BAE Systems Combat Air Flying Demonstrator

Reuben James said:
How much is likely to change from this demonstrator to the final production models? Others have said it'll grow in size significantly.
Click to expand...
There will never be a production model of the demonstrator. It is "EAP" to GCAP's "Typhoon". Different designs.
 
Jackonicko said:
Haven't finished writing up the briefing we (Craig Hoyle, Gareth Jennings, Tony Osborne, Tim Robinson) received on Monday afternoon. This press release and image were embargoed until 2230 today...
Click to expand...
Is the write up something your able to share when completed, or at least the parts that are not requested to be non-disclosed.

Any new info on the progress on the BAE tier 2 ACP, that last reporting is aiming for first flight early 2026. In terms of it being ready to fly with demonstrator for developing MUMT. Though so far reporting for MUMT tier 2 ACP has been with the Eurofighter mentioned as the stepping stone development platform. I wouldn't be surprised if this didn't come up in discussion given the focus on demonstrator.

I wonder how much their hoping to shorten the build time on the final GCAP design with the additive manufacturing, robotics etc. Given Eurofighter build is 3 years from what I'm aware & GCAP will be much bigger, LO, advanced. In a UK Defence Select Committee hearing a year or two ago, a member of the committee asked if faster build time could be looked into for EF should circumstances become more pressing.
 

Attachments

  • 101253.png
    101253.png
    172.5 KB · Views: 111
Last edited:
Jackonicko said:
Jaspar et al went to Warton for an 'overview' visit that included lots of stuff that the specialist media were already familiar with. That's why Craig, Gareth, Tony, Tim and I were given an in depth briefing.
Click to expand...
Given it's the Guardian, I completely understand that - I don't normally read them for their defence coverage!
 
Mk_IX_Hawk said:
I wonder how much their hoping to shorten the build time on the final GCAP design with the additive manufacturing, robotics etc. Given Eurofighter build is 3 years from what I'm aware & GCAP will be much bigger, LO, advanced.
Click to expand...
I'd not actually expect size to be a major driver, it's still basically the same number of parts to plug together. Stealth, OTOH, might be an issue.

ETA: Might well be less parts, actually, given additive manufacturing.
 
Last edited:
Jackonicko said:
Twin EJ200 confirmed. Landing gear hinted at.
Click to expand...
I would have thought a forward retracting Tornado main gear would be better suited to a high wing design. The Typhoon retracts sideways towards the centreline….

Thinking about it, I guess they could swap a Typhoon main gear around so they retract outwards into the wings and fuselage sides? F-22 style.
 

Attachments

  • F-22 129.jpg
    F-22 129.jpg
    215.3 KB · Views: 114
Last edited:
Nx4eu said:
Here was the state of the demonstrator almost exactly 1 year ago, with the demonstrator having "more than 50% of aircraft by weight now in the build process." Can the size be estimated based off of these two photos?
Click to expand...

The EJ-200 is 4 metres long....and the intakes for the demonstrator add another 10 metres to that....according to this...plus the cockpit beyond that...

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 aviationweek.com
 
Mk_IX_Hawk said:
Is the write up something your able to share when completed, or at least the parts that are not requested to be non-disclosed.

Any new info on the progress on the BAE tier 2 ACP, that last reporting is aiming for first flight early 2026. In terms of it being ready to fly with demonstrator for developing MUMT. Though so far reporting for MUMT tier 2 ACP has been with the Eurofighter mentioned as the stepping stone development platform. I wouldn't be surprised if this didn't come up in discussion given the focus on demonstrator.

I wonder how much their hoping to shorten the build time on the final GCAP design with the additive manufacturing, robotics etc. Given Eurofighter build is 3 years from what I'm aware & GCAP will be much bigger, LO, advanced. In a UK Defence Select Committee hearing a year or two ago, a member of the committee asked if faster build time could looked into for EF should circumstances become more pressing.
Click to expand...
I detect a renewed interest in a second manned platform within the FCAS family of systems, not least because ACPs with the required range, performance and capability threaten to be prohibitively expensive. The current US CCAs lack all of these things!
 
raptor82 said:
www.aerosociety.com

The Quick and the Dead 2.0: Can a demonstrator speed up Britain’s next fighter? - Royal Aeronautical Society

The recent unveiling of Britain’s new fighter demonstrator should be an exciting moment with the first new UK combat jet in four decades. But can it help GCAP maintain its pace? Dr MICHAEL PRYCE looks at the mixed record of technology demonstrators.
www.aerosociety.com www.aerosociety.com
Click to expand...
It's a quick refresh I did with Bill Sweetman so thoughts welcome. Like most stuff at the moment it is fairly speculative.
 
Mike Pryce said:
It's a quick refresh I did with Bill Sweetman so thoughts welcome. Like most stuff at the moment it is fairly speculative.
Click to expand...

Some quick initial (half-baked) observations and whatnot, in no particular order at all.

About Sweetman's notion about Gripen C/D and E being similar in airframe architecture - there's, as far as I have gathered, very little actual parts commonality between the two? This is not a criticism of his terminology, just something I've wondered about before - how much actual testing, validation, etc. was actually, demonstrably avoided by doing such an outwardly similar but still different jet? Going forward, because of the overlapping schedules (and presumably workforce) between the two, it'll be intriguing to see how dissimilar CAFD and GCAP end up being.

I'm not particularly read up on EAP history but it failing to de-risk carbon fibre durability brought current and emerging production methods to mind. Additive and related techniques (coupled with generative and parametric design) surely are more amenable to prototyping and, I presume, might prove to allow for more sustainably and affordably consumable parts and components for actual production models. One could argue that the very existence of these technologies is, on balance and used judiciously, somewhat de-risking. Many ramifications for maintenance, localization and interchangeability but unclear how a (singular?) prototype can prove related concepts.

Sweetman states that this is the first performance aircraft any of the GCAP participants has designed in decades but later on you do mention Shinshin too. The X-2 was the first association I had when learning about CAFD (and I mentioned as much here), I guess it has sort of in hindsight become a GCAP-related prototype as well. I tried to find out more about the entire arc of its testing (beyond the initial reporting around its first flights) but so far found little to nothing of interest.

As to integrating digital design data to airworthiness evaluation, information models are (/becoming) not only ubiquitous but obligatory in most design disciplines in inspecting compliance and getting permissions. Isn't there anything that could be carried over as is from the civilian aviation side which has more recent designs?
 
UpForce said:
Some quick initial (half-baked) observations and whatnot, in no particular order at all.

About Sweetman's notion about Gripen C/D and E being similar in airframe architecture - there's, as far as I have gathered, very little actual parts commonality between the two? This is not a criticism of his terminology, just something I've wondered about before - how much actual testing, validation, etc. was actually, demonstrably avoided by doing such an outwardly similar but still different jet? Going forward, because of the overlapping schedules (and presumably workforce) between the two, it'll be intriguing to see how dissimilar CAFD and GCAP end up being.

I'm not particularly read up on EAP history but it failing to de-risk carbon fibre durability brought current and emerging production methods to mind. Additive and related techniques (coupled with generative and parametric design) surely are more amenable to prototyping and, I presume, might prove to allow for more sustainably and affordably consumable parts and components for actual production models. One could argue that the very existence of these technologies is, on balance and used judiciously, somewhat de-risking. Many ramifications for maintenance, localization and interchangeability but unclear how a (singular?) prototype can prove related concepts.

Sweetman states that this is the first performance aircraft any of the GCAP participants has designed in decades but later on you do mention Shinshin too. The X-2 was the first association I had when learning about CAFD (and I mentioned as much here), I guess it has sort of in hindsight become a GCAP-related prototype as well. I tried to find out more about the entire arc of its testing (beyond the initial reporting around its first flights) but so far found little to nothing of interest.

As to integrating digital design data to airworthiness evaluation, information models are (/becoming) not only ubiquitous but obligatory in most design disciplines in inspecting compliance and getting permissions. Isn't there anything that could be carried over as is from the civilian aviation side which has more recent designs?
Click to expand...
The X-2 was almost a decade ago so I guess it comes under Bill's comments about not having a gap or dispersing the team.

I am pretty sure digital assurance/cert will be tried and it is interesting to see if the demo will be part of that.

Anything re 3D printing etc. will be better than EAP's fuselage panel of CFC which was pretty limited.

Hopefully more info, and a better name, soon.
 
Last edited:
UpForce said:
Some quick initial (half-baked) observations and whatnot, in no particular order at all.

About Sweetman's notion about Gripen C/D and E being similar in airframe architecture - there's, as far as I have gathered, very little actual parts commonality between the two? This is not a criticism of his terminology, just something I've wondered about before - how much actual testing, validation, etc. was actually, demonstrably avoided by doing such an outwardly similar but still different jet? Going forward, because of the overlapping schedules (and presumably workforce) between the two, it'll be intriguing to see how dissimilar CAFD and GCAP end up being.

I'm not particularly read up on EAP history but it failing to de-risk carbon fibre durability brought current and emerging production methods to mind. Additive and related techniques (coupled with generative and parametric design) surely are more amenable to prototyping and, I presume, might prove to allow for more sustainably and affordably consumable parts and components for actual production models. One could argue that the very existence of these technologies is, on balance and used judiciously, somewhat de-risking. Many ramifications for maintenance, localization and interchangeability but unclear how a (singular?) prototype can prove related concepts.

Sweetman states that this is the first performance aircraft any of the GCAP participants has designed in decades but later on you do mention Shinshin too. The X-2 was the first association I had when learning about CAFD (and I mentioned as much here), I guess it has sort of in hindsight become a GCAP-related prototype as well. I tried to find out more about the entire arc of its testing (beyond the initial reporting around its first flights) but so far found little to nothing of interest.

As to integrating digital design data to airworthiness evaluation, information models are (/becoming) not only ubiquitous but obligatory in most design disciplines in inspecting compliance and getting permissions. Isn't there anything that could be carried over as is from the civilian aviation side which has more recent designs?
Click to expand...
You can view Shinshin's post-project external evaluation here.

I think the explanation in this report is difficult to understand.
The results of Shinshin were to confirm the differences between the simulation and the actual aircraft in terms of RCS, structural strength, maneuverability, etc.
The goal was to develop fighter jet design capabilities using DX,
and it is reported that this has been fully achieved.
 
Other external evaluations can be found here.
There are too many files, we will only list the technical names that seem to be related to GCAP.

令和5年度（事前評価）次期中距離空対空誘導弾
令和2年度（事前評価）エレメントレベルDBFに関する研究
令和元年度（事前評価）次期戦闘機
平成30年度（事前評価）FC（Fire Control）ネットワーク・戦闘機等のミッションシステム・ インテグレーションに関する研究
平成29年度（事前評価）将来中距離空対空誘導弾に関する研究・高耐熱CFRPモータケースの研究
平成27年度（事前評価）推力偏向ノズルに関する研究・将来戦闘機用小型熱移送システムに関する研究
平成26年度（事前評価）将来戦闘機の技術的成立性に関する研究・戦闘機用エンジンシステムに関する研究・電動アクチュエーション技術の研究・ステルス戦闘機用レドームに関する研究・将来HMDシステムに関する研究
平成25年度（事前評価）将来射撃管制技術の研究・赤外線画像の高解像度技術に関する研究・機体構造軽量化技術の研究
平成24年度（事前評価）戦闘機用エンジン要素の研究・ウェポンリリース・ステルス化の研究・先進RF自己防御シミュレーションの研究
平成23年度（事前評価）将来ミサイル警戒技術に関する研究・戦闘機用統合火器管制技術の研究・直巻マルチセグメント・ロケットモータの研究
平成22年度（事前評価）RCS評価方式の研究（1）屋外計測評価技術の研究
平成21年度（事前評価）先進統合センサ・システムに関する研究・ウェポン内装化空力技術の研究・次世代エンジン主要構成要素の研究
平成19年度（事前評価）先進技術実証機の研究・3次元高精度方探システムの研究
平成17年度（事後評価）新複合材構造の研究
There are many more, but they're not all in one place, so they can be hard to find.
 
So where does the landing gear come from that the Demonstrator has?
 
Maybe start a new thread in the 'Alternative' section for such speculative musings outwith the CAFD. thread ?

(Just for once it would be nice to see a linear thread without it being derailled by various thought exercises !)
 
Last edited:
If the GCAP program has just now decided they need a demonstrator vehicle then the actual GCAP platform is going to take much longer as compared to others.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom