Read the forum code of contact
By: - 14th May 2015 at 15:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting, reclined seating for increased g tolerance, and with HMDs that's also perfectly possible. Nice Avro proposal here too:
By: - 14th May 2015 at 16:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't imagine the UK will develop a high-end combat aircraft ever again. Sad really. Typhoon is the last hurrah.
By: - 14th May 2015 at 16:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The BAe design was a genuine effort to replace the Harrier and Tornado. It is indicative of where BAe where at in the late 1980s and includes genuine LO design, synthetic vision, internal weapons carriage and VSTOL capability. This would have been a massive leap in capability as well as fielded technology. I think it would have had a big impact on other European manufacturers and part of me says that BAE/RR knew what they were doing when it came to VSTOL and designed an aircraft capable of operating beyond 2030 (unlike some of the other BAe ASTOVL designs like P.1216 which look very dated but were developed enough to be taken seriously by the Margaret Thatcher at the time).
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237453[/ATTACH]
Although it's nice, is the Arrow II any more than fan art in any form?
By: - 14th May 2015 at 16:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rii, if the UK had put this aircraft into production its entirely possible that they wouldn't need to design one for another 20 years!
By: - 14th May 2015 at 16:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't imagine the UK will develop a high-end combat aircraft ever again. Sad really. Typhoon is the last hurrah.
Well I don't know what FCAS is then.
By: - 14th May 2015 at 16:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well I don't know what FCAS is then.
Not a high-end system. And it will be probably be cancelled anyway.
By: - 14th May 2015 at 16:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not a high-end system. And it will be probably be cancelled anyway.
Why is it not a high-end system again?
By: - 14th May 2015 at 16:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh, i actually do think there will be another manned combat aircraft. Anglo-french, no less. Twin engined and slightly more fighter oriented f-35 like plane, if you will. All this is just a hunch, of course. But there is really no other option for the European air forces 20-30 years from now. Unless they all want to be buying US planes.
By: - 14th May 2015 at 17:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh, i actually do think there will be another manned combat aircraft. Anglo-french, no less. Twin engined and slightly more fighter oriented f-35 like plane, if you will. All this is just a hunch, of course. But there is really no other option for the European air forces 20-30 years from now. Unless they all want to be buying US planes.
I agree. I don't see that AI is up to the task just yet, at least not such that it can be relied on as anything other than a force multiplier.
By: - 14th May 2015 at 17:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Higher resolution shot of the model from the first post... taken by me at BAe Salmesbury in 2006...
British Aerospace P.125 Model by Martin Winchester, on Flickr
By: - 14th May 2015 at 17:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why is it not a high-end system again?
Subsonic, limited payload, no anti-air capability, likely limited sensor suite.
Oh, i actually do think there will be another manned combat aircraft. Anglo-french, no less. Twin engined and slightly more fighter oriented f-35 like plane, if you will. All this is just a hunch, of course. But there is really no other option for the European air forces 20-30 years from now. Unless they all want to be buying US planes.
Shopkeeper mentality means UK will dither and eventually cancel homegrown/European solutions in favour of F-35E or F/A-XX (same could well happen with Taranis).
France will lead a joint project with Germany, with minor contributions from other European powers, possibly Brazil also.
By: - 14th May 2015 at 21:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
France will lead a joint project with Germany, with minor contributions from other European powers, possibly Brazil also.
Maybe. The problem with several countries co-operating is that they do not have the vision to see that if their individual requirements are not fully met, they may well be very much better off in terms of overall military capability. Given the potential savings of developing and manufacturing one aircraft that probably fits none of the partners' requirements fully, European countries are dumb to individually develop very similar aircraft (eg Rafale, Typhoon) in parallel. What is required is for countries seeking a similar capabilty to sit down and agree what requirements they have in common and to pursue those together.
It was an economic nonsense for Europe to fund the development of two or more similar fighters when tens of billions could have been saved by developing just one.
By: - 14th May 2015 at 21:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It was an economic nonsense for Europe to fund the development of two or more similar fighters when tens of billions could have been saved by developing just one.
Just one that doesn't fully meet the requirements and is an operational nonsense.
By: - 15th May 2015 at 08:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks zebedee!
The thing about this debate is that there is plenty of evidence that BAe was working on the use of technology that is not yet in service but would be useful to systems in the future. This is from the 1980s after all.
Synthetic vision is a standard now even if it's not as impressive as that suggested by the P.125 and FOAS studies.
It also says that the UK does not only think about things when the U.S has a need as is being suggested by some.
The lift system allows lots of room for other kit inside the airframe, which is important for LO and UCAV designs.
There is no evidence that FCAS will be the sort of half aR$$ed project that will involve Greece and Brazil as Rii would dearly like. In fact, this sort of dip into recent history shows you why the U.S. Was prepared to take the UK into JSF at a partner level.
So the question is, what has France worked on that is at a similarly advanced level? I don't mean Rafale tech, but things leading in to it or neuron.
By: - 15th May 2015 at 11:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Subsonic, limited payload, no anti-air capability, likely limited sensor suite.
Several sources actually say the Taranis is supersonic, although that isn't necessarily the final FCAS.
http://www.ibtimes.com/bae-systems-build-supersonic-unmanned-stealth-drone-british-military-1554695
By: - 15th May 2015 at 12:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Subsonic, limited payload, no anti-air capability, likely limited sensor suite.Shopkeeper mentality means UK will dither and eventually cancel homegrown/European solutions in favour of F-35E or F/A-XX (same could well happen with Taranis).
France will lead a joint project with Germany, with minor contributions from other European powers, possibly Brazil also.
If the French feel that Rafale is their equivalent of the F35, then this will make it less likely that they will want to look to a manned replacement now. The UK however is already talking about replacing the Typhoon (in the same way as the US is looking beyond the F22) and it may well be the case that this leads the RAF to cross the Atlantic rather than the English Channel.
By: - 16th May 2015 at 12:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Posts: 4,619
By: mrmalaya - 14th May 2015 at 15:12 - Edited 2nd October 2019 at 11:40
Would the UK not be in a much better place in terms of technology and capability than it is today or even 2030?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_P.125
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4186.0.html
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237451[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237452[/ATTACH]