UK unveils new next generation fighter jet, the 'Tempest'
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,820 Likes
on
1,202 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But none of the above efforts were a complete waste. A downgraded simplified version of the F-108 eventually became the A-5 Vigilante, the YF-12 became the SR-71, the Hughes AN/ASG-18 fire control system became the AWG-9 used in the Tomcat, and the GAR-9/AIM-47 missile became the AIM-54 Phoenix.
Speaking of the F-4, what was the strongest argument against it? It's dogfight performance. The fighter mafia folks insisted that ancient Mig-19 aircraft routinely beat the F-4 in a dogfight.. This was mostly true due to fighter operations doctrine and fighter pilot training, not aircraft performance. And even when proper training (i.e. Topgun) and adding leading edge slats enabled the Phantom to perform very well in a dogfight, the die was cast. Whatever replaced the F-4 would need to have a gun and eye watering dogfight performance, and that requirement remains to this day, even if it no longer makes sense. Witness the caterwalling when the F-35 was revealed to have less turn performance than the F-16. Interestingly, the performance specs for the future fighter appear to be remarkably similar to the specs the F-108 was designed for. Have we come full circle?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I think the UK is reverting to what it wanted as an F-3 replacement - a long range interceptor, not a dogfighter.
The Typhoon was originally only planned to replace the Wattisham/Germany based F-4s in the dogfight role against the Mig-29 plus the Jaguar in the day fighter role. The F-3 replacement was supposed to be a two seat interceptor suitable for long range CAP to the north against Russian bombers and for oceanic fleet defence in the SACEUR role. The cut backs and demise of the F-4/Jag left a paid for airframe in search of a role.
In that respect, if you look as the progression from the F-4 to the F-3 to the XX, then yes - a 6th generation F-4 is exactly what the RAF is after.
The Typhoon was originally only planned to replace the Wattisham/Germany based F-4s in the dogfight role against the Mig-29 plus the Jaguar in the day fighter role. The F-3 replacement was supposed to be a two seat interceptor suitable for long range CAP to the north against Russian bombers and for oceanic fleet defence in the SACEUR role. The cut backs and demise of the F-4/Jag left a paid for airframe in search of a role.
In that respect, if you look as the progression from the F-4 to the F-3 to the XX, then yes - a 6th generation F-4 is exactly what the RAF is after.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Rafale is indeed a very capable aircraft, if a bit smallish. But export? Rafale has a depressingly long list of failed export bids. The exports to Egypt and Qatar are arguably attributed to the Arab Spring and Obama's waffling about further US involvement in the middle east.
Jaguar a day fighter? Now I've heard everything!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,820 Likes
on
1,202 Posts
We had Sidewinders on them in Germany Pr00ne mounted on the inboard pylon, but more a self defence measure I think. So even back then before they got over the wing rails it was capable of carrying them.
ORAC,
Yes in all honesty I do, I was just being playful.
That thing called a Jaguar that replaced the Radar, fancy Electronics and all weather equipped Phantom FGR2...
Yes in all honesty I do, I was just being playful.
That thing called a Jaguar that replaced the Radar, fancy Electronics and all weather equipped Phantom FGR2...
KenV:
Lockheed's YF-12 was intended to replace the F-108 using the same Hughes AN/ASG-18 radar/fire control system and GAR-9 (later AIM-47) missile as F-108 but at much less cost.
This is not really correct. The YF-12 started some time after the F-108 had been cancelled and there was never a production order.
The F-106 was also optimized for the top right hand of the envelope but was fairly quickly replaced by the F-4 Phantom.
That's not really correct either. The first USAF F-4s and RF-4s substituted for F-105s and RF-105s. There was a proposal at the time for an F-106 restart, but like the YF-12 it fell victim to the virtual disappearance of the threat and the failure of the Sovs to build a supersonic intercontinental bomber. The Six itself wasn't replaced until the 1980s.
I'm not sure why France decided to go that route with the Mirage 2000.
France was well inside Backfire range. In any case, the M2000 was a different beast aerodynamically from the F-106 or M-III and a decent multi-role airplane.
A downgraded simplified version of the F-108 eventually became the A-5 Vigilante.
I know it says that in Wikipedia but the A3J-1 flew before the F-108 passed its mock-up review.
The fighter mafia folks insisted that ancient MiG-19 aircraft routinely beat the F-4 in a dogfight.. This was mostly true due to fighter operations doctrine and fighter pilot training, not aircraft performance.
It was the MiG-17, and it had a lot to do with aircraft characteristics because dogfights were happening at high subsonic speeds. The Fighter Mafia was not formed at that time - they formed as a reaction to the USAF's insistence that the next fighter had to be high-fast and agile.
Witness the caterwalling [sic] when the F-35 was revealed to have less turn performance than the F-16.
And after all the misinformation, the usual unnecessary dig against people who disagree with Ken.
Lockheed's YF-12 was intended to replace the F-108 using the same Hughes AN/ASG-18 radar/fire control system and GAR-9 (later AIM-47) missile as F-108 but at much less cost.
This is not really correct. The YF-12 started some time after the F-108 had been cancelled and there was never a production order.
The F-106 was also optimized for the top right hand of the envelope but was fairly quickly replaced by the F-4 Phantom.
That's not really correct either. The first USAF F-4s and RF-4s substituted for F-105s and RF-105s. There was a proposal at the time for an F-106 restart, but like the YF-12 it fell victim to the virtual disappearance of the threat and the failure of the Sovs to build a supersonic intercontinental bomber. The Six itself wasn't replaced until the 1980s.
I'm not sure why France decided to go that route with the Mirage 2000.
France was well inside Backfire range. In any case, the M2000 was a different beast aerodynamically from the F-106 or M-III and a decent multi-role airplane.
A downgraded simplified version of the F-108 eventually became the A-5 Vigilante.
I know it says that in Wikipedia but the A3J-1 flew before the F-108 passed its mock-up review.
The fighter mafia folks insisted that ancient MiG-19 aircraft routinely beat the F-4 in a dogfight.. This was mostly true due to fighter operations doctrine and fighter pilot training, not aircraft performance.
It was the MiG-17, and it had a lot to do with aircraft characteristics because dogfights were happening at high subsonic speeds. The Fighter Mafia was not formed at that time - they formed as a reaction to the USAF's insistence that the next fighter had to be high-fast and agile.
Witness the caterwalling [sic] when the F-35 was revealed to have less turn performance than the F-16.
And after all the misinformation, the usual unnecessary dig against people who disagree with Ken.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't underestimate one other important pay-off for these aspirational blackboard projects - R&D and IP.
As noted above, the reality is that such a project is unachievable for the UK alone. Consider though that UK industry needs continual R&D, and would like free money from the government, which needs political support, which relies on public sentiment.
The press are unlikely to give many column inches to a complex computer simulation generating lower radar cross sections, or a lab which comes up with a significant advance in composite materials, but a sexy ''stealth fighter" made of cardboard and clay - yes please!
So, at Farnborough we have mission accomplished. Press headlines and probably more than a few billion from HM Govt. Plow this into R&D, protect the IP that results and the UK keeps its place at the table when the workshare for international projects comes along.
None of this is a bad thing, so long as when we buy 'foreign' (there's really no such thing anymore) we get at least the balance back in workshare and R&D. And BAE have, I hope, perfected it. Taranis, Herti and now this. All unlikely to go into production (and we probably shouldn't try) but all generate technology with a value that BAE/UK plc can sell which keeps jobs and investment in the UK. F35 is in production now which means that the balance of power comes into play. Russia and China will develop a counter-technology and so the West knows that it's time to plan for F35's replacement now. The UK needs a place at that table, which means that BAE, as our largest defense contractor, need to decide where to throw the $$'s to get us there.
So enough of the 'Oh look, another British product disaster coming'. The UK had better have learned the lesson by now, we've repeated that particular grade at least three times. If the politicians and BAE have finally grasped reality - Good on them.
As noted above, the reality is that such a project is unachievable for the UK alone. Consider though that UK industry needs continual R&D, and would like free money from the government, which needs political support, which relies on public sentiment.
The press are unlikely to give many column inches to a complex computer simulation generating lower radar cross sections, or a lab which comes up with a significant advance in composite materials, but a sexy ''stealth fighter" made of cardboard and clay - yes please!
So, at Farnborough we have mission accomplished. Press headlines and probably more than a few billion from HM Govt. Plow this into R&D, protect the IP that results and the UK keeps its place at the table when the workshare for international projects comes along.
None of this is a bad thing, so long as when we buy 'foreign' (there's really no such thing anymore) we get at least the balance back in workshare and R&D. And BAE have, I hope, perfected it. Taranis, Herti and now this. All unlikely to go into production (and we probably shouldn't try) but all generate technology with a value that BAE/UK plc can sell which keeps jobs and investment in the UK. F35 is in production now which means that the balance of power comes into play. Russia and China will develop a counter-technology and so the West knows that it's time to plan for F35's replacement now. The UK needs a place at that table, which means that BAE, as our largest defense contractor, need to decide where to throw the $$'s to get us there.
So enough of the 'Oh look, another British product disaster coming'. The UK had better have learned the lesson by now, we've repeated that particular grade at least three times. If the politicians and BAE have finally grasped reality - Good on them.
Last edited by reader8; 2nd Aug 2018 at 23:43.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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 ??
F16 vs F4 best speed/height compromise ITR...
Really? You got some proof of that KenV ??
F16 vs F4 best speed/height compromise ITR...
Sweden has managed to stay ahead in the fighter game, and a population only slightly larger than that of London. In any case the Swedes will want at some point to think about a Gripen follow-on, and there could be the opportunity for co-operation there.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a shame that the capabilities of the NG are so undersold...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wont the krauts have IP on that stuff it being centre fuselage?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is remarkable how eager we are to do the UK aero industry a disservice. The UK leads on the trickier bits of the Airbus series (aerodynamics, wings and a number of other key components), has a substantial part of the satellite market, effectively designed the fit, form and function of 'multinational' aircraft such as Tornado and (as has already been mentioned) there is more than just a nod of EAP in Typhoon. Same goes for both civilian and military engine design. We have a great deal invested in air weapon systems and made a reasonable effort in selling some UK designs on the international market.
Even in the post-TSR2 period we did ok going our own way with the Hawk, Harrier I and Sea Harrier and we worked well in bringing some US DNA into the Harrier II. The reciprocal is also true as there is a considerable amount of UK technical and commercial input into the JSF program. I contend that we do have the baseline required to go it alone and given the history with political and financial delays caused by multinational programmes (eg German EFA delays) or for European countries to overstate their planned production numbers to gain a commercial work share advantage. Germany and Italy purchased far fewer Tornados than they claimed at outset whilst the UK actually exceeded their commitment.
Going it alone in modern parlance is effectively leading all stages of design and production - whilst still allowing international companies to compete and contribute to parts of the programme at the discretion of the lead country. We have done it in the past and continue to do so in other specialised industries (space, automotive, F1, pharmaceuticals et al) and given the recent pain and risk brought about by multinational programmes we may well do better by leading a new aircraft programme rather than just participating.
Even in the post-TSR2 period we did ok going our own way with the Hawk, Harrier I and Sea Harrier and we worked well in bringing some US DNA into the Harrier II. The reciprocal is also true as there is a considerable amount of UK technical and commercial input into the JSF program. I contend that we do have the baseline required to go it alone and given the history with political and financial delays caused by multinational programmes (eg German EFA delays) or for European countries to overstate their planned production numbers to gain a commercial work share advantage. Germany and Italy purchased far fewer Tornados than they claimed at outset whilst the UK actually exceeded their commitment.
Going it alone in modern parlance is effectively leading all stages of design and production - whilst still allowing international companies to compete and contribute to parts of the programme at the discretion of the lead country. We have done it in the past and continue to do so in other specialised industries (space, automotive, F1, pharmaceuticals et al) and given the recent pain and risk brought about by multinational programmes we may well do better by leading a new aircraft programme rather than just participating.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that this is true although many of the influences will be fairly invisible to most observers. I understand that in the early days of the Typhoon FCS Joint Team (GE lead), there was quite a bit of debate as to whether the EAP or FBW Starfighter experience should be given most weight. A presentation comparing the performance achievements of both programmes was made to the whole team after which there were far fewer arguments.
While technical information and techniques can be preserved much of what makes a 'technical capability' is resident in the engineers actually doing the work. Capability which isn't exercised in meaningful work is soon lost. Hopefully the Tempest is an attempt to keep the capability alive. F35 helped but the UK was technically active in a small subset of the range of capabilities. Some years ago (before retirement) I was involved in an exercise to investigate the whole range of capabilities to engineer fast jet aircraft including assessment of when the loss of capability becomes a threat to future competence. The outcomes were so concerning, they were briefed at senior level within Government (not just the MOD). I'm pretty sure that some areas of technical capability have now diminished to the extent that recovering them will take some time and investment.
EAP
EAP
EAP was born out of the design work BAe and MBB did in the early days of the project, and the final form of both EAP and Typhoon was born more from the German design than the BAE one
MBB TFK-90
BAe P110 - always reminded me more of a twin engined Gripen
MBB TFK-90
BAe P110 - always reminded me more of a twin engined Gripen