UK next gen fighter

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2688
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post06 Jan 2020, 17:09

mixelflick wrote:
Some flaws here in your argument...

First, advanced SU-27SM2's and 3's along with the SU-35 are nothing to sneeze at. They are closer in parity to Eurocanards than you're giving them credit for. There's certainly no clear, overwhelming advantage conveyed by European fighters as seen with the F-35.

Second, what will all of the NATO countries currently flying F-16's replace them with? Their choices are quite limited. New build F-16's/18's along with new Gripens/Rafale/Typhoon's all currently cost much more than the F-35, while considerably less capable. We're at under $78 million/copy now for an F-35A, and the cost is only going down. So yes, EU/NATO nations will most certainly need the F-35 to replace their current fighter fleets.

Russia will field nothing en masse that's anywhere near as capable as an F-35. I'd even go so far as to say they'll field nothing period, nevermind mass produced. Thus, there is no need for the FAS/Tempest - unless you consider them as an exercise in national pride.

Which is all well and good. It's their own money they're wasting.

The second point is pretty solid. The waste of resources is the undermining of their society by the international coalition that encourages western countries to open their borders and to pay for the immigrants with welfare and free healthcare. These are outsiders dictating these ideals. They've spent four decades allowing the BBC to get overrun with rats that are dictating destruction of their own society. The generation divide isn't near as wide as the BBC paints it and populism elected BoJo for a reason. It is no coincidence that the UK quickly moved in unison with the US after taking out the Iranian general.

The first point is not so clear. Europe is pretty well equipped to handle any Russian threats. The only problem is the weakening of the governments under the strain of these external political pressures. People didn't suddenly wake up to socialism, it has been shoved down their throats and they finally found their voice to resist. It wasn't like the people ever believed these policies were good for them. Removing the burdens of socialism on the UK would offer significant relief to the government. They would need to reassert control over the BBC to control the narrative again. The UK government could start doing policy again that strengthens their borders.

The Typhoon started off as a program to strengthen the UK, but actual implementation was used to promote exactly the opposite. Partner nations all negotiated for self interests and the lack of leadership unwound any benefit to the members. If nothing else the program turned into a dwindling stream of funds getting work done while budgets continued to feed the money pit.

The Typhoon is a derelict survivor of these Labour policies. Money thrown at it only led to further misery and less results while Labour supporters got rich. Typhoon is so tainted it only needs to be abandoned and better options moved on immediately. The other Typhoon partners will quickly follow suit with abandoning ship. The US can help the new government make a sixth generation option for the UK happen that is zero benefit to other governments undermining the UK. And it should make it happen.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1065
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post06 Jan 2020, 18:07

Any project (Franco German or British Sweden) would need one big foreign partner to be viable.

Franco German project could get India in mix, while British Sweden one I don't see how they can bring in mix.

So with Indians, EU 6gen fighter can be viable.

Russian danger is irrelevant for those programs because Russia is on defensive so getting new fighter because "Russians are coming" is nonsense. Also EU is biggest Russian market attacking your biggest market isn't smart thing to do.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4824
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post06 Jan 2020, 18:50

milosh wrote: because "Russians are coming" is nonsense..


With all due respect, I think the Ukrainians would disagree.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

awsome

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 186
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2008, 03:11
  • Location: vancouver

Unread post07 Jan 2020, 00:24

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
milosh wrote: because "Russians are coming" is nonsense..


With all due respect, I think the Ukrainians would disagree.



Sure but I think their new president gets it that it is a bad idea to try to genocide the ethnically Russian portion of Ukraine and he is in talks to reverse that failed policy....
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post07 Jan 2020, 00:24

vilters wrote:As far as fighter building goes? Europe does not exist.

France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, the UK, all are individuals protecting their own industry when it comes to "Fighter building".
Each wants the largest piece of the cake. So, after extremely long and expensive talks, nothing "combined" happens.
Example => The split resulting in Tiffy - Rafale.

Then try to export from Europe. LOL. With each having the right to veto? Forget export from a "combined Europe".


I suspect these two new European consortiums are more naturally organically driven together than the Typhoon/Rafale where both France and UK built demonstrators and both would not compromise on the lead design role forcing the others to choose sides. With NGF France has been allowed the design role with Germany providing engineering support along with Spain. With Tempest it's a UK lead role by initiative providing the airframe and engines with Italy/Sweden providing the sensors. Everybody is provided their area of expertise in both consortiums so less chance of argument and disagreement. They both could build viable fighters but my only concern is how 5th gen will both fighters be in reality, is there enough expertise in each to produce a good effective rival to the F-35 or will they only end up producing 4.75 gen fighters with very modern sensors. Time will tell but I suspect both will be built to schedule and on time but how good they both will be is the big unknown.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1065
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post07 Jan 2020, 00:37

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
milosh wrote: because "Russians are coming" is nonsense..


With all due respect, I think the Ukrainians would disagree.


Sadly for Ukraine they aren't Russian important market, EU is.
Offline

babybat{}.net

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 89
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2017, 19:16

Unread post07 Jan 2020, 17:27

milosh wrote:Sadly for Ukraine they aren't Russian important market, EU is.


In 2013 (Before the conflict) Ukraine was 4.5% of Russian export..
Even now it is 2.1% which is comparable to Japan or India..
So it's still important market..
Offline

citanon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 453
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 21:42

Unread post12 Jan 2020, 11:48

https://newatlas.com/military/rolls-roy ... t-fighter/

Rolls-Royce developing advanced jet engine to power Tempest fighter

Image
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6702
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Jan 2020, 04:43

quote="citanon"

Rolls-Royce developing advanced jet engine to power Tempest fighter



Clearly, an Adaptive Cycle Engine similar to the GE XA100 and P&W XA101.... :wink:
Offline

citanon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 453
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 21:42

Unread post13 Jan 2020, 08:44

Corsair1963 wrote:
quote="citanon"

Rolls-Royce developing advanced jet engine to power Tempest fighter



Clearly, an Adaptive Cycle Engine similar to the GE XA100 and P&W XA101.... :wink:


Not quite sure. There appears to be some ideas there that are interestingly different:

At its core, it features an electrical starter-generator that was fully embedded in the core of a gas turbine engine that began life in 2014 as the Embedded Electrical Starter Generator (E2SG) demonstrator program, and takes a new approach to fighter design that places much more emphasis on providing electrical power in large quantities directly from the engine.

"The electrical embedded starter-generator will save space and provide the large amount of electrical power required by future fighters," says Conrad Banks, Chief Engineer for Future Programmes at Rolls-Royce. "Existing aircraft engines generate power through a gearbox underneath the engine, which drives a generator. In addition to adding moving parts and complexity, the space required outside the engine for the gearbox and generator makes the airframe larger, which is undesirable in a stealthy platform."


They also talk about a new energy storage system and an intelligent engine management system to balance power loads.

All this are aimed at giving unprecedented electrical power.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6702
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Jan 2020, 09:14

citanon wrote:
At its core, it features an electrical starter-generator that was fully embedded in the core of a gas turbine engine that began life in 2014 as the Embedded Electrical Starter Generator (E2SG) demonstrator program, and takes a new approach to fighter design that places much more emphasis on providing electrical power in large quantities directly from the engine.

"The electrical embedded starter-generator will save space and provide the large amount of electrical power required by future fighters," says Conrad Banks, Chief Engineer for Future Programmes at Rolls-Royce. "Existing aircraft engines generate power through a gearbox underneath the engine, which drives a generator. In addition to adding moving parts and complexity, the space required outside the engine for the gearbox and generator makes the airframe larger, which is undesirable in a stealthy platform."


They also talk about a new energy storage system and an intelligent engine management system to balance power loads.

All this are aimed at giving unprecedented electrical power.


Look at the picture and look at the core technology. Especially, the "Fan Technology" column....

Fan technologies
* Advanced composite
* Controllable 3rd stream bleed
* Lightweight aerodynamically optimised fan
* Temperature resistant lightweight composite materials

Sounds and looks very much like an "Adaptive Cycle Engine" to me.... :)

Respectfully
Offline

irt

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2018, 21:16
  • Location: Sweden

Unread post13 Jan 2020, 17:53

vilters wrote:@ irt

Europe can build whatever they want whenever they want. But :

Let them try to keep the total cost / airplane below 75 Mil Dollar. => That is what an F-35 cost.

They have to devide the R&D between 200 airframes while the US can devide R&D between 3.000 airframes.
Then try to calculate what spare parts are going to cost to keep the fleet for 50 years between 200 and 3.000 airplanes.

The US can devide each engine, avionix weapons upgrade by 3.000.
I chalenge Europe to do better.

You are NEVER gonna build and sell something 5-6th gen below the US costs.

PS ; and for your info, I am Belgian-Europe.

And, last but not least. Europe has to start from NOTHING while the US has 30 years of combat proven stealth experience.

The moment Europe Air Forces are going to start USING their F-35 both Rafale and Tiffy will become more and more obsolete by the minute.


$75 mil a plane? Someone needs to tell Poland then cuz they are paying $6.5 billion for an F35 "starter kit" and 32 airframes.
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 383
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post27 Jan 2020, 08:01

irt wrote:$75 mil a plane? Someone needs to tell Poland then cuz they are paying $6.5 billion for an F35 "starter kit" and 32 airframes.


I don't think you understand what fly away costs are.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post18 Feb 2020, 23:25

Tempest: Building The Fighter Jet Of The Future

https://www.forces.net/news/tempest-bui ... jet-future
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests