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 9th Aug 2018, 11:26
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 25
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
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...
Just like pretty much every fixed long runway then.....
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2018, 11:32
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 25
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
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
An opinion, as opposed to a fact. It's also arguable that pretty much any asset you care to name has a limited life expectancy in all-out war. Just a thought - have a look on any sat photo of an airfield, see how long it takes to ID the sqn ops building, the fuel farm and the bomb dump. Then think how many ways they can be attacked / suppressed. An airbase missing those features is just as dead as a ship with a hole in it.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2018, 12:04
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
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...
How many times and for how many decades have we heard this same refrain: "they're obsolete because they're impossible to protect from (fill in the blank)." So far the blank has been filled with high altitude heavy bombers, torpedo bombers, dive bombers, kamikazes, land based jet aircraft, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, EMP weapons, nuclear submarines, air independent submarines, anti-ship cruise missiles, super sonic anti-ship cruise missiles, anti-ship ballistic missiles, etc etc etc. And yet somehow a land based airfield is magically NOT "impossible to protect" from any of those systems.
KenV is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2018, 13:09
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Ken

Of the " high altitude heavy bombers, torpedo bombers, dive bombers, kamikazes, land based jet aircraft, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, EMP weapons, nuclear submarines, air independent submarines, anti-ship cruise missiles, super sonic anti-ship cruise missiles, anti-ship ballistic missiles" how many have actually been targeted at a carrier since 1945?

Land based jet-aircraft & anti-ship cruise missiles - in the Falklands - and that's it. And they were enough to give the RN a serious attack of the vapours

The rest have never been used - I suspect that the USA would not take kindly to anyone nailing a CVN so unless you are very small, or intend to kick off a major war you stay clear of them - but that doesn't make them invulnerable
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2018, 13:28
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 25
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
Ken

Of the " high altitude heavy bombers, torpedo bombers, dive bombers, kamikazes, land based jet aircraft, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, EMP weapons, nuclear submarines, air independent submarines, anti-ship cruise missiles, super sonic anti-ship cruise missiles, anti-ship ballistic missiles" how many have actually been targeted at a carrier since 1945?

Land based jet-aircraft & anti-ship cruise missiles - in the Falklands - and that's it. And they were enough to give the RN a serious attack of the vapours

The rest have never been used - I suspect that the USA would not take kindly to anyone nailing a CVN so unless you are very small, or intend to kick off a major war you stay clear of them - but that doesn't make them invulnerable
Selective as ever. Number one, I don't think anyone is suggesting that carriers are invulnerable. Instead it's merely being pointed out that they're nowhere near as vulnerable as some would make out and more importantly, their relative vulnerability compared to fixed airbases is a lot closer than those same people would care to admit.

Secondly, last time I looked, no carriers were sunk or even damaged despite the best efforts of the Argentine air force and navy and despite the absence of AEW cover for those carriers at the time.

Lastly, one might reasonably argue that STRKFLTLANT was prepared and trained to go up against SSN, plus fast heavy bombers toting supersonic ASM in their own backyard - and win. Not a service renowned for kamikaze tactics......

Standing by for whataboutery.....
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2018, 15:31
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
Ken Of the " high altitude heavy bombers, torpedo bombers, dive bombers, kamikazes, land based jet aircraft, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, EMP weapons, nuclear submarines, air independent submarines, anti-ship cruise missiles, super sonic anti-ship cruise missiles, anti-ship ballistic missiles" how many have actually been targeted at a carrier since 1945?
How do you define "have actually been targeted at a carrier since 1945" The soviets most certainly "targeted" our carriers with all the above (except perhaps kamikazes) but never press the launch button. We in the meantime tracked and intercepted all the above but never pushed the launch button. The point is, people have been calling aircraft carriers obsolete and non survivable essentially since the day they were invented and here we are nearly a century later with carriers steaming all over the world projecting power like NOTHING else ever has.

Land based jet-aircraft & anti-ship cruise missiles - in the Falklands - and that's it. And they were enough to give the RN a serious attack of the vapours
As well they should. Yet no carriers were sunk so the measures taken to protect them from those weapons was effective. And in the meantime the carriers gave lots of Argentinians "a serious attack of the vapours." Why do you imagine that only cuts one way?

The rest have never been used - I suspect that the USA would not take kindly to anyone nailing a CVN so unless you are very small, or intend to kick off a major war you stay clear of them - but that doesn't make them invulnerable
Invulnerable? Who even remotely suggested carriers were invulnerable? That's a strawman. But given their near century track record carriers are clearly less vulnerable than a lot of naysayers suggest. Further, they are no more vulnerable, and given their mobility likely less vulnerable, than any land based airfield. Or are you suggesting that all aviation assets are "obsolete" because the facilities they operate from (whether ship based or land based) are "too vulnerable?"
KenV is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2018, 11:17
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
Invulnerable? Who even remotely suggested carriers were invulnerable? That's a strawman. But given their near century track record carriers are clearly less vulnerable than a lot of naysayers suggest. Further, they are no more vulnerable, and given their mobility likely less vulnerable, than any land based airfield. Or are you suggesting that all aviation assets are "obsolete" because the facilities they operate from (whether ship based or land based) are "too vulnerable?"

Let's disassemble this a bit. (The word "naysayers" is a clue. It's generally a warning sign of poor logic ahead.)

Well, nobody has suggested that carriers are invulnerable. On the other hand, it makes no sense at all to spend tens of billions on a ship and air wing, with >5,000 people on board, and have only 11 of them, unless you think that it has an extremely high probability of survival in the sort of conflict for which it is designed.

And the "near-century track record" is less significant than you think. When carriers were attacked repeatedly by peer opponents they were sunk quite frequently (five in one engagement). Since WW2 there has been no peer-level attack on a carrier. I don't think that any sensible person would argue that a regiment-strength Backfire attack on a carrier group wouldn't have been a damned close-run thing at best, and I can think of at least one contemporary weapon system that had a firing solution on a CVN in a serious exercise.

Comparing carrier vulnerability to land bases is misleading in the extreme, to the point of being dishonest. Land bases are obviously easier to hit, but are very hard to sink; and there are places where one hit on a carrier will prevent it from operating aircraft pending dockyard repair.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2018, 14:09
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by LowObservable View Post
Well, nobody has suggested that carriers are invulnerable
Agreed. HH clearly implied otherwise.

On the other hand, it makes no sense at all to spend tens of billions on a ship and air wing, with >5,000 people on board, and have only 11 of them, unless you think that it has an extremely high probability of survival in the sort of conflict for which it is designed.
Why are there "only 11" super carriers? Certainly not because of their alleged vulnerability. They are at least two big reasons: 1) they are very expensive and affordability raises its ugly head. 2) Congress has given USN a specific set of tasks to do and USN has stated they can do them with nine carrier air wings which in turns drives the need for 11 carriers. On the other hand Congress is notorious for making the "need" and the tasks fit the budget that they set usually with little or no consideration for the actual threats/risks that exist. But the bottom line is that the number of carriers that are built is not determined by the perceived vulnerability of those carriers.

And the "near-century track record" is less significant than you think. When carriers were attacked repeatedly by peer opponents they were sunk quite frequently (five in one engagement).
Indeed. That being said, what was proven to be the most effective carrier killer? Another carrier. Once Japan lost her carriers she stopped being a "peer opponent" on the high seas and the US carriers were able to act with near impunity there after. With the result that Japan lost all the territories she grabbed in the 30s and early 40s and had her homeland nearly completely destroyed..

Since WW2 there has been no peer-level attack on a carrier. I don't think that any sensible person would argue that a regiment-strength Backfire attack on a carrier group wouldn't have been a damned close-run thing at best, and I can think of at least one contemporary weapon system that had a firing solution on a CVN in a serious exercise.
All this is true, and indeed no "sensible person" has made the argument you posed. What is also true is that post WWII no carriers were sunk, no carrier was denied the ability by an opponent to accomplish whatever mission it was given, and in no way was any carrier made "obsolete" by any of the weapons and combination of weapons that have been described/listed here. Of course carriers are vulnerable. That goes without saying. But so is EVERY weapon platform and that vulnerability makes NONE of them "obsolete".

Comparing carrier vulnerability to land bases is misleading in the extreme, to the point of being dishonest. Land bases are obviously easier to hit, but are very hard to sink; and there are places where one hit on a carrier will prevent it from operating aircraft pending dockyard repair.
Misleading in the extreme because carriers sink and land bases don't? How many carriers have been over run by enemy troops? How many land based airfields? How many Japanese island bases were bombed into oblivion by carrier aircraft and/or isolated and then choked to death by sea power? How many land bases were abandoned because the fight moved beyond the effective reach of that airbase? Carriers have this odd habit of moving to where the fight is. And sometimes it's on the other side of the globe. I'm not arguing that carriers are "better" or less vulnerable than land bases. But neither are they necessarily more vulnerable. Just like carriers, land bases have their strengths and their vulnerabilities. What I'm arguing is that carriers' vulnerabilities do not make them "obsolete" any more than land based airfields' vulnerabilities make them obsolete. Or to put it another way, most anything that would make a carrier obsolete would make a land based airfield obsolete. And so far, no weapon nor combination of weapons have made EITHER obsolete.

Last edited by KenV; 10th Aug 2018 at 15:36.
KenV is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2018, 14:13
  #169 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,607
May I suggest that the carrier debate gets moved to the carrier thread, and leave this to the Tempest?
ORAC is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2018, 16:54
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
May I suggest that the carrier debate gets moved to the carrier thread, and leave this to the Tempest?
Fair enough!!
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2018, 19:12
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 789
ORAC,

My aim in raising the question was simply to see if anyone was willing to even consider whether any future ‘Tempest’ aircraft should be required to operate from a UK carrier.

Clearly, you’re not willing to consider that, and I fully and happily respect that point of view, as I respect all other points of view. However, I think it would be a pity if PPRuNe decided that the question shouldn’t even be discussed.

But I’ve asked the question, had a few answers and will leave the thread to run it’s course now.

Best regards to all those keeping an open mind,

Engines
Engines is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2018, 20:08
  #172 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,607
Engines,

I have no problem with discussing if the Tempest should operate off an aircraft carrier - but the argument was descending into a recap of the purpose and survivabiity of a carrier itself - which seemed better suited for the New Carrier thread.

As I stated myself I do not see the practicality in the expected programme. The lifetime of the QE2 class is covered by that of the F-35 and I cannot see them being retrofitted for catapults therefore UK funding for a carrier variant seems unlikely - and no other customers seem apparent.

Designing in the capability regardless seems moot. The French did that for the Rafale so it could operate off the Foch - the “ten ton” weight limit etc - which led them to drop out of what became the Typhoon. A carrier aircraft is a compromise because it adds the additional weight in structure, undercarriage, hook and materials etc to survive operating off a carrier and in a salt environment - and a compromise by definition means you compromise the design of a land only based aircraft.

If if you need to do so, or see extra sales from doing so, it might be advantageous to do so. But if you don’t you compromise the design against other new competing land only aircraft - which might lose sales as a result.

To retunr to my original point - who are you going to sell it too?
ORAC is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2018, 21:06
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,608
Who was the F-4 ever sold to?
melmothtw is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2018, 22:06
  #174 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Originally Posted by melmothtw View Post
Who was the F-4 ever sold to?
Completely out of context! The F-4 was designed and built as a carrier based aircraft for the US Navy, SPECIFICALLY, it just happened that it was so good that it was a no brainer for many land based air forces too. The Tempest is a design concept for the RAF only, why go to all the expense of making it carrier capable from the start when there is no (current, or, as yet, future) requirement from the FAA, or any guarantee that you will sell a single one of any future version to any other Naval air arm?

-RP
Rhino power is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2018, 00:36
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
General comment: I think we have thoroughly demonstrated at this point that STOVL imposes limitations on the "dustcover" (airframe) that are costly to the CTOL variant. CV + CTOL may not be as difficult (cf Rafale).

Ken... I would ask you again to stop YELLING IN ALL CAPS. Anyway...

But the bottom line is that the number of carriers that are built is not determined by the perceived vulnerability of those carriers.

Not correct. No intelligent strategy would rely on so small a number of assets if they were not regarded as highly survivable.

Indeed. That being said, what was proven to be the most effective carrier killer? Another carrier.

Not correct. The threat to the carrier came from massed air attack (nobody cared where they took off from) and from submarines.

What is also true is that post WWII no carriers were sunk, no carrier was denied the ability by an opponent to accomplish whatever mission it was given, and in no way was any carrier made "obsolete" by any of the weapons and combination of weapons that have been described/listed here.

Meaningless, I'm afraid. As you know, there was no active conflict where this situation would have arisen.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2018, 11:36
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 147
@LowObservable - Since you appear to have missed this post I'm repeating it below so that you can follow its advice:-

Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
May I suggest that the carrier debate gets moved to the carrier thread, and leave this to the Tempest?
SamYeager is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2018, 21:04
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,056
May I draw attention to a lengthy Tempest piece at:

https://www.facebook.com/aerospaceanalysis/posts/981650792041079?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARDcXOm1nuefWoE6EmChjxK2XK b72TYmYlUfwDzJQdWasDSQZAO4mTl3_2FLCOQc2_0xgZXGHJWKu5zeGbmZnm H9eLz_WNgOJcOAhoigLpn7Xyd1WOeBCxjU3uCFWiZvxbn7G_c&__tn__=K-R

​​​​​​​
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 06:31
  #178 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,607
Well the Japanese are pressing ahead with a new fighter and seeking international coooperation.

From the article they seem to discount working with LM on an updated F-22, and also seem to think the USN F/A-XX and USAF PCA won’t be available in the required timeframe - so BAe And Tempest might be in witha shout.

ROFL though at the idea that developing their own will be cheaper than buying off the shelf or that they can get it in service in The 2030s, particularly since they state they’ve been working in their own engine for over a decade and it hasn’t even run yet.

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles...0m/0na/001000c
ORAC is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 07:14
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Typhoon

Perhaps BAE Systems should concentrate on getting their 4th Gen fighter to work properly first? Into its second decade in service and it still has a mech radar, poor pod integration and very limited data fusion....

Will we ever learn not to trust this company?!
Pure Pursuit is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 10:02
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 204
Originally Posted by Pure Pursuit View Post
...it still has a mech radar,
I believe EF has been pursuing the new radar for some time but funding from the Nations was pretty slow in arriving.

EAP
EAP86 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.