UK next gen fighter

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 16 Jul 2018, 14:53

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44848294

zhangmdev · by **zhangmdev** » 16 Jul 2018, 16:28

Tempest is a nice name. The concept reminds me of Monica.

talkitron · by **talkitron** » 16 Jul 2018, 18:34

Here is an article saying budget realities surrounding the Tempest program will reduce the UK F-35 buy in the 2030's. The author speculates on the military features of the shape of the air frame.

The various artworks and the demonstrator model all includes canted vertical stabilisers, which are a feature on all currently operational fighter aircraft, but not the US Air Force’s famous B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, or various flying wing/cranked kite shapes that have come to characterise unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) demonstrators produced around the world, including Taranis, nEUROn, Sharp Sword, SCAT and X-47B. Vertical stabilisers indicate a design preference for fighter-like agility since they aid horizontal stability during manoeuvres, especially in extreme flight regimes. However, they also limit the extent to which an aircraft’s radar signature can be reduced, especially against low-frequency ‘anti-stealth’ type radars. Because of this, and the fact that some argue the agility of modern missiles make dogfighting redundant in future air combat, most concept art from US defence companies in recent years have not included vertical stabilisers, presumably to aid stealth against advanced and future radar systems.

The Typhoon programme cost the UK around £17 billion in development and acquisition costs for 160 aircraft. Tempest promises to be an even more ambitious undertaking, despite the progress made in various critical technologies in both the defence and civilian sectors since the 1980s when Typhoon was conceived. Assuming no major uplift in defence spending, the RAF and MoD will have to find significant funding within the equipment programme for the Tempest project if it is to have any hope of producing a real combat aircraft. Unfortunately, that is likely to be very difficult without adjusting the number of F-35s that the UK will eventually buy from the US, given that the continued public commitment to 138 of the stealth fighters will not be delivered on current funding timelines until the late 2030s at the earliest. Based on current defence spending assumptions, it is unlikely that the MoD will be able to adequately fund the testing and procurement phases of the Tempest while buying significant numbers of F-35s and maintaining an increasingly aging core Typhoon force as the latter approaches its eventual out of service date of approximately 2040. Something will eventually have to give.

https://rusi.org/publication/rusi-defen ... er-tempest

milosh · by **milosh** » 16 Jul 2018, 21:50

Spaced engines, long central weapon bay/bays, tail sting with some sensor (maybe radar), and maybe some radar in wings? Pak-Faski

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 17 Jul 2018, 01:47

[quote="talkitron"]Here is an article saying budget realities surrounding the Tempest program will reduce the UK F-35 buy in the 2030's. The author speculates on the military features of the shape of the air frame.

Wild speculation nothing more. Especially, consider this so called Tempest is nothing but a "concept" at this stage.....

citanon · by **citanon** » 17 Jul 2018, 09:38

Is it just me, or is this thing what the X32 would have looked like had the designers not been determined to make it ugly as sin:

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 17 Jul 2018, 10:02

zhangmdev wrote:Tempest is a nice name. The concept reminds me of Monica.

Honestly, appear to similar to the existing F-35....

zhangmdev · by **zhangmdev** » 17 Jul 2018, 11:58

X-32 with twin DSI, and engines at the right places.

vilters · by **vilters** » 17 Jul 2018, 14:56

Even from this angle, I can clearly see a pretty basic aerodynamic error.
I hope they discover it before moving on.

Tip :
Look at a F-22 or an F-35 from a side view.
Then imagine this from a side view.
From the air intakes forward.
=> That whole nose section should be tilted DOWNwards around 2.5 to 3°, or the nose will always be at an angle of attack during level flight. => Drag.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 17 Jul 2018, 16:34

So.. Anyone got any good "Tempest in a Teapot" jokes?

barrelnut · by **barrelnut** » 18 Jul 2018, 21:42

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 18 Jul 2018, 23:39

vilters wrote:Even from this angle, I can clearly see a pretty basic aerodynamic error.
I hope they discover it before moving on.

Tip :
Look at a F-22 or an F-35 from a side view.
Then imagine this from a side view.
From the air intakes forward.
=> That whole nose section should be tilted DOWNwards around 2.5 to 3°, or the nose will always be at an angle of attack during level flight. => Drag.

That’s also lift. But there is a point there: the nose should be tilted down so that it doesn’t contribute to positive stability.

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 19 Jul 2018, 23:17

citanon wrote:Is it just me, or is this thing what the X32 would have looked like had the designers not been determined to make it ugly as sin:

From this angle, it doesn't look half bad.

From the front or side, it looked like a pregnant guppy. Ugly as sin, as you say...

madrat · by **madrat** » 20 Jul 2018, 01:08

Could have look like a droopy-faced beagle

Although it looked cool at some angles, Boeing was wise at least to avoid a canard.

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 20 Jul 2018, 13:22

The Mig I.44 was a beautiful machine IMO...

Was never going to be stealthy, but I loved the layout. Spoke to speed, speed and more speed LOL. No sure how "supermaneuverable" it would have been, but it looks like a rocket ship IMO. Almost like a cross between the Typhoon and F-22....