Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by mrmalaya on Today at 02:15:39 am »
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 and 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.
2
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by Hood on Today at 01:53:01 am »
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.
3
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by CJGibson on Today at 01:43:25 am »
Why do I have that deja vu feeling…

When BAe presented his EAP mockup, and Dassault his Rafale models.

Beat me to it!

Chris
4
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by mrmalaya on Today at 12:54:45 am »
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.
5
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by datafuser on Today at 12:48:39 am »
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
6
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by XP67_Moonbat on Today at 12:16:31 am »
Any shiny pdfs on this beast?
7
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by galgot on Yesterday at 11:51:43 pm »
Why do I have that deja vu feeling…

When BAe presented his EAP mockup, and Dassault his Rafale models.
8
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by Blitzo on Yesterday at 11:32:24 pm »
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.
9
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by mrmalaya on Yesterday at 11:18:51 pm »
It is aimed at the Typhoon replacement requirement, although I don't imagine that it will be strictly A2A in role (as with Typhoon).
10
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by kcran567 on Yesterday at 08:15:38 pm »
Is this air superiority, Typhoon replacement? Is the F-35 going to overlap with this program?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10