A new image of the Tempest fighter jet has been revealed by the Royal Air Force.
The image, show below, accompanied the news that ‘Team Tempest’ have strengthened relationships across UK industry.
Team Tempest is a UK technology and defence partnership formed by BAE Systems, Leonardo, MBDA, Rolls-Royce and the RAF, and involving hundreds of high-tech companies, SMEs and academia across the UK.
“More than 70 key industry and Government representatives from across Northern Ireland have engaged with Team Tempest and the Royal Air Force on opportunities to help develop the UK’s next generation of combat air technologies. The RAF Rapid Capabilities Office and core Team Tempest Industry Partners (BAE Systems, Rolls Royce, Leonardo and MBDA) hosted a virtual briefing session to provide a detailed understanding of the work ongoing across the Tempest endeavour and the wider UK Combat Air Sector. Participation at the event also included Tempest partners Thales and Spirit AeroSystems, both who have major bases in Northern Ireland.
Delegates heard from Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Wigston and other RAF senior leaders who highlighted how Team Tempest is taking a revolutionary approach to partnership, engaging with a wide range of leading companies, SMEs and academia to bring leading innovators into the endeavour and ensure the UK remains at the leading edge of Combat Air systems development. The RAF Capability leadership team highlighted updates in emerging strategy and identified examples of innovation and future opportunities. Key members from the Team Tempest industry partner community also provided attendees with updates on the programme and explained how Tempest is working in radical ways to develop world-leading capability, with a focus on affordability and efficiency.”
What do we know about Tempest?
Recently, engineers revealed some of the latest concepts under development for the Royal Air Force’s next generation combat aircraft.
According to a statement from the MoD:
“Tempest is one of the UK’s most ambitious technological endeavours and designed to deliver a highly advanced, adaptable combat air system to come into service from the mid-2030s. This next generation combat aircraft, which forms part of a wider combat air system, will exploit new technologies as they evolve to respond to the changing nature of the battlespace, addressing increasingly high-tech and complex threats and conflict.”
Among the key insights released:
- Experts from the Team Tempest electronics lead, Leonardo UK, are developing new radar technology capable of providing over 10,000 times more data than existing systems. The new sensor, called the ‘Multi-Function Radio Frequency System’, will collect and process unprecedented amounts of data on the battlespace – equivalent to the internet traffic of a large city such as Edinburgh, every second. This huge volume of information, processed on-board, will give Tempest a battle winning edge in combat situations, with the ability to locate and target enemies well before they are targeted themselves. The brand new sensor will provide a wide range of abilities beyond traditional radar, with all-digital technology providing the operator with an exceptionally clear view of the battlespace and of potential targets. Leonardo has already built complete sub-systems using the new technology and successfully tested them at the Company’s site in Edinburgh with a path to airborne demonstrations in the coming years.
- Separately, engineers at BAE Systems have begun flight testing cutting-edge concepts for Tempest’s ‘wearable cockpit’ technologies, designed to provide pilots in the cockpit or operators on the ground with split-second advantage. The concept sees the physical controls seen in current aircraft cockpits replaced with Augmented and Virtual Reality displays projected directly inside the visor of a helmet, which can be instantly configured to suit any mission. Concepts including human-autonomy teaming are also being developed, where a ‘virtual co-pilot’ could take on some of the pilot’s responsibilities. The virtual co-pilot concept is still being developed, but could for example, take the form of an ‘avatar’ built into the cockpit to interact with the pilot. BAE Systems has also been trialing ‘psycho-physiological’ technologies, including eye-tracking, to study the operator’s physical and cognitive processes to better understand increasing exertion, stress, workload and fatigue. BAE Systems test pilots are now trialling these psycho-physiological technologies in controlled test flight conditions in a Typhoon aircraft. The results of the trials will inform further development to better understand a pilot’s cognitive behaviour and processes relating to brain activity, psychological rhythms and eye movement to inform further development.
- MBDA UK has also embedded one of its Human Factors engineers within this wearable cockpit team, ensuring early introduction of weapons concepts that exploit these future technologies. This close partnership approach between MBDA UK and BAE Systems will allow the companies to help to collaborate at an early stage of the programme, shaping how weapons systems information and operation is optimised for the pilot.
- At the same time, Rolls-Royce engineers have been developing advanced combustion system technology as part of the company’s power and propulsion work. The combustion system is where fuel is introduced and burned to release energy into the gas stream. A next-generation system will need to be hotter than any previous platform, increasing the efficiency of the engine and meaning it can go further, faster, or produce less carbon dioxide. Rolls-Royce has been exploring advanced composite materials and additive manufacturing as part of this work, producing lightweight, more power-dense components capable of operating at these higher temperatures.
These concepts are part of a wider research effort to develop technologies that could be used to create a next generation combat air system for the UK.
Collectively, the Team Tempest partners are developing more than 60 technology demonstrations in the fields of sensing, data management and autonomy to prove world-leading processes and technologies on the programme.
Dead ringer for the FB22
Well it does have some resemblances to it
I’m wondering what its flexible payload would comprise of ! .. how many hardpoints etc
Its gathering pace and looks impressive so far ;P
I would imagine the the Tempest like the proposed FB22 has generously sized internal weapon bays.
Once air dominance is achieved then several external hard points would be available.
I agree Tempest looks as formidable asset, let’s hope it evolves beyond being a technology demonstrator into a viable combat aircraft.
Are all stealth aircraft all going to look the same? One wonders why pictures of it are shown to all and sundry. Or is it really just a place holder for the real thing? The Americans have already flown their version but nothing is being shown… and it’s being said it can be built economically. Hmmm…
Its a placeholder, the actual shape hasnt been finalised yet. They are working from systems up rather than airframe down.
The wing form seems to be the relative shape of the moment particularly in the stealth arena and has been for sometime in large drones coming to fruition. That might well change by the time final design is decided upon as we only really see what is in the design concept aerodynamic studios from some 10 to 15 years ago before physical examples start to come to light, but certainly is why so many of these proposals look similar.
Well said.
In the end there is always one best engineering solution to a given set of problems, it’s the reason all F1 cars look the same
As can be seen at any international airport where practically all twin-engined airliners have the same basic layout
It seems so my friend…….. it’s obviously the ideal shape to deflect radar waves. Imagine a fighter shaped like a B-2 Spirit though…….
The Tempest looks well proportioned. But how big is it? Is it more a bomber or attack plane than a fighter?
Is the concept of a ‘fighter out moded?
Is Tempest the real follow on from TSR2?
Does it be a platform for nuclear weapons?
And/or can its technologies be adapted to a bomber?
All those questions are dependent on the role of UAS will in anticipated warfare scenarios
Which in my humble opinion will be significant leaving any Tempest type aircraft in an air warfare management role rather than the dirty end of business.
Good question about the nukes. I read that the US have a new radar system that can detect subs from the surface wake – which must be tiny. Does this imply that placing the nuclear deterrent in the hands of the RN alone will soon be an insufficient guarantor? I don’t know.
Yes zi read about that, it’s still only in the proof of concept stage which shows it’s technically possible but in real world scenarios even at best it’s going to have serious limitations certainly in any foreseeable future. And what is certain is that it’s never going to be easier to see a sub esp in deep water than it is an aircraft I suspect so don’t expect any great thoughts in that direction for many years. Adding to the options though is never a bad thing and the US went big on the concept of fighter bombers with nuclear… Read more »
Probably works beautifully on a mill pond?
Joking apart it is possibly useful in somewhere like the Med where the water is relatively shallow and relatively still and you don’t have too many inversion layers and deep currents to mislead.
I would suggest you might have a few issues finding anything in deep rough waters.
It **might** be another reason why the P8 project made sense.
Design isnt finalised, but at the moment its looking like a long range heavy fighter/bomber.
All the more to encourage Australia to join in and be there to deter China’s activities.
The last combat aircraft Australia procured from the UK was the Canberra bomber, 65+ years ago, we then looked at TSR-2 as a possible replacement, and we know what happened there. Today the only UK designed military aircraft in ADF inventory is the Hawk 127 trainers, and currently the RAAF has a project running to replace the Hawk, the front runner appears to be the Boeing T-7A. Australia get involved with Tempest? Sorry, just can’t see it happening, too many question marks, too much risk. Considering that the USA is our major defence partner, history has shown, especially in recent… Read more »
6 posts before the beautiful TSR2 got mentioned…. It sort of is a modern day TSR2, at least in respect of pushing the technological envelope… Looks absolutely stunning and I ‘really’ hope it happens. It could potentially offer class leading and trasformative capabilities to the RAF. It will certainly be ahead of the Franco/German effort, in terms of payload and range, as the European project will be constrained by the French insistence on Carrier capability, leading to AU weight and size limits, plus wing area limits, as they will no doubt try to avoid expensive wing fold mechanisms too. Tempest… Read more »
All the more to realise that the F35B will likely evolve over the years and we will in time buy some 138-odd numbers of them or the RN.
I think we should be developing a 6th gen jet for the RN too. 5th gen is oldish. F22 was the first 5th gen, and is now 20+ years. We need to seriously consider finless designs. Possibly even hydrogen fuel. Stick to buying 100 F35Bs
Never mind 20 years…..F-117 was introduced 37 years ago!!
The Back End Screams YF23 to me,but it looks Impressive nonetheless.
Until there is a quantum leap in technology, all stealth aircraft will share a common basic design. I imagine the advances will have more to do with reduced maintenance, increased efficiency and improved readiness. Rather than totally new capabilities. BAE Systems, Leonardo UK, Rolls-Royce and MBDA UK are top notch R&D companies. This is great news.
The origin of the Tempest airframe (not systems) is the BAe Replica design study from the 1990s. The project was developed for FOAS (future offensive air system) along with the Taranis UCAV, intended to replace Tornado, but was abandoned in favour of a Tier 1 partnership on F-35. Here is the Replica mock-up which gives some idea of size. https://i1.wp.com/theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Mystery-Stealth-Fighter.png?fit=630%2C335&ssl=1
This is lanca, the concept shows three of them working with a single Tempest, which is different from the ‘loyal wingman’ concept. They are smaller than other remote carrier designs. https://www.raf.mod.uk/sites/raf-beta/cache/file/7E995718-9F9B-427C-AB976899DE48C5D0_600x300.jpg
That was the Australian Version.
The project also has the LANCA remote carrier and MOSQUITO swarming drones linked unmanned systems. LANCA seems to be smaller than the projects being developed by the US, Australia and Europe for remote carriers, with the idea that there should be more of them and attritable. I.e. more smaller drones that can go into harms way rather than a sinlge large ‘loyal wingman’.
Wonderful if this project is realised….but I have seen so many projects wrapped up by incoming governments (from Dennis Healey to smarty-pants, Oxbridge know-all, Cameron) that I have little faith in any form of consistency of approach. These projects need cross-party support at their initiation….otherwise, they forlorn ambitions!
Hi Herodotus,
I agree that this is a real risk for a purely national undertaking. We need at least one international Governmental partner to come on board and get a pretty solid contracted agreement in place that would make it more difficult to cancel.
For me Italy is the favourite for a project on this scale. France seems to be OK on smaller less visible projects such as the guided weapons, which no one really takes any notice of, but not a fighter project. Too much national pride.
Cheers CR
I thought that Italy and Sweden were already partners?
Hi TrevorH, My understanding is that Italy and Sweden are represented on the corporate level as far as investment goes. I do not think the Italian or Swedish Governments have committed any funding as yet, certainly not on the scale of UK Government funding or it would have been announced with some sort of grand signing at ministerial level – none of which has happened yet. I think the UK is taking the same approach as they did with the Meteor AAM. Getting on with it and leading from the front whilst working behind the scenes to bring others on… Read more »
They are spending money on something though aren’t they?
I think Leonardo & SAAB are interested & will spend money. They are not though, Italy or Sweden. These are Italian & Swedish equivalents to UK based BAE. They are large European based defence multinationals with world wide defence sales. The likes of Leonardo, SAAB & other companies they connect to eg Volvo etc can bring a lot more than money. They are not the only companies & organisations with something to offer. Japan’s MHI, Australia’s DSTO & France’s Thales come to mind. The problem when you look at the leading edge in projects like this is that money is… Read more »
Hi Trevor, My understanding is that all the companies are putting some money into the pot or are making technology they have already developed available to the Tempest programme. The main NEW financial contribution is the UK Government’s £2b over the next 5 years. That is quite a juicy carrot. Surprisingly so in these times. I think the way that this money is being spent is two fold. Firstly, and most obviously to fund new R&D work, but the other stream I think is to buy into relevant existing R&D work and know how. In effect buying access to technology… Read more »
Pity the Japanese didn’t choose to join the project. Still think it would be the best long term solution for them.
Yes but no guarantee…..look at Boxer!
I was speaking from the project perspective, mate. Boxer went a head with out us, we just wasted 20 years and £5.6b getting absolutely nothing! That still really p****s me off. I was in defence procurement and listened to some of the guys invovled in FRES. Full of enthusiasm to start with, but it didn’t take long for the heads to start to drop as they realised it was going to go nowhere… That £5.6b could have trained a lot of extra nurses and kept more than a few extra beds open in the NHS and the Army would be… Read more »
Yes, it is exasperating! But give them an emergency, and they are handing out tens of millions of tax payers money to dodgy cronies for PPE. We need better financial accountability and tough legislation to deal with cronyism. We have some poor characters in government…particularly at the moment. Johnson’s team is largely sub-standard and simply not up to the job. He chose a team that was pro-Brexit and, true to form, it turned out to be short on intellect and basic talent, a bunch of immature yes boys! There are characters there that are simply not up to the job…Williamson,… Read more »
But lets be positive for a moment we do have a Sec Def who has managed to increase the budget so rather than cutting, RN is ordering. And a Chancellor who realises that he is not running a sweet shop and solely trying to balance the cash in the till at the end of the day. Most of the problems of apparent non performance were had were caused by Dom trying to control freak everything. So the not great front men couldn’t do anything or have any input. I’m not a Boris cheerleader but I am sort of waiting to… Read more »
I’m looking forward to the post Covid wash up to see how things pan out with regard to both the shady shenanigans and also the competency angle. All governments will or have made mistakes but stuff like not shutting the borders etc is bound to be scrutinised. I wonder what else will come to light… and if there are any resignations.
Hi Herodotus, Yup, for the most part they are a very mediocre bunch and driven by a single over arching goal, Brexit. Whilst single mindedness can be a virtue it certainly is not in a pandemic. Flexibility, pragmatism and quick wittedness are called for and apparently lacking pretty much across the board at the moment. Although, to be fair Supportive Bloke makes a good point about having a Def Sec who appears to know is business and a Chancellor who opened the purse strings when we really needed it (can you imagine the economic results of a pandemic + austerity?).… Read more »
Great post CR, can’t argue with any of that.
Most of those responsible are likely retired on a massive pension moved on to balls up projects in other fields or are sitting with their knighthoods or in the HofL taking their easy money for a wonderful career of ‘unstinting selfless’ service to the Crown.
Just how long is the UK (or Whatever) going to have to wait before a significantly overdue political upheaval gets rid of the HofL – as you so appropriately term it.
I wont see it happen, but some generation deserves to before long.
Yeh, I know. Makes you want to spit. The system is basically loaded to the ruling class. We are well over due for some change. Our democracy has stagnated, it’s as if the ruling class have decided they have given the plebs enough power..!
I wouldn’t normally use such a phrase as ‘ruling class’ as it makes me sound like a right bolshie, which I definately I ain’t. I just can’t think of a better way of putting it..?
We so desparately need change, anything to (peaceful) to stir the system up and make it more accountable.
Cheers CR
Again, totally agree CR, I’m hardly a ‘wild eyed rebel’ myself but aye, the ‘ruling classes’ have had a lesson with populist governments being the result. I know a lot of people *(myself included) who voted for BoJo, not because we thought he was a stand up guy but because every other party in the UK was trying to twist the will of the people over Brexit. You can argue that there shouldn’t have been a referendum on it but there was and parliament voted to ratify it then quickly went about trying to find clever ways not to follow… Read more »
Has anyone considered the possibility of India becoming a partner. They are an economic sleeping giant and very keen to keep up with China. I’m aware of the The BAE-HAL Joint ‘Advanced Hawk’ cooperation project. If the proposed “revamped SEATO” alliance is resurrected next year/ They could become strategic allies.
Good point George,
They are certainly a key rival to China and populus enough to be a Super Power at some point in the future. COVID has hit them very hard but I’m sure they’ll recover from that.
For the West the big problem is the openly nationalist government in India at the moment, not sure how we get past that one.
Nevertheless, India is a definate long term strategic ally given China’s increasingly expansionist ways.
Cheers CR
Just goes to show what can be achieved with £2b seed money. Even if this programme does not go ahead UK aviation and high tech industries will benefit considerably. When the space funding is taken into account it is a good time to be starting out on a career in engineering… As for Tempest I hope it does go ahead as the programme appears to be supporting some real engineering reseach, not just paper studies, given BAE test pilots are involved. It is a long way from being an aircraft, but there does appear to be some serious efforts into… Read more »
I look at that wing and trailing edge and see Firefox!
Looks fantastic, lets hope it makes it into the air, I’m beginning to believe it will.
At first glance this aircraft looks ‘right’, in a way that the F35 just doesn’t quite to me. If it goes ahead, and we end up going it alone, then at least I’d really wish to see it incorporate carrier-launch ability, since we’d not likely be able to support two advanced jet designs and would have to max out it flexibility. Even with major partners, a most desirable outcome of course, such STOL design enhancements would add significant sales and operational attraction.
Would that not be Pushing it a bit ? The Cost’s involved developing two versions would be staggering. Let’s not forget that the UK hasn’t gone it alone for quite a considerable time now. I’d settle for one very capable aircraft and try exporting it to Germany, France, Italy, USA, Spain, Australia, Japan, Korea and many others….. Hell why not ?
Well, I’d certainly settle for that too, Capt. But you may be pushing even more than me! France? USA? Tongue in cheek?
Yes mate, Tongue in cheek but, Actually I’d like to see the UK back trading with the World again not just Importing so much from China.
Indeed. Lost patience with China, as defined by it’s one-dimensional Politburo at least*. Those dinosaurs have no friends, just states they shaft for all their worth. Even countries you’d think they’d seriously cultivate as like-minded aggressors, like the Universal State of Vlad the Impaler, are mainly viewed as a source of natural resources to be exploited.
Cut China* out of everything, forge beneficial economic links with states they target, and see where the Politburo end up.
Time for my tablet, I note.
Hold the Tablet mate…… you are spot on in my book.
Still need to find the edit button – ‘their’ worth – ?!
Just had a thought. With the expressed in service date mid 2030’s. Might this clearly big push signal we are not going for f35A buy but this is the RAF aspiration for both typhoon and lightening? With maybe around 100 35b’s FAA and RAF split, the B’s might all then be transferred to FAA for CSG as Tempest comes online.
That could work Derek, although I am still concerned about the US response to a declared UK cut in orders fo rthe F-35, given we are trying to cosy up to them… I still think that we might end up buying close to our declared 138 over the life time of the project given the short airframe life of the early B models which, as I understand it, is still not entirely sorted out. So we may end up with about 100 in-service at any one one time but buying the full 138 to maintian that number as old airframes… Read more »
Not an expert but as i understand it so much of the cost (and technical advantage) these days is in technology and system development and software integration etc. Would have thought that the development of two airframes… One heavy (RAF) and a lighter (single engine? ) navalised version but generally utlising all the same smarts… could be viable…. Especially if likes of Italy, Australia and Japan joined looking to support various lighter to medium weight carriers.
Would be interested if anyone knew what the rough split is anticipated to be between airframe and system development for tempest.
P
But It wouldn’t just be a Navalised version, it would have to be STOL to be able to operate from our Carriers. A Huge cost I would guess.
It would be cheaper to convert QE class to CAToBAR, then develope a STOL Tempest!
It would, Merion, but then again STOL has attractions beyond the RN’s, for the Swedes as an immediate instance. I’ve been thinking of the extent to which future satellite omni-presence and imagery may leave assets with limited hiding places over the same timespan. If we think that surface vessels may encounter increasing difficulties, notwith standing their ability to move considerable distances, how much more will traditional static land bases find survival? With that conceivable background, one wonders just how far you can push a new fighter, what with AI design and control and more powerful engines, while your about it.… Read more »
Quite an old-fashioned design. We should be making a flying wing without vertical fins. It would be more efficient and more stealthy. We have seen flying wings like BAE Taranis take form, so we know it’s possible. This looks very 5++ gen and not a whole leap forward to 6th gen.
Huh ? What would your design look like mate ?
Like a more swept, sharp, BAE Taranis.
Trouble with no vertical fins is the terrible horizontal stability. Airframes track left and right instead of flying straight and true
That is true, all flying wings suffer inherently from Dutch Rolling, i.e. oscillating around the aircraft’s fore and aft axis due to a lack of yaw authority. However, with modern flight control computers integrated with a digital inertial navigation through to a fly by wire system. The moment of the roll can be better detected and thereby controlled. The B2 bomber is a very good example, where it uses uses split ailerons and differential thrust to control its yaw. The above image of the prospective Tempest aircraft, is I think really quite poor aerodynamically. It looks more like a development… Read more »
Indeed a lot depends on the balance between manoeuvrability and stealth I think. The technology to replace the former with finless designs is I suspect at very early stages. Depends on as I said before what’s in the design studios presently to solve the complex issues involved. Taranis is great for what it’s meant to do but that’s very different to a fighter as things stand so no one is going to commit to that philosophy for a project like Tempest yet. Hay maybe the aero dynamic and thrust vectoring potential is more advanced in concept work than we presently… Read more »
I agree that more work needs to be done. But surely, we could start seeing, finless fighters, with great flybywire tech whereby the computers do the yaw adjustments for the pilot and he always had the surfaces to manually operate if he needs any more yaw authority. Nothing is impossible, we should give more creedence to this idea. But yes, high-G manoeuvres is where this concept needs to go and best tested for something viable. You have to admit, that Tempest image is basically a 5++ gen jet. Doesn’t look groundbreaking in design.
It could be a false tail for adversaries to follow?
Yes thjat is the inherent issue. However, the Prandtl wing which someone like Al Bowers is working on, gets rid of this due to the wing ‘twist’. This is something you should look into, its very convincing. He implements the technique of how birds fly without a vertical surface. Also, using BAE Magma tech, we can blow engine thrust out of the tips to help with yaw authority. We can also just use the BAE Taranis surface elements for really hard maneuvering. The benefit of a flying triangle is that you have far less drag (higher speed), a lot of… Read more »
Yes, I have been watching the NASA program with interest. When Prandtl published his papers in the 30’s, the Hortens’ used his concepts in their flying wing designs. They even claimed to have invented the bell shape lift profile, but it was all Prandtls work really. The wing twist was included in their Horten IX fighter, but it never really solved the Dutch Rolling. However, it was found that when applying the airbrakes the aircraft significantly steadied and made a much more stabile firing platform, as the drag generated by the upper and lower airbrakes on the wing tips stop… Read more »
I remember Barnes Wallis ‘Swallow’ talk in 1966. No vertical fins and independently swept wings. When asked what he thought of the F111 he said bound to fail, it defeats the purpose of swing wings. Right or wrong a brilliant man.
Exactly this. The Swallow design/shape is groundbreaking. We also know that it would be supersonic so I’m not quite sure why some people are saying this type of flying body/wing design couldn’t go mach 1.
He certainly had a flying RC model which flew complex maneuvers and which he would show at his talks. Whether at the time it was stable enough to land with extended wings etc I don’t know. All the same the flying models were a considerable achievement. With present day technology it would be interesting to build a larger model and test it.
Of course in contrast we remember the DH 108 Swallow was a disaster maybe that’s what people are thinking.
Did he say what the top speed of the Swallow was?
Flying wings are very efficient for a bomber or other long linger time aircraft like a observation drone but they are terrible at supersonic speeds or in sharp manoeuvres. All flying wing aircraft are subsonic.
Flying wing doesn’t always mean B2 bomber type of shape.
Why are they bad for high speed manoeuvres and supersonic speeds? We’re not talking about a full flying wing here, but a blended wing/flying wing design. Kind of like the Taranis but more swept.
I draw your attention to the supersonic Vickers Swallow and the Taranis, which is planned for mach 1.
The Flying Wing design dates back to the 1930’s late 20’s, that’s before the jet engine, it’s not really new. I was under the impression that the Generation label is more about Capability and Systems rather than just the looks.
It’s not about looks. I would be more stealth for one and less drag/more efficient/more range/higher speed. The idea should be given a lot of thought and funding for research in my view.
I was merely replying to your comment ” This looks very 5 ++ and not a whole leap forward to 6th gen” The Flying Wing concept/design you are talking about was from the 30’s.
Ah I see. I should have said design. The flying wing concept is indeed old, but it hasn’t been used for a fighter. I don’t mean a flying wing in the design of the B2, more something like the Vickers Swallow, but in a fighter design.
I think the latest designs take into account the Instability of a Flat Wing, hence the vertical things……. can’t be arsed to type the technical terms tonight lol.
Yes the adverse yaw is a big issue. But again, we’re seeing development that could fix this issue.
Very nice lines + it leaks one mean mother…
Lol, I’m guessing you didn’t intend to type that !!!!!!
Yes, looks one mean mother…
Leaks! that’s funny. I’m having cheese, leak & potato bake for supper…Foodian slip!
mate Foodian Slip is just so funny !!!! I love humous like that !!!!!
Oh nuts, also done the leak and leek thing wrong – cold shower time.
Now if these will just be produced in significant numbers…
Just thinking the same thing, this country doesn’t have a great rack record in following through with large orders without some cut backs with the knock on effect of a higher ticket price.
So effort is concentrated on those elements that have caused huge problems and delays for the F35: superhot engines(damage to stealth coating and airframe structure); helmet projection of data ( pilot overload and even disorientation); massive sensor fusion.(system overload ) and controls that will need millions of lines of code to operate ( delayed development and system fragility). Surely the project should start from defining what the aircraft is expected to do that cannot be achieved as well or at all by existing planes.What characteristics will make it useful to UK and an attractive option to other countries? Affordability will… Read more »
First RAF fast-jet in a very long time to look like a proper bomber!
Shades of TSR2 from the rear as well.
Let us hope they do not buy off the shelf components from China.
Have they just taken an image of the MiG-31 from “Firefox” and painted it grey?
Wow!!
End of.
Looks like Firefox – had the designer watched the film before drawing up the plan ??
It’ll be interesting to see what she actually turns out like, ideally I’d like to see the project 100% British but it’ll more than likely be a collaboration with close NATO allies and/or partners. We need to select these partners very carefully in my opinion.
I just wonder if the pilot should lay flat and trust cams. The reason for my thinking is the cockpit would be a target for radar. If the pilots helmet could look outside and cams/radar gives info to the helmet screen why have a cockpit? Or am I being a bit stupid.
Problem is I assume there is a reason that all those tests back in the 60s didn’t lead on to any form of adoption of the prone position. Pilot support tech might remove some of that reasoning but I suspect the issues went far deeper into the pilot him/herself for any length of time too.