FOAS / FCBA /FOA / FCAC

[Mike Pryce]

The artists impressions are also FOAS concepts though. BAES drew up a lot of different concepts.

It's not one of the major concepts at that. Always surprised me how much BAe put out at the time.

A design team that rated the X-32 says a lot though

 

[kqcke for you]

Maybe i print it out today and measure both bays (side and bottom)

 

[SteveO]

The Low Support Vehicle study had Storm Shadow capable weapons bays.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ollege-low-support-vehicle-lsv-ca-1995.12006/

 

[kqcke for you]

Maybe i print it out today and measure both bays (side and bottom)

So using the 2 upper images i established the length to be 10,5cm and width 8.5cm which are per millimeter 16,5905cm and 16,565cm respectively (so roughly to scale with only a 0,00154% difference) making an average of 16,57775cm per millimeter.
For the height i got 3.1cm making it 1.5484cm per millimeter but given that i also can't read whats written next to height i decided to ignore it for now as its way of the scale.*

So they 2 main Bays are ~4mm wide and at most 3.3cm long (i rounded up). Thats 66,311 cm wide and 547,06575 cm long so large enough for Storm Shadow.

For the side bays i used the lowest image and the MWB for scale giving ous a length of ~370,593 cm and 61,7655 cm width.
All numbers are within +/- 5cm atleast but looking at things like stormshadow, Meteor or ASRAAM then those numbers seem to fit.

Edit:
*Nevermind me i will include this later

 

[red admiral]

It's not one of the major concepts at that. Always surprised me how much BAe put out at the time.

Which one wasn't a major concept? P158-06?

 

[Mike Pryce]

Which one wasn't a major concept? P158-06?

Yes. It was what it looks like. X-32 twin. Even down to the wingtips. Boeing had patents so that wasn't going to fly.

The National Archives shows some Future Offensive Aircraft and ST(A) 425 files due for review in 2027 and 2029. We'll see what else there was when they come out.

 

[Hood]

There's a pile of FOAS stuff that may be about to be declassified. If it is, the Jump Jet paperback will get a refresh as I will be able to say what I saw in old jobs.

Yeah with the recent release of a bunch of FCBA files it looks like I might need to rejig Wings Over the Fleet if there is ever a second edition.

FOAS is probably the last great UK aviation programme that really does need exploring in depth.

The artists impressions are also FOAS concepts though. BAES drew up a lot of different concepts.

True but concept art is always suspect in that it's sanitised for public consumption and unless you can cross-reference and match an artwork to a project number or drawing you can never be sure it's not a doodle.

 

[VTOLicious]

Looks neat. Kind of a X-32 wrapped around a Typhoon propulsion system.

 

[TsrJoe]

Passing mention of FOA. ... Flight International, 14 June 1995

 

[datafuser]

While most of the FOAS files at Kew remain under the 30 year rule, one file I recently looked at on FCBA identified two (presumably Warton) FOAS design studies that featured in Joint Force 2000 planning around the time of the 1998 SDR and the ongoing discussions about the size and shape of the CVF and FCBA force.

P.149-25: a new design multi-role stealth interdictor
P.151-02: a non-stealth Eurofighter derivative

It was assumed either would be a post-Eurofighter collaborative venture, costing around £2 billion.
The assumed 1998 plan was 220 P.151-02 alongside 3 smaller CVF, 60 JSF for the RN and 65 Eurofighters replacing the Harrier GR.7 fleet, costing £20.1 billion.
Buying 329 P.151-02 (with no CVF programme) was estimated to cost £16.4 billion.
Or vice-versa, 3 CVF and 260 JSF with no FOAS would cost £15.7 billion.

The high number of the P.149 sub-variant indicates that a fair amount of work must have been done on stealthy designs.
Just for context, Warton's FBCA studies of circa 1994 was the P.145, with the P.145-17 being the version taken forward for comparison studies with the SSF and Eurofighter.

Is there anything related to this 'son of Eurofighter' reported by AW&ST on 19 June 2000?

 

[Martes]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2083476662314791388

View: https://x.com/pinstripedline/status/2083476662314791388?s=20

Bordering a joke I did this comparison last year with the same premise - what if P.1216 had to be stealthified - if you begin to assemble the parts and curves into a single cover, add a weapon bay, bring the booms closer and enclose them as well, probably employ some different system for VTOL option, then Su-75 fits the concept eeringly naturally.

 

[H_K]

...

Here's a cleaned up version of the FOAS graphic, scaled to 25px=1m.

Looks neat. Kind of a X-32 wrapped around a Typhoon propulsion system.

Based on pixel count the inlet diameter is ~80cm or even a tad bigger. So the engines are more F414 sized... probably one of the projected growth versions of the EJ200 (EJ2x0 stage 2?).

Weapon bays are approx ~5m long and 65-70cm square based on pixel count.

I like the concept a lot. Only thing I'd want to change is the snub nose and inlet arrangement... IMHO it would looks a lot less draggy with a lengthened nose (+~2m to make it 19-19.5m long) and side inlets. That would also allow the nose gear to fold forwards instead of backwards which might help free up some space.

 

[kqcke for you]

Here's a cleaned up version of the FOAS graphic, scaled to 25px=1m.

Nice

Based on pixel count the inlet diameter is ~80cm or even a tad bigger. So the engines are more F414 sized... probably one of the projected growth versions of the EJ200 (EJ2x0 stage 2?).

Working on doing a second measuring of the model with inlet diameter and bays depth.

Weapon bays are approx ~5m long and 65-70cm square based on pixel count.

A bit longer i think but thats depending on which picture you take. The bird views shows them without the second triangle tip towered the front while the lowest picture shows them.
The side ones have the same making them large enough for an AMRAAM/Meteor sized missile.

I like the concept a lot. Only thing I'd want to change is the snub nose and inlet arrangement... IMHO it would looks a lot less draggy with a lengthened nose (+~2m to make it 19-19.5m long) and side inlets. That would also allow the nose gear to fold forwards instead of backwards which might help free up some space.

Would be interresting to know the radar size of it.

 

[H_K]

A bit longer i think but thats depending on which picture you take. The bird views shows them without the second triangle tip towered the front while the lowest picture shows them.
The side ones have the same making them large enough for an AMRAAM/Meteor sized missile.

I was counting 5m constant length for the main bays, i.e. without the triangular ends. These add 20-25cm each, so likely ~5.4m total length in the middle of the bay which should just squeeze in a Storm Shadow.

The side bays appear a little short for AMRAAM/Meteor, which is odd. ~3.5m constant length plus 10-15cm with the forward triangular end which leaves things a few cm short. Most likely the drawing isn't perfect and the side bays extend a little forward of what's shown here, i.e. up to the nose gear well (as there's no space to extend the side bays rearwards due to the main landing gear doors).

 

[VTOLicious]

Here's a cleaned up version of the FOAS graphic, scaled to 25px=1m.

Nice. Thx for sharing!
I wonder if AI could generate an accurate front view, based on the views provided.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Based on pixel count the inlet diameter is ~80cm or even a tad bigger. So the engines are more F414 sized... probably one of the projected growth versions of the EJ200 (EJ2x0 stage 2?).

That's what I'd expect. EJ270.

I like the concept a lot. Only thing I'd want to change is the snub nose and inlet arrangement... IMHO it would looks a lot less draggy with a lengthened nose (+~2m to make it 19-19.5m long) and side inlets. That would also allow the nose gear to fold forwards instead of backwards which might help free up some space.

19m would be doable, that's F-22 length. And that obviously fits into European HAS, because the F-22 does.

I'd assume that BAE had gone through the design and optimized for minimum drag.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Bordering a joke I did this comparison last year with the same premise - what if P.1216 had to be stealthified - if you begin to assemble the parts and curves into a single cover, add a weapon bay, bring the booms closer and enclose them as well, probably employ some different system for VTOL option, then Su-75 fits the concept eeringly naturally.

The real stealth P1216 is in my forthcoming book - a full GA. www.jumpjetpenguin.com

 

[Yellow Palace]

Nice. Thx for sharing!
I wonder if AI could generate an accurate front view, based on the views provided.

No, it can't generate an accurate anything, and in attempting to do so it will probably mess up the existing views.

A skilled draughtsperson, on the other hand, can make a reasonable attempt.

 

[Ainen]

The side bays appear a little short for AMRAAM/Meteor, which is odd. ~3.5m constant length plus 10-15cm with the forward triangular end which leaves things a few cm short.

Going by F-22 experience, having AMRAAM side bays in parallel to main iwb is very annoying structurally.
Not impossible, but even the US decided it isn't worth it.

 

[FighterJock]

The A-12 Avenger 2 had proposals for two AMRAAM side bays alongside the main internal weapons bays Ainen, but if that had entered service then it would have been a rarity in the USAF.

 

[NovaGA]

Doesn’t Russian “T-75” concept also use fox3 capable sidebay?

 

[paralay]

Length: 17.4 m
Wingspan: 14.08 m
Height at the standstill: 5 m
Length of the bay: 5.2 m
Width of the bay: 0.8 m
Wing area: 88–90 m²
Maximum takeoff weight: 34 tons
Empty weight: 17 tons
Fuel: 10 tons
Combat load: 6.5 tons
Thrust of engines with afterburning: 2 × 13.5–14.5 tons.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Going by F-22 experience, having AMRAAM side bays in parallel to main iwb is very annoying structurally.
Not impossible, but even the US decided it isn't worth it.

I think that was proposed for the FB-22 versions with main bays stretched to 2000lb bombs, since it was a ~2ft/30cm stretch through the whole fuselage.

I'm not sure if the reason it didn't happen was Peace Dividend (tm) or physics, however.

 

[Ainen]

I think that was proposed for the FB-22 versions with main bays stretched to 2000lb bombs, since it was a ~2ft/30cm stretch through the whole fuselage.

I'm not sure if the reason it didn't happen was Peace Dividend (tm) or physics, however.

Original F-22 was supposed to have 6 amraam capability (4+2), side bays AMRAAM requirement was only later relaxed.
And FB-22 is a true bomber... it's different.

Basically, for now in a fighter you either go big (J-36), or you stage your bays(LTS), or you can't have them in same length as the main IWB.
Or, you don't do a fighter at all, then it can work out.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Original F-22 was supposed to have 6 amraam capability (4+2), side bays AMRAAM requirement was only later relaxed.

Requirement was IIRC 4x AMRAAM plus 2x AIM-9. When the clipped-fin AMRAAMs came out LockMart juggled the mounts to stack 6x AMRAAMs.

Basically, for now in a fighter you either go big (J-36), or you stage your bays(LTS), or you can't have them in same length as the main IWB.
Or, you don't do a fighter at all, then it can work out.

Staggered length but your main bays are ~14ft/4m while side bays are ~12ft/3.5m.

 

[NovaGA]

Hello everyone! What weapons would the P158-06 configuration use? The main bay looks like it’ll fit three or four AIM-120C, but what about side bays?

 

[paralay]

5 AIM-120 + 2 AIM-9
F119 engine; it’s a bit larger.