9 ms·

UK unveils new Tempest fighter jet

59 points by dmmalam 8y ago

asplake 8y ago
“The hope is to see it flying by 2035.” Sigh.
- frockington 8y ago
  I'd say this is more possible than the "Ban on fossil fuels by 2040" deadline
  - zokier 8y ago
    Realistic or not, the timeline comes pretty straight from the plan of retiring Typhoon in 2040. So of course the target date for the replacement would be 2035, regardless of what it is. That said, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they end up extending Typhoons service life by a decade or so.
roryisok 8y ago
I'm not an aerospace nerd. I think I was once, in my teenage years, but that was a long time ago and I don't know what I'm talking about. Here is my completely unqualified opinion. It seems like manned fighter bomber aircraft are fast becoming an outdated concept. Drones can be lighter, turn harder and crucially not endanger the life of the operator. Why is the MOD committing £2bn to building new ones? Fighter aircraft historically take decades to be developed. The current typhoon mentioned in the article began life in 1983, before I had my teenage plane fascination and subscription to takeoff magazine, and as far as I know the UK is still waiting on delivery of some of the initial orders, 35 years later. We can assume that this tempest isn't going to be delivered until at least 2040 at which point drones will be phenomenally more capable than they are now. A fighter built to be flown by a human but also function as a drone as an afterthought will have next to no hope against whatever unmanned tech exists then. Unmanned planes, built from scratch to be pilotless can be much much lighter because they need no human support systems (air, controls, ejector seat) They can also iterate a lot faster because they don't need to meet safety standards. This thing feels like a dinosaur already, by todays tech. Pouring £2bn into a fighter in 2018 seems like a completely political move, a Brexit bluff and mere posturing from Theresa May. But maybe I'm wrong. Somebody explain why I'm wrong?
- detaro 8y ago
  If you start a manned figher program now you might be able to retrofit autonomy later, otherwise you have a state-of-the art manned fighter. If you don't and bet on drones, you are betting on uncertain developments in artificial intelligence and the hope that you'll develop a framework in which you can use weapons that make decisions for themselves and are left with your current, then out-of-date planes if you are wrong. And likely spending a bunch of billions in the process as well. Todays mostly remote-controlled drones with some autopilot features are a very different beast from what you'd need to generally replace human pilots.
  - roryisok 8y ago
    Ok, fair points. The estimated cost of replacing the trident nuclear deterrent is somewhere north of £25bn so I guess £2bn is "cheap" anyway. I take your point about uncertainty of AI, particularly in light of growing concerns that self driving cars are a lot further off than predicted. But in regard to betting on drones being risky, surely betting on old fashioned manned planes is riskier?
    - eropple 8y ago
      "Old-fashioned manned planes" work. It's not riskier to bet on the sure thing that has an upgrade path (in the event that drone AI does make the jump, it's not like a modern fly-by-wire plane won't be able to be retrofitted) to the potential new thing.
  - closetohome 8y ago
    I think the quality of AI necessary really depends on how you structure the force, and what you're fighting. It's not like they'd be out there doing Top Gun style dogfights. They'd most likely take the role of high-altitude bombing and launching missiles from over the horizon, guided by AWACS.
    - detaro 8y ago
      > They'd most likely take the role of high-altitude bombing and launching missiles from over the horizon Not really a fighter role, which article and parent explicitly talk about (e.g. otherwise "turn harder" isn't a relevant benefit). In other roles partial remote-control is more viable, and less intelligence needed, on the other hand the benefits maybe not so great - maybe cost primarily, once it is figured out? I'd guess a bomber could operate in slightly more dangerous situations and wouldn't need a full crew being trained and paid, but you'd loose flexibility and the crew is likely not a big impact weight/aerodynamics wise.
yborg 8y ago
Apart from BAE flogging their kit, I don't see what the point of this exercise is. There is zero chance of this being built by the UK, which can barely afford the nuke subs it has which are its main military threat.
- twic 8y ago
  There's a white paper sort of thing from the Ministry of Defence that goes into the rationale, more than it goes into any technical details: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/combat-air-strategy-an-ambitious-vision-for-the-future https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/combat-air-strate... A large part of it is about supporting the high-tech manufacturing industry in the UK, so it creates good jobs, attracts investment, can compete for exports, etc.
- sgt101 8y ago
  The big spend in the UK defence budget is Eurofighter/Typhoon @ £23bn. Astute comes in at £1bn per pop, £7bn total program cost (I believe), future SSBN will be similar. Turkey and India are trying to develop fighters as well, the UK has the tech to build these, there are markets.
  - adventured 8y ago
    It's pretty tough when you've got Russia and China out there competing with you and you're running from behind. The Tempest looked interesting, until I saw the hoping to fly by 2035 part, which really means 2040 or later. It's really a technology make-work project to keep their skills up and retain defense capability, which isn't a terrible idea so long as the cost is tightly contained.
    - simonh 8y ago
      Considering they already make the Typhoon and have a century of experience in the field across many different aircraft platforms, in what way are they running from behind?
    - Zarathust 8y ago
lujim 8y ago
Man these 5th gen fighters are unattractive. Even the F-22 being the best looking of the bunch looks blah from several angles.
- sgt101 8y ago
  I saw the F35's in the air over east Anglia this week - they looked pretty cool in the flesh.
  - thebooktocome 8y ago
    Here I thought the F-35 was mostly made of vapour.
- jokoon 8y ago
  I really do not expect military things to look pretty.
- bitL 8y ago
  4th gen frames are sexy. I'd love to see some real fight between F14-F18 and Su-27/MiG-29 outside video games. Maybe /r/outside developers could help?
- unethical_ban 8y ago
  They look like they have more body thickness and less delineation from the wing than previous generations.
- DuskStar 8y ago
  The F-23 would have looked fantastic in my opinion [0] Too bad it wasn't chosen... 0: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Northrop_YF-23_DFRC.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Northrop...
jabl 8y ago
I've been a fan of the original Tempest since reading Clostermann's book as a kid. One of the finest late War piston engined planes, in my non-expert opinion. Too few (and too late) produced to have any major impact on the course of the war, though.
- baud147258 8y ago
  That book was awesome! It
king_nothing 8y ago
Their hangers must be called teapots. Or would it be kettle?
dmmalam 8y ago
Better info: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-unveils-new-next-generation-fighter-jet-called-tempest/ https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-unveils-new-next-generati...

59 points by dmmalam 8y ago

asplake 8y ago

“The hope is to see it flying by 2035.” Sigh.

frockington 8y ago
I'd say this is more possible than the "Ban on fossil fuels by 2040" deadline
- zokier 8y ago
  Realistic or not, the timeline comes pretty straight from the plan of retiring Typhoon in 2040. So of course the target date for the replacement would be 2035, regardless of what it is. That said, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they end up extending Typhoons service life by a decade or so.

roryisok 8y ago

I'm not an aerospace nerd. I think I was once, in my teenage years, but that was a long time ago and I don't know what I'm talking about. Here is my completely unqualified opinion. It seems like manned fighter bomber aircraft are fast becoming an outdated concept. Drones can be lighter, turn harder and crucially not endanger the life of the operator. Why is the MOD committing £2bn to building new ones? Fighter aircraft historically take decades to be developed. The current typhoon mentioned in the article began life in 1983, before I had my teenage plane fascination and subscription to takeoff magazine, and as far as I know the UK is still waiting on delivery of some of the initial orders, 35 years later. We can assume that this tempest isn't going to be delivered until at least 2040 at which point drones will be phenomenally more capable than they are now. A fighter built to be flown by a human but also function as a drone as an afterthought will have next to no hope against whatever unmanned tech exists then. Unmanned planes, built from scratch to be pilotless can be much much lighter because they need no human support systems (air, controls, ejector seat) They can also iterate a lot faster because they don't need to meet safety standards. This thing feels like a dinosaur already, by todays tech. Pouring £2bn into a fighter in 2018 seems like a completely political move, a Brexit bluff and mere posturing from Theresa May. But maybe I'm wrong. Somebody explain why I'm wrong?

detaro 8y ago
If you start a manned figher program now you might be able to retrofit autonomy later, otherwise you have a state-of-the art manned fighter. If you don't and bet on drones, you are betting on uncertain developments in artificial intelligence and the hope that you'll develop a framework in which you can use weapons that make decisions for themselves and are left with your current, then out-of-date planes if you are wrong. And likely spending a bunch of billions in the process as well. Todays mostly remote-controlled drones with some autopilot features are a very different beast from what you'd need to generally replace human pilots.
- roryisok 8y ago
  Ok, fair points. The estimated cost of replacing the trident nuclear deterrent is somewhere north of £25bn so I guess £2bn is "cheap" anyway. I take your point about uncertainty of AI, particularly in light of growing concerns that self driving cars are a lot further off than predicted. But in regard to betting on drones being risky, surely betting on old fashioned manned planes is riskier?
  - eropple 8y ago
    "Old-fashioned manned planes" work. It's not riskier to bet on the sure thing that has an upgrade path (in the event that drone AI does make the jump, it's not like a modern fly-by-wire plane won't be able to be retrofitted) to the potential new thing.
- closetohome 8y ago
  I think the quality of AI necessary really depends on how you structure the force, and what you're fighting. It's not like they'd be out there doing Top Gun style dogfights. They'd most likely take the role of high-altitude bombing and launching missiles from over the horizon, guided by AWACS.
  - detaro 8y ago
    > They'd most likely take the role of high-altitude bombing and launching missiles from over the horizon Not really a fighter role, which article and parent explicitly talk about (e.g. otherwise "turn harder" isn't a relevant benefit). In other roles partial remote-control is more viable, and less intelligence needed, on the other hand the benefits maybe not so great - maybe cost primarily, once it is figured out? I'd guess a bomber could operate in slightly more dangerous situations and wouldn't need a full crew being trained and paid, but you'd loose flexibility and the crew is likely not a big impact weight/aerodynamics wise.

yborg 8y ago

Apart from BAE flogging their kit, I don't see what the point of this exercise is. There is zero chance of this being built by the UK, which can barely afford the nuke subs it has which are its main military threat.

twic 8y ago
There's a white paper sort of thing from the Ministry of Defence that goes into the rationale, more than it goes into any technical details: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/combat-air-strategy-an-ambitious-vision-for-the-future https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/combat-air-strate... A large part of it is about supporting the high-tech manufacturing industry in the UK, so it creates good jobs, attracts investment, can compete for exports, etc.
sgt101 8y ago
The big spend in the UK defence budget is Eurofighter/Typhoon @ £23bn. Astute comes in at £1bn per pop, £7bn total program cost (I believe), future SSBN will be similar. Turkey and India are trying to develop fighters as well, the UK has the tech to build these, there are markets.
- adventured 8y ago
  It's pretty tough when you've got Russia and China out there competing with you and you're running from behind. The Tempest looked interesting, until I saw the hoping to fly by 2035 part, which really means 2040 or later. It's really a technology make-work project to keep their skills up and retain defense capability, which isn't a terrible idea so long as the cost is tightly contained.
  - simonh 8y ago
    Considering they already make the Typhoon and have a century of experience in the field across many different aircraft platforms, in what way are they running from behind?
  - Zarathust 8y ago

lujim 8y ago

Man these 5th gen fighters are unattractive. Even the F-22 being the best looking of the bunch looks blah from several angles.

sgt101 8y ago
I saw the F35's in the air over east Anglia this week - they looked pretty cool in the flesh.
- thebooktocome 8y ago
  Here I thought the F-35 was mostly made of vapour.
jokoon 8y ago
I really do not expect military things to look pretty.
bitL 8y ago
4th gen frames are sexy. I'd love to see some real fight between F14-F18 and Su-27/MiG-29 outside video games. Maybe /r/outside developers could help?
unethical_ban 8y ago
They look like they have more body thickness and less delineation from the wing than previous generations.
DuskStar 8y ago
The F-23 would have looked fantastic in my opinion [0] Too bad it wasn't chosen... 0: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Northrop_YF-23_DFRC.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Northrop...

jabl 8y ago

I've been a fan of the original Tempest since reading Clostermann's book as a kid. One of the finest late War piston engined planes, in my non-expert opinion. Too few (and too late) produced to have any major impact on the course of the war, though.

baud147258 8y ago
That book was awesome! It

king_nothing 8y ago

Their hangers must be called teapots. Or would it be kettle?

dmmalam 8y ago

Better info: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-unveils-new-next-generation-fighter-jet-called-tempest/ https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-unveils-new-next-generati...