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

[TomcatViP]

Well, I just made a fool of myself. That's what happens when you shorten you morning coffee time to jump on the keyboard.

 

[Hood]

Given they are tinkering with the design all the time does it really matter? We'll know what it looks like when BAE Systems unveils the demonstrator.
Given its a partnership and that Japan has already flown a 5th demonstrator in the recent past I'd be surprised if there is not cross-pollination within the design team. I'd go further and say it would be bloody stupid if there wasn't.

 

[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.

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.

Is that just the inlet duct, then?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Deleted a post, cleaned up some unacceptable personal insults and edited some responses to said posts.

@Jackonicko is a well known UK-based defence journalist. This doesn't make him magically correct on all things related to this topic, but please accept he has better sources than most of us do on this story.

You can still disagree. Keep the discussion civil whether you agree or not with other posts.

 

[CiTrus90]

Being a defence journalist doesn't grant him immunity from being told he's wrong.

Nobody is contesting his sources, we (or at least me as far I'm concerned) take offense at his dismissive attitude about the contribution of the other partners to the program and the conclusions he drew on his own (which are not always the statements of the people he interviewed). There's a big difference.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Being a defence journalist doesn't grant him immunity from being told he's wrong.

Nobody is contesting his sources, we (or at least me as far I'm concerned) take offense at his dismissive attitude about the contribution of the other partners to the program and the conclusions he drew on his own (which are not always the statements of the people he interviewed). There's a big difference.

Being a member of the forum entitles you to be treated with respect by other members. The tone of posts here was unacceptable from both users involved.

 

[Jackonicko]

Being a defence journalist doesn't grant him immunity from being told he's wrong.

Nobody is contesting his sources, we (or at least me as far I'm concerned) take offense at his dismissive attitude about the contribution of the other partners to the program and the conclusions he drew on his own (which are not always the statements of the people he interviewed). There's a big difference.

Indeed. But you'd really have to be privvy to often unattributable conversations and briefings I've had to know whether what I'm reporting is wrong, and whether any 'wrongness' is in my interpretation of what I'm told, or whether what I'm being told is incorrect.

As to conclusions, I try to draw on more than 40 years working in the aerospace industry in one form or another - bear in mind that when I'm talking about EAP, that's an aircraft that was active when I was starting my journalistic career, and I interviewed several of its pilots.

So far, Tempest has been a largely UK programme - though that is set to change, and that is with the caveat that one of the principal 'British' partners is Leonardo - an Italian company.

The Flying Technology Demonstrator is, thus far, an almost exclusively UK enterprise. There is an aspiration to get Japan and Italy more involved in FTD, and Strang said that discussions are underway. I hope they succeed.

I have a great deal of respect for the Italian aerospace industry, and just as much for Japan's. Both partners will bring a great deal to the party on GCAP, and both will compensate for UK areas of weakness.

I would hope to see Sweden re-entering the programme in some form, too.

I am more dismissive as to the potential involvement of Germany should SCAF break apart - I fear that however great the Germans are as engineers, designers and manufacturers, they could fatally undermine export prospects, as they seem to be doing on Typhoon at the moment.

And as for the French... they simply don't do equal partnerships in aerospace at the moment, alas.

 

[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.

Is that just the inlet duct, then?

Yep. That's the bellmouth intake far right, with it's back to us, and the front face of the EJ200 mounts where the fan-like object is sitting.

 

[Jackonicko]

Given they are tinkering with the design all the time does it really matter? We'll know what it looks like when BAE Systems unveils the demonstrator.

I suspect that any such 'tinkering' on FTD is over, as it's going through CDR. I strongly suspect that they know EXACTLY what it's going to look like, whereas Tempest is entirely 'up in the air'.

Given its a partnership and that Japan has already flown a 5th demonstrator in the recent past I'd be surprised if there is not cross-pollination within the design team. I'd go further and say it would be bloody stupid if there wasn't.

I am absolutely certain that is the case, and indeed, one of the senior folk at Warton on Tuesday (I'd have to dredge through my rather poor Otter transcript to remember who, but probably Mr Strang) said pretty well exactly that, albeit that the Shinshin had a rather different purpose to the current FTD.

 

[Jackonicko]

Deleted a post, cleaned up some unacceptable personal insults and edited some responses to said posts.

@Jackonicko is a well known UK-based defence journalist. This doesn't make him magically correct on all things related to this topic, but please accept he has better sources than most of us do on this story.

You can still disagree. Keep the discussion civil whether you agree or not with other posts.

Thanks Paul.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Is that just the inlet duct, then?

Yep. That's the bellmouth intake far right, with it's back to us, and the front face of the EJ200 mounts where the fan-like object is sitting.

Holy cow that's going to be a huge plane!

 

[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?

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.

I don't know what weight Tempest will be, nor what the required performance will be, nor what impact the required cooling and electric power generation will have on required engine performance, and therefore I'd humbly suggest that it's hard to see what thrust rating will be required.

Then we come to the thorny issue of what size an entirely new class and concept of engine will need to be in order to produce the required thrust.

If we were limiting ourselves to existing, proven, in-service powerplants, my guess is that it would need to be a very large engine indeed.

The intake duct of the FTD does not look as though it could support re-engining with such a monster...

 

[Jackonicko]

Is that just the inlet duct, then?

Yep. That's the bellmouth intake far right, with it's back to us, and the front face of the EJ200 mounts where the fan-like object is sitting.

Holy cow that's going to be a huge plane!

It certainly looks like it, doesn't it?

 

[Jackonicko]

• All options are on the table (as they would be before going through decision gates)

Yep, though to a surprising and counter-intuitive degree.

EAP was of very similar configuration to Typhoon, whereas FTD won't be, because freezing the Tempest GCAP design is deliberately being delayed and will be at a very late stage in the programme.

Who was it said: "The sooner you freeze the design, the sooner it's obsolete"?

 

[FighterJock]

Quite Jackonicko, they should take their time over the design phase of the GCAP fighter I certainly do not want them to rush it only to find that it is obsolete before it enters service.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don't know what weight Tempest will be, nor what the required performance will be, nor what impact the required cooling and electric power generation will have on required engine performance, and therefore I'd humbly suggest that it's hard to see what thrust rating will be required.

Then we come to the thorny issue of what size an entirely new class and concept of engine will need to be in order to produce the required thrust.

If we were limiting ourselves to existing, proven, in-service powerplants, my guess is that it would need to be a very large engine indeed.

They're wanting something comparable to an F22, aren't they? Or better? Kinda defines the engine power and therefore size.

The intake duct of the FTD does not look as though it could support re-engining with such a monster...

If they're lucky, it could just be scaled up, there's no way that little duct could flow enough air to feed an engine at least the size of an F404/414, 35" diameter, let alone a 46" diameter F119/F135 class engine.

 

[Jackonicko]

I don't know what weight Tempest will be, nor what the required performance will be, nor what impact the required cooling and electric power generation will have on required engine performance, and therefore I'd humbly suggest that it's hard to see what thrust rating will be required.

Then we come to the thorny issue of what size an entirely new class and concept of engine will need to be in order to produce the required thrust.

If we were limiting ourselves to existing, proven, in-service powerplants, my guess is that it would need to be a very large engine indeed.

They're wanting something comparable to an F22, aren't they? Or better? Kinda defines the engine power and therefore size.

Except that if they want F-22 levels of performance they want it in 2035, in what MAY be a lighter and more compact package, by dint of using modern materials and manufacturing.

The intake duct of the FTD does not look as though it could support re-engining with such a monster...

If they're lucky, it could just be scaled up, there's no way that little duct could flow enough air to feed an engine at least the size of an F404/414, 35" diameter, let alone a 46" diameter F119/F135 class engine.

It feeds an EJ200, don't forget.

 

[kaiserd]

One would think that the Tempest/ GCAP (and many of the contemporary/ “equivalent” projects with internal weapon bays) will likely end up with bays of the approx. depth of the F-35A (& F-35C) so to have the capacity to carry 2,000lb equivalent/ ball-park size/ weight weapons internally (including Storm Shadow replacement, etc.).

And not shallower weapon bays like those seen on the F-22 and F-35B.

That knocks on to the weigh, size and internal arrangement of the Tempest/ GCAP. And potentially relaxes some of the longest range requirements (internal carriage of long range stand off weapons increasing effective reach while enabling this functionality effectively completes for fuel load/ fraction at the airframe design level).

And I don’t think anyone realistically expects the Tempest/ GCAP to end up the size of a F-111 sized theatre bomber or not to be rather smaller than what emerges re: the US airforces NGAD airframe.

 

[kaiserd]

Being a defence journalist doesn't grant him immunity from being told he's wrong.

Nobody is contesting his sources, we (or at least me as far I'm concerned) take offense at his dismissive attitude about the contribution of the other partners to the program and the conclusions he drew on his own (which are not always the statements of the people he interviewed). There's a big difference.

Indeed. But you'd really have to be privvy to often unattributable conversations and briefings I've had to know whether what I'm reporting is wrong, and whether any 'wrongness' is in my interpretation of what I'm told, or whether what I'm being told is incorrect.

As to conclusions, I try to draw on more than 40 years working in the aerospace industry in one form or another - bear in mind that when I'm talking about EAP, that's an aircraft that was active when I was starting my journalistic career, and I interviewed several of its pilots.

So far, Tempest has been a largely UK programme - though that is set to change, and that is with the caveat that one of the principal 'British' partners is Leonardo - an Italian company.

The Flying Technology Demonstrator is, thus far, an almost exclusively UK enterprise. There is an aspiration to get Japan and Italy more involved in FTD, and Strang said that discussions are underway. I hope they succeed.

I have a great deal of respect for the Italian aerospace industry, and just as much for Japan's. Both partners will bring a great deal to the party on GCAP, and both will compensate for UK areas of weakness.

I would hope to see Sweden re-entering the programme in some form, too.

I am more dismissive as to the potential involvement of Germany should SCAF break apart - I fear that however great the Germans are as engineers, designers and manufacturers, they could fatally undermine export prospects, as they seem to be doing on Typhoon at the moment.

And as for the French... they simply don't do equal partnerships in aerospace at the moment, alas.

Just for clarity - my understanding is that the Japan wouldn’t have joined the GCAP project if they weren’t approx. equal partners as the UK. So only adding Italy’s share of the project that means that. already before any other potential partners (Sweden, etc.) are added in, GCAP is already a majority non-UK project (i.e. UK significantly less than 50 percent of the project, Japan and Italy combined are a larger percentage of/ contributors to the project, and any further countries joining would almost certainly see the existing partner’s contribution reducing in proportion to each other, further reducing the UK portion of the program).

Now that’s great news for the affordability, sustainability and survivability of the overall program but it does mean that the UK-centric narrative often seen around the Tempest project has been somewhat overtaken/ rendered obsolete by events/ developments. It now appears to be very much an international multi-partner project not unlike the Eurofighter project in that there is no single larger dominant partner (unlike the F-35 program in that regard). Hopefully the narrative around the project going forward will now reflect that apparent reality (assuming my understanding/ maths above are indeed correct).

 

[Jackonicko]

I don't know what weight Tempest will be, nor what the required performance will be, nor what impact the required cooling and electric power generation will have on required engine performance, and therefore I'd humbly suggest that it's hard to see what thrust rating will be required.

Then we come to the thorny issue of what size an entirely new class and concept of engine will need to be in order to produce the required thrust.

If we were limiting ourselves to existing, proven, in-service powerplants, my guess is that it would need to be a very large engine indeed.

They're wanting something comparable to an F22, aren't they? Or better? Kinda defines the engine power and therefore size.

Except that if they want F-22 levels of performance they want it in 2035, in what MAY be a lighter and more compact package, by dint of using modern materials and manufacturing.

The intake duct of the FTD does not look as though it could support re-engining with such a monster...

If they're lucky, it could just be scaled up, there's no way that little duct could flow enough air to feed an engine at least the size of an F404/414, 35" diameter, let alone a 46" diameter F119/F135 class engine.

It feeds an EJ200, don't forget.

One would think that the Tempest/ GCAP (and many of the contemporary/ “equivalent” projects with internal weapon bays) will likely end up with bays of the approx. depth of the F-35A (& F-35C) so to have the capacity to carry 2,000lb equivalent/ ball-park size/ weight weapons internally (including Storm Shadow replacement, etc.).

And not shallower weapon bays like those seen on the F-22 and F-35B.

That knocks on to the weigh, size and internal arrangement of the Tempest/ GCAP. And potentially relaxes some of the longest range requirements (internal carriage of long range stand off weapons increasing effective reach while enabling this functionality effectively completes for fuel load/ fraction at the airframe design level).

And I don’t think anyone realistically expects the Tempest/ GCAP to end up the size of a F-111 sized theatre bomber or not to be rather smaller than what emerges re: the US airforces NGAD airframe.

Given that Tempest will probably be optimised for air dominance, with a soupçon of ISR and a little A-G, it may not be looking to carry larger A-G weapons - which may be the task of other crewed and uncrewed platforms.

 

[Jackonicko]

Being a defence journalist doesn't grant him immunity from being told he's wrong.

Nobody is contesting his sources, we (or at least me as far I'm concerned) take offense at his dismissive attitude about the contribution of the other partners to the program and the conclusions he drew on his own (which are not always the statements of the people he interviewed). There's a big difference.

Indeed. But you'd really have to be privvy to often unattributable conversations and briefings I've had to know whether what I'm reporting is wrong, and whether any 'wrongness' is in my interpretation of what I'm told, or whether what I'm being told is incorrect.

As to conclusions, I try to draw on more than 40 years working in the aerospace industry in one form or another - bear in mind that when I'm talking about EAP, that's an aircraft that was active when I was starting my journalistic career, and I interviewed several of its pilots.

So far, Tempest has been a largely UK programme - though that is set to change, and that is with the caveat that one of the principal 'British' partners is Leonardo - an Italian company.

The Flying Technology Demonstrator is, thus far, an almost exclusively UK enterprise. There is an aspiration to get Japan and Italy more involved in FTD, and Strang said that discussions are underway. I hope they succeed.

I have a great deal of respect for the Italian aerospace industry, and just as much for Japan's. Both partners will bring a great deal to the party on GCAP, and both will compensate for UK areas of weakness.

I would hope to see Sweden re-entering the programme in some form, too.

I am more dismissive as to the potential involvement of Germany should SCAF break apart - I fear that however great the Germans are as engineers, designers and manufacturers, they could fatally undermine export prospects, as they seem to be doing on Typhoon at the moment.

And as for the French... they simply don't do equal partnerships in aerospace at the moment, alas.

Just for clarity - my understanding is that the Japan wouldn’t have joined the GCAP project if they weren’t approx. equal partners as the UK. So only adding Italy’s share of the project that means that. already before any other potential partners (Sweden, etc.) are added in, GCAP is already a majority non-UK project (i.e. UK significantly less than 50 percent of the project, Japan and Italy combined are a larger percentage of/ contributors to the project, and any further countries joining would almost certainly see the existing partner’s contribution reducing in proportion to each other, further reducing the UK portion of the program).
Other contributors can hopefully confirm if this understanding tallies with the current facts as communicated out by the current project member countries.

Now that’s great news for the affordability, sustainability and survivability of the overall program but it does mean that the UK-centric narrative often seen around the Tempest project has been somewhat overtaken/ rendered obsolete by events/ developments. It now appears to be very much an international multi-partner project not unlike the Eurofighter project in that there is no single larger dominant partner (unlike the F-35 program in that regard). Hopefully the narrative around the project going forward will now reflect that apparent reality (assuming my understanding/ maths above are indeed correct).

My understanding is that, at present, the GCAP shares will be broadly 40:40:20. The shares of the overall FCAS enterprise, including adjuncts and effectors cannot be assumed to be the same.

I suspect that the development narrative will remain a bit UK-centric for some time - the FTD is all-UK, and the glamorous, exciting airframe bit of GCAP will be UK-led. As the programme gets further, I suspect the emphasis will shift subtly.

 

[timmymagic]

Given that Tempest will probably be optimised for air dominance, with a soupçon of ISR and a little A-G, it may not be looking to carry larger A-G weapons - which may be the task of other crewed and uncrewed platforms.

Isn't one of the lessons from F-22 though that you need to have some margin in the bay for future developments?

Would have thought that a larger bay that had the ability to have different modules added as required, like the bomb bay fuel tanks on Vulcan and Buccaneer, would make a lot of sense. Modularity before it became a 'thing'.

Now that’s great news for the affordability, sustainability and survivability of the overall program but it does mean that the UK-centric narrative often seen around the Tempest project has been somewhat overtaken/ rendered obsolete by events/ developments. It now appears to be very much an international multi-partner project not unlike the Eurofighter project in that there is no single larger dominant partner (unlike the F-35 program in that regard).

I suspect the UK will be the partner, like the Typhoon or Meteor programmes, that is in the effective lead as it drives the programme forward, regardless of workshare. When it comes to UK joint programmes when we're not driving them forward they tend to go awry...

 

[Broken]

One would think that the Tempest/ GCAP (and many of the contemporary/ “equivalent” projects with internal weapon bays) will likely end up with bays of the approx. depth of the F-35A (& F-35C) so to have the capacity to carry 2,000lb equivalent/ ball-park size/ weight weapons internally (including Storm Shadow replacement, etc.).

And not shallower weapon bays like those seen on the F-22 and F-35B.

That knocks on to the weigh, size and internal arrangement of the Tempest/ GCAP. And potentially relaxes some of the longest range requirements (internal carriage of long range stand off weapons increasing effective reach while enabling this functionality effectively completes for fuel load/ fraction at the airframe design level).

And I don’t think anyone realistically expects the Tempest/ GCAP to end up the size of a F-111 sized theatre bomber or not to be rather smaller than what emerges re: the US airforces NGAD airframe.

One thing to bear in mind is that GCAP will replace Japan's F-2s. One of its primary roles is carrying the ASM3 anti-shipping missile, and I can't see the Japanese relenting on that particular requirement. Now they *could* give up stealth and accept external carry as now, or they could want a big old internal bay to fit it in.

 

[uk 75]

If I read an Italian, Japanese contributor complaining about uk centric emphasis I will take the argument seriously. Both countries are well able to make good cases for what they bring to the programme.
Otherwise if you dont like the UK centric emphasis on a project drawing on UK experience of collaboration on Typhoon, Tornado and Jaguar I can only assume a degree of Britphobia.

 

[WatcherZero]

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.

Just to remind you that the YF-22 and YF-23 flew with both the 4.24m long 42" diameter GE YF-120 engine and the 5.6m 46" P&W YF119-PW-100 engines using nozzle extenders and duct adapters.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don't know what weight Tempest will be, nor what the required performance will be, nor what impact the required cooling and electric power generation will have on required engine performance, and therefore I'd humbly suggest that it's hard to see what thrust rating will be required.

Then we come to the thorny issue of what size an entirely new class and concept of engine will need to be in order to produce the required thrust.

If we were limiting ourselves to existing, proven, in-service powerplants, my guess is that it would need to be a very large engine indeed.

They're wanting something comparable to an F22, aren't they? Or better? Kinda defines the engine power and therefore size.

Except that if they want F-22 levels of performance they want it in 2035, in what MAY be a lighter and more compact package, by dint of using modern materials and manufacturing.

Not with what the Japanese requirements are. They are using this to replace their F-2s, which are heavily air to ground optimized. Or rather, anti-ship optimized. That means carrying Harpoon-sized weapons internally, on long patrol flights.

So I'm expecting a 30-35ton airframe, even with a large composite % to reduce weight. Minimum.

The intake duct of the FTD does not look as though it could support re-engining with such a monster...

If they're lucky, it could just be scaled up, there's no way that little duct could flow enough air to feed an engine at least the size of an F404/414, 35" diameter, let alone a 46" diameter F119/F135 class engine.

It feeds an EJ200, don't forget.

Right. which is a small engine. The question is if simply adding a couple inches to the sides of the rectangle would expose the face of the engine or not.

 

[red admiral]

It now appears to be very much an international multi-partner project not unlike the Eurofighter project in that there is no single larger dominant partner (unlike the F-35 program in that regard). Hopefully the narrative around the project going forward will now reflect that apparent reality (assuming my understanding/ maths above are indeed correct).

That is basically the case now, and was really the aim from the UK combat air strategy to go and get partners to do this with. The UK-only bits are around UK technology investment. But everythinf gets conflated.

You've also got to remember that we mostly see English language reporting rather than Japanese or Italian, and this usually focuses on UK bits. e.g. the Lancashire Telegraph regularly covers the programme, but I wouldn't rely on this as a sole source

 

[alertken]

We outside commentators enjoy claiming...Concorde as (French...British...) but it was neither...it was both, and if you drill down you would find essentials that were US and/or ANOther. The only way JVs work in any business is when all partners bury ME! to enhance WE! The UK Programme Officer sources Jackonico reports here would not be effective in their work if they adopted any ME! position.

 

[uk 75]

Tornado is perhaps the best example of how WE rather than ME delivered where national attempts had failed.. I am sure the global nature of every big programme is now everyday life.

 

[zen]

I don't know what weight Tempest will be, nor what the required performance will be, nor what impact the required cooling and electric power generation will have on required engine performance, and therefore I'd humbly suggest that it's hard to see what thrust rating will be required.

Then we come to the thorny issue of what size an entirely new class and concept of engine will need to be in order to produce the required thrust.

If we were limiting ourselves to existing, proven, in-service powerplants, my guess is that it would need to be a very large engine indeed.

They're wanting something comparable to an F22, aren't they? Or better? Kinda defines the engine power and therefore size.

Except that if they want F-22 levels of performance they want it in 2035, in what MAY be a lighter and more compact package, by dint of using modern materials and manufacturing.

Not with what the Japanese requirements are. They are using this to replace their F-2s, which are heavily air to ground optimized. Or rather, anti-ship optimized. That means carrying Harpoon-sized weapons internally, on long patrol flights.

So I'm expecting a 30-35ton airframe, even with a large composite % to reduce weight. Minimum.

The intake duct of the FTD does not look as though it could support re-engining with such a monster...

If they're lucky, it could just be scaled up, there's no way that little duct could flow enough air to feed an engine at least the size of an F404/414, 35" diameter, let alone a 46" diameter F119/F135 class engine.

It feeds an EJ200, don't forget.

Right. which is a small engine. The question is if simply adding a couple inches to the sides of the rectangle would expose the face of the engine or not.

No because what a scaled duct proves is the airflow.
Scaling up would be the internal to the duct's ratios, not external form.

 

[Jackonicko]

The Concept 5 has been shown with three different canopy arrangements - the side view here shows the one that the ejection seat test sled reminded me of.

 

[FighterJock]

I am liking what I am seeing at present, are there any more image’s available or is that the only ones at present?

 

[Jackonicko]

I am liking what I am seeing at present, are there any more image’s available or is that the only ones at present?

Concept 5 is certainly very visually compelling.

 

[timmymagic]

So is Concept 5 a potential demonstrator?

Based on the size of the cockpit section used in the ejection seat trials (and the assumption that the dummy is 6ft, an assumption of course..) that looks to be around 18 metres long from tip to tail?

 

[shedofdread]

I've not seen anything relating to this but has there been any thought to this being a 2-seater? Considering some of the roles mooted for 6th gen platforms (control of UCAVs etc), an extra pair of hands might be useful..?

 

[Scott Kenny]

So is Concept 5 a potential demonstrator?

Based on the size of the cockpit section used in the ejection seat trials (and the assumption that the dummy is 6ft, an assumption of course..) that looks to be around 18 metres long from tip to tail?

That's shorter than I'm expecting the final project to be. Japan has a requirement for long range, and the Lockheed NGAD has been described on this forum as Sukhoi sized or a little bigger. Which means 22m+

 

[FighterJock]

I never thought of GCAP being a twin seater shedofdread, I can see the point as well having the back seater having control of UCAVs would be an advantage in air to air and air combat.

 

[timmymagic]

That's shorter than I'm expecting the final project to be. Japan has a requirement for long range, and the Lockheed NGAD has been described on this forum as Sukhoi sized or a little bigger. Which means 22m+

Yes I mentioned earlier in this thread that given the inlet duct length in the test, and likely engine length that c22m seemed to be a probable length.

 

[Broken]

I don't think the demonstrator ducting is any kind of evidence towards the scale of the Tempest aircraft. It was explicitly stated that the ducting has been tailored specifically to meet the same existing conditions at engine intake as a Typhoon. We don't really have any clues about the future engine specification, but we can guess it is going to have a very different set of requirements to EJ200/Tiffy.

BAE and Rolls have developed an F-35-like diverterless supersonic inlet for the demonstrator, while the duct itself conditions the flow of air and “makes the EJ200 think that’s its sitting in a Typhoon,” says Conrad Banks, Rolls’ chief engineer for future defense programs. “The challenge [for] BAE is to make sure the quality of air doesn’t go beyond cleared EJ200 limits . . . because if this produces anything outside the existing cleared evidence for the EJ200, we have a real challenge if we can’t use the established flight clearance protocol.”

UK Advances Tempest Demonstrator Toward 2027 First Flight | Aviation Week Network

The UK is signaling Tempest’s lead over the European FCAS with advances in ground test rigs and engine aerodynamic work.

aviationweek.com

 

[Jackonicko]

I never thought of GCAP being a twin seater shedofdread, I can see the point as well having the back seater having control of UCAVs would be an advantage in air to air and air combat.

Not many things have been ruled out, but from the conversations I've had I think a two-seater definitely has been. Bear in mind that any UCAVs in the FCAS system of systems are likely to be autonomous or semi-autonomous, and requiring simple commands rather than close control. Do you want a WSO, or do you want more fuel?