British engineers have today revealed some of the latest concepts under development for the Royal Air Force’s next generation combat aircraft.
The technology is being delivered by Team Tempest, 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.
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.
Team Tempest say:
“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.”
Iain Bancroft, Director of Major Air Programmes at Leonardo in the UK, said:
“The collaborative relationship between Team Tempest and our network of academic and SME partners enables us to bring together the ‘best of the best’ engineering talent from across the UK. Crucially, we are embracing new ways of working as an integrated team to dramatically improve efficiency and pace – sharing intelligence and refining our concepts digitally to deliver innovations that will shape the next generation combat air system.
Our new radar technology is a concrete example of the gains this approach has already brought, costing 25% less to develop while providing over 10,000 times more data than existing systems.”
Crazy how powerful the radars are becoming and the amount of data they will be able to process. I wonder if the tail on the tempest suggests there will be a rear facing radar as well. I think the SU 57 has side facing radar as well which effectively gave it 360 degree coverage at all times, although they might have been a decoration
Yes, the “cheek” radar helps then track enemy aircraft either whilst maneuvering or when trying to avoid radar tracking by flying a “doppler” avoidance pattern (i.e. flying “around” a radar emitter, not moving closer or farther way, meaning that there’s no distance shift, which is how modern doppler radars make their detections and discriminations
Yes, pulse doppler is one type of waveform technique used. Also have a look at frequency modulated interrupted carrier wave (FMICW) and pulse compression waveform techniques. These are newer types of waveform that mitigate the issues of targets turning through 90 degrees to your radar and thus disappearing due to doppler filtering. A modern radar such as the APG-81 will use all these types of waveform. But it won’t just concentrate on one type, it will use all and intertwine them together. This means it will have a much better resolution of the target, as multiple types of waveform will generate different types of target data, that is then fused together.
The Su57 has two L band PESA radars mounted in the wing’s leading edges, along with a X band mounted in the nose. Like the Su30/35 series it will probably have a rear facing radar, that is predominantly used for missile warning, it could technically also be used for searching and tracking of targets.The L band radars are there to help the aircraft supposedly detect stealthy aircraft. They possibly will but at really close ranges which still gives the advantage to a F22, F35 etc. The main issue with these are they are actually quite small for the wavelength band, so will not be very powerful or as sensitive as they’d like them to be. Reception sensitivity is determined by a number of factors, one of the biggest is proportional to the cross sectional area of the antenna. If the antenna size is small you have top try to make up the difference with better filtering and amplification, plus signal processing. Increasing the amplification and filtering factors increase induced noise making the signal processing much harder, thus lowering the radar’s ability to detect targets at range and especially so for stealthy targets. I’d be very surprised if the Su57 has the same sensor fusion capabilities of the F35. Can it merge the X and L band radars data together let alone add the imaging infrared data from its infrared search and track plus the ultra violet missile approach warning system?
Tempest to be effective in the coming decades will need to merge this type of information together on one type of display. For instance it will need to blend the radar and infrared data together that generates and produces data for one target as whole rather than overlaying it. The aircraft will probably use a development of the Captor-E 2+ to begin with. Being an active electronically scanned array gives it a very good foundation to begin with. Further improvements will be made to the transmitter-receiver modules (TRMs) especially in the transistor material used. But more advances will be made in the softwares digital signal processing. By interleaving different types of waveforms, means you need to increase the signal processing capabilities, but will significantly boost the capabilities of the radar, especially in the look-down mode, when trying to find targets against surface clutter. We may even see the adoption of quantum radar. The theory has been proven, we just need to put it into practice. It will be an exciting future if you’re a radar nerd!
“a wider air combat system”
Any ideas??
I suspect tat refers to the loyal wingman concept
*that
I would imagine it means picking up information from other aircraft, ships, satellites, ground stations anything that is available and bringing it together to give the big picture.
As noted before, loyal wingmen, and probably swarmed drones / loitering munitions of some kind (maybe based upon the Spear 3, seeing as they’ve already come up with an EW version). “Legacy” F-35Bs and Typhoons round it out.
Then you’ve got the E-7s hanging out further back, providing AEW and to a certian extent directing stuff?
In the Times writeup today it says theyve been told one Tempest and its accompanying drone fleet will be the combat equivalent of a squadron of Typhoons and Fighter squadrons may be replaced on a one Manned Tempest to one traditional squadron ratio.
This would suggest very few to be built (?) and quite a cost per unit allowing for development costs. And very few pilots. But more computer programmers. Of course you then have to consider the numbers and costs of these drones. How expensive are they and/or how expendable? Would the Tempest be 2 man? With a weapons/drone manager?
Could a version of the F35B be developed to use the radars and computers??
Hi,
Switching from a single seater to two seater is a very expensive and not a straight forward proposition. They would need to make that decision very soon or face huge cost and time overruns. Adding an extra pilot requires doubling the life support system, including the ejection seat, a bigger ‘hole’ in the aircraft structure, a big change in centre of gravity poistion, which increases weight requiring a bigger wing, bigger engine… blah blah blah – you get the picture. This assumes you want the same operational capabilities. OK I know the US did it with the F15 Strike Eagle, but that came along long after the original aircraft and was able to make good (key) use of advances in technology to offset the growth. Tempest would either have to wait, or grow if it is to make the current targets.
Given the high tech approach I think they’ll just wrap the minute to minute management tasks up into a spec for the AI to manage with the pilot giving basic operational parameters over voice activation, for example, using a pre-learnt menu of some sort. Much of it would be done prior to take off. Although, the aircraft is said to be agile I don’t expect it to get into dogfights with a pilot on board. The US recently demonstrated an AI controlled F16 against manned F16’s. It won… Speed of reaction – advantage silicon!
With regards to putting the new systems onto an F35B? Good question, I’ve been wondering about that as well. Firstly, note that the big costs are in the on board systems. Gone are the days when focus was on engines and airframes. Engines are going through a rapid evolution at the moment, e.g. reaction engines precooler tech, so there are greater risks and hence costs but I strongly suspect that the costs are still in the on board systems, especially given the article above – they’ll need a super computer to process all that data!
So I would take the systems / capabilities from Tempest put them on a ‘bench’ and tell Team Tempest to build a new STOVL airframe around it. This would mean a big drop in manned aircraft numbers on the Carriers, but I would off set that with loyal wing / independent drones. To make the numbers up I would design the drone to be as thin as possible (vertically) so that I could ‘stack’ one above the other as the Swiss Air Force used to (still do?) in their mountain hangars.
Cheers CR
Thank you. However could it not be that the plane is designed at the outset for 2 men? But i am not suggesting you are wrong!
Hi Trevor,
Simple answer to your question is yes. However, two seaters are bigger, and hence more expensive to develop and operate. So if cost is an issue then a single seater is the way to go.
Also, given the US experiment with the AI controlled F16 I would say that Team Tempest has an eye on future developments. The Tempest is supposed to be ‘optionally autonomous’ itself, so I wonder whether the Fighter Controller / Pilot will spend quite a bit of there time on an Airbus* 200 miles from the combat zone? In which case you’d have no aircrew in the Tempest at all. I’m not sure how this would work with loyal wingmen drones, that has not been explained. I foresee the day when there are no fast jet pilots coming up much more quickly than I would have guessed even a few months ago. We live in interesting times.
*Other airliners are available 🙂
Cheers CR
Thank you again. All interesting. I cant help but think all this computer business is going to be too complicated for all sides. But at the core one hopes to be a good platform… and we can be leaders in it!
You are absolutely right it is possible to get way too ambitious. To sum it up with a bit of weekend humour:
6 Phases of a Project
Cheers CR
Ha ha…
I hope it’s not too cost prohibitive.
It seems the choices are to purchase a small number of extremely capable aircraft, and be too shy to risk using & loosing them. Or to purchase a large number of moderately (perhaps autonomous) capable aircraft.
Either way, hopefully the tempest is augmented with loyal wingman systems.
Good point. The TSR2 was a bit too complex to succeed and look what happened to that.
It’s a very good point .. Tempest is supposed to build in affordability from the start, perhaps the use of 3d printing and other advanced technology might make this previously elusive goal a possibility?
The real cost will come in the extensive coding required to bring all these technologies together and finally have them wrapped in an airframe, at the bottom of Wartons runway, ready to take flight.
It has to be built in ‘significant’ numbers to make it possible, that will mean an RAF buy of 200, with at least 200 more exported and be partnered with a sophisticated loyal wingmen.
There certainly are interesting parallels to TSR2, hopefully lessons learnt too!
I think the UK has or has access to most of the components, code and design already as a tier 1 partner for F35 and Typhoon and major contributor to Gripen, I think we are well placed from a parts perspective.
Perhaps we can talk the US into going down the tempest route instead of restarting the Raptor product line, better still if we can get all the F22 tooling and moulds and get the US onboard.
I think realistically if the UK could join forces with the US and be the ROW manufacturing site whilst giving the US something they also want (F22) then that may be a way forward
The US looked into restarting the F-22 production line three years ago and decided that it would be prohibitively expensive and would take too long. The US is working on its own sixth generation fighter and decided that under no circumstances would it again use the F-35 model with foreign partners. It will be an exclusively US development. Most probably it will be a restricted access program like the B-21 because of US fears of Chinese espionage. And, no, the UK does not have access to the computer code for the F-35 and the US will not give it.
Forget the US partnering with the UK on their sixth generation jet. It’s not going to happen.
The UK does have access it was given special access a while back
Yeh, we do have acces indeed there was a nice comment (reported on here I think?) where a US engineer said that you could spot UK contributions to the software!?
Cheers CR
No you do not.
UK does not have access to F35 source code. Israel is the only foreign country that does. Furthermore, there is a dispute betwen Pentagon and LM about who actually owns the code. One of the reasons both Navy and USAF are currently developing the FA-XX and NGAD which they want ready by 2030.
I can’t help being drawn into the development time of the F35. This evolved from a number of combat aircraft development programmes to form the JSF programme with its roots back in the late 1980’s. It first flew in 2006 and was introduced into the USMC in 2015. Even today it has a number of fairy significant issues that need resolving and our slow rate of buy should hopefully see us with the best and most capable air frames.
So far nearly 600 have been built and who can find an accurate programme cost? Over $400 billion?
My point is, I just do not see how we and a few friends can even think we can achieve a sixth generation fighter with all of the R&D required. On top of this the our closest ally is never going to let us sell to whoever we wish either through anti competitive practices, dirty tricks and only allowing selling technology to a very tight circle of allies.
To hit the sales numbers is going to prove almost impossible.
I think what we will see and is possibly the point all along is development of very advanced components that are exportable. Examples like the radar, computer systems and software shown above, engine tech from RR with advanced electrical generation and other sensor suites and Loyal WIngman type tech.
Don’t get me wrong, I would Tempest to become a successful reality, but I fear this will never be either affordable or allowed.
I’d suggest both the US and the UK have learned a lot about how not to do aircraft development and production programs in future. The US from the F-35 and the UK from both the F-35 and Typhoon. The US NGAD program and the UK’s Tempest program are both focused on a much more rapid development cycle.
The key for an affordable program, as outlined at the public launch in 2018 for the Tempest program, is not to try and build the best possible aircraft, but to determine what is important and what is not for the planned tasks, especially wrt attributes that drive significant development time and cost. Aiming for perfect shouldn’t override good-enough and affordable, enabling higher aircraft numbers for the RAF.
For example, Tempest could be designed as a super maneuverable dog fighter. Very nice for airshows, but for its actual role the question is why? Is this still a relevant attribute? It would be expensive and it might compromise other important attributes and capabilities. A human cannot out fly a modern missile capable of 50g maneuvers. The pilot no longer needs eyes-on-target with modern WVR weapons, its irrelevant for BVR missiles.
Hi,
Just to pick up on the missile threat issue – it’s not just missiles. As I have just posted above (after your post) a recent US trial pitched an AI controlled F16 against manned F16’s and won, reportedly – everytime!
With regards to an affordable programme I would entirely agree with determining what needed up front although I would add in the potential for capability insertions later, but for me it is how you manage the programme.
The biggest driver of cost and time overruns is changes in requirements. I read recently that the Type 31 Frigate programme contract has a clause in it denying the MoD / RN the oportunity to change the requirements / specifications once the contract is signed. I would impose that level of discipline on Tempest as well and I’d back it up with a very very big penalty clause.
Cheers CR
Agreed CR, program management is critical, as is consistent funding and political will. Typhoon clearly suffered from lack of the last two which drove up costs and drove down numbers. I also agree that it will probably need the discipline against changes. However, I am hopeful that designing the aircraft from the outset to enable efficient software and hardware (including new weapon additions) updates may also mitigate this.
The US are also evaluating much more rapid aircraft development, more often, with shorter service lives to move the total aircraft cost more to R&D and build and less to maintenance and upgrades. This could avoid the need to design a platform for a 40 year relevant life with commensurate long development cycles whilst everyone goes back and forth trying to figure out what that entails and gold plating capabilities to try to ensure it. It would also enable a more robust R&D core to the industry, with more frequent design cycles.
Hi Glass Half Full,
Yeh, political will definately comes into it. It is one of the reasons that multi national project eventually finish, because there is usually one or more nations determined to move forward even if they change their minds another partner has decided to hold the line…
As for rapid development processes, love the idea, although I am not convinced that applying it to systems, engines and airframes at the same cycle rate is entirely sensible. A 40 year life for combat aircraft happened to work for the last few decades mainly due to the fall of the Iron Curtain removing the imperative to replace established airframes However, I agree that perhaps a 20 year life on airframes is probably more appropriate for the next 40 years.
Note I say ‘airframe’. Systems and to a lesser extent engines will have shorter life cycles. We know that computer technology has a half life of about 7 months on the production line and an inservice life of about 7 years (based on average joe lap tops) speciality machines such as gaming standard PC’s have a shorter life span as online competition drives software and hence hardware development. Given the increasing use of commercial-off-the-shelf hardware I would see combat aircraft systems running with an inservice life of between 5 to 7 years, possibly as little as 3 to 4 if the contracts and project management arrangements can be sorted to ensure a constant rolling undergrade (this would more than one inservice build standard). This would then allow the software to be continuously developed and improved without needing to wait for the hardware to ‘allow’ development.
Engine updates would probably run at about a 10 to 12 year cycle if allowed to follow their natural ‘efficient’ life cycle.
The reason I would keep the airframe for 20 years is that it provides a degree of stability around which continuous development can build. The airframe team would be held together because it would be required to support the production run, continuous upgrade production and would start to transist onto the replacement. Of course, if there was a proper national aviation strategy you would have two programmes running opposite each other providing complementary capabilities and no break up of the design teams.
I have long felt that the different life cycles of platform, systems and propulsion is a serious driver of cost and time overruns, especially when big promising are put before MoD / Services.
Cheers CR
Good thoughts. The US seem to be currently talking shorter airframe lifetimes/design cycles but with a lot of capability moving to what is in and on the aircraft, your numbers work better IMO.
I could see the RAF wanting to get to at least 250 over production lifetime, with Italy at 100, so 350 just with the two main partner countries. Sweden might decide it makes sense for them too, but it seems more likely that they will contribute to and leverage other technologies from the program for their own air frame, still defraying Tempest R&D expenses though.
Italy’s number is approximately a 1-for-1 with Typhoon, so seems modest and achievable, particularly if costs are managed as is necessary.
The RAF’s number is significantly up on the 160 Typhoons, but the RAF are at an all time low in aircraft even with F35B, at a time when we seem to be increasing RAF/FAA roles and responsibilities across the UK’s fighter fleet. From the 2018 Tempest launch, it was clear from Hilliers’ comments that affordability of Tempest is critical to RAF numbers. Even with a 250 lifetime build we might still have fewer aircraft operational at any given time than we had back in the 2000-10 period, in a world where threats appear to be increasing rather than decreasing. So 250 might be a conservative number.
Always difficult to get a handle on what actual aircraft costs are and what the price includes, but if we just play with numbers, say £80M low end and £160M high end for cost, with the high end capped at that level as being necessary for affordability and numbers, then 250 aircraft would cost between £20B to £40B. In other words, similar to what Typhoon cost the UK, but in today’s pounds rather than those of 1-2 decades ago.
Hi Glass Half Full,
Nice post.
However, taking conventional platform numbers as a basis for analysis will probably need to be developed to take into account the contribution that the loyal wing concept (if it happens) will have.
The Loyal Wingman has variously been described as decoy drones to dogfighting AI drones, presumably carrying their own weapons. So I would suggest that the platform for platform replacement of traditional capability replacement programmes is only one of possibly four options Tempest offers. The other three being Tempest plus, decoys only drones, weapon carrying only drones or a mix. If loyal wingman is adopted, particularly as a mix of drone types, then I would forsee a significant drop in Tempest ‘systems’ deployed because each aircraft could in fact be considered as the leader of a flight or indeed a squadron depending on the shape of the system that emerges.
The fact is Tempest potentially could be a conventional ‘fighter’ (all be it optionally autonomous) or the controlling / guiding node in a network of local AI controlled drones. The latter is quite a step change…
Cheers CR
Agree CR, that the options for what the Tempest program will deliver are intriguing. The requirements for Loyal Wingman (LW) also make a significant difference.
For example do we expect LW to deploy and return from the same region as a manned Tempest? If so then do both platforms carry all their required fuel internally, or do both need air-to-air refueling, or is it a mix? What does that mean for logistics and tanker fleet size, and would we putting tankers into high risk environments to do this? Or can we deploy and recover LW from A400M or manned Tempest? Or do we forward deploy LW to a position where they can launch and recover without refueling?
Another example. Manned Tempest might be designed to support similar internal fuel range to the estimated specs for the Chinese J-20, i.e. combat range of 1,100 nmi (total range is 3,200 nmi), along with super-cruise and top speed of Mach 2. This would enable missions direct from the UK to Russia’s border with the Baltics or to Norway’s high north without refueling, Kalingrad would be in easy reach. But what about LW in this scenario.
Its possible to see how a manned Tempest platform might look more like a larger Taranis (or smaller B-2/B-21) than a conventional fighter platform for many mission requirements, but will that platform support air superiority intercept missions or will F-35 be all we need for QRA.
Hey ho.
Hi Glass Half Full,
🙂 Establishing and sticking to mission requirements is a major challenge. Hence, as you pointed out, the drive to rapid development. I am not sure about the super fast turnover the US is considering as it often takes experience to get the best out of the human machine capability, but with AI coming into service who knows.
The potential capabilities that technology offers when looking forward can be very confusing. I went from MoD tech scientific officer at RAe to defence analyst and the challenge was always briinging the military guys and techies on to the same page. The miliary, naturally, had todays problems on their minds and the techies were thinking 5, 10, 15 years down the line (unless we were talking upgrades). We did make progress though the medium of conference gaming which was great fun and very, very informative all round.
Cheers CR
Interesting. I grew up close to RAE Farnborough and NGTE Pyestock.
Given the technology in the F35 and the Tempest it strikes me that a modern TSR2 would/could serve as a Strategic Bomber…
I would imagine they are aiming for a low rate constant build of the Tempest itself (say 4 a year) and that there would be enough parts commonality on the drones that continuous production of them keeps the production lines open for building more Tempest if required.
Hi Watcherzero,
That is a very interesting point especially if the drone is based on the Tempest airframe – although that would be a quite big and capable drone. Certainly worth thinking about.
Cheers CR
Taranis is about the size of a Hawk jet. So an unmanned Tempest, depopulated of unnecessary sensors and systems, as well as pilot support equipment, might make financial sense over a second airframe.
What i have always wondered is why fighter jets don’t have rear firing missiles to be used to take out missiles heading their way, in a similar to ship board anti-missile missile systems.
Firefox had them! you just have to think in Russian!
Beat me to it! Love that film. Wish I could get it on DVD.
The sequal novel was a cracker too, would have made a fine film I think.
I didn’t realise there was a sequel novel, what is it called?
“Firefox Down.” Same author. Better than the first. If you’ve seen the film after Gant flies into the sunset and wondered what happens next, read it.
lol
Its kind of like taking off into the wind or releasing fish against the current. If your oriented with the blunt end facing the majority of the airflow the dynamics could be a bit unstable.
Must be ways around that, like letting it free fall for a bit first before starting it’s engine.
Also, what you have firing from the back would mean an equal amount removed from firing from the front. Weapons load would have to remain the same.
Aircraft usually do take off into the wind!!
Exactly as I said, pointy end into the airflow and taking off into the wind you also gain a lift boost from faster airflow over the wings as windspeed is added to groundspeed.
ASRAAM is capable of over-the-shoulder targeting.
https://www.mbda-systems.com/squelette/press-releases/world-first-for-the-raaf-with-asraam/
Interesting.
I guess until fairly recently there wasn’t much point, as missiles were fired too close to the target to realistically intercept them, but now with beyond visual range being the focus, it seems to me this might become more of a priority.
Is ASRAAM capable of intercepting another missile or just another jet?
The blurb states that it can take down cruise missiles. I don’t think the MoD would be too happy if it was widely known that the ASRAAM or even Meteor was capable of taking out an aircraft launched anti-aircraft missile. It would give away too much about the missile’s capabilities, that could then be factored in by an opponent.
A cruise missile normally travels sub sonic on a flat trajectory so is much easier to take out with ASRAAM. Intercepting another missile traveling at mach 4, at very short notice is a completely different ball game.
Kinetic energy would be the main reason. When the missile is fired forward the aircraft’s airspeed is added to the missile’s at launch. Therefore, the missile is not starting from zero airspeed, which also helps add additional range. Missiles such as IRIS-T and ASRAAM which can fire over the shoulder, but will loose a lot of initial velocity doing a very high g 180 turn, which will decrease the effective range. I guess this could be lessened if the turn was a lot looser. There have been a number of images of the supposed F22 replacement firing anti-missile missiles that launch vertically, either above or below the aircraft. I have yet to see one fired behind the aircraft. The main issue with a vertical launch is that the air will be hitting the long side of the missile which could cause it to go off balance, especially if the aircraft is at high speed. In theory the rear ward s firing missile is doable, but whether the passage of the aircraft creating disturbed air and vortices will be a problem for the missile will need investigating.
There is a focus by industry to develop an aircraft last ditch self defence missile. It is feared as missiles are being developed with more intuitive AI and use combined sensors. Legacy countermeasures such as flares and chaff will become ineffective. There has been a greater emphasis on towed active decoys and direct laser infra-red countermeasures. But if an anti-aircraft missile is fitted with a combine active radar and IR sensor, it may just work out where the aircraft is hiding behind these countermeasure, hence the thoughts on using hard kill anti-missile missile to defend the aircraft.
I would guess kinetic energy can be partially mitigated. If you pushed the missile out of the jet (some form of compressed air/hydraulic push), without the missiles engine active, some of the energy would be lost, you could then deploy some form of air brakes to slow it further, as the missile drops (friction would help slow the missile at this point). Once enough energy has been depleted, the missile’s own engines could fire, admittedly from a much lower height.
i’m no engineer, so its probably not practical or would be too expensive.
Yes, much like Sea Ceptor’s compressed air cold launch system. Would it be enough to counter the negative speed of being launched backwards, its possible. It would definitely work against a chasing aircraft, but I’m not sure if it would be capable of chasing a fleeing aircraft, which then be dependent on that aircraft’s speed and distance.
The system does in fact exist on the SU-34 two seater strike version of the Flanker. The SU-34 has a small rear facing threat warning radar and the system can launch AAM’s without the need to turn the aircraft around, which is just as well as the SU-34 is big and pretty heavy (e.g a fully armoured cockpit).
I am not sure if the missiles come off the aircraft forwards and do a hard turn, or if they are lauched off the rear of the plane, effectively firing rearwards a la Lancaster tail gunner. If the latter the missile range would be hugely compromised as the aircraft would be carrying the missile in one direction only for the missile to have to accelerate in the opposite direction i.e. the missile would have to go through 0 (zero) mph..!
Check out the second to last paragraph of the Design section on this wilipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34
Cheers CR
PS I read the Firefox book as a kid – great book 🙂
From that angle, there are a lot of similarities to the Replica prototype aircraft.
Concrete lol are they using the blue circle radar from the tornado
Yeh, my though as well 🙂
I did read a really interesting tec study a couple,of years ago that put forward the future of air combat was actually larger air frames with huge amounts of sensor, processing and ordnance capacity.
the basic premise was that modern missiles, radar, networked systems and likely future drone swarms etc will Mean that the aircraft with the most Sensor, countermeasures, computing, Offensive and human decision making resources will win over a more agile opposition with less resources.
basically it’s premises was that agility in air combat was going the Same way As big guns and heavy armour had in naval warfare.
Excellent. If this programme is pushed forwards and not allowed to fuzz out through lack of investment, we should see a hugely capable platform and massive foreign sales interest.
I note MBDA are involved. I’m hoping all the technology being developed is highly classified and protected by copyright laws?
Needs to be otherwise, like the Rafale jet took technology from Eurofighter programne so too will the Franco/ Spanish/ Germanic next generation fighter take from Tempest programme.
I wonder what they mean about city amount of data. Even a super computer that takes up a huge war-house can’t process that much data, so they are either massively overselling it or just mean a specific type of data.
Either way, I still cant’ see how Tempest will ever go into production, there is no way that the UK and a handful of tiny nations with small budgets, can afford to get the scale needed to make them cost effective. Either that or we end up with something that looks shinny but is a few steps behind the eurofighter in capability.