Read the forum code of contact
By: 16th July 2018 at 11:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Two things come to mind:
1) How much will it look like FOAS
2) What is the betting that this life size model will be the actual FOAS RCS test model redressed
By: 16th July 2018 at 11:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It actually looks like a modernised Replica with A2A nose, and single seat cockpit from what i can tell.
Now we get a better view it doesn't.....
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261523[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261524[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261525[/ATTACH]
Pictures courtesy of Tim Robinson of the RAeS on twitter.
By: 16th July 2018 at 11:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Just watched the reveal, clearly derived from REPLICA which is in itself developed as part of FOAS. The tail looks exactly the same and the nose looks re-profiled so it can actually fit a radar. Intakes look a bit bigger but that could just be the angle, there is no way BAE Systems would have started from scratch on this!
That being said before everybody gets excited this is a looooong way off being a real thing as it stands. BAE Systems could do a modern version of the EAP and build a flying tech demonstrator pulling through engines and systems from Typhoon without too much fuss.
By: 16th July 2018 at 12:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-If you ask me, and based on what has been said in the run up to this reveal, the airframe is designed so as not to have to reinvent the wheel (thus raising costs and the chance of delay). I think the top view undermines the idea that it's just a warmed over Replica though:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261526[/ATTACH]
Again from Tim Robinson on twitter.
The nose is noticeably flattened from the front.
During the ongoing briefing AVM Rochelle is quoted as saying: "Funding is real. We are working at pace."
By: 16th July 2018 at 12:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The broader Combat Air Strategy is published in handout form here:
With full document here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/combat-air-strategy-an-ambitious-vision-for-the-future
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261527[/ATTACH]
By: 16th July 2018 at 12:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
--RR are aiming to push thrust to weight and power generation to new levels with their engine. They also are planning to use magnets within the engine to convert kinetic to electrical energy.
-IOC is aimed at 2035 with the planning finalised by 2020.
-MBDA will put DEW, Swarming weapons and Hypersonic weapons into Tempest:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261528[/ATTACH]
Courtesy of Tim Robinson on twitter.
By: 16th July 2018 at 13:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Interesting... however how likely is this to ever materialise as a pure British project in mind of the Brexit and after France and Germany decided to go ahead with their joint effort?
By: 16th July 2018 at 13:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Positioning for partnership can reap the benefits of partner's investment in technology and huge potential for future sales.
But positioning for partnership requires government commitment, which may be hard to obtain from politicians who can only see as far as the next election.
By: 16th July 2018 at 13:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I wonder if synergies can be achieved with the TFX, given that BAE is also heavily involved with that project too. Although clearly the requirements between the RAF and TAF will differ considerably, I can't help feeling there should have been some consideration given to the TFX project used as the basis; however, if any of the reports are to be believed, the REPLICA/FOAS is being used as a basis for the TFX in itself. Seems like another Typhoon vs Rafale story in the making. Is there potential for any other nation outside the EU as a collaborating partner on the Tempest?
By: 16th July 2018 at 13:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Wasn't there some talk on attempts to maybe include Japan?
By: 16th July 2018 at 13:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Sweden and Italy are also unaligned (and I'm not clear on why the potential partners need to be outside of the EU)?
This project is funded and the R&D is already underway to finalise the best balance between stealth and all of the other requirements. It incorporates work that has already been concluded by the team and will see Typhoon upgraded with technology developed for this programme and vice versa. It is very much a Typhoon replacement and Japan now has the choice of the US and the UK for it's collaborative partner.
I personally see lots of ways in which efforts to reduce risk and cost have been planned into the programme.
By: 16th July 2018 at 13:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The most important is that it pulls the Brit industry (and their EU partner) out of the ever lasting marrasm of never doing something that has to be fielded. Systems need an airframe and a user to get funded.
It might not fly at Mach 3 but it very we'll be at last airborne for real in 10 years
By: 16th July 2018 at 14:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-yes on that note, the emphasis appears to be on the systems, weapons and connectivity rather than making it a Mach3 supercruiser.
By: 16th July 2018 at 14:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I'd be surprised if Europe, ie EU and UK, can afford two production fighters. I think it can afford single prototypes of two designs followed by a production run of, say, 500 aeroplanes. This Tempest design is very much a marker for the post Brexit future.
By: 16th July 2018 at 14:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The mock up looks pretty sweet sporting that WWII era "night roundel". Going with a traditional layout (not tailless) makes it much more feasible since they won't need to prototype new TVC dependent control schemes - ditto with the system of systems approach. It's still going to need very good project management to see the light of day though.
From a technical aspect the most intriguing thing to me so far is the inlet. There is no diverter nor a DSI bump. I remember reading an article last year about Rolls Royce discussing the possibility of designing an engine which can handle turbulent and uneven flow. This seems to fit well with that...but a lot can change over 17 years.
By: 16th July 2018 at 14:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It's not very clear, but here is the RR graphic on the engine with mention of distortion tolerance:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261529[/ATTACH]
By: 16th July 2018 at 15:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-That incredible moment when the coverage of the unveiling of "Team Tempest" and the UK´s Combat air strategy is vastly better done by the chaps of the Key Publishing Forum than by the likes of Janes, Key Aero, AW and Flight Global...
By: 16th July 2018 at 15:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-That schematic of the RR engine shows what appear to be bypass tubes aft of the fan stage, although it seems these are part of the active heat management system, probably feeding fresh bleed air into the gap between the inner and outer casing of the engine, shown in the figure. I also quite like how the electric motors are integrated in line with axis of the engine, rather than as an accessory appendage. Would be interesting to hear more details about the 'electric' power element.
By: 16th July 2018 at 16:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-To be fair this has come rather out of the blue so it is hardly surprising that the specialist press has to play catch up.
By: 16th July 2018 at 16:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I get the sense they are all keeping their powder dry in preparation for some articles.
It has also become apparent that the design features large bolt on pods and a weapons bay full of UCAVs amongst other things....
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261530[/ATTACH]
Posts: 4,619
By: mrmalaya - 16th July 2018 at 11:25
The UK future fighter project will feature, swarming weapons, DEW, virtual cockpit and to fly alongside F35 and Typhoon in 2035.