The UK’s leading combat air companies and the Ministry of Defence have collaborated with scientists and engineers in the field of machine learning, artificial intelligence, data science, and computing to develop software for new fighter jet Tempest.

This project is part of the UK’s future combat air system (FCAS) initiative.

Tempest is designed to be a supersonic stealth fighter, featuring advanced integrated sensing and protection technologies. It relies on extensive software systems, both on the aircraft and in ground-based systems.

“These capabilities will be delivered, in part, by millions of lines of code on the aircraft, with many more lines of code also present in ground-based systems. This means the software on Tempest needs to be more robust and resilient than that on its potential adversaries. The collaboration provided valuable insights into software requirements, design, delivery, operation, speed of upgrades and maintenance for both the fighter jet and the training systems pilots and maintainers will use to operate and support the aircraft. 

Outsmart Insight, a deep tech intelligence company, and Oxford Creativity, a group delivering a systematic approach to innovation and creative problem solving, conducted targeted research with scientists, engineers and academia. The research addressed the most challenging problems facing software development over the expected multi-decade life of the programme: flexible ways of managing computing resources; the role of trusted artificial intelligence; software re-use; and increasing software dependability.”

Air Commodore Lowe, FCAS Programme Director for the MOD, was quoted as saying:

“Software is key for Tempest because the future operational environment demands adaptability, including frequent software updates. But software is also a big delivery risk. Recent history shows the dangers that arise when software is done badly and the advantages of doing software well. The advantages are so significant that, in terms of operational capability, the people delivering the software are as important as the people maintaining the aircraft or the pilots flying them.”

Tempest is targeted to be in service by 2035.

Lisa West
Lisa West
Lisa has a degree in Media & Communication from Glasgow Caledonian University and works with industry news, sifting through press releases in addition to moderating website comments.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

82 COMMENTS

  1. The MOD must be creaming themselves with this new buzzword bonanza; machine learning, artificial intelligence, data science, and computing to develop software.

    • Well, Tempest is supposed to use loads of AI in construction and service. Probably how BAE got the contract to build it

      • I’m not having a pop at the construction process. I’m having a little giggle at the MOD must be creaming themselves over new buzzwords.

          • Sorry, that was a bit abrupt, the obviously was saying that your statement was correct I didn’t mean to be disparaging

          • Not clear why it’s embarrassing to use actual words that describe actual technology. ‘Data Science’ is probably the closest to a buzzword whereas Machine learning is no more one than human learning. Mod are certainly prone to using buzzwords which to my mind tend to be obscure in their meaning but these ones as I say above are predominantly descriptive of more recently developing technologies,

    • Interestingly there is little that is new about those buzzwords or companies claiming new wonderful methodologies which will fix everything.

      • I was having a bit of fun MOD PR. I am of defence companies and their buzzword corporate speak. I’m sure if you banned them from saying these term they would be lost. It’s just like using words like efficient, cost-effective, reversibility, effective, scalability, diverse, survivability, combatant, commonality, etc.

  2. This will be great for the Chinese ambassador to the UK that said last week the UK is not a competitor to China on AI because it’s so small. Love to see an AI powered UK aircraft shoot down whatever piece of shit Russian knock off the supreme leader and his horde can create.

    • The more the Chinese go out of their way to slag a country off, the more worried they are about that country behind closed doors.

      They spend alot of time slagging off Britain.

      • Indeed they always like to put down those they know are at least in some regards a technological threat. Fact is we punch well above our weight even if we can’t compete on numbers with Countries far bigger than us. There’s a reason so much of the modern World came from UK based minds.

      • Agree- the Chinese know that British inventiveness, innovation and science will surpass any technology that China can steal through industrial espionage or reverse engineering.
        The key aspect of technology seems to be computational power- so quantum computing and <6nm microprocessor blocks.
        As long as the west has an advantage and in fact superiority in this field the Chinese know their weapon system technology will be inferior.
        The troubling aspect around China is their ability to mass produce equipment/ ships and weapon systems- especially as it is Western companies that have supported Chinese industrial expansion.
        China is estimated to have 4x the military ship building capacity now than the entire NATO countries and this could be surged up to 10x in the event of war.
        Ditto tanks, missiles and aircraft. So Chinese equipment might not be as technologically advanced but they are closing the gap and could simply accept high loses knowing they can replace those loses.

    • Considering DeepMind is one of, and arguably the most advanced AI Company on the planet the Chinese Ambassador as usual is talking through his ass. We don’t have the mass the US or China has in the sector that’s true, but like our F1 engineering, at the top end it is as good as anyone’s and I would wager more advanced than Chinas. As an example DeepMind’s AI has just raised the bar existencially on the number of stable crystalline structures identified, hundreds of thousands indeed which are already starting to be created and tested in labs for their potential for all manner of new materials, 700 so far under test. They are also the first to create an AI that’s able to predict future viral mutations.

      Maybe the Chinese are just upset that they also defeated their best Go players some years back.

    • The U.K.’s entire bloated university system depends on Chinese students. None of these students is studying sociology or sports facility management I wager. But you point is well made – and colourful!

    • No, no, no
      Tempest looks just fine the way it is, and won’t need superb manoeuvrability to win battles. Canards would just get in the way

      • It’s laughable how the YF 22 beat out the YF 23 when its only advantage was extra manoeuvrability for a dog fight thanks to its weighty nozzle design, because those pesky Russians already had it. In reality before it even got into service that factor was already becoming of minor relevance as over the horizon missiles became de riguer. Fact is if an aircraft ever has to use vectored thrust these days plan A and B will already have failed and plan C no guarantee of survival. The YF 23 would have been a far better bet using its superior range stealth and speed during plan A and B and was still very manoeuvrable even without vectored thrust, looked good at airshows mind.

        • One of the big factors that decided the YF23’s fate, was that it wasn’t in the same fly able condition as the YF22. Lockheed at that stage were notorious for delivering products late. Northrop bent over backwards to get a flyable demo aircraft ready before the deadline.

          To put things in perspective the YF23 was only just behind the YF22 in angular pitch rate, ie how fast it can move its nose up or down. This was due to its V-tail. Where each eleven had near enough the same surface area as a F18’s main wing.

          One advantage that the 2D nozzles have, is when an aircraft is flying really high, ie above 50,000ft. As the air is much thinner, the flight controls have to move further to make the aircraft respond to a direction change. With the 2D nozzles, these are used to complement the flight controls in pitch and roll. Thereby maintaining flight control authority at really high altitudes.

          It’s funny as this was one of the primary reasons the X35 was picked over the X32. The Boeing product was no where near in the same flyable condition as Lockheed’s. Plus the X35 met the requirement spec. Whereas the X32 didn’t, as it couldn’t perform VTOL without removing equipment and being only partially fueled.

          The X35 when compared to the X32, could take-off vertically, convert to forward flight, accelerate to supersonic, slow down and then land vertically. Months before the X32 could even consider doing it. Just goes to show how company’s can learn from their mistakes.

          In a lot of respects the marriage of a helmet mounted sight and missiles with lock on after launch (LOAL). Can now be used to mitigate the lack of an aircraft’s super-maneuverability. The F35 with its “see through floor” via its EOTS takes this a stage further. However, if it comes down to a gunfight, the aircraft with the best maneuverability will have the advantage.

          The other point of note is that both the USN’s and USAF’s NGAD requirement is looking more like what a production version of the YF23 would have been. Basically an aircraft that is bigger than a F15, that houses its weapons internally and doesn’t require external conformal fuel tanks to meet the range requirement. Shape wise the YF23 still has a lot going for it.

        • If that competition took place today. The YF23 would win because of the reasons you highlighted. Both were born in an age when who could pull 9g the longest was seen as still the most important aspect of modern air superiority. How times have changed.

    • AI is developing aircraft that don’t need vertical stabilisers so I doubt they will be contemplating canards at least when the emphasis put to them is on stealth.

  4. ChatGPT has insisted on the necessity of real furry dice in the cockpit rather than a virtual set. The Furry Dice Requirements Committee meet next Thursday in closed session in the hope that they can avoid strike action from the Minimalist Cockpit Group.

    A minimalist spokesperson went on record saying that AI is too stupid to understand just how dangerous furry dice could be in a 9g turn, and how a complaint will be lodged with the Tempest Feng-Shui Subcommittee.

    Last night, despite back channel messaging between the two parties, no compromise deal had been reached and experts would not be drawn on the outcome. One declared: “it’s going to be Poster of Tennis Player Scratching Her Bum all over again.” let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.

      • For what it’s worth I hope we do, other countries with nowhere near our military aviation history/ expertise are doing so, so In theory there’s no reason why we can’t make a success of Tempest, but if there’s one thing this country can balls up on an epic scale its usually a project like this.🤞

        • Sadly we have had more than our fair share of cock us but I’m hoping with Italy and particularly Japan onside we’ll do it this time. 👍

    • We hope to have the tech demonstrator around 2027. I can believe that. In fact I’d hope to see it rolled out as early as Christmas 2026, but without all the bells and tinsel. Will we see a prototype multi-function-radio-frequency-doodad in place by then, or “just” ECRS Mk 2? Full adaptive engines? I’d hope so.

      To have the first fighter in service by 2035, eight or nine years later is also believable. However IOC I’m having trouble swallowing.

      I think we can do the technology, but I’m not convinced we can commit to getting a full squadron of fighters built, 200 trained aircrew, with maintenance and training pipelines in place, along with enough of the auxillary systems, loyal wingmen, swarming attack drones, etc, to make it a true 6th Gen system of systems. Not by 2035. As for the first deployable squadron, somewhere in the early 2040s perhaps. It depends if we can shake ourselves out of the no-hurry peacetime mindset we are currently sunk in, and how fast the cash comes.

      • ‘a true 6th Gen system’
        What is that?
        As is commonly said, this generation saying was made up by LM to sell 5th gen fighters.

        4th gen and 5th gen have become easy to distinguish mainly via stealth characteristics.
        What will be the difference between 5th and 6th gen?

        The main 6th gen projects are NGAD, F/A-XX, SCAF and Tempest.

        NGAD is a project of just 50-100, 200 max long range air superiority fighter. It doesn’t need to have any air to ground capability because the USAF will also have 100-200 B21s, and 1800 F35As.

        F/A-XX will replace the circa 600 F/A-18 E/F. It will have air to ground capability, but will also be augmented by F35C.

        SCAF will be the French Air Forces sole aircraft type. Therefore, like Rafale, it will have to be a true multi role fighter.

        GCAP will be different. Both Japan and Italy have a large amount of F35A which means they only need a more air superiority focussed aircraft, but the RAF will need additional air to ground capability to make up for the lack of F35A. This probably means GCAP will be most similar to F/A-XX, but pretty different to SCAF and hugely different to NGAD.

        Given the mass adoption of F35, countries will either opt out for 6th gen, or require an aircraft to complement F35. This points to GCAP having a huge export potential. I suspect one of many tensions between France and Germany is this, the aircraft is being designed as a stand alone when the Germans want a complement to F35.

        This points to Tempest being inferior to NGAD in terms of air superiority, and inferior to SCAF in air to ground operations, so what is 6th gen?

        • Gen 6 isn’t the Tempest fighter alone. It’s the interplay of the fighter and other systems around it. It’s the ability to not only select your missile load-out for the mission but your supporting drone platforms too, knowing that your core fighter will be able to control them all with AI assistance and without cognitively overburdening the pilot. Squadrons will be considerably less homogenous. I think you are right and Tempest will be complementing 5th Gen (when available), also a lighter AEW platform that will have lost most of its current control function. Just as you wouldn’t expect to send out tanks against a peer opponent without the cover of combined arms, you won’t be sending out Tempest alone either.

          Not only will the selected platforms function as part of a kill web, they will link to a wider sense-kill web that ensures that all information within the multi-domain battlefied is shared as best it can be in real time, so you might be undertaking a bombing mission, with your sensors supporting the deep fires of a ground offensive 100 miles away without even being aware of that.

          I don’t think it will spring to life like this, fully formed. It will take a while to work up to it as new systems are built to slot into the mix.

          If the French create SCAF to be a do-it-all homogenous fighter, they will have missed the point and will be flying 5+ gen. What the Germans, Spanish and Belgians will say about that isn’t hard to guess — but nobody ever said Dassault played well with others.

          • Bearing in mind, there will also have to be carrier variant of SCAF! Which will be a French only affair, are the other three Countries expected to cough up funding for its development as well?

        • Good question it’s nebulous, the main differentiators being the sensors, awareness, Ai based cooperative capabilities and flight control, electronic complexities (including power generation to feed it), superior stealth and adaptive engines but there are any manner of ways to include/exclude such factors or massage their capabilities when included. In many ways they are just more advanced sets of what some Gen-5 aircraft have, esp when comparing to the F-35 which has set a high bar and will be further improved.

          As for 4th/5th Gen and the stealth characterisation as differentiator I just read that (and I can’t confirm its veracity) that an F-18 has a far lower frontal radar signature than a J-20 and an F-35 up to a thousand times a lower signature than the latter, so the comparative difference to an Su-57 is almost incalculable and questions if it can be considered Gen 5 at all at this stage of its development.

  7. Hope they get rid or the tails and take the magna approach.
    High Mach, low observability.

    But I quite like the idea of changeable covers. Like the old Nokias. One for deep strike on for dogfighting.

      • Seriously, you’d be better off using the Vulcan, as a foundation for modernization. As it would be more easily adapted to rebuilding from a basis of a very good low observability. Along with being a pretty decent stand-off cruise missile carrier.

        For instance as part of a fun exercise to make a stealthy Vulcan from an existing airframe, implementing 10 fairly easy modifications:

        1. Place louvres in the intakes, to shield the engines. Intakes will probably need a redesign if money is available to include S-ducting. Along with including radar absorbent tiles in the intake ducting. The intake’s vertical boundary layer splitter will have to go and be replaced perhaps with suction vents as per the YF23.

        2. Remove the tail fin, at 90 degrees to the main wing, this is a main source of radar reflection. Replacing it with either a pair of angled wingtip fins or preferably using split elevons as per the B2. Which then could be supplemented by differential thrust for yaw control. The wing’s slightly cranked leading edge helps break up reflections that are tangentially to the wing.

        3. Without any vertical fins, the aircraft will therefore require a multichannel digital flight computer along with fly-by-wire flight controls. By replacing long control runs, this will save on weight and space.

        4. Changing the shape of the rounded nose fuselage section, to a more diamond shape. This would also include the tail section. This will cancel circular RF reflections. If these sections can be better blended to the wing, the RCS can be lowered further.

        5. Extending the wing’s trailing edge to go underneath and past the exhaust. This will help shield the hot exhaust nozzles from ground based IR sensors. Additional captured airflow can be used to enhance this.

        6. Change the 4 x RR Olympus turbojets to 4 x adaptive cycle turbofans. Therefore gain significantly better fuel economy, whilst maintaining a high thrust output.

        7. Coat the aircraft in a layer of broadband (S to Ka bands) radar absorbent material (RAM), including RAM tape over panel gaps etc. Try to minimize gaps between flight control surfaces. Perhaps if money is available include triangulation of panel edges, especially for the bomb bay doors. The bomb bay doors long join, is another radar reflection source.

        8. Change the cockpit from a four to a two person one. Including a metallic element in the canopy to shield the cockpit from RF. If space is available include an area for a second crew.

        9. Remove the nose refueling probe and replace with a folding one. That is hidden within the fuselage when not in use.

        10. Either use or develop the latest Typhoon/F35 avionics, radar, IRST, EOTS, communications, jammers etc. The aircraft’s primary role is a cruise missile carrier, so flying high and staying outside of a SAM zone is its main defence.

        In practice the Vulcan had a very low radar cross section compared to other bombers of its period. From memory I think it was around 10 meters squared, when nothing was hanging from it and all the panels and access doors were properly bonded. Which is still significantly less than a fully bombed up F15.

        The measures above if taken, would produce an aircraft with a smaller RCS than the B1B, due to the delta wing’s better shaping and the lack of a vertical and horizontal stabilizers, ie below 1 meter squared. Due to the very large surface area and shape of the delta wing, this will also help it against low frequency radar. As only a few points either match the radar’s wavelength or are smaller than the wavelength. Clearly it will still be detectable to very low frequency radar.

        You could get it significantly below 1m2, if you had the funding. But then you be better off building a completely new aircraft from scratch. That already incorporates radar trapping and absorbing into its base design.

        As a theoretical exercise, it would be possible to make a fairly stealthy cruise missile carrier from a Vulcan. Hi, is that Grant Shapps, I have a cunning idea!

        • YES THE vulcan. Lovely semi stealth plane. Great you tube videos about Vulcans Nuking the USA in excersises.Only because the Banshee drone
          Looks a bit Vulcan_y…it has allegedly a very small radar cross section (it’s not very big for a start), but mostly because it’s fibreglass…how difficult would it be to reshape the panels to make it truly stealthy? I mean, once you have the new mould and a bit of low_viz paint on it….would it not then become very useful.
          Sorry, just a random thought.. AA

          • Hi AA, not a stupid thought at all! The Qinetiq Banshee must fly with a radar reflector, which not only reflects radar but also amplifies it. This makes sure that a ship’s radar for instance can detect it as it pops over the horizon. The repeater helps the Banshee mimic an anti-ship missile’s radar cross section (RCS).

            The Banshee also uses flares and high powered IR lights to enhance its IR signature.

            When these enhancements are switched off. It has been known that lookouts spot the Banshee before the ship’s radar does.

            You are quite right that it is mostly fiberglass. Fibreglass to most radar frequencies is transparent. Though this can be affected by the Fibreglass’s thickness. Which means a radar’s emission is being reflected off the engine, fuel pumps, wiring etc.

            You can very easily make it more stealthy. By replacing the fiberglass with carbon fiber (CF). CF is normally a poor RF conductor, though it can absorb certain frequencies as well as reflect them. However by cutting the strand (tow) lengths you could tailor the performance of the CF to match the radar and thereby make it opaque to radars. This means that the Banshee’s internals will be hidden from the radar.

            This would make the Banshee really hard to detect. But you could take it stage further, fairly cheaply. There will be a threshold where the CF will start to re-radiate back to the radar. You could cut strips of audio cassette tape as it has a high iron content and mix it with the CF. As a form of cheap radar absorbent material (RAM). If cut to match a radar’s 1/4 wavelength. It will absorb some of the RF, thus lowering the Banshee’s already small RCS.

        • As much as I think that would work I think the TSR2 would be the ultimate platform. The fact that it was already amazing it wouldn’t need many tweaks.. literally upgraded with scramjet technology and modern day EW kits. A potential Mach 4 or 5 monster.

    • Be interesting to see if NGAD eliminates them as many claim. Plenty of experimentation going on but like vectored thrust there are potential compromises to be had that probably the quality of coding will probably be the tipping point.

  9. ” Millions of lines of code” is a recipe for precisely the huge cost overruns and interminable delays that have bedevilled the F35 programme and continue to limit the effectiveness of the aircraft.
    Tempest won’t be funded as generously as the F35 so the risks of failure and cancellation are much greater. This programme needs to have clear milestones for taxpayers money to be provided.

    • Yes an argument not to be dismissed. Will just say that the F-35 is greatly held back by its 90s/Noughties base software origins. Much has been learned since then, above all modularity one example being separating weaponry control from the flight control (to simply the comparison admittedly) so that updating the former doesn’t mean complete re-testing at great length of the latter. How well this new era of programming works in practice however will be the prime indicator of whether 6th Gen development is more reliable than 5th Gen. and whether it enables core software and OS often ancient in technological terms, for the reason of reliability and testing can become more current and capable than has been the norm.

    • and yet …

      Air Commodore Lowe, FCAS Programme Director for the MOD, was quoted as saying:

      “Software is key for Tempest because the future operational environment demands adaptability, including frequent software updates.

      But software is also a big delivery risk.

      Recent history shows the dangers that arise when software is done badly and the advantages of doing software well.

      The advantages are so significant that, in terms of operational capability,

      the people delivering the software are as important as the people maintaining the aircraft or the pilots flying them.”
      (my emphasis)

      Windows 11 has about 50 million lines of source code.
      predominantly C and C++.

      F-35 has approx. 8 million lines of code (Old Figure most likely around 15+ million now). predominantly C and C++ and Ada.

      “The Eurofighter Typhoon contains 24 million lines of software code” according to the Daily Telegraph.

      “100 million. This is how many lines of code feature in today’s car. By comparison, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner only has 14 million”. according to the Official Medium Account of Porsche AG

      Regardless how source lines are counted and how verbose the language or the programmer is; we live in a world of systems, systems built on lines of code, from washing machines to Air Traffic Control.

      We don’t want to go back to Gen 1 aircraft … do we?

  10. Will the ship fill a crucial role in 2035?
    The Typhoon is totally useless for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Gripen currently seems the better choice. But artillery shells by the millions would be best.

  11. Tempest is useless. Its airfield will be destroyed.

    Just make a missile with long range, lets say 4000km . If it needs to be in a vector for an extra range, an Airbus 320 can certainly fire it from 4000km distance. The missile performance can be improved every 5 years or even less.
    Tempest will be stuck in the airframe for 50 years, so it is a serious limitation. Instead if needed you just make a different missile.

    • Sacrilege, how would the RAF ever be able to justify its pampered fly boy image without an airfield to fly those glorious flying machines from?
      In reality a lot of what you state is true- airfields are all air forces Achilles heels, dispersion and STOVL capabilities are key to keep jets deployable and able to fly regardless of airfields being hit/ taken out.
      Of course a missile might not get through if the airfield had some rudimentary GBAD, which the RAF regiment is clearly lacking.

    • The whole point of Tempest is that it is modular and has room for advancements over its lifespan. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make; we should scrap actual combat aircraft and fit airliners with cruise missiles? Really? Because that’s fine, as long as your (enormous to get to 4000km) missiles can’t be shot down, are immune to jamming, the enemy doesn’t know your coming to put up air patrols, your missile is accurate enough at 4000km to hit a target the size of a hangar.
      That’s before:
      if your missile is supersonic, the chance of missing is much higher and the range drops so you need an even bigger, less accurate missile
      if it’s subsonic, it will have an enormous RCS and be spotted and shot down, which tempest will be able to do with Meteor or otherwise.

      • Modular is just pep talk. You are always stuck with airframe. Tell me how many years and expense has been necessary to just fit Meteor in F-35? These super complex aircrafts are preposterous when a missile and a good recon can do the work.

        It would have to be a family of missiles – sort of CAMM for anti-land with various engines for diverse range and speed, loitering and diverse warheads or decoys- that can be fired from land, submarine, aircraft/drone.

        A missile always will have an advantage of not being shot down over a much bigger aircraft.
        Why a missile today with terminal guidance will not be able to hit an hangar?

        The mission: hit something with precision far away

        Current way: very expensive very complex manned aircraft that takes decades to see them operational, taking ages to have new weapons certified, sorely dependent on airfields and foreign basing, also dependent on training aircraft.

        • I would refer you to the 1957 Defence Paper, which proposed the inverse of what you say (missiles for defence, rather than offence), widely regarded as the worst procurement decision until the 2010 SDRP (or whatever) that wrote off TSR2 among others
          The main point against your suggestion is that a combat aircraft can be used for purposes other than flattening buildings. Most of what Typhoons do over Syria involves gathering intelligence and target identification for ground troops. An airstrike is a last resort

          • Though, as you mention it, a modular Aeralis style family of missile engines, fins, seekers and warheads would be an interesting concept. You could have super-long range AAMs, land attack, ASMs… With common parts, launch methods and factories. THAT would be a good idea. Relying on it for defence, not so much

          • Please don’t compare anything useful to that bongadoodle aerialis.
            I will believe that when it flies. Modular aircraft🤦🏼‍♂️

          • I know, I know, but same concept? I wish Aeralis had worked, would have made a real difference to training style

          • You just need intelligence gathering drones, satellites, even said missile with a proper engine module and head module can have a loitering function to do recon for the attacking ones.

          • You are quite right the 1957 Defence Paper was a disastrous one do to its precocious emphasis into missiles. Precocious is the operative word.

            But technology moves on and what was no possible to achieve reliably can be possible after enough developments.

          • Ok, let’s say you’ve convinced me. The UK is going to replace its fixed air wing with AEW- and Ground-launched long-range (Ballistic?) land attack, Anti-ship and AA missiles that can be transported on lorries to the point of use. Presumably Apache would also be replaced with LPS, Surface Brimstone or similar. Where do you start?
            Get BAE to fill out a concept launcher for a range of launchers and VLS for ships? Get the MBDA cogs whizzing with a fat £5B for the range? Come to think of it, a land-based FC/ASW wouldn’t be a bad idea, but the logistics of relying on ground-launched missiles for everything escape me.

          • Apaches only make sense if they will be much cheaper, otherwise it will be drones.

            At Operational level i would start with 10 and 30km missile in Spike class to destroy all enemy tanks before they even approach our infantry lines. If they have to use a Javelin it is already failure.
            Then guided 60, 100km, 200km etc in various range increments.

            The advantages of ground based is that is more difficult to detect and can be even fired unmanned and from underground and cheaper, disadvantage is that if you are out of range it takes more time to be in range and in case of aerial launch you loose some extra range to that.

            For Strategic level there is the question of “ballistic” vs cruise. Cruise might have issue with flying airspace ownership.

            A cruise/ballistic missile with 6000km range covers all Iran, Yemen from UK. So UK can fire 1000+ missiles against those if necessary in a short time and not dependent of cooperation from other countries.

            A Tomahawk had 2500km range in cold war, with current improvements i think it could be achieved today in a similar airframe.
            To have global capacity with airliner aircraft type but i would start turning all transport aircraft to have also capability to fire long range missiles.
            For example A-400, C-17 will have capability to fire significant missile quantities due to their size.

            Necessary to increasing satellite count, and very high altitude quasi global range stealth recon drones.

            If Space X can 1000’s satellites why not UK a smaller significant number for recon in various spectrum?

            I would also increase the submarine fleet and start a small experimental submersible fleet (50m depth max)
            There will be a need of a long range corvette to protect merchant ships all over the world.
            The problem of this is if the technology advances turns water transparent denying submarine sanctuary.

          • I agree with you on the small scale, Spike/drones. Also re OPV/Corvette and SSK for sea lanes. Also the ability of transports to launch long range missiles. However, there is still something to be said for the ability of fighter jets to invade protected airspace and hit fleeting targets of opportunity, something missiles are simply incapable of

    • That is what Rolls Royce have alluded to. As well as incorporating the in-shaft generator and pump system. The test engine that was shown some time ago, judging on appearances and measuring it against a person standing underneath. It looks quite a bit wider in diameter than the Typhoon’s EJ200. Not to mention that Tempest when it is actually revealed, will be quite a bit bigger than Typhoon, due to the need to include large weapons bays and more internal fuel storage. Therefore to maintain at least a performance parity with Typhoon, this new engine will need to develop considerably more thrust, especially military dry thrust prior to using the afterburner.

      There are a few methods of doing this. One is to make the engine run hotter. Where the power turbine low pressure and high pressure sections must be made of not only exotic materials, but also sufficiently cooled to operate at continuous high power requirements. The second is to make the engine draw in more air, which is done by making the engine wider. However, the constraint will be how much space the airframe can give up to the engine/engines.

      Adaptive cycle or variable cycle, is a means of getting more air in to the engine at certain flight regimes in a very controlled manner. At lowish level with denser air, there is an abundance of air the engine can use. In most cases too much, so this is by-passed. Which helps by cooling the engine, but also in the engines mass flow performance. However, as the aircraft flies higher, there is less air. So it needs more air to flow through the core and become more like a turbojet.

      So in adaptive cycle engines. In the turbofan mode, they have a higher than standard by-pass ratio. This is used to again aid mass flow and cooling. But the by-pass flow is split into various streams. As the engine demands more air, these streams are diverted in sequence into the engine’s core, ion a more turbojet fashion. However, designers do try to leave at least one stream to keep cooling the engine. Which is also used in mixing with the hot efflux to reduce the engines IR signature.

      Tempest will most certainly be using an adaptive cycle engine. As its the only real usable way of managing the performance requirements with the aircraft’s cooling needs. Without using additional vents and ducts that would ruin the aircraft’s radar cross section (RCS) or generate more IR hot spots..

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here