UK unveils new next generation fighter jet, the 'Tempest'
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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......
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......
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 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......
https://youtu.be/oQXI4ZC_7NA
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
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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...
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
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
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
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
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.