Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

UK unveils new next generation fighter jet, the 'Tempest'

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

UK unveils new next generation fighter jet, the 'Tempest'

Old 6th Aug 2018, 13:36
  #141 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,890
Received 1,959 Likes on 878 Posts
I believe Saab have a rounded capability - and a fast prototyping and build to budget reputation. A joint programme seems far more likely to succeed in the required timeframe than anything requiring a joint venture with the French or Germans.
ORAC is online now  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 14:28
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by glad rag
"Witness the caterwalling [sic] when the F-35 was revealed to have less turn performance than the F-16. "
Really? You got some proof of that KenV ??
Really??? Where've you been? The "F-35 Cancelled" thread includes pages and pages and pages of caterwauling about the F-35's deficient turn performance relative to the F-16. You were a contributor to that caterwauling. (scroll to the posts around July 2015 / post number 6400.)

And the caterwauling wasn't just here in PPRUNE. Here's an article from that period that reflects the general caterwauling on this subject:
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/th...igh-1714712248

Last edited by KenV; 6th Aug 2018 at 15:10.
KenV is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 22:49
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,625
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Ken -
There's a line from C.S. Lewis' The Hideous Strength that's stayed with me for a long time.
At Belbury one used the words "whining" and "yapping" to describe any opposition which the actions of Belbury aroused in the outer world.
Animal-noise metaphors are an unsubtle insult used by the desperate and unimaginative.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2018, 11:02
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by LowObservable
Ken - Animal-noise metaphors are an unsubtle insult used by the desperate and unimaginative.
But "caterwauling" has such panache and is so fitting to the subject that it would be a shame not to use it.
KenV is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2018, 23:37
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
Really??? Where've you been? The "F-35 Cancelled" thread includes pages and pages and pages of caterwauling about the F-35's deficient turn performance relative to the F-16. You were a contributor to that caterwauling. (scroll to the posts around July 2015 / post number 6400.)

And the caterwauling wasn't just here in PPRUNE. Here's an article from that period that reflects the general caterwauling on this subject:
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/th...igh-1714712248
But you still haven't provided proof to discount the F16/F35 mismatch/caterwailing that you alluded to.

If this is the case, prove it and stop your silly game playing.



But hey ho ..on a lighter note.

If it's Boeing, it's not going.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/boeing...ess-iss-2018-8



Enjoy.
glad rag is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2018, 13:13
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by glad rag
But you still haven't provided proof to discount the F16/F35 mismatch/caterwailing that you alluded to.
Aaaaah! You're not claiming the caterwauling did not happen, but instead you're asking for "proof" the caterwauling was not misplaced. Your gut hatred for the F-35 has kept you in the dark over the past few years. Below are a few articles that rebut your caterwauling. There are LOTS more. Google is your friend.

And oh yeah, about your oft repated claim that the F-35 is not multi-role? Read the last two sentences in that last article (the one by the Norwegian pilot in The Aviationist.) He totally trashes your absurd claim. And that was written over two years ago. The F-35 has improved since as has the experience of its pilots in actual operations.

https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35...omeback-2017-4
https://warisboring.com/norwegian-pi...-can-dogfight/
https://www.businessinsider.com/f35-...ighting-2017-1
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/06/...-laid-to-rest/
https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/0...-hand-account/

Last edited by KenV; 8th Aug 2018 at 13:35.
KenV is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2018, 13:52
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To perhaps help move the thread off yet another discussion about F-35 merits and demerits:

Looking at the Tempest 'mock up' (in my own view, it's really not much more than a three dimensional doodle), does anyone share my view that this particular concept is probably not looking at operating from a QE class carrier? I'd offer the thought that any future UK combat aircraft programme should at least consider the need to be able to operate at sea. As ever, I realise that many PPruners out there who know much better than me will disagree.

So - any thoughts on whether 'Tempest' should go to sea?

Best Regards as ever to those in town who have to decipher what's in the crystal ball

Engines
Engines is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2018, 16:03
  #148 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,890
Received 1,959 Likes on 878 Posts
Who's carriers?

Not ours - in the timeframe quoted it's a Typhoon replacement and the F-35B will be operating from the carriers - which I can't see ever getting a catapult system after the last fiasco.

The USN are planning on the F-A/XX. Everyone else who is a possible customer is staying STOVL/VTOL.

That does leave the Chinese - but they'll steal the plans anyway......

ORAC is online now  
Old 8th Aug 2018, 17:00
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Engines
To perhaps help move the thread off yet another discussion about F-35 merits and demerits:

Looking at the Tempest 'mock up' (in my own view, it's really not much more than a three dimensional doodle), does anyone share my view that this particular concept is probably not looking at operating from a QE class carrier? I'd offer the thought that any future UK combat aircraft programme should at least consider the need to be able to operate at sea.
Being able to operate at sea and being able to operate from a STOVL carrier are two very different things. Adding a vertical lift system would add tremendously to the cost and complexity of any aircraft, not to mention have a deleterious effect on range, payload, and performance. Adding CATOBAR capability to the aircraft would be much more doable, but that would entail extensively modifying the QE carriers.
KenV is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2018, 17:05
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
Who's carriers?
Not ours - in the timeframe quoted it's a Typhoon replacement and the F-35B will be operating from the carriers - which I can't see ever getting a catapult system after the last fiasco.
The USN are planning on the F-A/XX. Everyone else who is a possible customer is staying STOVL/VTOL.
That does leave the Chinese - but they'll steal the plans anyway......
https://youtu.be/oQXI4ZC_7NA
Gotta love the Zero Length Launch. The Zero Length Landing? Not so much.
KenV is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2018, 17:28
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't see how the UK has the money to fund this project.
OFBSLF is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2018, 17:45
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Mordor
Posts: 1,315
Received 74 Likes on 36 Posts
It will be funded from the brexit dividend, obviously.

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2018, 17:46
  #153 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 81
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
JATOG RATOG I also remember a German F104..

It would have been a good cold war option for all types in event of a post attack runway disruption. Get them off the ground at least.
​​​​
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2018, 19:05
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Navalising the Tempest would cost a fortune and we wouldn't be able to operate them off the QE's anyway. Adding VTOL for 50 airframe s would be lunacy...
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2018, 20:14
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Gents,

Thanks for the early replies. One thing I would try to clarify is this. The 'Tempest' isn't yet a design, and probably not even a 'design study'. It's just a concept. Not a man-hour has yet been spent on actually designing the thing. Given that, what I'm offering for discussion isn't 'navalising' it, or 'adding VTOL' (by the way, VTOL certainly wouldn't be a required capability, given current propulsion technology - although STOVL might be).

What I'm offering as question is whether PPruners think that any eventual 'Tempest' should be designed from the outset to have the capability to operate in some way or another from the carriers. One could offer a few examples of successful combat aircraft that were able to operate from land and sea effectively - my list would be F-4, F/A-18, A-4, A-7, Buccaneer and Harrier. I'm sure I've missed a few.

I'm not saying that the Tempest should designed this way - I'm just genuinely interested in what other PPruners think of the idea.

Best regards as ever to the teams who turn requirements into reality

Engines
Engines is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2018, 20:35
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Berks
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Engines,
Long time no see, but you eloquently state a very reasonable case and for that reason, it probably won't happen. A12 was the USN A6 initial replacement before the Bombcat and F-14 community saw the light and too late it was deemed to be a concept too far and it died an early death. Super Hornet kept the manned flight dream alive. Whatever Tempest is dreamed to be, it won't be a Carrier aircraft as too many people still regard carrier aviation as a false economy. QE class should have had a proper angled deck and catapult launch system, the payload benefits are huge and recovery system speaks for itself. I speak from practical experience of operating from CVN, it should have been the solution from the outset for QE, but UKPLC bottled it!
I hope I'm wrong, but just don't see the MOD being logical in it's approach to this.
Splash
Splash1983 is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2018, 07:00
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,876
Received 343 Likes on 119 Posts
Surely by the time Tempest enters service the world will have realised that aircraft carriers are simply obsolete? Impossible to protect from highly accurate air launched hypersonic missiles...
BEagle is online now  
Old 9th Aug 2018, 08:46
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That gets back to the whole Carrier thread (s) - they're nice to have if you can afford them and they have real advantages in anything short of an all out war - at which point they have a very limited life expectancy ..........

Do you want to put your new state of the art (=expensive!) Tempest on them? Maybe, sometimes - but it's not going to be their main base or main function
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2018, 11:18
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 205
Received 24 Likes on 11 Posts
Engines,

Looking at the Tempest cartoon (which is all it really is), it seemed to me to be a reasonable way to catch politicians' mindspace and thereby make a positive case for a UK industry base, before the default becomes otherwise. We can all see that a clutch of 'entrant' nations have advanced 'heavy' fighter design and/or manufacture (D&M) aspirations (Turkey, India, South Korea, Japan, Brazil), plus of course incumbents of Sweden, UK, Germany, France, China & Russia & USA. Given that Brazil is out of the game now, and discounting China & Russia for obvious reasons, the question becomes how many programmes can reasonably get through to a Final Investment Decision from what is left. I would say Germany+France will; USA will; and perhaps one other. Tempest is bidding to become that one other, as there could easily only be two. If you then compare the UK's list of industrial capabilities, plus the desirable attributes (I hesitate to say requirements/specification), and add in the corresponding bits of the other D&M nations, plus the nations that will have purchaser needs (but not D&M), you might just about be able to pull together a business case. It seems to me that is what they are trying to pull together.

Programmatically:
- suits consortium build
- capable of frequent through-life technology insertion (spare space, spare electrical power)
- affordable initial costs
- but high-end
- so likely spiral development

Vehicle:
- twin engine
- long range / long endurance / large capacity
- low observable
- supercruise
- evolve towards two versions: one manned single seat; the other unmanned (you can see how this might solve some of the tech transfer issues)
- big radar

There is the outside chance that, if this is successful, it could actually get taken up by the USA. That's a real wild card, but their long range penetrating fighter requirement isn't a million miles from some of the attributes we see here and you could see the losers in their programme wanting a second bite of the cherry.

Given that the QEC has gone STOVL/STORL and that the F35's programme life will pretty much match the QEC design life, there is no need for UK to have a second shipborne fighter on the books. Nor do any of those potential partner nations have a real need (or ability to host) a heavy twin-engined fighter on a carrier. (the best thing India could do is admit they are going down the wrong design pathway, and instead licence build the QEC).

Finding the sweet spot between the long range/endurance needs of Japan & South Korea & India, and the shorter range needs of Turkey & Sweden will be an issue. Getting enough of them to sign on early enough to get the quantities required for this to have a business case is the issue. And being able to get enough capability into the initial stages of the programme without the upfront costs blowing out of control / yet without the capability achieved being so far below the capability desired. However you cut it this has got to be at least as good as the best of F22+F35 or it won't pass the laugh test in the buyers.

Interesting to watch.
regards, pp
petit plateau is online now  
Old 9th Aug 2018, 11:24
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 537
Received 182 Likes on 95 Posts
Originally Posted by Engines
What I'm offering as question is whether PPruners think that any eventual 'Tempest' should be designed from the outset to have the capability to operate in some way or another from the carriers. One could offer a few examples of successful combat aircraft that were able to operate from land and sea effectively - my list would be F-4, F/A-18, A-4, A-7, Buccaneer and Harrier.
A question I asked at the start of the thread - and still believe should be considered in the CA Strategy until proven impractical and/or unaffordable and certainly not limited to STOVL. I'd add A6, Skyraider and F14 to Engines' list. For clarity, proven does not mean what Gary Google tells you this week, but a targeted set of work that identifies what constraints actually are and what cost impact may be thirty years hence.
Not_a_boffin is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.