Next Gen UK Fighter Revealed
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
So, which bit is the fixed wing bit?
I think the last fixed wing Westland aeroplane was this -
Somewhere in Italy I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alenia_AeronauticaI think the last fixed wing Westland aeroplane was this -
Leonardo are only doing the sensors etc on the Tempest from the press releases? So RADAR, defensive aids, etc I would have thought?
Although Alenia did build other bits of the Eurofighter so maybe they'll continue that with Tempest
Edited by AndrewEH1 on Wednesday 18th July 13:10
Somewhere in Italy? Are you asking where in Italy Leonardo are based, or rather which bit of them?
The tech for Tempest already exists. There is nothing overly revolutionary or complicated - it’s evolution and enhanced integration within the systems design and integration. Materials are updated but by and large - known stuff.
As for links to Germany and the Typhoon - well half the team who developed the FCC/FCS are based out in Munich and the other half appear to be based out of Crawley . Only a few are still in Rochester.
A lot of course will depend on political will. This is a £10bn+ project. That + can be a very big number...
The tech for Tempest already exists. There is nothing overly revolutionary or complicated - it’s evolution and enhanced integration within the systems design and integration. Materials are updated but by and large - known stuff.
As for links to Germany and the Typhoon - well half the team who developed the FCC/FCS are based out in Munich and the other half appear to be based out of Crawley . Only a few are still in Rochester.
A lot of course will depend on political will. This is a £10bn+ project. That + can be a very big number...
mebe said:
Going to need a pilot for the day your comms links are jammed, your GPS is denied and your Satcomms is taken out. Leaving the pilot behind is great for low intensity and/or low tech environments but not really a serious option until the platform can fight autonomously, and we are a long way from that.
Not really. We happily send stand off missiles into hostile zones. Sure this will cost a lot more, bit what's the ethical difference in setting this a mission and targets and sending it off to do so in a GPS/Comms denied environment?mebe said:
Going to need a pilot for the day your comms links are jammed, your GPS is denied and your Satcomms is taken out. Leaving the pilot behind is great for low intensity and/or low tech environments but not really a serious option until the platform can fight autonomously, and we are a long way from that.
If your coms link is jammed you are basically dead meat/useless against many current and all future foes. I also don't think there ever has been an occasion where one side has prevented the otherside from communicating with their own forces decisively or for a sustained period of time.The reason that this has a man in it is because it is comfort blanket and the RAF is always run by a pilot.
If its a manned fighter you have pretty much guaranteed that it will be built in tiny numbers, be full of expensive non-standard parts made in tiny numbers, difficult to upgrade and obsolete before it enters service.
Much better option would be to give the problem to some tech start-ups. Produce something that is more like a munition in that you can afford to order them by the thousand and loose them pretty frequently.
http://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/2017/06/k...
Either way the key element is that you want to avoid supersonic speed like the plague, it basically halves the range and triples the cost. Missiles can effectively remove the need to point the aircraft and just carry a bigger booster on the missile if you need more range.
If I were betting about "black" capabilities I'd put money on the B2 having A2A capability the B21 certainly will.
This didn't get much fanfare but in 2016 the US demonstrated firing an SM-6 missile at a target located by an F35. The SM-6 is pretty much a 1500kg ballistic missile with a range of ~500km, a large aircraft could fire such a weapon even further and carry 16 of them.
https://news.usni.org/2016/09/13/video-successful-...
aeropilot said:
kurt535 said:
will combat aircraft really need a pilot by 2050? i genuinely cant see it. drone evolution will have overtaken the idea i think
I don't think so, I think there will always be a need for some manned combat aircraft, especially after the first armed drone gets hacked by 'others' and that will happen at some point.I doubt very much "in combat" hacking will ever be a thing against any system where such a threat was considered.
Much more feasible would be to insert code into the aircraft at the design stage or after it enters service so that it fails to function when it combats your forces. In this case it won't make much difference if there is a pilot on board, except that piloted vehicles are heavy, slow and costly.
Tony1963 said:
Al Murphy said:
Maybe time to collaborate with someone from the Middle East, or Far East? Avoid a product with ITAR concerns and open up to new trading partners.
There is definitely some interesting tech mooted for inclusion on it.
Al
Yeah, the horrors of ITAR. It'd save a fortune, avoiding that crap!
There is definitely some interesting tech mooted for inclusion on it.
Al
Yeah, the horrors of ITAR. It'd save a fortune, avoiding that crap!
Edited by Al Murphy on Tuesday 17th July 11:12[/footnote]
[footnote]Edited by Tony1963 on Tuesday 17th July 12:36Talksteer said:
If you can "hack" a drone why won't a totally digital fighter jet be equally vulnerable?
The drone that was "hacked" didn't have the software security compromised.The navigation system was duped into believing it was elsewhere. What's important is that GPS often takes precedence over INS so the INS was probably wondering what the heck it was doing wrong. The Russians, and by effect the Iranians, have demonstrated pretty good capabilities of jamming (dirty) and duping (sophisticated) western GPS.
What compounds the issue is the last 15 years have seen GPS become increasingly available whilst we we've been fighting people without the ability to dupe it.
ash73 said:
I wonder what a contemporary propeller-driven fighter might look like, and what performance it could achieve using today's materials and skills. Obviously the prop would constrain top speed, but energy management could be far superior to the vintage stuff.
I'm not suggesting rebooting Thuderscreech btw
just pondering.
Surely a Texan (wolverine) or a Super Tucano answers that question?I'm not suggesting rebooting Thuderscreech btw
just pondering.Evanivitch said:
Talksteer said:
If you can "hack" a drone why won't a totally digital fighter jet be equally vulnerable?
The drone that was "hacked" didn't have the software security compromised.The navigation system was duped into believing it was elsewhere. What's important is that GPS often takes precedence over INS so the INS was probably wondering what the heck it was doing wrong. The Russians, and by effect the Iranians, have demonstrated pretty good capabilities of jamming (dirty) and duping (sophisticated) western GPS.
What compounds the issue is the last 15 years have seen GPS become increasingly available whilst we we've been fighting people without the ability to dupe it.
The Iranian story is about as plausible as the moon landing hoaxes.
The first they knew about it was probably when it crashed.
Edited by Talksteer on Sunday 22 July 10:30
Hopefully we've learned an important, if expensive, lesson about US collaboration with the F-35. Their insistence on restricting technology transfer to programme partners limits customers ability to tailor it to their requirements without giving US companies shedloads of cash 
European collaborations seem to be more nearly a meeting of equals
European collaborations seem to be more nearly a meeting of equals
Evanivitch said:
Talksteer said:
The Russians, and by effect the Iranians, have demonstrated pretty good capabilities of jamming (dirty) and duping (sophisticated) western GPS.
hmm, suspect at best.GPS jamming, sure, no issues with that, but GPS duping, that's a whole different kettle of fish right there!
ash73 said:
Not really, they are not built for performance, why would you when there are jets. Super Tucano 367mph with 1600hp, obviously we could do a lot better than that.
I think (but do not know) that the problem you'd get would be around the prop blades going supersonic, and that being a limiting factor around how much thrust you can get from a propellor. Someone with better than my very rudimentary understanding of physics/aerodynamics will conform or correct!ecsrobin said:
Given the design requirements and current understandings of flight dynamics and stealth, it doesn't surprise me that we end up with pretty much the same designs during similar eras...MartG said:
Hopefully we've learned an important, if expensive, lesson about US collaboration with the F-35. Their insistence on restricting technology transfer to programme partners limits customers ability to tailor it to their requirements without giving US companies shedloads of cash
European collaborations seem to be more nearly a meeting of equals
Just because it's manufactured in Europe doesn't mean the US don't get their grubby ITAR and EAR regulations all over it...European collaborations seem to be more nearly a meeting of equals
AndrewEH1 said:
MartG said:
Hopefully we've learned an important, if expensive, lesson about US collaboration with the F-35. Their insistence on restricting technology transfer to programme partners limits customers ability to tailor it to their requirements without giving US companies shedloads of cash
European collaborations seem to be more nearly a meeting of equals
Just because it's manufactured in Europe doesn't mean the US don't get their grubby ITAR and EAR regulations all over it...European collaborations seem to be more nearly a meeting of equals
Spoofing GPS etc is relatively trivial these days. HackRF+Raspberry Pi
E.g. https://www.rtl-sdr.com/using-a-hackrf-to-spoof-gp...
That is C/A code GPS though. P code is somewhat more challenging. You dont really want to risk losing a P code receiver .
E.g. https://www.rtl-sdr.com/using-a-hackrf-to-spoof-gp...
That is C/A code GPS though. P code is somewhat more challenging. You dont really want to risk losing a P code receiver .
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff