timmymagic
Forever disappointed in MoD procurement...
- Joined
- 23 August 2011
- Messages
- 1,115
- Reaction score
- 2,952
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) UK-Japan-Italy
- Thread starter Deltafan
- Start date
La-Fuente Technologies
NEXT GENERATION AIR DOMINANCE
- Joined
- 21 November 2022
- Messages
- 345
- Reaction score
- 274
I'm guessing GCAP will still use the name "Tempest" for the manned fighter component? Just a guess
Ministry of Defence awards £650m to firms working on Tempest fighter jet
BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce among those funded, with aim of producing new aircraft by 2035www.theguardian.com
red admiral
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,489
- Reaction score
- 1,598
This is "current artwork" rather than the "current design"
- Joined
- 21 December 2006
- Messages
- 1,138
- Reaction score
- 647
Replica + F35 + doughnuts....
Starting to look a bit less fugly! Still finding it hard to get excited about it though. If they announce it’s got a 1000 mile radius of action, can carry 16x Meteors internally and can buddy tank with 4 large external tanks I might pay attention 
timmymagic
Forever disappointed in MoD procurement...
- Joined
- 23 August 2011
- Messages
- 1,115
- Reaction score
- 2,952
Brief write up on Tempest/FCAS/GCAP from Francis Tusa in Defense Aerospace.com, primarily aimed at a French audience...
View: https://twitter.com/FTusa284/status/1651147029530198016
Article Text
LONDON --- It is an increasing surprise that the understanding of the nature and organisation of the multinational Tempest programme not only has not improved over time, but has actually worsened.
Now, it is absolutely true that the fact that there are now at least three names for the project – “Tempest”, “Future Combat Air System”, and “Global Combat Air Programme” – confuses even the most hardened analyst, and even industry players can often struggle to explain all the different names!
But to come back to the core: the widespread misunderstanding about the nature of what I will call Tempest is especially evident in French media, but also in some other European outlets. Key here, as evinced in a Les Echos article of mid-April are some common misunderstandings:
• That Tempest is a British programme, with some, in effect, hangers-on in the form of Italy, Japan, as well as Saudi Arabia.
• That Tempest is a programme designed to be a “catch up” to the trinational (France, Germany, Spain) SCAF [Ed: For ease of understanding, I call the European programme by its French acronym, rather than trying to explain the difference between UK FCAS , and French FCAS!].
• That how Tempest is shaped and managed is, again, based on how SCAF is set up, that it copies it, slavishly even.
• That the companies and countries involved in Tempest are not fully integrated, unlike the situation with SCAF, and that, in effect, there is not a coherent multi-nation R&D effort underway for Tempest.
Tempest took off two years before SCAF
To cut to the chase over a key point, that Tempest is an attempt to somehow “recover lost ground” from the more advanced SCAF, there is an inconvenient thing to consider. Although talks had been underway previously, the formal launch for SCAF was the binational agreement signed in July 2017, expanded to include Spain in 2019.
But Tempest started, formally, officially, as a result of the UK 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) – the first funds were allocated in 2015, and scoping work across UK industry (largely, but also in Italy and Sweden) started then.
What seems to be the “problem” at the heart of the misunderstanding about Tempest is that there was no ceremony, no furled national flags, no set of red Morocco leather dossiers with documents to be signed in front of assembled media, no ministers toasting each other, no song and a dance. All there was were agreements between the key players, and everyone went off to do the job, no fuss.
Now, since 2015, there have been some more formal (but still pretty under-played) public signings of agreements, such as the 2019 agreement signed between the UK and Italy at the DSEI defence show in London. But this built on agreements that had been previously signed, and it expanded work already done by the two countries – it was not the start, but the continuation of what had gone on for the previous 4-5-years.
That is the point: the work had been going on for close to 5-years when this event happened. And now in 2023, one can say that Tempest has been underway for 8-years, for what it’s worth, three years longer than SCAF.
The belief that SCAF has a formal, structured governance, while Tempest is a UK-dominated and controlled project just doesn’t hold water. Tempest has division of work between not just companies, but also countries. Behaviours, expectations and the like all have agreed paths forward – Tempest is structured in the way that it needs to be.
Again, I’d see the misunderstanding as stemming from the fact that Tempest has been under-stated as a programme, leading people to (mis) understand that it is not serious or convincing. It has been made clear from the start that Tempest only works if everyone is satisfied with their place, their role, and what they’ll get from it, and these issues are embodied in documents: “dominance” is just not a word in the Team Tempest dictionary -- well, not industrially, anyway.
You don’t get partners such as Japan and Saudi Arabia (and maybe India in the not-too-distant future) if you treat them like second class players.
By-the-way, anyone trying to suggest that a programme such as Tempest has one partner dominating it to the detriment of the other partners really should look back at the ruthless application of “meilleur athlete” in SCAF negotiations, and frequent (French) briefings about the inadequacy of both German and Spanish defence companies! Let he who is without sin…
If I was a Frenchman, I’d really be wanting to understand far more about what Tempest actually is, rather than trying to be disparaging and dismissive about it. But from a Team Tempest point of view, they are all probably very happy with the lack of interest in progress over Tempest from SCAF members – it is one less thing to bother about.
And while there is still a very long way to go, if Tempest is simply playing catch up to SCAF, might people want to consider why the current plans see flying demonstrator(s) before 2025, while SCAF’s equivalent dates have slipped to 2028?
Strange, but that 3-year gap mirrors the different dates the programmes started. And every briefing on Tempest, from any of the players, gives a common view: the first variants will enter service pre-2035, as opposed to 2040+ for SCAF.
Catching up?
It is entirely conceivable that both Tempest and SCAF will take to the skies and see active service – and it is also entirely possible that both could yet fail. But I am surprised at the blind chauvinism of many European observers towards the other European fighter programme, Tempest.
You never know: understanding how Tempest operates as political and industrial entity might help SCAF in the years ahead.
About the author: Francis Tusa is a defence journalist of over 35 years' experience. Starting at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies, he branched out as a freelance writer and now publishes the Defence Analysis monthly (Inquiries at subscriptions@defenceanalysis.com)
View: https://twitter.com/FTusa284/status/1651147029530198016
Article Text
LONDON --- It is an increasing surprise that the understanding of the nature and organisation of the multinational Tempest programme not only has not improved over time, but has actually worsened.
Now, it is absolutely true that the fact that there are now at least three names for the project – “Tempest”, “Future Combat Air System”, and “Global Combat Air Programme” – confuses even the most hardened analyst, and even industry players can often struggle to explain all the different names!
But to come back to the core: the widespread misunderstanding about the nature of what I will call Tempest is especially evident in French media, but also in some other European outlets. Key here, as evinced in a Les Echos article of mid-April are some common misunderstandings:
• That Tempest is a British programme, with some, in effect, hangers-on in the form of Italy, Japan, as well as Saudi Arabia.
• That Tempest is a programme designed to be a “catch up” to the trinational (France, Germany, Spain) SCAF [Ed: For ease of understanding, I call the European programme by its French acronym, rather than trying to explain the difference between UK FCAS , and French FCAS!].
• That how Tempest is shaped and managed is, again, based on how SCAF is set up, that it copies it, slavishly even.
• That the companies and countries involved in Tempest are not fully integrated, unlike the situation with SCAF, and that, in effect, there is not a coherent multi-nation R&D effort underway for Tempest.
Tempest took off two years before SCAF
To cut to the chase over a key point, that Tempest is an attempt to somehow “recover lost ground” from the more advanced SCAF, there is an inconvenient thing to consider. Although talks had been underway previously, the formal launch for SCAF was the binational agreement signed in July 2017, expanded to include Spain in 2019.
But Tempest started, formally, officially, as a result of the UK 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) – the first funds were allocated in 2015, and scoping work across UK industry (largely, but also in Italy and Sweden) started then.
What seems to be the “problem” at the heart of the misunderstanding about Tempest is that there was no ceremony, no furled national flags, no set of red Morocco leather dossiers with documents to be signed in front of assembled media, no ministers toasting each other, no song and a dance. All there was were agreements between the key players, and everyone went off to do the job, no fuss.
Now, since 2015, there have been some more formal (but still pretty under-played) public signings of agreements, such as the 2019 agreement signed between the UK and Italy at the DSEI defence show in London. But this built on agreements that had been previously signed, and it expanded work already done by the two countries – it was not the start, but the continuation of what had gone on for the previous 4-5-years.
That is the point: the work had been going on for close to 5-years when this event happened. And now in 2023, one can say that Tempest has been underway for 8-years, for what it’s worth, three years longer than SCAF.
The belief that SCAF has a formal, structured governance, while Tempest is a UK-dominated and controlled project just doesn’t hold water. Tempest has division of work between not just companies, but also countries. Behaviours, expectations and the like all have agreed paths forward – Tempest is structured in the way that it needs to be.
Again, I’d see the misunderstanding as stemming from the fact that Tempest has been under-stated as a programme, leading people to (mis) understand that it is not serious or convincing. It has been made clear from the start that Tempest only works if everyone is satisfied with their place, their role, and what they’ll get from it, and these issues are embodied in documents: “dominance” is just not a word in the Team Tempest dictionary -- well, not industrially, anyway.
You don’t get partners such as Japan and Saudi Arabia (and maybe India in the not-too-distant future) if you treat them like second class players.
By-the-way, anyone trying to suggest that a programme such as Tempest has one partner dominating it to the detriment of the other partners really should look back at the ruthless application of “meilleur athlete” in SCAF negotiations, and frequent (French) briefings about the inadequacy of both German and Spanish defence companies! Let he who is without sin…
If I was a Frenchman, I’d really be wanting to understand far more about what Tempest actually is, rather than trying to be disparaging and dismissive about it. But from a Team Tempest point of view, they are all probably very happy with the lack of interest in progress over Tempest from SCAF members – it is one less thing to bother about.
And while there is still a very long way to go, if Tempest is simply playing catch up to SCAF, might people want to consider why the current plans see flying demonstrator(s) before 2025, while SCAF’s equivalent dates have slipped to 2028?
Strange, but that 3-year gap mirrors the different dates the programmes started. And every briefing on Tempest, from any of the players, gives a common view: the first variants will enter service pre-2035, as opposed to 2040+ for SCAF.
Catching up?
It is entirely conceivable that both Tempest and SCAF will take to the skies and see active service – and it is also entirely possible that both could yet fail. But I am surprised at the blind chauvinism of many European observers towards the other European fighter programme, Tempest.
You never know: understanding how Tempest operates as political and industrial entity might help SCAF in the years ahead.
About the author: Francis Tusa is a defence journalist of over 35 years' experience. Starting at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies, he branched out as a freelance writer and now publishes the Defence Analysis monthly (Inquiries at subscriptions@defenceanalysis.com)
Attachments
timmymagic
Forever disappointed in MoD procurement...
- Joined
- 23 August 2011
- Messages
- 1,115
- Reaction score
- 2,952
MBDA ‘in active discussions' with potential Japanese GCAP teammates
MBDA is “in active discussions” with one or more potential Japanese companies to team on the new Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), a senior official said on 10 May.
www.janes.com
Quote from the article...
"“At the core of GCAP, there will be three parties, with effectively a lead company for each nation. For effects, MBDA UK and MBDA Italy are already one company, and what we will do will be to bring a Japanese teammate into that. We are in active discussions, but not yet ready to name any companies.”"
I mean its not hard to guess is it....its Mitsubishi Heavy Industries....I suppose if there are 'several' companies you could add Mitsubishi Electric....
WatcherZero
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 22 May 2023
- Messages
- 465
- Reaction score
- 823
They are talking about weapon partner for MBDA, under their partnership arrangement each country has one primary contractor (BAE, Leonardo, MHI) one electronics lead (Leonardo UK, Leonardo Italy, IHI Corporation) one engine lead (Rolls Royce, Avio, IHI Corporation) and one weapon lead (MBDA UK, MBDA Italy and Japanese is TBD though likely to be Mitsubishi Electric as they are working on JNAAM with UK).
I believe this arrangement stems from the earlier desire to see each nation able to build the majority of their own aircraft domestically using robotic assembly lines simplifying logistics over aircraft like the F-35 with thousands of parts suppliers spread around the world.
I believe this arrangement stems from the earlier desire to see each nation able to build the majority of their own aircraft domestically using robotic assembly lines simplifying logistics over aircraft like the F-35 with thousands of parts suppliers spread around the world.
Last edited:
Japan has just announced that they will begin final procurement of the GCAP FTB (Flight Test Bed) based on the Kawasaki C-2.
View: https://twitter.com/THABOS47747375/status/1663115755699974145
View: https://twitter.com/harapeko11/status/1663144592236240896
The initial announcement was made in 2018 with work progressing from 2019 to 2023. Flight tests will be conducted from 2023 to 2024, so maybe pics will start popping up later in the year.
戦闘機のミッションシステム統合を試作研究へ – 旅行業界・航空業界 最新情報 − 航空新聞社
www.jwing.net
Along with that, the engine system for GCAP will be procured too
View: https://twitter.com/harapeko11/status/1663117219377864704
Last edited:
- Joined
- 25 January 2020
- Messages
- 1,098
- Reaction score
- 1,542
Could that open the possibility for a KF-21 equivalent? This is taking into consideration the advanced (and likely classified) technology which likely can't be exported outside of the three partners due to cost and security concerns.
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,619
That appears very unlikely given the costs (and simultaneous drain on resources and other likely distractions) associated with developing and producing another “export only” airframe in parallel with the “priority” airframe for the program partners.
Maybe some scope for some of the programs technology to be shared with some other parties (including potential “unmanned wingmen”) but even that may require buy-in/ joining the program proper.
FighterJock
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 29 October 2007
- Messages
- 4,384
- Reaction score
- 3,642
The KF-21 is a fifth generation fighter whereas the GCAP/Tempest is going to be a sixth generation fighter, though I have nothing against the KF-21 it is a good looking fighter.
GCAP has already been stated to enter the export market, and those who will even be able to afford it likely won't be a security concern. As for a 2nd core manned platform that will be handled the F-35. All partners of GCAP are some of the biggest F-35 operators outside of the US and have each contributed to the F-35 program in a significant way. From the start GCAP was made to directly integrate with the F-35 in a Hi-Lo fashion. If a country either can't afford or doesn't have the clearance to buy an F-35 as a secondary system then there is no way they will get their hands on GCAP.
The KF-21 technically wont reach it's 5th gen status until around the time GCAP is meant to enter service ~mid 2030s.
FighterJock
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 29 October 2007
- Messages
- 4,384
- Reaction score
- 3,642
I did not know that Kota, thanks.
If they were to create an "export fighter" they'll rather create a variant with dumbed down avionics rather than designing an all-new jet. That is of course should they think that such is necessary, which as Kota said, was alluded to be not the case.
WatcherZero
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 22 May 2023
- Messages
- 465
- Reaction score
- 823
Im interested to see the demonstrators, Japan testing radar equipment on a C-2 with modified nose.
UK is building a manned stealth demonstrator to validate their RCS/EM reduction techniques in the real world which 'wont be representative of the final design' as well as using Eurofighter as a testbed and converting a 757 into a flying lab named Excalibur with 28 tons of instruments to test the distributed sensors and nose.
And I believe Italy has greenlit a demonstrator to be built as well though not heard much on it.
UK is building a manned stealth demonstrator to validate their RCS/EM reduction techniques in the real world which 'wont be representative of the final design' as well as using Eurofighter as a testbed and converting a 757 into a flying lab named Excalibur with 28 tons of instruments to test the distributed sensors and nose.
And I believe Italy has greenlit a demonstrator to be built as well though not heard much on it.
Jackonicko
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 4 February 2009
- Messages
- 318
- Reaction score
- 573
Designing an airframe is now the easy, simple bit, in theory at least, thanks to the whole digital/model-based design process. (And yes, I'm aware that the T-7, as the poster child for this approach is proving problematic).
Leveraging this to produce a smaller, lighter, perhaps single-engined manned platform, using the same sensor suite, weapons and connectivity, capable of 'plugging in' to the FCAS system of systems, could become a very compelling F-16/F-35 replacement. Not everyone needs twin engines and massive range, after all. It might also be the best way of arriving at a carrier-capable variant, too.
The Tempest is unlikely to sell many outside the core programme partners. A smaller, lighter and cheaper. manned sixth gen fighter might really steal a march on the competition.
Perhaps we'll learn more on/after Tuesday...?
Leveraging this to produce a smaller, lighter, perhaps single-engined manned platform, using the same sensor suite, weapons and connectivity, capable of 'plugging in' to the FCAS system of systems, could become a very compelling F-16/F-35 replacement. Not everyone needs twin engines and massive range, after all. It might also be the best way of arriving at a carrier-capable variant, too.
The Tempest is unlikely to sell many outside the core programme partners. A smaller, lighter and cheaper. manned sixth gen fighter might really steal a march on the competition.
Perhaps we'll learn more on/after Tuesday...?
Jackonicko
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 4 February 2009
- Messages
- 318
- Reaction score
- 573
Embargoed for a few more hours but yes, we learned a lot, as the first visitors to the Tempest Demonstrator facility in Warton's hangar five.
Jackonicko
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 4 February 2009
- Messages
- 318
- Reaction score
- 573
And a new GCAP logo?
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Ae...continueFlag=bd0f645f0dbfd07c1fcd2e24e5bd302a
Nikkei:
“The (GCAP) demonstrator, when it is completed in 2027, will be fitted with two Eurojet EJ200 engines, a model used in the Eurofighter Typhoon.”
Nikkei:
“The (GCAP) demonstrator, when it is completed in 2027, will be fitted with two Eurojet EJ200 engines, a model used in the Eurofighter Typhoon.”
Attachments
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,711
- Reaction score
- 3,239
if its two EJ2000, i wonder if the built aircraft will be smaller than I thought.
more KF-21 size than Kaan or F-22 sized
more KF-21 size than Kaan or F-22 sized
No GCAP is still going to be absolutely massive. This is just a tech demonstrator to test sub systems and not a prototype airframe. Think of it as X-2 is to F-X as unnamed demonstrator is to GCAP. It seems like engine testing will be handled by Japan too so the UK will be studying other things and just needs some engines to get the airframe into the sky hence EJ2000s.
- Joined
- 16 January 2015
- Messages
- 728
- Reaction score
- 2,621
Those pictures are very interesting, thanks for sharing the article.
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.
That sled's shape and canopy don't even remotely look like any of the released images of the Tempest so far.
"Officials revealed for the first time the kind of testing conducted -- fast jet crew ejection and aerodynamics of the engine system. While these elements may not be directly reflected in the GCAP fighter jet, the processes were run now to develop the testing processes and remove risks of delay and cost overruns."
Time will tell.
Flightglobal acticle：
www.flightglobal.com
“
While the Team Tempest partners have not revealed the overall design of the demonstrator vehicle, its large scale is indicated by the engine duct having a length of roughly 10m (32ft 8in) from the intake to the front of the engine. It has been “uniquely shaped to slow the air from supersonic to subsonic speeds at the engine face”, they note.”
UK reveals rapid progress on sixth-generation fighter demonstrator effort
The UK is making strong early progress with its sixth-generation flying technology demonstrator programme, with its industry partners having already performed tests on key engine, crew escape and flight control technologies.
www.flightglobal.com
“
While the Team Tempest partners have not revealed the overall design of the demonstrator vehicle, its large scale is indicated by the engine duct having a length of roughly 10m (32ft 8in) from the intake to the front of the engine. It has been “uniquely shaped to slow the air from supersonic to subsonic speeds at the engine face”, they note.”
Jackonicko
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 4 February 2009
- Messages
- 318
- Reaction score
- 573
The ejection seat test sled has to be fully aerodynamically representative to be of any use - with the exception of mods to the underside to keep it on the rail.
Looking at the actual sled yesterday, I was immediately reminded of the F-23-like Concept 5 model shown at Farnborough last year.
Perhaps not entirely coincidentally, that model sits at the front of hangar 5 as you walk in...
- Joined
- 16 January 2015
- Messages
- 728
- Reaction score
- 2,621
The front doesn't really look like Concept 5 to me, if this is what you mean:
Instead, it looks increasingly more like a 24DMU development, with the area behind the canopy raised/revised to reduce drag.
Maybe, for once, we are the ones that copy the Chinese (see the FC-31 -> J-35 redesign)...
Instead, it looks increasingly more like a 24DMU development, with the area behind the canopy raised/revised to reduce drag.
Maybe, for once, we are the ones that copy the Chinese (see the FC-31 -> J-35 redesign)...
timmymagic
Forever disappointed in MoD procurement...
- Joined
- 23 August 2011
- Messages
- 1,115
- Reaction score
- 2,952
10 metre ducts, 4 metre long EJ-200 engine....thats looking like a close to 20 metre long airframe. That's F-15/F-22 size.
Production Tempest engines will be even longer, more like F135 length (5.5m). It looks like Tempest will be bigger than YF-23 in length...(for reference 20.5m)
Jackonicko
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 4 February 2009
- Messages
- 318
- Reaction score
- 573
If you think 24DMU was a Japanese design in the first place, of course... and not developed from the BAE 'concept spread'
- Joined
- 16 January 2015
- Messages
- 728
- Reaction score
- 2,621
Man...there is a lot of hills one can choose to die on, but you're picking one that doesn't even make any sense.
That concept spread is supposed to show what lead to the selection of the original Tempest planform.
You should have posted the whole picture, without cropping it, so it could have been easier to see that what became Tempest pre-2022, was one of the concepts explored and, in the end, downselected by BAE.
And it does not look at all like 24DMU.
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).
So, no. 24DMU is NOT a BAE concept.
You don't have a great record so far in this thread, so maybe you should sit this one out...
Jackonicko
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 4 February 2009
- Messages
- 318
- Reaction score
- 573
I'm not choosing to die on a hill over anything. I'm just pointing to apparent links and expressing an opinion.
It is an informed opinion, as, due to what I do for a living, I'm lucky enough to get some fairly privileged access.
1) I briefed the artist for the Air International and AFM illustration (Juanita Franzi) and the picture I posted at #192 was the source of that diagram. It is not cropped or manipulated, save for perspective. The original did not include the P189 Pregnant Pelican. I sat in the brief by Michael Christie at which the Concept Spread was revealed, but am not the source of the photo.
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, let alone with the eventual definitive GCAP manned fighter design, which remains many years from being defined and frozen.
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.
Your record seems to be of posting stuff you find on the internet, and of thinking that being "at least vaguely aerodynamically representative of the production aircraft" is adequate for ejection seat testing. Bear in mind that these tests are to test the escape system of the flying demonstrator NOT the production aircraft, and that when using an existing, unmodified seat design, the only purpose of the tests is to look at the performance of the system in the actual cockpit that it will be fitted to, with the same aerodynamics, the same canopy, the same MDC, and the same airflow interactions.
3) There were BAE and UK MoD people working with Japan long before GCAP. 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. You don't agree. That's fine, and we don't need to get het up about it, surely?
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. And 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.
5) Yesterday, Air Commodore Martin Lowe (FCAS Programme Director), Neil Strang (BAE Programme Director) and Conrad Banks (RR Future Programmes) all emphasised that all options were still being considered when asked specifically directly about the scope for a second manned platform within the FCAS system of systems. In private conversations, other senior programme officials reiterated with even more vehemence 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.
6) I could take issue with so much that is written on this thread - for example one could unpick the claim that: "UK is building a manned stealth demonstrator to validate their RCS/EM reduction techniques in the real world which 'wont be representative of the final design'.
a) yes, they're building a manned supersonic LO demonstrator.
b) It will not be used to validate RCS/EM reduction techniques
c) because the flying demonstrator won't have the coatings, and will have a canopy with Hawk-type, Christmas Tree pattern MDC embedded, and because
d) flying a full-up LO aircraft from Warton would be a bit of a gift to the enemy.
e) The demonstrator will not be representative of the final design.
It is an informed opinion, as, due to what I do for a living, I'm lucky enough to get some fairly privileged access.
1) I briefed the artist for the Air International and AFM illustration (Juanita Franzi) and the picture I posted at #192 was the source of that diagram. It is not cropped or manipulated, save for perspective. The original did not include the P189 Pregnant Pelican. I sat in the brief by Michael Christie at which the Concept Spread was revealed, but am not the source of the photo.
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, let alone with the eventual definitive GCAP manned fighter design, which remains many years from being defined and frozen.
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.
Your record seems to be of posting stuff you find on the internet, and of thinking that being "at least vaguely aerodynamically representative of the production aircraft" is adequate for ejection seat testing. Bear in mind that these tests are to test the escape system of the flying demonstrator NOT the production aircraft, and that when using an existing, unmodified seat design, the only purpose of the tests is to look at the performance of the system in the actual cockpit that it will be fitted to, with the same aerodynamics, the same canopy, the same MDC, and the same airflow interactions.
3) There were BAE and UK MoD people working with Japan long before GCAP. 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. You don't agree. That's fine, and we don't need to get het up about it, surely?
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. And 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.
5) Yesterday, Air Commodore Martin Lowe (FCAS Programme Director), Neil Strang (BAE Programme Director) and Conrad Banks (RR Future Programmes) all emphasised that all options were still being considered when asked specifically directly about the scope for a second manned platform within the FCAS system of systems. In private conversations, other senior programme officials reiterated with even more vehemence 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.
6) I could take issue with so much that is written on this thread - for example one could unpick the claim that: "UK is building a manned stealth demonstrator to validate their RCS/EM reduction techniques in the real world which 'wont be representative of the final design'.
a) yes, they're building a manned supersonic LO demonstrator.
b) It will not be used to validate RCS/EM reduction techniques
c) because the flying demonstrator won't have the coatings, and will have a canopy with Hawk-type, Christmas Tree pattern MDC embedded, and because
d) flying a full-up LO aircraft from Warton would be a bit of a gift to the enemy.
e) The demonstrator will not be representative of the final design.
timmymagic
Forever disappointed in MoD procurement...
- Joined
- 23 August 2011
- Messages
- 1,115
- Reaction score
- 2,952
Do you mean someone could park a ship on the 12 mile limit off Southport and collect the signature?
Or is Blackpool a wretched hive of scum and villainy?....Actually no need to confirm that bit...
- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 4,385
- Reaction score
- 7,681
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 £££££££).
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 £££££££).
Jackonicko
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 4 February 2009
- Messages
- 318
- Reaction score
- 573
Do it right, do it cleverly, and creating a new airframe is relatively easy and cheap.* There's no reason that a smaller, single-engined FCAS could not be as easy and cheap to develop as a Loyal Wingman. If it uses the same actuators, engine, radar and DASS as Tempest, with smaller bays (enough for an A-A or 'Day One' loadout) and less fuel you're looking at a potential 6th Gen F-16/Gripen replacement - and possibly an F-35 replacement for some operators.
Stealthy, supercruising, well armed, with sixth gen sensors and DAS? Probably more agile than the core manned platform? Sounds compelling to me.
It might not be well-suited for Japanese or RAF requirements, unless as part of a Hi:Lo mix, and it might not be well suited to peer-level war against Russia or China, but it would tick the box for many operators.
*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.
Stealthy, supercruising, well armed, with sixth gen sensors and DAS? Probably more agile than the core manned platform? Sounds compelling to me.
It might not be well-suited for Japanese or RAF requirements, unless as part of a Hi:Lo mix, and it might not be well suited to peer-level war against Russia or China, but it would tick the box for many operators.
*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.
Jackonicko
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 4 February 2009
- Messages
- 318
- Reaction score
- 573
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?
FighterJock
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 29 October 2007
- Messages
- 4,384
- Reaction score
- 3,642
Two manned platforms is news to me. I would imagine that the second platform would be a single engined lighter fighter that would be less expensive than the main fighter.
- Joined
- 16 January 2015
- Messages
- 728
- Reaction score
- 2,621
@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.
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.
3)
4)
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) 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.
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.
3)
Alas, English is not my mother tongue, but I suspect this is the complete opposite of what you implied by writing:
Only one of those statements can be true at any one time, make up your mind, please.
4)
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
-
-
joint development of a Franco-Indian air combat system?- Started by Deltafan
- Replies: 18
-
Japanese next generation fighter studies pre GCAP (aka i3, F-3)- Started by bobbymike
- Replies: 565
-
Replacement for the Kawasaki T-4, possible joint UK-Japan advanced trainer?
- Started by Maro.Kyo
- Replies: 15
-
