A giant Antonov AN-124 cargo aircraft touched down at Glasgow Prestwick Airport on Monday to make an oversized delivery of a new Operational Flight Trainer (OFT) heading to RAF Lossiemouth, according to the Ministry of Defence.

The simulator, say the MoD, is one of two that will be installed in the new £100-million strategic facility built by Boeing Defence UK. From Autumn 2020, RAF Lossiemouth will be the headquarters of the UK’s submarine-hunting Poseidon MRA Mk1 Maritime Patrol Aircraft fleet.

“The first simulator was offloaded from the specially chartered Antonov – which took off from Orlando, Florida – and transported by road to RAF Lossiemouth, where it arrived in the early hours of Tuesday morning.”

Mark Corden, the Project Manager for Training in the Poseidon delivery team at DE&S, said:

“The simulators provide training specifically for the pilots who will be flying the Poseidon fleet. They also have the compatibility to link up with the mission simulators used by the rear crew, allowing them to train together. It’s an essential part of making sure the pilots are fully prepared to operate the new fleet of aircraft. The weight of the simulator is not such an issue. It’s the width and height, which make it too big to be transported by any RAF aircraft, such as a C-130J, A400M or C-17. The Antonov is one of only a few aircraft in the world large enough to transport it.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

84 COMMENTS

        • Given the current state of relations and the fact that Russia ‘proper’ relied on the industry & infrastructure of the UKraine as an integral part of its defence industry it could be viewed as ironic rather than funny.

          • And Russia was needing a new transport aircraft and the AN-70 turbofan was chosen and to be jointly funded by Russia and Ukraine but after the Ukrainians openly stated in 2004 they wanted to join NATO Russian funds dried up and a multiple hundred order was shelved! So Russia just upgraded their il-76mf aircraft.

            But Antanov got the Chinese onboard, and even the Germans and other Western European nations were considering the AN-70 turbofan instead of the a400, I think the UK reviewer it also. And it was actually better in some respects than the a400 some reports state. Anyway Russia lost 4 billion in the An -70 project! Lol

  3. Good luck in trying to make the Scottish economy work with 6 million population depending on whisky sale’s and tourism , and not using the pound as your currency lol!!

  5. I think it was this thing that flew over me outside the pub on final approach into Farnborough in the late 80s. Good Lord, how does it fly.

  6. You make it so easy don’t you! Getting so angry and frothy and so envious of reality and real-time experiences. Don’t worry one day you may achieve what you think you deserve.

    • Did I ask for a sad life story? Stop getting angry, think of your blood pressure! Spelling is getting bad I noticed as you tap faster on the keyboard while gritting your teeth grrrrr!

    • “Little Corporal”…

      Poor attempt to insinuate that somebody is a fascist by first setting up for and then including a not so subtle Hitler jibe in two consecutive replies.

      That one comes out of the 101 Ways to Troll Handbook available for use under all good bridges…
      2 /10 Must do better.

  7. The Antonov quote” one of the few other aircraft able to do this” , i,m interested in what others , none I can think of

  8. Do you think HMG will give the go ahead for another referendum? I can’t see that happening as BJ will not want to go down in history as the PM in charge when the UK broke up. Support for Indy may well be high now but that can change. When the pandemic is over, Brexit has been resolved, and we are looking back in 4 or 5 years from now it may well be the case that support for Indy levels off at the 40% to 45% mark again. Much depends on the ability of the pro Union parties to deliver a positive message to reinvigorate their support, something they are failing at.

    What will be interesting is whether the SNP pushes for a vote without UK Govt consent. We have seen what happened in Catalonia and what little the EU and international community did to assist the Catalans. Its easy to see the same happening in Scotland. I’m not saying that is right BTW.

    Talk of the end of the UK is a little premature IMO but the next few years will be interesting.

    • Yep, read that Janes article. Rolls-Royce have been a big investor in Reaction Engines over the last 3 years. Hopefully in the next few years we will start to see the dividends.

        • As a test bed for Tempest I’d imagine, much the same way HMS Richmond has become a testing platform for the T26 propulsion system. Nice to see a UK company developing sovereign tech.

          • Many thanks for the link, my understanding is Tempest will be designed around this technology with a spin-off for Typhoon using Mach 5+ air to air missiles.

            What interests me is, what is the maximum speed allowed for Typhoons current airframe and if increased performance could be achieved from 0 to Mach 2 using this technology if it is unable to withstand higher speeds?

            Equally, would there be fuel-saving advantages to this as well?

          • I really like the Magma project. It uses blown flight controls which have been known about since the days of the Buccaneer. The Buc’ was primarily designed for low level high speed attack. Therefore, it required wings with a small area, to reduce buffeting. However only having a small wing meant your take-off and landing runs were long. To get round this problem they used blown flaps to give it a shorter take-off and landing performance. The blown flaps were driven by the air bleed off from the first stage compressor and was controlled by a series of valves. It was estimated that the engine lost 30% of its performance when the blown flaps were used. However, they did compensate for it due to massive amount of lift they generated. However, the pilots had to practice flying the aircraft in case one of the valves became stuck, thus making one of the wings generate significantly more lift than the other, causing it to roll.

            The Magma trial aircraft used a combination of normal moving flight controls with trailing edge blown controls. If you watch the video you can see only a small portion of the trailing edge has these controls. I would expect a further iteration to have the whole trailing edge with blown controls as this would give better response. You could go further and have leading edge blown controls that act as leading edge flaps and vortex generators, to make sure the airflow stays attached to the wing when at higher angles of attack for longer. In fact if you used a combination of upper and lower blown controls at the wing tips you could do away with the rudder.

            Could Tempest use blown controls, yes most definitely. If it did it would significantly lower its radar cross section when illuminated by high frequency X and K band radars. X band and in particular K band only requires a small amount of reflective material to bounce off. So things such as bolt and rivet heads are good targets for K band. Hence the covering tape and sealant you see on the F22 and F35. Another good reflector are the sides of moving flight controls as they appear above and below the wing during movements. This is one of the reasons why these two aircraft use combinations of the flight controls to minimise the amount of deflection a single flight control would use, thus minimising the reflective sides of the flight controls. However. if you used blown flight controls it would remove the need to use deflected flight controls thus reducing the aircraft’s RCS.

            The other advantage blown flight controls will have is when operating at altitude. As you fly higher, the air gets thinner, so the aircraft requires more flight control deflection to have any affect. At a certain height no amount of deflection will make any affect thus limiting the ceiling the aircraft can operate at. If using blown air, the lack of air deflection used by mechanical flight controls is no longer an issue. The main issue being has the engine enough surplus power to not only maintain the aircraft’s speed but also to be used as the flight controls?

          • Would Typhoon be fully armed or clean? If fully armed all the extras hanging below the wings and from the centre body will add a lot more drag as you try to go faster. It’s not just for stealth that the Raptor, Su57 etc have internal bomb bays. I will try to answer the question without resorting to formulae or writing a paper on the subject – however!

            The basic shape of Typhoon conforms to the area rule but not the fineness rule so is quite draggy, as the main body is quite short versus the wing area and there are abrupt changes in shape and profile. For an aircraft to go really fast you need either clean aerodynamics ala SR71 or sheer power Mig 25. To be brutally honest the Mig could only just reach Mach 3 and for a very short amount of time, but could happily cruise at Mach 2.5, equally the SR71 took a relatively long time to get to Mach 3.5 but it could happily cruise at this speed all day long. The reason for this was the shape. The SR71 is long and narrow and had a flatish profile with blended shape changes. But crucially the angle from its nose to the wing tips was quite acute. Now if you look at the Typhoon the angle from the nose to the wings tips is a lot wider. These angles are known as the Mach cone and has a significant effect on the aircraft’s supersonic performance. As the aircraft flies faster and faster the cone angle will get tighter, so any part of the aircraft outside the cone will induce a significant amount of drag. The longer you can delay the cone touching the wing tips the better.

            The other consideration for supersonic aerodynamics is wave drag which is where the fineness rule comes into play. This is where the outline of the aircraft’s shape and changes in shape influences the generation of drag. The flatter the profile of the body the less drag is generated. Also the smother the shape changes from one profile to another the better. So something like a Typhoon that has an abrupt change in shape from the wings to the fuselage will generate a lot of wave drag. This is one of the reason a lot of today’s fighters now have mid placed wings, as it means there’s not so much of change between the wing and body, thus less wave drag, but also means less fuel is being burnt overcoming it. The best example of this is perhaps the YF23, where the wings blend towards the main body and the changes in profile are quite subtle.

            So to the Typhoons top speed, which is currently published as 1550mph or Mach 2.35. could it go any faster, yes easily if it had more power. However, the design isn’t really made for it. It will have same issues as the Mig 25, it can attain faster speeds but it won’t be able to keep them up for long due to the increased drag, which means you burn more fuel trying to maintain it. I would say the aircraft should be able to reach Mach 2.5 easily, but any faster the fuel burn vs max speed will come into play, so perhaps Mach 2.6ish before the fuel burn becomes too much.

            If you look at the Tempest’s shape from the top, you’ll see that the angle from the nose to the wing tips is slightly more acute than the Typhoon’s which is good, but not great (similar to a F22 Raptor). Then if you look at its shape from the front, it has mid placed wings and the joint between the wing and body is more blended, which is great for reducing wave drag (it could be better). So, if the aircraft weighed the same and had the same engines as Typhoon, it will fly faster due to cleaner aerodynamics. Another good example of this is the comparison between the YF22 and YF23, when they had the same engines fitted. The YF23 was some 200 knots faster through the whole supersonic speed envelop. The speed difference got bigger the faster the aircraft went. The YF22 topped out near Mach 2.5, whereas the YF23 kept going and Northrop said it went to Mach 2.5+. The estimated guess is about Mach 2.75. The reason for the speed differences was that the YF23 was a better shape aerodynamically. So if we apply the same comparison to Tempest using the same EJ200 engines. It should be able to reach Mach 2.5 with ease. However, it could go a lot faster if the nose was stretched out another couple of metres of so, to increase the Mach cone angle. But also if the wings were blended to the fuselage better!

            However, if we now consider the aircraft will be fitted with a variable cycle development of the EJ200 engine complete with Reaction Engines Intercoolers (using fuel as the cooling medium). We are seeing a considerable jump not only in pure power output but also specific fuel consumption. How much heavier will Tempest be, it does look bigger than Typhoon? Regardless the aircraft with these engines will easily have a greater than 1:1 power to weight ratio. So with a combination of decent aerodynamics and sheer power we “could” be looking at the aircraft super-cruising at a minimum of Mach 1.6, a top sustained speed of Mach 2.6 with a dash speed of nearly Mach 2.9-3. The F22 has been said to be capable of operating near to 80,000ft, a lot of this is attributed to the engine’s thrust vectoring. The Tempest with these engines will be able to attain that height plus more. However, it will need thrust vectoring to make sure the aircraft is controllable at those heights.

          • Many thanks for taking the time to explain this in some detail!

            As I suspected and mentioned above, it will be the missiles that reach speeds in the region of Mach5+ rather than the aircraft themselves.

            With thrust vectoring added to Typhoon (which could have been fitted 10yrs ago) and the EJ200 engine fitted with Reaction Engines Intercoolers, we could end up with a Mach2.5 aircraft capable of reaching far higher altitudes for a fraction of the cost of the F22.

            Adding LERX would greatly improve role rates along with conformal fuel tanks would keep Typhoon way ahead of the pack for some time to come.

          • Yes, definitely against anything Russia can throw at us. China is an unknown quantity though. The J20 and J31 being their newest designs. The Typhoon should still remain above these for a number of reasons.

            The first is that China’s fighter engines are based on copies of Russian engines, they haven’t figured out the metallurgy yet, so are underpowered and unreliable (worse than the Russian originals). The second is that both aircraft use diverterless inlets, i.e. bumps to control the boundary flow into the engine. These are great, as they aren’t mechanical so nothing to go wrong. The issue with them is that they limit the aircraft’s top speed. The bump controls the flow of the air into the engine up to speed of about Mach 2.0 by spilling off the boundary layer. To go faster you will need adjustable ramps or a variable shock cone. Both aircraft may have a variable ramp inside the intake further up, but why have both when the mechanical one can do all speeds? Even the F22 uses a fixed boundary layer splitter. However, I suspect there are intake ramps inside the S shaped intake as well. But nobody has taken any pictures of inside the intakes for obvious reasons.

            Therefore, without a mechanical airflow control inside the intake the aircraft are limited to a max speed of Mach 2.0 as the air will be going too fast for the compressor to handle. Not so on the Typhoon, it will have a distinct speed advantage.

            The YF23 used a novel way of controlling the boundary layer. It used a series of holes arranged in grids to suck in the boundary layer. One of test pilots hinted that the aircraft used variable geometry ramps to control the airspeed into the engine.

            The J31 is basically a copy of the F35, but with twin engines. The J21 is a novel design, but is not a close coupled canard delta like the Typhoon or Rafale, therefore it won’t be as responsive as these two aircraft in a knife fight.

            Sensor and avionic wise. Both The J21 and J31 are using an AESA radar and have a similar 360 degree Distributed Aperture System similar to the F35’s. Are they as good though? There is very little information on these systems apart from what is published by the manufacturer. Until they start to export these two aircraft, we can only guess on their overall performance, whereas Typhoon is more or less a known quantity.

            Yes, the Airbus aero package would be a major benefit for the aircraft’s handling, especially if they also included the thrust vectoring. But perhaps we should start looking at reducing the aircraft’s RCS, specifically against high X band and K band radars. This could be an easy win, if a RAM paint was used (will require additional maintenance though!). As it is easier to proof an aircraft against these radars due to the smaller wavelengths. By targeting these radars it will help reduce the detectability of the aircraft especially against active anti-aircraft missiles.

          • I think both China and Russia realise that they cannot compete with the west when it comes to technology advancements but allow for this in the numbers they produce compared to the UK and quite possibly Europe.

  10. So if the stroppy jocks get their way and get independence will this newly constructed building have to be rebuilt in England or Wales?

    • Lossiemouth could easily become a Sovereign base area.
      Which stays in the UK.
      And supplied by sea and air, if necessary.

      • That is a bad solution, as sooner or later we will just have another falklands/gib issue over the area with scotland. Plus there is no way that the SNP would allow it, as it would give the rUK access to Scottish oil.

          • Its working because Cyprus is contested and so a friendly military presence helps. For something like this to work, there has to be something in it for both sides.

          • They know we would do that anyway, like we do for Ireland for the free and it can be done from bases in England.

          • Scotland would not be in a position to afford to run Typhoon’s or Tempests, nor P8’s, just like lreland,
            The Northern approachs will be exposed to attack!

        • Government finances are an interesting algorithm.

          If the Scots leave the Union and what’s left of the UK still has low cost borrowing – then a total borrowing figure of circa £3 trillion, which then becomes 3.1 trillion in order to absolutely secure a fully fitted out and secure nuclear submarine base in England – roughly equates to a simple household decision akin to “should I spend £3000 on a smart 4K TV or should I spend £3100 on one that is fitted over my fireplace by the supplier”.

          Of itself, a decision you would like NOT to have to make in order to save the money but actually, not a huge decision in context.

  11. @Harold

    Stats like this are misleading, as currently there is only the SNP campaigning and so there isn’t an organised voice for the Union. If there was another vote, that voice would appear and balance to the debate would be added (i am sure both sides would lie /mislead just like both sides did with brexit), so once both sides have stated their arguments would it stay 55/54?

    The main sticking point last time was the SNP’s refusal to confirm what would happen with the currency and realistically if the SNP wants to rejoin the EU then it would be the Euro, which might change some views.

    My guess, is the vote would fail again, mainly because the average person prefers the devil they know over the one they don’t and independence just has too many unanswered questions, such as whether they would be accepted back into the EU, under what terms, how strong a voice they would have, what currency, how the national debt will be shared, etc etc.

    On the flip side, if Boris is leading the Union campaign, we are stuffed, as he seems to fail at everything he puts his hands to.

  12. On another note: I see that Appledore shipyard is to reopen under new ownership…an interesting bid by a certain company to curry favour with the dry stores RFA requirement coming up. Apologies if this has been mentioned on another thread!

  14. Did anyone see the bit about cancelling Challenger 2 and Warrior in the Times. They stated that: “Military chiefs are reportedly looking at scrapping the UK’s fleet of tanks and instead focus on other capabilities such as cyber warfare.” However, they did not mention anything about the life extension program?

    • Cyber warfare if the greatest get out of jail card ever for politicians. They can announce massive cuts to the tangible military, and say its gone into cyber, a service where its hard or impossible, to see where the money is going or if its being spent at all.

      The politicians can also just link to the Russian interference in the election as an excuse for cutting conventional military assets to invest is cyber.

    • We have had it with LPDs, we have had it with the RM, we have had it with the carriers. Now Tanks.
      Options leaked by services defending their patch.

      Lets just wait and see.

      If they cancelled WCSP and CH2 and instead, for example, doubled the size of RA with long range precision fires, bought more support helicopters, doubled the Apache order, made 3 all singing and dancing brigades of Boxers properly armed, and so on, you could accept it.

      As it is, if this speculation comes to pass it is cuts, pure and simple, not the capability choices HMG would have people believe.

      Cyber, as Steve says, is just an excuse.

      Toe be fair, the cuts to heavy armour have been underway since the early 2000’s when the FAS “Future Army Structures” started the ball rolling by cutting 7 Ch2 squadrons and re equipping other Tank Squadrons with Scimitar as “Medium Armoured Squadrons”

      Since then, the 5 AS90 and Challenger regiments have reduced from 5 to 3 and shortly 2. Warrior gone from 9 to 6 to soon 4.

      This is nothing new really.

    • Yes, it’s also on the bbc as well.

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53909087

      This is horrific, next they’ll be coming up with nonsense like cutting the entire army because why would we, as an island nation, need one.

      I will never vote Tory again if they go through with this, which given their historical obsession with defence cuts, I suspect they will.

    • Today’s offering from the press is slashing F-35 numbers to 70 and spending the savings on the Tempest “wonder weapon”. I do so love defence review news cycles.

      • Like it or not, the perfect storm of brexit (huge upfront costs of replacing the stuff that was done in the EU with UK versions) and covid plus the huge hole in the defense budget, means that the public purse is empty and there is no chance that the armed forces will not take a massive cut in the defense review.

          • Behave. My post was about anything and everything being reported as potentially cut during a defence review.

            I will respond with this; Covid-19 is also a huge factor with the associated contraction of the economy. Let’s not have our blinkers on.

          • Yeah sorry my post was more a general comment than specifically aimed at you.

            It’s the normal cycle of doom and gloom being leaked, so when the actual cuts gets announced they won’t look so bad.

            However, i do believe there will be some pretty significant cuts.

            My assumption is the albion’s will get cut, with a statement that they will be replaced by the much more versatile littoral strike ships (that excuse was already being built by the last defense minister). The fact that they will take a decade or so to get through the endless tenders etc, resulting in a capability gap will be brushed over.

            Other than that, I suspect 2 of the frigates were already flagged for sale, because they brought equipment for the first 2 of the new ships under the cloud of not wanting to take them off active ships, which i suspect means they always planned to sell off at least 2. This will get balanced against the potential for more t31 to be built, without any details.

            I suspect they will announce that they are going to buy some A versions of the F35 and state that as part of the switch from the B, the buy rate has had to be adjusted, resulting in a delay spending the money for the next batch.

            That leaves the army, which hasn’t’ got much to cut outside its heavy gear or manpower, one has to give.

          • It also seems as though I replied to Heredotus and not you with my post, oops.

            For me, I can’t see much changing with the F-35 buy, we are in the initial throes of a trade deal with the US (and yes this might all change with a new President). I don’t think we would risk upsetting a deal by reneging on some pretty firm commitments to buy 138.

            The MOD is sadly it’s own worst enemy at times like this with inflated costs, legacy programs from previous leadership and the seeming inability to change for the better. That coupled with huge overruns by the private sector is unsustainable.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here