UK, Japan, and Italy sign treaty to build stealth fighter

Where would these a hypersonic Tiffy operate? It is rare for any combat aircraft to fly even supersonic for a number of issues. Fuel Usage, Noise Pollution, Supersonic Manoeuvrability or rather lack of.

It would melt and then go boom..scattering itself across a wide area…manned hypersonic fight is still the edge of science.

Indeed the damage to the stealth coatings at supersonic speeds is well known, fine degrading it somewhat over the flight of a missile but a serious issue when you have to re use an aircraft.

Typhoon regularly flies supersonic. From the outset it was designed for supersonic manoeuvrability. This was was one of the reasons it has a close coupled canard and delta wing combination. As it allows the aircraft to sustain a turn supersonically, without bleeding off too much energy. Which was decided upon by air engagements facing off at each other, using active radar beyond visual range air to air missiles (BVRAAM). The idea was to fire off an AMRAAM whilst supersonic, then turn away as quickly as possible whilst maintaining maximum energy. Thereby giving yourself the greatest chance of evading your opponent’s missile. With the adoption of Meteor, this has changed the rules greatly.

However, flying supersonically has to be done over the seas. The caveat is when the aircraft are on Q. Then they are allowed to fly supersonic over the UK if its needed. e.g. civvi aircraft not responding to ground control. On a lot of occasions Typhoon will take off at max dry, then head out towards the sea. Where it can then go max chat to meet the exercise requirements or if on Q, intercept the nonresponding object.

You have a very “nice” turning radius at supersonic speed…

Depends on your definition of nice?

Dozens of bad km’s. You gain missile range firing it at fast speed but you need then to turn away and the faster you go the larger your radius, you can turn speed into reserve energy going up but there is a limit.

Structurally neither jet could take it and the F35 is already limited due to heat and the stealth costing don’t mix!!

That’s because they stole it from an alien disc which flies inside an anti-gravity bubble meaning no contact with the ship’s skin and the environment. 😎

I thought it was reverse engineered ( pinched) off Santa’s Sleigh,

Modern airframes are not designed to fly at hypersonic speeds…propelling a modern fighter into hypersonic speeds would lead to a big mess and a dead pilot…you would need a completely new concept in airframe…the SR71 is the fastest military airframe we have at Mach 3 ( and that was highly specialised) and that used an 80% titanium structure with a corrugated skin..it’s had loss fitting panels and actually was designed to constantly leak fuel as there was a need for so much expansion of the fuel system due to heat…but to be clear the only manned hypersonic flights ( above Mach 5) have been by the x15 rocket plane and the space shuttle on its glide path..basically at present the technology is not there to create a credible hypersonic jet fighter, only hurl a hyper expensive scientific manned experiment in an Essentially a straight line and hope it does not explode…(the shuttle has proven that you can hope all you want, but at transonic speeds the slightest issue kills you).

This will absorb £billions from the defence budget and then be cancelled – just like the TSR2

Rubbish.

👍

Reminds me of a rock song by Status Quo and the lyrics went: Would you like to fly my paper plane!

A well reasoned argument from Mr David Lloyd as per usual 😀

I think both Labour and Tories support a 6th gen fighter. The difference is Tories have a desire to work globally on defence programs where as Labour want to work closely with Europe. One way or another we’ll get a 6th gen fighter time will tell on just how that will be delivered.

During this period of rapidly developing state tension, logic – as in potential quantity of platforms, overall costs, aviation knowledge across various european / EU counties, dispersed manufacturing &/or ‘ghost’ sites (still within close logistical proximity with short sea lines of communication), weapons development, etc. – would dictate increased cooperation from partnerships along the lines of those already established.
Now, I’m aware that Typhoon development did not go as smoothly as it could, but it’s ended up an extremely versatile platform nontheless; and the same arguments as above ought to smooth future aviation passageways.
But then we run up against political unreality, which trumps all else it seems. The most immediate example again references Typhoon, where we end up with German – sensitivities – blocking sale to the middle east of an essentially British design. Regardless of whether these objections carry real merit, we then have France, their fellow principal EU member – now and with regard to future projects – jumping in immediately in hope of fulfilling self same order.

Regarding the Saudi order it could be the next UK government that blocks it. KSA probably second only to Isreal with some factions of the Labour Party.

Those ghost manufacturing sites were a major part of UKs pre WW2 strategy.

Mind you here, we have a European and Global partner!

Or get sunk like the Hood, the evidence from either has little actual influence upon the likely future of this project. Indeed, unless there are massive fall outs I really doubt that the project will be cancelled, the repercussions would be a catastrophe for Britain well beyond the lack of a new front line fighter to defend ourselves with.

Last week GA posted a series of well informed observations, pointing out that the MoD is shy roughly £15bn on their equipment programmes. Despite Wallace getting them an additional £24bn over the four years that he was SoS defence.

There is no way the country can afford Tempest. We have a national debt approaching £2.4 TRILLION, with interest rates at 5.25% it is costing us ~£100bn a year to service. Unless the MoD is seriously reformed, Tempest and several other projects will have to be cancelled. I’d put my money on Schrapps scrapping the CH3 upgrade

And maybe buy Israeli tanks instead!

The country can afford to do somethings and not others,its a matter of choices. So we can afford Tempest if we don’t do something else.i don’t think the Tories will cut anything before the election they have no reasons to as they will loose eitherway and be next government’s scape goat for 3-4 years, which is fairly standard position irrespective of the political party. Looking at the direction Labour are taking I’d say the RAF and RN are going to be cut to fund a larger army. Labour will also be favouring EU defence projects so we’ll see what survives.

It has to work. Otherwise we get stuck working with the US again and being screwed over to the back of the queue for everything we need.

What are you proposing that we scrap to pay for it then?

Nothing, stop wasting billions on dead end projects that lead nowhere and the money is already there.

👍

“basically at present the technology is not there to create a credible hypersonic jet fighter, only hurl a hyper expensive scientific manned experiment in an Essentially a straight line and hope it does not explode”

A follow on black aircraft to the SR-71 exist….shhhhh!!! 🤐🤐🤐

I disagree.
First off the work being done by reactions engines.
And secondly ( mildly straying into conspiracy theory)it is claimed that the Yanks have already cracked the technology and their current efforts are a show to “ launder” the technology from black projects into the daylight. It is “ claimed” that Lockheed has already built a hypersonic spy plane son of Blackbird.
Now you can take the above with a spade of salt but given the skunks works track record, I am inclined to think it is not that far fetched.

A spy plane is one thing but an air superiority fighter is quite the other. Hypersonic planes are flying blind. Not what you want in an A2A platform.

Rubbish

Clearly you have insight into top secret programmes that the rest of us don’t if you think these basic problems are rubbish. It’s a well known fact of targeting in hypersonic missiles in their terminal stage due to the immense pressure waves produced. It’s one reason why evidence from the evidenced Zircon flight tests that suggest it isn’t fundamentally a hypersonic missile might be explained in part to it slowing down so as to be able to target properly.

It’s the absolute crap that “Jim” posts that is bunkum and rubbish. Unlike “Jim” I do not claim any special insight into any top secret programs; unlike many who post here I’ve signed the OSA so I wouldn’t comment even if I had

Agree. I understand it, and other undisclosed types, have been flying for years. Son of Blackbird may even have been cancelled after a few examples, but I think it existed.
Chris Gibson’s 1990 sighting over the North Sea as an example at how far back sightings of such aircraft go.

Big difference between a jet fighter and a larger pure speed spy plane using PDWE or other such tech.

Problem is the power plant of the Black Bird can’t go hypersonic though or anything like though there have been talk of using it as part of a hybrid design true. There are as I relate about recent successful tests of a hybrid engine byt very early days and there is little to suggest factually such an engine has been operating reliably in recent years but hey maybe nothing has crept out so one can’t be definitive. But yes either way a spy or test plane and fighter jet are completely different beasts anyway. Certainly son of Blackbird talk has been more active last few years with some basic evidence it might be in the works perhaps but trying to filter reality from myth is very, very difficult. If there is a Son of BB flying or will anytime in the immediate future I would be shocked if it were Hypersonic mind.

It is said the tech that is publicly displayed but the US military is often times a decade or two behind what exist in the black world. Hypersonic aircraft research I would dare say is older than most of us posting on this site and there is no reason to believe that the US just stopped working on it when they made a lot of notable advancements in the 70s and 80s in particular. As I’ve said multiple times here, one should always be very skeptical when the US military just cancels a promising research program when they seem so close to maturing it.

The excuse for cancelling the blackbird that satellite can do it better never held up to scrutiny.
Satellites are very predictable you have a fixed sensor package and can be spoofed.
An aircraft appearing unannounced and out of the blue will always be a better source of intel.

For that reason alone, I believe the USA has a son of Blackbird,

I tend to agree with you, there has long been talk of the Aurora though only plastic models really inspired any actual form of an aircraft and kept the idea going. But was reading only a few weeks ago of sightings near Hawaii of an aircraft which it was claimed had high speed characteristics and indeed active stealth but these ‘sightings’ were by fishermen so how credible is another matter. But there have been projects that came and went over the past decade in particular and at least one of these has evidence of an actual aircraft though it was rumoured it was shelved around 2016. But there have been hints that in fact it may still be active and indeed flying beyond the sighting I mentioned. But otherwise it’s all rather mythical and if it does exist what its capabilities are is difficult to fathom. Judging by Americas mixed success with hypersonic vehicles in recent times I would be surprised if they have a hypersonic aircraft flying around, but they are certainly experimenting with the concept with Hermeus succeeding for the first time in cycling between turbojet and ramjet operation and back apparently. Then there is Project Mayhem looking at a Hypersonic Bomber but all sounds like a long way off to me,

I remember the X51 waverider tests a decade ago. Hadn’t realised how old the waverider concept is actually, the first practical proposal was for the Blue Streak re entry vehicle and potential manned capsule and next the Valkerie Bomber, indeed I presume the TSR2 wing tips were using a basic form of the concept.

Also, the G-forces of a hypersonic aircraft would be enough to kill a human!
So unmanned only.

Essentially, the ‘Reaction Engine’ will enable a supersonic aircraft to fly at speed, using only the amount of fuel as a subsonic aircraft would use and increase the range of fighter-aircraft!
Fuel burn-rate will be low, enabling the aircraft to fly much further.
Thereby saving a lot of money in operating supersonic fighter-aircraft.

It will make a jet engine more efficient and be able to fly faster . Their precooler has many possibilities .

Absolutely even now Space X can’t keep the heat tiles affixed to Starship and we have 50 years of experience of that procedure. Doesn’t bear thinking about what sort of measures you could use on an operable fighter aircraft at hypersonic speed in the atmosphere esp doing anything but fly in a starlight line. There’s a reason that aircraft have tended to have tended to have lower top speeds over the last 30 years certainly not higher. The Russians went all out (was it the SU27) hitting around Mach 2.75 to try to stop the Blackbird and failed miserably. It couldn’t catch it in the brief time it could hit that speed and had to have its engines and probably parts of the airframe re-built after each attempt. Fact is expendable missiles have taken over the job that ultimate aircraft speed was required for and logically so.

indeed physics is physics..you can’t change the reality around hypersonic speed….the simple issue is that even if you can manage:

1) the engine issues…at present we need a rocket booster to get up to speed for the scramjet to work..Which is fine of missiles and experimental aircraft not for operational Aircraft..so at present the engine tec cannot support an operational aircraft.
2) the heat issue…if your heat shield fails your plane dies…maintains a reliable heat shield is not yet possible on an operational aircraft.
3) manoeuvre..there is no ability to manoeuvre hypersonic aircraft other than a predictable glide path with the heat shielding in optimal position….you manoeuvre your structure fails or the heat shield fails..and we don’t build airframes that can be super heated and stressed into the hundreds of gravities

If you fix all that you still have the pilot..a human being in a hypersonic plane that tried to manoeuvre at hypersonic speed would simply just die there and then at that moment. 50-70 G old acceleration is essentially pretty immediately fatal ( it’s like driving you car into a brick wall at 70mph)…most people can manage a short 4-6 g or 9g with all the latest g management equipment and training….eve then if it’s sustained for more that a handful of seconds your out and minutes will kill you.

we will have hypersonic fighters when we have have anti gravity tec you can put in a fighter…and we don’t have anti gravity tec at all.

With todays ceramic based composites. You can produce an aircraft skin that can cope with cruising at Mach 5, without the need for additional active cooling, any faster then yes things start to get interesting. If you google Alex Bond of Reaction Engines Limited fame. He did a lecture that describes the use of these composites in a hypersonic aircraft.

Basically your aircraft skin is in two parts. With an outer and inner shell, that is separated by an air gap. The outer shell is the ceramic based composite. The air gap acts as an insulator, with the inner shell based on a lightweight alloy that forms the monocoque structure. You could still use this or speeds faster than Mach 5. But you will have to either increase the outer skin’s thickness and/or look at active cooling. Where cooling pipes are located behind the leading edges and skin surfaces. Where the cooling medium is then dumped through the liquid fuel etc.

The Space Shuttle used a variety of protective measures to combat heat as it re-entered the atmosphere at Mach 25. These hypersonic speeds caused compressive shock with the very thin air. Which was still enough to heat generate temperatures over 1500C. The thermal protection system was constantly upgraded. It just couldn’t cope with being a light weight heat insulator, yet being able to resist impacts. It is believed that the foam insulation for the booster tank, caused a crack in the wing’s leading edge carbon-carbon protection, when it fell off during ascent. The crack opened up to the superheated plasma during re-entry, destroying the wing and subsequently the Shuttle. We can do better today!

The key question Davey is can you build and operational fighter jet…clever stuff but still not for an operational fighter.

Yes. You could build a hypersonic aircraft fairly easily, that topped out at Mach 6. Any faster, things like manufacturing and the construction materials begin to get extremely expensive. The pilot also would have to wear a space (pressure) suit, as the aircraft would be operating well above 60,000ft, By rights between 100 and 150,000ft, perhaps even higher. As at these heights the air is thin enough to mitigate frictional interference, but still provide enough oxygen for the engine like a ramjet/scramjet to work.

Much like the SR-71 Blackbird, at these speeds, turns will be long graceful arcs due to the load factor interacting with the g factor. Otherwise the pilot will be blacking out by constantly fighting g-lock and the airframe’s life will be significantly reduced. Or you do without the pilot and make the aircraft semi-autonomous. Even then there won’t be any harsh or erratic maneuvering.

One question that would need investigating is where to carry the weapons and perhaps more importantly how to release them? Placing missiles on pylons and launchers under the wing. Is probably not a great idea. The shockwaves coming off the wing’s leading edge are going to be extreme. Plus there’s the minor issue of the missile’s nose heating up. Which itself will need shaping for hypersonic speeds.

The likeliest option would be from a weapons bay. Though ejector launching will need careful consideration. Due to the likely shockwave coming off the forward lip of the weapon’s bay, when it’s opened. How will the launch mechanism interact with the shockwave? Will it cause the missile to tumble when released? If using an infrared guided missile, how will the optical window cope with the extreme heat? Plus the normally required hemispherical shape of the IR seeker’s window, is really, really bad for hypersonic aerodynamics. As it will generate significant drag, thereby heating up the air around it, especially as it will have issues with compressibility.

The transonic region for aerodynamics is pretty extreme. As air reacts differently to the subsonic region. However compared to hypersonic aerodynamics, supersonics is easier to understand, manage and build for. Hypersonics turns the dial up to 11. It is extremely violent and any minor errors in construction are immediately punished.

If you want an aircraft that can fly at Mach 6 or faster. You better have very deep pockets!

Sir, you are the only one talking sense here.
Why are people bringing hypersonic maneuvering into the discussion? You get yourself into position to release/fire your weapons,. turn round and get the hell out at Mach 5.

Admittedly Flash Gordon might be flying such things but you might have to go to planet Zog to get that technology.

How to get the radar working and communications on an aircraft that’s traveling at hypersonic speed? Even if you can overcome the heat the plasma envelopes the aircraft. Fine for a missile but not a strike platform.

Bullshit

I don’t think Bullshit would work at hypersonic speeds judging by my morning walks across fields.

Why??

Unless they cracked communication via quantum entanglement 😀

Sorry you can convert mach 2 fighter to Mach 5. The materials used and the aerodynamics of these airframes are not suitable. Mach 5 is outside the design envelope.

Simply not true those aircraft could not possibly have been made hypersonic, nor would the value in doing so ever outweighed the cost had it been possible. What are the choices for hypersonic engines? You either have an engine as on the Blackbird that’s horrendously complex, costly and maintenance intensive and that only a few are capable of handling in both flight and on the ground and thus it’s a specialist small number platform or you have some form of combined cycle engine exploiting turbojet and ram/scramjet technology, the maturing of which is only taking place now with many stumbles along the way. Fact is turbojets struggle approaching Mach 3 while scramjets work best around Mach 5 I have listened to those working on such engines detailing how difficult it is to narrow that gap efficiently even on missile/glide body like platforms. Rocket motors are the other option but totally unsuitable for these type of platforms, certainly unless exploited in something like the Sabre concept which is years away and unproven and I can’t imagine being manageable for a fighter aircraft even if it does arrive, it would be a more specialist answer for many years even if useful technologies from it are already being used.

Far better I think to concentrate on high supersonic for aircraft and hypersonics as an option for its weaponry I think for the foreseeable future especially if it’s to be affordable.

Fair points but consider..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlMX6TYdU7I

An F-35 equipped with the Reaction Engine, would have the range to reach Moscow, with the same fuel load, but still keeping to flight specific limits!

An engine like that would not ‘transform’ either Typhoon or F-35B. It would entail a radical redesign, aka a new aircraft.
In any case, Tempest is showing signs of being a winner.

Reaction Engines specifically mentioned the opportunity to improve the performance of existing aircraft/engine combinations.

It’ll be interesting to see how/when/if RE and VG work together under the Bilateral Fund.

In my wiew I dont think we can. I see your point and its always possible it’ll merge into another joint project, only time will tell.

The lack of modern weaponry is a serious issue ATM. Hopefully by CSG25 Meteor is fully integrated to make sure the Chinese don’t come anywhere close.
Soon after that we ought to have SPEAR 3 for F35 which will really complicate operations in the vicinity. The one thing they still lack is heavyweight ASM, as FC/ASW is not for F35. Relying on Paveway will only work if we have a previous mission kill with SPEAR and they finish the thing off with Paveway.

Are you going to try and tell us you were there next?

I can’t imagine we be fighting over the Falklands anytime soon. Whilst the new president of Argentina has stated the Falklands should be recovered he has gone out of his way to state war is not an option. So that means he wants to win over the islanders peacefully which will mean Argentina will need to convince the Islanders to join Argentina. That’s going to take at least 2 decades and mean the sabre rattling Peronist need to consigned to history.

The Harriers were just one part of the equation, please consider the whole picture and personal sacrifice before typing such sweeping statements.

The whole picture or all the parts of the equation?

I do question if there is irony in that comment.

Another point is the sensors on the F35 are built into different parts of the airframe so it has supperior situational awareness. To a achieve this with a 4th gen airframe requires redesigned internals of the airframe so for instance, wing structure charges to add sensors to leading edge would be extremely difficult and costly, or even impossible.

There’s also the factor that 4th generation fighter tend to quote RCS figures for the front of the aircraft. The F35 has supperior RCS from every aspect. So even if jamming was effective most of the power is going to be projected forward meaning from other aspects the aircraft will be visible to radar. The Typhoons new radar will fair slightly better as its steerable so will be be able to provide jamming over a wider arc.

The US will also have its sixth-generation fighter operational before this aircraft is even flown.

Quite possible!

I guess it depends upon just how much they have learned from F-22 and F-35.

About how not to run a fighter programme.
They’ve got lots of experience of that…

😄😄😄

It may have transformed the aircraft, but not to the extent that they are claiming. The F15 was designed as a stable aerodynamic platform, unlike the electric jets starting with the F16, that have relaxed stability. Bordering to next to no stability for Rafale and Typhoon etc.

You can make an aircraft more responsive by increasing the surface area of its flying controls. But Boeing have not done so. You can also shift the weight around by moving the aircraft’s centre of gravity closer to the centre of pressure. Which can be done with how you manage the fuel location. I suspect, this is what Boeing have done. Which has the advantage that if something goes wrong with the aircraft, it can revert back to a stable platform. Unlike the newer jets, which are unrecoverable, if something goes drastically wrong with the flight computer.

However, the caveat here is that the aircraft was not designed for relaxed stability. Therefore, it may have a faster pitch and roll response rate. But it simply can’t match an aircraft that was designed from the outset with relaxed stability. As all wing area and flying control areas were calculated to generate the fastest response times, letting the flight control computer handle the artificial stability.

Certainly not in a position to argue on aerodynamics, DB – I feel more political, strategic & logistic nowadays – with a residue smattering of maritime. With regard to the aircraft pros & cons, I conisidered Alex is usually valued both for not trying to over egg, and subject access following from his erstwhile fighter skills.
Hopefully, my overall intent here was to highlight the value of continued development in a successful platform still in production – necessary for platform fatigue amelioration of course – and the extent to which advanced computing can transform that for use alongside genuine 5th/6th capability, i.e. when even the US says the latter costs will prove difficult to sustain as the principal fighting unit going forward. If so for the States, then more so for ourselves, etc. To date, we’ve tended to ditch the older to develop a few of the much more complicated and expensive newer – often with an ill judged capability gap.
Rgs

That’s interesting Gavin I hadn’t picked up on the F-15’s new fighter capabilities.

The USAF is lucky to have the financial resources to upgrade aircraft like this. The cash-strspped RAF is limited to upgrading only 40 of the 107 Typhoons to the ECRS standard. Admittedly it is horribly expensive, I saw a figure of £40m per aircraft which, if remotely accurate in nearly half the original cost of the FGR4.

I would doubt that we will see any investment in Typhoon beyond ECRS , the RAF combat aircraft programme just doesn’t have the budget. And what it does have is going to be severely stretched to do ECRS, Block 1V and then the likely vast cost of Tempest.

With kit like ECRS, Tempest, Trophy and the rest we are basically trying to equip the forces to a 3% of GDP standard , but on 2% of a stagnant economy.

I’d say that Interesting is indeed appropriate, Cripes, both for the start of your post & the final paragraph, of course.
Seems time for convincing defenders of democracy to take the stage, rather than those essentially still feeding their egos, subsequent to decades of dividends; the peace type – or otherwise. The former will be there somewhere, just beneath the usual crop of pretenders. Haven’t seen any that convince yet though….Interesting.

Nah it’s pathetic really. If you don’t agree with someone that’s fine. But putting some school yard comment after every post is really pathetic.
He must be sitting refreshing the page for hours waiting on him putting a comment on just so he can be the first to comment under it.

I didn’t find it.
However as an experienced project/ engineering manager the H&S regime in this country has evolved from several hard fought and costly lesson (deaths). Yes it has been used as a reason for not doing a job. That is not the intent of H&S nor should it. If it is considered from day 1 of a project and is an integral part of the project development process it will not get in the way.

The UK H&S regime has been copied by several countries and has been virtual lifted in its entirety by the EU.
It has even made our colonial cousins to redesign military equipment because it highlighted problems before it became a serious issue.

All of the EU follow the sane regime . And it is only a problem when it is ignored and has to be back fitted.
Managed properly it is not a problem.
H&S is frequently used as a cover for plain bad management,

I totally disagree.

The UK implementation is, as usual, the most aggressive.

The main issue in the UK is that H&S is used to cover for lack of skilled forkforce – the mix is incredibly toxic.

Wait to they start working properly with the Italians…..

Having lived and worked in Italy I think these are very stupid statements

Sucker punch😂😂😂😂

Just a remoaner’s typical comment…. some people can’t move on or bring themselves to applaud new investment.

There’s that predicted Negativity. You must hate it when good news arrives…. moan on mate.

Well I can add the TATA giga factory and the RR/Airbus contract to build 220 aircraft for Turkish airlines to these examples but I already know the sort of negative reply you’ll give. Sometimes , you have to step away from your argumentative mindset and embrace the good news.

Didn’t mean to go on a rant, been one of those days at work. Even though we are on different sides of the political spectrum, we both agree on human decency and the need for a strong defence. Unfortunately both sides are lacking atm.

Absolutely mate, no issues from me re that. One can disagree politically and maintain respect. 👍

I also believe they also received criminal records as well which meant a lot of them couldn’t go to other professions like teaching, I think they got rectified a couple of years ago though.

Always a bit nebulous these sort of comments aren’t they. I guess it’s easy to compare a lab prototype to existing u it’s and make such numbers seem amazing. Of course by the time they enter production other systems will have come on line too so far less a differential. ‘More data’ could perhaps include the F-35 radar as it stands because data upgrades do come in massive steps Arm based chips can be 2 to 4 times faster than a year ago processor so imagine a decade ago one, so a next gen radar might be able to sport such numbers in terms of data. The F-35 radar is of course to be upgraded and whatever radar is in the US 6th Gen fighter will no doubt have similar improved numbers so it’s all relative I think and obviously not the only factor to be considered. With the input of Ai in design I suspect this sort of exponential improvements will only get greater.

Their main input was I believe the Saab based computer modelling for creating a computerised digital twin. The US uses it and I thus expect that will still be used in the Tempest project too that’s the important thing. I can understand why Sweden would not want to commit as theirs requirements have traditionally been rather different to the complex larger requirement of Tempest. I guess it’s better they bide their time and offer relevant tech as a supplier rather than over stretching a sparsely populated Country who would have on that basis only a minor share in the project. Keeping options open makes sense based on my outsider thoughts.

If the Germans have swallowed a large dose of reality about defence then nobody will be more pleased than myself. They have been a bit of a freeloader in NATO for many years but are now struggling to get match fit ( yes I know I just painted a target on my back)
Their shinanigans during eurofighter cost billions and years on the program. Their continual threats to pull out and or drive to dumb down the aircraft.

So I am very glad they are not involved. Heaven forbid that both project amalganate as it will be a match made in hell. Having been involved in the ITER project, working with the French is a nightmare and mainly why that project is so far behind schedule.?

Sadly the German intransigence looks like scuppering the Saudi Typhoon deal. As Saudi are now also looking at Rafales just in case.

I don’t think, for Japan, it is worth the cost and Chinese propaganda of building nuclear boats. Their ambitions are largely local so conventional boats in twice the numbers are more useful

They have a large escort fleet we can only dream of & a blue water capability going back decades if not to practically WW2..

Their Frigates along with the South Koreans are arguably the best in the World, even read US publications fretting at how much better they are certainly in punch, than even US destroyers and they should let them build US versions of them if the US shipbuilding industry can’t up its game in numbers and quality.

China:
Well, if you say so…

😉

You’d replied to the above spoof acronym. Reference ‘China:’ could have indicated an earlier post, but you did not elaborate, therefore…..

“Oh dear another day tripper” Your point being?

Actually I have an original 1965 copy of ‘Day Tripper’ by the Beatles. A little scratched, but still good to go..

If I shot a drone with my 1982 .357 Colt Python, it would be as fubar as shooting the same type of drone with a 2023 .357 Colt Python.

Why are people so hung up on reinventing the wheel?

One thing that is a fact, (just like the 60’s) the UK will never be able to afford to buy them in the quantities we need, or require.

So yes it is a fair comparison! Then to cap it all, bae go off into the sunset with the plans and the means to flog them to whoever wants them.

Well if we don’t have the numbers with Tempest we won’t with any other solution without the added benefits. Bae will not without Govt support, indeed Govts support be able to seek anything to anyone, they already work with others on present contracts as do RR mind, the Turks for one, but again they will do that anyway and to be honest such companies need to to earn a living. This agreement actually frees them from working with less savoury regimes if anything so I don’t really see the objection. Without aircraft neither the Army or Navy will survive a conflict so you can’t simply ignore the airforce.

The government IS already supporting/funding Bae and whoever else. They have given “£2 billion in the UK over the last 5 years on technology, creating skills and capabilities – with a further £600 million from industry”

Wow cool trade off…. the UK Gov spend £2billion, and Industry (bae and whoever) only have to part with £600 million.

I have often found that prior to a ‘rant’ read the full report first. 🤓

Your average fighter jet costs, at the moment, between £50m and £100m. Tempest, due to new tech, might get up to £150m. Still good value if you consider a T31 frigate that costs £250m and would be a walk in the park for a flight of F35s to evade and mission kill.

It is this ‘horrific’ cost, that will prevent most countries from owning these aircraft in serious numbers.

You seem like a decent, clever, intelligent individual to me however, why do you have to keep trying to counter an argument, seemingly for argument sake?

The Tirpitz story was not an analogy, but a factual event, highlighting the reality then as now, that big, is not always better.

Ok ok to keep things peaceful… one day, a Drone swarm WILL take out a fighter jet. That day will be upon us, maybe sooner than you think.

Firstly, I continued with this debate because I am enjoying a lengthy conversation on a topic I am interested in. I am not attacking you, we are both learning new things.
My point is that the disablement of the Tirpitz was, albeit a very interesting story with several stages of which X-craft were 1, not applicable to a general rule that bigger is not better. When it comes to high speed flight, you cannot possibly both keep up with a fighter jet and remain a cheap and disposable UAV without morphing into a missile. Physics gets in your way pretty quickly, which is why loyal wingman CGI shows them as nearly fighter-sized (much larger than, say, a Spitfire). If they were smaller there’d be a death spiral of engine power, fuel and payload until the thing looked like a Shahed and could only make 200mph.

To be fair SB, I didn’t actually mean that a drone would go 1 on 1 with a fighter jet, and take it out.

If that is the impression I gave, then apologies to whoever interpreted it as such.

I overstated your argument above. In hindsight, you never did state that the drone swarm would be attacking in the air, which would indeed be near-impossible with any number of drones due to limitations outlined above. However, on the ground drone swarms, like in Ukraine, pose a real threat to airbases not using Hardened Air Shelters like the Typhoons do.
This is something the whole military (same applies to naval and army bases) should be worried about and why I think we should buy a whole heap of the Terrahawk systems we bought for Ukraine. It’s essentially a self-contained CIWS using the same 30mm as the navy and with it’s own radar, targeting etc that can be carried by a standard lorry and deposited as needed.