmes.

 

[Jackonicko]

You don't get pictures early, either!

 

[Jackonicko]

 

[Jackonicko]

 

[Uuuuiiiuu]

If you think 24DMU was a Japanese design in the first place, of course... and not developed from the BAE 'concept spread'

View attachment 701500

Where is this image from

 

[WatcherZero]

Flood of comments in the last couple of days. To try and respond to some of them;
*There hasnt been any airframe co-operation between UK and Japan pre GCAP, BAE did bid a modernised Eurofighter akin to F2/F16 during the initial competition to become Japans international design partner advising it would be a much more affordable option than a clean-sheet, but they initially went american.
*Engine development will be mirrored with both UK and Japan spending approx £300m each building static test stands for their combined engine design, this engine may well work its way into the UK demonstrator later in its testing program.
*Nothing to suggest UK interested in a second single engine manned derivative as they are committed to F-35 at least until 2040's and not interested in inefficiency of a second supported carrier borne aircraft. However an unmanned derivative in limited numbers might be interesting for the very top of the sliding carrier drone capability scale. On the other hand there has been substantial talk that the European FCAS is heading towards splintering into carrier and non-carrier variants due to competing performance requirements between France and Germany.
*When UK has wanted to test aircraft away from prying eyes before, e.g. Taranis, various missiles, etc.. theyve sent them to Australia which would be convenient for Japan as well. UK is likely to use Australia for testing the 9m demonstrator aircraft in the HVX hypersonic program as well. US has even availed of Australian ranges for Hypersonic testing too.

 

[Jackonicko]

*Engine development will be mirrored with both UK and Japan spending approx £300m each building static test stands for their combined engine design, this engine may well work its way into the UK demonstrator later in its testing program.

Not the UK Flying Technology Demonstrator which will use the EJ200.

*Nothing to suggest UK interested in a second single engine manned derivative as they are committed to F-35 at least until 2040's and not interested in inefficiency of a second supported carrier borne aircraft.

The possibility of a second manned platform is 'suggested' by previous hints from programme insiders over many months, and by the refusal of programme leaders to deny it on Tuesday. Such an aircraft is clearly one of the many options being considered but would be for export customers, and not to meet a UK/Japanese/Italian requirement.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

*It wasn't easy and cheap on T-7A because, I'm told, the US side kept saying: "That's not how we've done it in the past", diluting Saab's digital approach.

The possibility of a second manned platform is 'suggested' by previous hints from programme insiders over many months, and by the refusal of programme leaders to deny it on Tuesday. Such an aircraft is clearly one of the many options being considered but would be for export customers, and not to meet a UK/Japanese/Italian requirement.

If it is really all down to the DoD hampering Saab's apporach, obviously that's something the time will tell when we get more digital twin based designs in the future. Though for now, reflecting on inadequate project management from Boeing regarding the program, I don't really think that it's all DoD's fault. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean it's Saab's and their digital approach's liability either. Though for now, Frank Kendall, and in wider sense the USAF's view concerning the approach seems rather more sensible.

In that sense, there still would be considerable amount of development cost involved in developing and testing a second manned platform. If going from F-16 to a twin-engined SX-4 based on the F-16 design was considered "virtually building a whole new aircraft" by the Lockheed and Mitsubishi engineers during the FS-X programme, I really am not sure if it makes sense to make this "lighter FCAS manned fighter". We could say that we currently have two layers of platforms, one in terms of the avionics and the other in terms of airframe and mating the two proved to be not as simple and plug-and-play until now unlike for example on ships where there were cases for both the shared platfrom and different mission electronics and shared mission electronics and a different platform. The problem is that the modularity and scalability doesn't always work as straight forward as we would like it to be on aircraft designs and at some point, it just becomes a different mission system with some commonality. Yes, scalable designs have came a long way and is improving way faster more recently, though would that still garauntee a business case for a single engine fighter based on GCAP? Esepcially when there's F-35 which all three members of the programme are committed to long term?

Officials of the programme could be open to that idea but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's actually plausible, especially this early into the programme. It will be a tough sell to any country looking for a new fighter that would most definitely compare this export-oriented fighter to the F-35 of the period, most probably block 5 at that point, to become its first ever operator with uncertainties regarding further operators. In that sense, the sales prospect of such fighter will very much depend on US policy regarding the sales of F-35. I very much expect their export policy to be very strict regarding the F-35 well into the 2030s, a favorable market environemt, but there's no garauntee that they'll not change their attitude once NGAD is there.

One way this can actually work though, is if they get Sweden back on-board. Go back to the roots of earlier FCAS/Tempest approach and let Sweden be the main player for the single-engined manned platform with shared technologies and components and most of the problems are solved or considerably loosed up. The question then though would be Swedish autonomy and workshare in the programme.

 

[CiTrus90]

Complete match.
Thank you for proving my point.


Overlayed GIF transition:

RS97619 Combat air demonstrator

Image RS97619 Combat air demonstrator hosted in Gifyu

gifyu.com

 

[Jackonicko]

In that sense, there still would be considerable amount of development cost involved in developing and testing a second manned platform.

There is some cost, obviously, but far less than was the case when using a traditional approach.

Modelling, CFD, all cost money, of course, but not as much as live testing and its analysis.

Thats why SCAF/NGF is looking at two platforms, that's how the Tempest manned demonstrator is so cheap. There will only be one cockpit simulator/rig, rather than the five used for Typhoon development. We can expect a shorter flying programme.

If going from F-16 to a twin-engined SX-4 based on the F-16 design was considered "virtually building a whole new aircraft" by the Lockheed and Mitsubishi engineers during the FS-X programme, I really am not sure if it makes sense to make this "lighter FCAS manned fighter".

Look at when you're talking about. Yes that would have been like building a whole new aircraft - back then, but things have changed,

Yes, scalable designs have came a long way and is improving way faster more recently,

I'm not suggesting that a second core manned platform would be a scaled down Tempest. There would be no need for modularity or commonality. It would be a new airframe, using Tempest sensors and systems.

though would that still garauntee a business case for a single engine fighter based on GCAP? Esepcially when there's F-35 which all three members of the programme are committed to long term?

The F-35 is not available to all comers. Its continuing troubles and crippling support/sustainment costs and poor availability make it unattractive to many operators. It will have been in service for 25 years by the time a Tempest Lite is available.

It will be a tough sell to any country looking for a new fighter that would most definitely compare this export-oriented fighter to the F-35 of the period, most probably block 5 at that point, to become its first ever operator with uncertainties regarding further operators. In that sense, the sales prospect of such fighter will very much depend on US policy regarding the sales of F-35.

See above:

One way this can actually work though, is if they get Sweden back on-board. Go back to the roots of earlier FCAS/Tempest approach and let Sweden be the main player for the single-engined manned platform with shared technologies and components and most of the problems are solved or considerably loosed up. The question then though would be Swedish autonomy and workshare in the programme.

There are any number of potential partners who could be given meaningful work on the programme, and whose appetite for sovereign national capabilities (for example industrially and in mission data) is such that this would be VERY much more attractive than buying F-35s, even if the F-35s issues have been solved by then,

 

[Jackonicko]

Complete match.
Thank you for proving my point.
View attachment 701625

Overlayed GIF transition:

RS97619 Combat air demonstrator

Image RS97619 Combat air demonstrator hosted in Gifyu

gifyu.com

There are some intriguing superficial similarities, but:

Your Gif shows a more pointed, less deep, less bulbous nose. Your Gif shows a single piece canopy of different shape, and with a different winscreen rake. Your Gif shows a less deep forward fuselage below the chine. Your Gif (just look at the canopy) is almost certainly to a different scale.

Im short, I don't think your Gif comparison shows what you think it does.

 

[Hood]

I suppose a second single-engine platform makes sense if they are taking a really long-term look at future needs.
Some musings on my part:
a) Tempest replaces Typhoon 2040-50, by then the RAF will probably be looking at an F-35 successor (unless LM pitches a major upgrade) and BAE's F-35 workshare will probably be worth comparatively little as F-35 exports are likely to tail off by then (everyone who wants them/can get them) will have them by 2040.
b) by 2040 we'll probably start to see CVF replacement studies - assuming they go EMALS this time this opens the pitch for a carrier-based fighter assuming that F-35 doesn't fit the bill. In fact the CVF and F-35 replacement will probably go hand-in-hand as F-35B would be pointless to retain for the RAF if CVF2 goes EMALS.
c) there might be some kind thinking of a lighter fighter than could be made into a Hawk replacement to offer a T-7 competitor (personally I think unwise but I offer it as a possibility).
d) when the AI tech allows, it forms a handy loyal wingman - although Ghost Bat exists today, Taranis showed what a dedicated LO UCAV platform might be, so why mess about?
e) Someone like Saudi or UAE is stumping up cash for development and aiming it to have it built locally (might suit BAE very nicely to have cheaper labour making a cutting edge fighter too and Warton will be busy with 1/3 of Tempest and assembly) - but then we tried that with P.110 and other projects in the 1980s and it never came off.
f) downside is who in the export market is going to buy TempestLite if they have relatively new F-35s (10-20 years old) on the apron much before the 2070s? Also the USAF might already have an F-35 replacement on the books by 2050 if not sooner. And assuming petrodollars are still plentiful by mid-century, the usual Arabian fighter kleptomanics would be looking to buy genuine Tempest and SCAF, not messing about with lighter fighters. I still think in a Tempest/SCAF/NGADs world that the export market is too thin to win big orders. Toss in another 3-4 smaller platforms and its 7-8 fighters plus whatever India has, South Korea's next fighter and so on and it quickly becomes a massively crowded market. Given a lot of the F-35s might last 40-50s years I don't see a massive sales campaign paying off until 2075-80 and by then the now current GCAP concepts might look like old hat.
g) there is a risk the Treasury (not just ours but maybe Italy's too) might see a cheaper single-engine fighter as more desirable than GCAP itself.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

There is some cost, obviously, but far less than was the case when using a traditional approach.

Modelling, CFD, all cost money, of course, but not as much as live testing and its analysis.

Thats why SCAF/NGF is looking at two platforms, that's how the Tempest manned demonstrator is so cheap. There will only be one cockpit simulator/rig, rather than the five used for Typhoon development. We can expect a shorter flying programme.

Look at when you're talking about. Yes that would have been like building a whole new aircraft - back then, but things have changed,

The key here is the difference in design between two aircraft designs that differs only by the engine layout. Despite the commonality of the forward section, the redesign was to be very extensive. Will digital engineering streamline the redesign? yes. Though a new structural airframe is still something new regardless of how you want to picture it. Then we're talking about two designs that are even more different compared to the F-16 - SX-4 relationship. As Kendall has put "But when you’re doing something that’s going to be radically different than prior programs, you’ve got to get into testing to validate … your design efforts"

I'm not suggesting that a second core manned platform would be a scaled down Tempest. There would be no need for modularity or commonality. It would be a new airframe, using Tempest sensors and systems.

"Using Tempest(GCAP) sensors and systems" is the exact definition of commonality through common modules. Some systems may be used as is, but quite a significant number of them would need to be scaled down to accomodate smaller platform that is suggested. Also, if there's no need for commonality, then we're no longer talking about "Tempest lite" in the first place.

The F-35 is not available to all comers. Its continuing troubles and crippling support/sustainment costs and poor availability make it unattractive to many operators. It will have been in service for 25 years by the time a Tempest Lite is available.

And where's the garauntee that the FCAS single engined fighter would not have developmental problems? If anything, by 2030s there is far higher chance that the F-35 sustainability issues would have been mostly resolved, one way or the other. It's the biggest programme of their primary user ever yet, and their greatest focus currently lies on sustainability improvement. Here we are talking about rather known quantities and qualities compared to a non-existent programme that is only on the discussion board at the moment.

There are any number of potential partners who could be given meaningful work on the programme, and whose appetite for sovereign national capabilities (for example industrially and in mission data) is such that this would be VERY much more attractive than buying F-35s, even if the F-35s issues have been solved by then,

That bears the question of how many of those "potential partners" are capable of industrial participation in the programme in pursue of sovereignty. I see that most of them already have their own programmes in work or/and F-35 operators.

 

[Jackonicko]

b) by 2040 we'll probably start to see CVF replacement studies - assuming they go EMALS this time this opens the pitch for a carrier-based fighter assuming that F-35 doesn't fit the bill. In fact the CVF and F-35 replacement will probably go hand-in-hand as F-35B would be pointless to retain for the RAF if CVF2 goes EMALS.

One hopes that we'll have moved on from the carrier lunacy by then!

c) there might be some kind thinking of a lighter fighter than could be made into a Hawk replacement to offer a T-7 competitor (personally I think unwise but I offer it as a possibility).

I don't know - because they're clearly looking at all options, but I'd be looking more at an F-16/70/Typhoon/Rafale class of aeroplane than an FA-50/Tejas/JF-17

f) downside is who in the export market is going to buy TempestLite if they have relatively new F-35s (10-20 years old) on the apron much before the 2070s? Also the USAF might already have an F-35 replacement on the books by 2050 if not sooner. And assuming petrodollars are still plentiful by mid-century, the usual Arabian fighter kleptomanics would be looking to buy genuine Tempest and SCAF, not messing about with lighter fighters. I still think in a Tempest/SCAF/NGADs world that the export market is too thin to win big orders. Toss in another 3-4 smaller platforms and its 7-8 fighters plus whatever India has, South Korea's next fighter and so on and it quickly becomes a massively crowded market. Given a lot of the F-35s might last 40-50s years I don't see a massive sales campaign paying off until 2075-80 and by then the now current GCAP concepts might look like old hat.

Even the USA has looked hard at augmenting the F-35, which General Brown compared to the Ferrari you only take out at weekends, rather than the pick-up he needs. There's no sign of LM breaking the F-35 cost issue, or of solving the support cost, and availability issues. You then have the Turkeys - not allowed to buy, and the nations who will become increasingly disgruntled by the US approach to sovereign national mission data.

And anyone who wants a great 6th Gen fighter, rather than a mediocre 5th Gen aeroplane...

g) there is a risk the Treasury (not just ours but maybe Italy's too) might see a cheaper single-engine fighter as more desirable than GCAP itself.

Now that is a risk

 

[Jackonicko]

"Using Tempest(GCAP) sensors and systems" is the exact definition of commonality through common modules. Some systems may be used as is, but quite a significant number of them would need to be scaled down to accomodate smaller platform that is suggested. Also, if there's no need for commonality, then we're no longer talking about "Tempest lite" in the first place.

We're talking about sensor system modularity and commonality in a non-common, non modular airframe

And where's the garauntee that the FCAS single engined fighter would not have developmental problems? If anything, by 2030s there is far higher chance that the F-35 sustainability issues would have been mostly resolved, one way or the other. It's the biggest programme of their primary user ever yet, and their greatest focus currently lies on sustainability improvement. Here we are talking about rather known quantities and qualities compared to a non-existent programme that is only on the discussion board at the moment.

We're still talking about a 5th Gen aeroplane that first flew in 2006 and entered service ten years after that, with a 6th Gen aircraft that will be 25 years newer in concept and technology.

That bears the question of how many of those "potential partners" are capable of industrial participation in the programme in pursue of sovereignty. I see that most of them already have their own programmes in work or/and F-35 operators.

See my response to Hood. There are plenty of potential customers. LM are still selling F-16s, Dassault are shifting Rafales, and we'll see whether Typhoon can score any more sales.

 

[WatcherZero]

*Engine development will be mirrored with both UK and Japan spending approx £300m each building static test stands for their combined engine design, this engine may well work its way into the UK demonstrator later in its testing program.

Not the UK Flying Technology Demonstrator which will use the EJ200.

You really think after it completes its other test programs they wont use the near perfect flying testbed for flight tests and flight hour accumulation of the new engine, swapping out first one EJ200 and then eventually both?

 

[Jackonicko]

*Engine development will be mirrored with both UK and Japan spending approx £300m each building static test stands for their combined engine design, this engine may well work its way into the UK demonstrator later in its testing program.

Not the UK Flying Technology Demonstrator which will use the EJ200.

You really think after it completes its other test programs they wont use the near perfect flying testbed for flight tests and flight hour accumulation of the new engine, swapping out first one EJ200 and then eventually both?

I don't think so, actually. Integrating the new engine would almost certainly require entirely new intakes and ducts, and with these deeply embedded '6th Gen engine integrations' there may not be space, etc.

It's not like the old days, when you could slap a different engine in a Canberra nacelle.

Certainly there have been no suggestions that that is being considered.

 

[Kota]

There are some intriguing superficial similarities, but:

Again I just want to recap. You think they left has clear connection and was derived from the right. Ignoring the nose shape, intake placement, space between the engines, aero-diamond vs conventional wing, cockpit shape, hump behind the canopy.

But now you want to play I Spy about every minute detail that doesn't match exactly when the reverse is claimed? Who's to say that the this new demonstrator isn't "derived" from the 24DMU. This is why everyone thinks you are full of it. You have a bias that you are trying to push.

 

[Jackonicko]

There are some intriguing superficial similarities, but:

Again I just want to recap. You think they left has clear connection and was derived from the right. Ignoring the nose shape, intake placement, space between the engines, aero-diamond vs conventional wing, cockpit shape, hump behind the canopy.
View attachment 701666View attachment 701667
But now you want to play I Spy about every minute detail that doesn't match exactly when the reverse is claimed? Who's to say that the this new demonstrator isn't "derived" from the 24DMU. This is why everyone thinks you are full of it. You have a bias that you are trying to push.

Possibly inspired by rather than derived from.

Do tell me what 'bias' I'm trying to push, I don't think I have one on this.

 

[Jackonicko]

So:
Let’s recap where we differ:

You said:

“If I'm not mistaken, when testing crew ejection systems it's usually required to test the seat into a frontal section at least vaguely aerodynamically representative of the production aircraft.”

It requires a forward fuselage that is as aerodynamically representative as is possible. Vaguely is not good enough.

“That sled's shape and canopy don't even remotely look like any of the released images of the Tempest so far.”

I disagreed. I thought it looked like Leonardo CGIs of Concept 5. In retrospect, I think it’s quite representative of P189-17B, too, and the latest FCAS factsheet aircraft. The cockpit seems to have ‘moved forward’ on both the Concept 5 type design, and the P189 type design.

However, I realise that I was looking at the profile view of the sled, and had neglected to look closely at the front view. Having looked again at that, I concede that it doesn’t look quite like any of the released images, because it’s not quite as broad and flat, though it’s more like Concept 5 than anything else, though the chines are less pronounced. Actually, it looks rather like the last Concept 5 CGI, but also like the DSEI Japan model (see the video at post #123).

And it doesn’t look like 24DMU, either. Without having views at a common scale, it’s difficult to compare, but the canopy shape is different, and there is more fuselage depth below the chine.

I then posted an actual BAE concept spread Powerpoint Slide and you accused me of “not posting the whole picture” and of “cropping it” – your evidence being derived artwork for Key Publishing (ironically a piece of artwork that I briefed to accompany one of my articles - I did similar artwork for articles in AFM and Air International).

You pointed out that “news of 24DMU's configuration started to appear in (at least) November 2013 which, as everyone knows, is long before the Japanese had yet decided which partner to pick in order to develop their 6th gen aircraft (i.e. LM or BAE).”

You ignored the fact that BAE and Mitsubishi and the UK MoD and JMoD had been co-operating since before the 2007-8 Typhoon bid, and that access to advanced concepts was likely to have been granted on both sides.

And you chose to make a big deal out of a mere opinion that I offered.

You suggested that I “sit this one out”, which was rude and a bit passive aggressive.

You invited me to consider “a visit to an optometrist if you really don't see the differences.” That’s also rude and a bit passive aggressive.

You suggested that “Tempest 2018 was derived by one of the concepts BAE evaluated,” and “surely underwent several different iterations before the 2018 configuration was picked up.” That’s a reasonable assumption, but it’s wrong.

It shows a fundamental misunderstanding – because although some concepts do seem to have undergone minor revisions, the different concepts we have seen are not iterative points on a chronological timeline, but rather different points on a ‘five axis’ ‘graph’ simultaneously exploring different variables (including survivability, aerodynamics, speed, and range). A point in the envelope, not a point in time. My source on that? My interview with Air Commodore Jonny Moreton, FCAS Programme Director. Lessons from one concept are banked, and then another is looked at – preferably with very different points on the five dimensional graph. One does not follow from another in an iterative sense.

You took issue with my statement that: Air Commodore Martin Lowe (Moreton’s replacemet as FCAS Programme Director), Neil Strang (BAE Programme Director) and Conrad Banks (RR Future Programmes) had all emphasised that all options were still being considered when asked specifically and directly about the scope for a second manned platform within the FCAS system of systems. In private conversations, other senior programme officials confirmed that such an aircraft was being considered - and it was pointed out to me that that is also the case within the Franco-German-Spanish SCAF programme.

You said: “I'll believe it when I'll see it” ignoring the fact that I was reporting what named senior programme managers said about whether a second manned platform had been ruled out. Now that you’ve made me look at my notes, I can see that Jonny Moreton said much the same last year.

“The hypothesis about a future philosophy of more than one manned aircraft design, I think is one that is worth testing. That is not a formal view by any stretch of the imagination, but I think I could see that in 10/15 years time, you might say to yourself, you know, how can you …. what's the philosophy going forward? And how do we maintain a iterative capability you know, into the middle of next century, and actually maintaining a combat air industry at a level that allows us to do that, might be quite complementary to F-35, Whatever FCAS turns out to be, and as you point out, the value to an export market.”

He also said: “I can I can categorically say that No, we've not made any decisions down that road, yet.”

So all that says to me is that a second manned aircraft has not been ruled out, and may be under consideration.

In answer to my gentle correction/clarification of WatcherZero’s post at #178, you jumped in with more sarcastic, passive aggressive rudeness.

You said that: “So the GCAP partnership needs to build a demonstrator that won't be representative of the final aircraft, in either shape, materials, etc.. Alright, catch you back in a few years to see how that prediction went down for you.”

1) It wasn’t my prediction, I just reported what the programme managers said about the purpose of the demonstrator, which is not a combat air prototype, and has no need to be stealthy, nor representative of the definitive Tempest, because it’s more about getting the team match fit to design, develop, certify and fly an all new aircraft design (something BAE haven’t done for many years) – building up the SQEP, and inspiring those who will work on Tempest. Martin Lowe even told us that he’d had a poster of EAP on his bedroom wall when he was a teenager, and that it was probably responsible for him sitting there that afternoon! It will feed into Tempest – in flight sciences, handling, LO configuration design, etc.

2) Again. It will NOT be representative of the Tempest configuration because that hasn’t been finalised while the flying technology demonstrator has been.

I asked Moreton how different he expected the demonstrator to look, compared to the definitive production Tempest, and he said: “I think characteristics wise you'll recognise it as a sixth generation designed aircraft but the… in terms of how much different… it's… it's got. It's a point in the five dimensional graph as recognised previously. We're not even honing in on the end design. It will have some similar characteristics but others that aren't anywhere near?”

I seem to have better sources of information than you do, and that clearly irritates you. I was at Warton on Tuesday, and spoke to the Tempest leads from BAE, RR and the MoD. I didn't see you there... I wonder whether you've ever spoken to anyone senior from the programme - or indeed from any programme.

 

[Jackonicko]

Given the small canopy on the test sled it looks like it the demonstrator might have a seperate windscreen and canopy, rather than the one-piece canopy the Concept 5 model seems to have. Which I guess seems logical if you're just engineering a one-off demonstrator.

It is exciting times, we've not seen anything on this scale for 40 years.
Talk of two manned platforms is very interesting too and certainly not a path I saw coming (since fighters cost £££££££).

The model has faint panel lines showing the canopy to be similar, while CGIs of Concept 5 show two very different forms of canopy.

 

[Jackonicko]

Front view of forward fuselage on test sled. NB Undersides are unrepresentative.

 

[Scott Kenny]

*Engine development will be mirrored with both UK and Japan spending approx £300m each building static test stands for their combined engine design, this engine may well work its way into the UK demonstrator later in its testing program.

Not the UK Flying Technology Demonstrator which will use the EJ200.

You really think after it completes its other test programs they wont use the near perfect flying testbed for flight tests and flight hour accumulation of the new engine, swapping out first one EJ200 and then eventually both?

No.

The engine performance they're talking about requires an engine the diameter of F119 or F135, some 46" in diameter. EJ200 (29") is smaller than the F414 (35"). The performance may even require engines on the scale of the Kuznetzov NK-32, 57" in diameter, but that's unlikely. The US ADVENT engines should fit inside an F-35 with minimal rebuilding, which makes them roughly a 46" engine.

Unless the engines are outside the fuselage, that's major redesign work category.

 

[red admiral]

So we seem to have got to:

• All stealthy fighters look pretty similar, especially at the detail level
• Everything influences everything else
• All options are on the table (as they would be before going through decision gates)

 

[Scott Kenny]

Front view of forward fuselage on test sled. NB Undersides are unrepresentative.

(img deleted for space)

While I fully believe that the upper surfaces of an ejection seat test platform need to be aerodynamically representative, does the underside? I would not think so, not unless there's air spill from underneath.

 

[TomcatViP]

Personally, in that sled, I see more of the French FCAS mockup released at Le Bourget in 2019. Someone got to tell the Frenches UK is working with them.



Anyhow, the carret outlet shocked me to the point I wonder if someone didn't temper with the picture. If not, the fact that we are given only the rear section of the duct, meaning the entire duct in front of the fan is missing, point to a gigantic bird. Even with a short length DSI, with a side inlets, there is probably a 5 meters section missing in front of that fan.And that's a minimum not accounting much for a duct bend to hide the engine from radar.

Notice also that the displayed duct above might have to be tilted 90deg to get a representative view of airframe integration. The question is if it has to be rotated with both engine inboard or outboard... Someone needs to take a picture of that outlet section

 

[Scott Kenny]

Personally, in that sled, I see more of the French FCAS mockup released at Le Bourget in 2019. Someone got to tell the Frenches UK is working with them.
(Image deleted for space)

Anyhow, the carret outlet shocked me to the point I wonder if someone didn't temper with the picture. If not, the fact that we are given only the rear section of the duct, meaning the entire duct in front of the fan is missing, point to a gigantic bird. Even with a short length DSI, with a side inlets, there is probably a 5 meters section missing in front of that fan.And that's a minimum not accounting much for a duct bend to hide the engine from radar.
(Image deleted for space)

Notice also that the displayed duct above might have to be tilted 90deg to get a representative view of airframe integration. The question is if it has to be rotated with both engine inboard or outboard... Someone needs to take a picture of that outlet section

Yeah, the GCAP is going to be enormous. Easily 22m long, Su27 sized. But that's also the rumored size of the US NGAD, at least the Lockheed proposal. So I think that's just what it's going to take for the 6thgen fighters.

 

[Jackonicko]

Personally, in that sled, I see more of the French FCAS mockup released at Le Bourget in 2019. Someone got to tell the Frenches UK is working with them.

View attachment 701693

Anyhow, the carret outlet shocked me to the point I wonder if someone didn't temper with the picture. If not, the fact that we are given only the rear section of the duct, meaning the entire duct in front of the fan is missing, point to a gigantic bird. Even with a short length DSI, with a side inlets, there is probably a 5 meters section missing in front of that fan.And that's a minimum not accounting much for a duct bend to hide the engine from radar.

Notice also that the displayed duct above might have to be tilted 90deg to get a representative view of airframe integration. The question is if it has to be rotated with both engine inboard or outboard... Someone needs to take a picture of that outlet section

That's the back of the duct, the engine is missing here.