British air supremacy. Key Benefits of BAE Systems Tempest


BAE Systems Tempest


Much has been written about this aircraft project, especially after BAE Systems showed off a mock-up of its development at the Farnborough Air Show. Many different opinions were expressed about him, to the extent that it was a show and almost a bluff. It would seem, what else can be said about this?

What I was most interested in in the topic of British development, BAE Systems Tempest, was why British designers came to such decisions and what they give them in the tactical and technical sense.

Air command post


If the British, who value traditions very much, break traditions in something, then there is something to it. We are talking about a virtual cockpit, when numerous instruments, familiar to us, button panels and switches, are not installed in the cockpit, and all flight and tactical information is displayed on a digital helmet.

Such a radical step as a fundamental refusal to give the pilot the opportunity to control the plane directly, without the participation of a computer, and in general to give the opportunity to "figure out", in my opinion, has a very definite goal. A pilot should no longer be a pilot in the proper sense of the word and hold on to the pen; he should leave the piloting of the plane to the computer, and he should concentrate on the tactical situation and on managing the battle.

This is a multi-component concept. Tempest itself has the ability to unmanned control. The plane, judging by the statements of the developers, should be able to control other unmanned vehicles. The pilot does not have at hand the usual control and management devices and looks at everything through a digital helmet, which displays all the tactical information. Under this concept, a pilot is no longer a pilot, but a commander, and his task is to control the air battle of a whole squadron of unmanned or manned aircraft.

British air supremacy. Key Benefits of BAE Systems Tempest
Well-known visualization of the strategy of using an aircraft of a new concept. The picture was intentionally done poorly to mask the central role of BAE Systems Tempest as an air command post, controlling the actions of other aircraft, including previous types


In general, the virtual cockpit makes BAE Systems Tempest, in fact, an airborne command post.

The British command, which put forward a similar idea, which formed the basis of the order for the development of the aircraft, obviously considered that it was best to control the air battle directly in the air, of course, having the support of all reconnaissance means and the continuous flow of various information. A squadron of attack aircraft or interceptors may encounter a rapidly changing situation when you need to modify tactics, change lines, redirect planes from one target to another, hit an enemy that appears, or just curl up and flee in time. The battle dynamics are hard to feel at a remote ground command center, even with all the visualization tools. To solve such issues, you need a person who makes decisions directly in the air. So that he can make tactical decisions quickly and efficiently, he needs a special aircraft.

It follows that the commander needs to be freed from piloting the aircraft, and he just does not need all kinds of devices, buttons and toggle switches. They should not distract him from his direct duties and create the temptation to "figure out".

Dominance in speed


Already the virtual cockpit alone suggests that the British are creating something special, unusual. And this is not a development in order to catch up with the level of American aircraft construction. If the UK had an urgent need to create its own advanced aircraft, BAE Systems could quickly develop an analogue of the F-22 or F-35 (BAE Systems participated in the development of this type) based on its components and components, or simply It would be to deploy partially localized production in the UK.

BAE Systems Tempest discovers the obvious influence of American experience, which can be seen even in the aerodynamic design, very similar to the F-22. But the ideas put forward by the British are definitely not American. They show how deeply the concept of the new aircraft was changed compared to already completed developments.

The real highlight of the project is the engines. Rolls-Royce promises to make such engines that could accelerate this aircraft weighing approximately like the F-22 (29,2 tons of normal take-off weight) to a speed of 4 or even Mach 5. To do this, the engine should be about three times more powerful than the Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100.

Here the question must be posed: how are they going to achieve this? Of course, Rolls-Royce speaks out about this project very vaguely and indefinitely, hinting at some particularly advanced technologies. But I think that the basis of any complex technical system is a simple fundamental idea, and they have developed and adopted such an idea.

What could it be? This is hardly a classic turbojet engine. It is unlikely that they have achieved such a degree of air compression that is enough to develop such a thrust at which the plane flew at Mach 4. Air is not the best oxidizing agent. There is another way out: apply the scheme of a liquid jet engine with the supply of an oxidizing agent, for example, liquid oxygen. This immediately gives the desired effect. Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 has an afterburner thrust of 156 kN, and the ancient RD-108 kerosene gives a thrust of 745,3 kN at sea level. This is what a concentrated oxidizing agent is.


RD-108 - rocket engine of the Gagarin era

Thus, if a turbojet engine is designed so that, in addition to air, an oxidizing agent, such as liquid oxygen or nitrogen tetroxide, can also be supplied to the combustion chamber, then the thrust of the engine can be sharply increased to the point where the aircraft accelerates to Mach 4-5.

I think this is an oxidizer, since the British abandoned the turbojet engines that the SR-71 was equipped with. The supply of an oxidizing agent allows you to flexibly vary the increase in engine power, which is very important for performing high-speed maneuvers, as well as go into acceleration at any stage of the flight and at almost any initial speed. SR-71, in order to enter the direct-flow mode of engines, it was required to achieve a speed of Mach 1,6.

Of course, Rolls-Royce has a difficult technical task to combine turbojet and rocket engines based on the first. They need to achieve not only that the engine, in principle, can operate in two modes and at the same time withstands the required operational characteristics, but also that it works absolutely reliably and easily switches from mode to mode. The company has a reputation that allows us to say that it will cope with this task.


It has a rocket design rather than an airplane design. Note the relatively small air intakes

What does it give? This gives, first of all, the invulnerability of the aircraft from most types of ground-to-air and air-to-air missiles, which have a Mach 4-4,5 speed. BAE Systems Tempest can simply tear themselves away or evade them. Even promising missiles, for example, to the S-500 complex, at Mach 5 will not be easy to get. Fourth generation aircraft will not be able to catch up with him or hit him with a rocket.

High speed makes BAE Systems Tempest an excellent fighter. At Mach 5, another plane flying at Mach 1,8–2,2 is like a fixed target. BAE Systems Tempest can get close to him and hit almost point blank, probably with no chance to dodge. At this speed, a British fighter can knock down an adversary with a cast-iron disc; however, most likely, air-to-air hypersonic missiles will also be developed.

A pair of squadrons of such interceptors will quite easily be able to destroy the enemy’s very large air fleet, consisting of generation 4 and 4+ aircraft, and achieve complete air supremacy, and then iron the ground in swarms of drones.

Of course, the project will not be easy. British designers and their partners will have to solve many technical problems. But if they succeed, if in 10-12 years they receive an airplane with the declared characteristics, in fact the UK will be able to count on achieving air supremacy.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

106 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. dumkopff 10 February 2020 18: 09 New
    • 20
    • 12
    +8
    Funny.
    When they write about the t-50, it’s also the su-57, then there’s only to see plak-plak-plak. Everything failed, nothing works, the series is small. And here is an article about a plane, a flying prototype of which will appear (if it appears) in 10 years. And a series of years in 15-20. And already such delights.
    1. Cowbra 10 February 2020 18: 53 New
      • 16
      • 19
      -3
      Everything else is funnier. Horseradish with it with enthusiasm or a placard on SU-57. When in general they talk about the 5th generation BRITISH fighter, I want to scream - "Author! Dump !!!"
      First, what is the name of the country that alone pulled the 5th generation fighter? N-well?
      Secondly, you are talking about the POOR of Britain, which borrowed missiles for submarines ... And the Iranians are driving its fleet.
      Thirdly, did you even understand why they are so sad for Brexit? There was no money before. and now instead of money - debts!
      And fourthly, precisely because Britain is not the EU, hell who will cooperate with them in Europe. There the big question is whether Ireland will remain to cooperate with Scotland ...
      Now we put everything together and listen to a fairy tale about how dviglo will be sculpted in half a million Manchester, and electronics in two hundred thousandth Plymouth. They will collect in the middle, on the roads right
      1. DMB 75 10 February 2020 19: 29 New
        • 16
        • 5
        +11
        Britain is a beggar?

        After Brexit, they started talking about the fact that Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union has not only a negative political component, but also an economic one. In fact, the United Kingdom is one of the main donors of the European community ...
        1. Cowbra 10 February 2020 19: 33 New
          • 14
          • 14
          0
          56% of the finances that EU countries held in the City have already left the UK. They were the Eurobank, they, not Switzerland. And now - that's all, they just had to shear the sheep again.
          PiSi: about "NOT a pauper." Does the "mistress of the seas" have a fleet? And what about the ground forces? Well, yes, 40% shortage ... How about aviation? Oh, okay. let's not talk about sad things. Beggar-beggar ...
          Throw out your card. There is such a word "euro-pigs" -euroPIGS - Portugal-Greece-Italy-Spain. You have Italy green))) And in the EU - in the know that it is no longer subsidized?
          1. Tatyana 10 February 2020 19: 45 New
            • 8
            • 1
            +7
            Quote: author.
            What I was most interested in in the topic of British development, BAE Systems Tempest, was why British designers came to such decisions and what they give them in the tactical and technical sense.

            Actually, the topic of rearmament in countries is not new per se, for at present - with a new arms race around the world, according to Igor Korotich, editor-in-chief of the National Defense magazine, the main significance for a military advantage in a war and the world is already acquiring not so much the quantitative scale of accumulated weapons in countries around the world as progressive, innovative changes in the very quality of the technical and operational indicators of modern weapons.
            The only question is how to relate to this. Namely.

            In which case, everything will be decided in 2 weeks. I. Korotchenko, I. Shishkin. Posted Feb 6 2020
            1. Range 10 February 2020 20: 05 New
              • 6
              • 7
              -1
              It seems that the "British scientists" made a new discovery in an airplane-building. That's why they are British scientists, and the British journalists are not far behind them.
              1. Alexey LK 11 February 2020 06: 05 New
                • 6
                • 0
                +6
                Quote: Spectrum
                It seems that the "British scientists" made a new discovery in an airplane-building. That's why they are British scientists, and the British journalists are not far behind them.

                Instead of jerking, they would recall the history of the development of jet engine - Soviet engineers and designers learned a lot from the British (so far it was possible). And then Rolls-Royce never left a narrow group of world leaders in this area ... And whose engines were on Concord, do not remember?
                By the way, they have the same office there in nuclear physics as well, and for something very knowledge-intensive, including materials science, etc. So jokes aside! Infa is very interesting!
                1. Okolotochny 11 February 2020 13: 44 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  And whose Concord engines were standing, do not remember?

                  That's right, they stood in the past tense. Yes, and they had strategists, Avro-Volcanoes. Aviation development over the past 10 years with the British name?
                  1. Alexey LK 15 February 2020 05: 48 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Okolotochny
                    Aviation development over the past 10 years with the British name?

                    They participated in Eurofighter, and in the F-35, and in Gripen, and in the A-400M, and also Taranis ...
                    And one Trent series is worth - with all due respect, where the PD-14 is - only dream of such volumes ...
                    Apparently, you do not read very carefully, since you ask such questions! wink
                2. bayard 11 February 2020 15: 02 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  If we take into account that Britain left the EU not only for financial and economic reasons, but also in the hope that after the collapse of the United States (lowering its role in the world), the British Empire and its role will be restored ... In order to achieve this, the Britons are building. .. aircraft carriers and design fighter 5 \ 6 generation. Technically and intellectually, they can pull it, but financially ... only with the wide involvement of participants.
            2. rica1952 11 February 2020 11: 46 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Well, if you refer to ,, great ,, expert Korotchenko, then this is the level.
              1. Tatyana 11 February 2020 12: 02 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: rica1952
                Well, if you refer to ,, great ,, expert Korotchenko, then this is the level.

                Well, just tell us what exactly you personally disagree with Igor Korotchenko, since you consider yourself an expert of a higher level than he.
                And we will see what your expert level is and discuss your findings. Total business! And then everyone can groundlessly down on the experts to "spit"! There’s not much mind to it.
            3. maidan.izrailovich 12 February 2020 04: 11 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              In which case, everything will be decided in 2 weeks. ....

              Korotich is an intelligent and competent person. And a lot of things are true.
              But I don’t agree with his conclusion about “two weeks”. What did he give as an example in support of his conclusion? Yugoslavia? Do you also think that the military capabilities of Russia and Yugoslavia are comparable? This is the first, second. But Yugoslavia was not defeated by missile and bomb attacks. And the Yugoslavs were ready to continue the resistance. As an option, a ground operation was considered with the departure of the borders of Yugoslavia. To Europe. Milosevic, our leadership persuaded to stop the resistance. Promising security guarantees. And then they betrayed him and Yugoslavia.
              Two weeks are possible if we stop re-equipping our armed forces and believe in a liberal tale about a “white and fluffy” world.
          2. DMB 75 10 February 2020 20: 11 New
            • 17
            • 4
            +13
            Quote: Cowbra
            PiSi: about "NOT a pauper." Does the "mistress of the seas" have a fleet?

            You know, there is ...
            Today it is considered the largest in the Old World and is included (on a rotational basis) in the NATO Navy. Aircraft carriers and missile cruisers with the ability to carry nuclear warheads are the main striking force of the British Navy. Its composition at present: 64 ships, of which 12 are submarines, 2 aircraft carriers, 6 destroyers, 13 frigate class ships, three landing, 16 minesweepers, and twenty guard and patrol boats. Another auxiliary ship, "Fort George", is considered a military pretty arbitrary. The flagship is the Bulvark aircraft carrier - a multifunctional ship that performs not only the tasks of basing decked aircraft, but also landing functions (transporting up to 250 marines and landing equipment). "Bulvark" was built in 2001, and commissioned in 2005. - Read more on FB.ru: https://fb.ru/article/275630/vmf-velikobritanii-opisanie-spisok-i-interesnyie-faktyi
            A poor country can afford it? You would have to cover everything with enemy caps ...
          3. Liam 10 February 2020 20: 14 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            Quote: Cowbra
            You have Italy green))) And in the EU - in the know that it is no longer subsidized?

            You are not particularly in the topic. Germany contributes to the EU budget by 11 billion euros more than it receives. And Italy - by 5 billion. Italy is a country donor of the EU budget
            1. Cowbra 10 February 2020 20: 19 New
              • 3
              • 6
              -3
              This you are not in the subject:
              Despite the fact that Italy has a national debt of 131,8% of GDP, the highest rate in the EU after Greece. And according to EU rules, public debt should not exceed 60% of GDP.

              The Italians themselves understand that, violating one rule, they will violate the second - about the size of the state budget deficit of not more than three percent of GDP. So far, the situation is tolerable: according to the national statistical agency Istat, Italian budget deficit in 2017 - 2,3% of GDP.
              1. Liam 10 February 2020 21: 07 New
                • 6
                • 4
                +2
                And what does public debt have to do with contributions to the EU budget? Where do such ignoramuses come from? Googling at least the EU Budget at least once in your life before writing nonsense
                1. Cowbra 11 February 2020 08: 10 New
                  • 1
                  • 6
                  -5
                  Do you even understand what it is about? The fact that Britain is a beggar! Initially! Man cited as an example a map of subsidies ... Which in itself does not speak of poverty. To which I told him that even the term is such, “euro pigs” - 4 countries pulling the European economy down, one of them is Italy, and it is green there. Well, the example was so-so.
                  So, since you don’t have a foot in the tooth about what we are talking about - "shut up, you will marry a smart one." Or read the whole branch. or sit in silence
          4. Whalebone 10 February 2020 22: 00 New
            • 5
            • 2
            +3
            I believe that you have not heard of the British Commonwealth. And yes, the last shit without salt is eaten up.
          5. Alexey LK 11 February 2020 05: 56 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Cowbra
            You have Italy green))) And in the EU - in the know that it is no longer subsidized?

            You are confusing concepts! This is not about income / budget deficit, not about the trade / balance of payments, not about debts and loans - it means simple arithmetic: what the country contributes to the common “boiler” of the European Union minus what it receives from it various pan-European funding programs. So there is no contradiction! Yes, Italy has economic problems (for example, a large external debt and large interest payments on it), but at the same time it contributes more to the piggy bank than it receives from it. Why does she agree to this - a separate conversation ...
            1. Liam 11 February 2020 08: 51 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Alexey LK
              Yes, Italy has economic problems (for example, a large external debt and large interest payments on it), but at the same time it contributes more to the piggy bank than it receives from it. Why does she agree to this - a separate conversation ...

              Because 5 billion euros per year for one of the richest countries in the world is not even a penny. The benefits for Italy from the EU are hundreds of billions of euros per year.
          6. Stalllker 11 February 2020 06: 23 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            In the EU, the author -> author -> no author map))))
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Ka-52 11 February 2020 06: 35 New
        • 3
        • 5
        -2
        First, what is the name of the country that alone pulled the 5th generation fighter? N-well?

        what does the money have to do with it? The very idea voiced in the article is simply utopian. We must start with the fact that this concept is in principle not feasible from a technical point of view.
        1. Grigory_45 11 February 2020 15: 16 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Ka-52
          this concept is in principle not feasible from a technical point of view

          why? Once upon a time, people did not know the engine and did not fly into space.
      4. Grigory_45 11 February 2020 15: 15 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Cowbra
        First, what is the name of the country that alone pulled the 5th generation fighter? N-well?

        at least the USA. If force majeure does not happen, then Russia will join. No one else has 5th generation aircraft.
        1. Cowbra 11 February 2020 17: 58 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Frightening ignorance of the subject. The author, for especially thick trolls - look at how the cost of F-35 went up when only TURKEY left the project. Leave the rest of the tales for the kindergarten - not even funny
          1. Grigory_45 11 February 2020 19: 25 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            exactly. From your side. I spoke for the F-22 (the first fighter of the 5th generation) and the Russian Su-57, These aircraft of the country (USA and Russia) created alone.
            1. Cowbra 12 February 2020 08: 33 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Exactly! F-22 is closed for that reason. that the US FINANCIAL it did not pull!
              1. Grigory_45 12 February 2020 09: 11 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: Cowbra
                F-22 is closed for that reason. that the US FINANCIAL it did not pull!

                firstly, the Raptor was replicated in the amount of 187 pieces, which is not bad for an airplane with such a level
                Secondly, you have lost the essence of the discussion. For the cost in general it was not. I answered your cries:
                Quote: Cowbra
                What is the country that alone pulled the 5th generation fighter? N-well?

                I affirm that at least the United States. States created the Raptor alone. Disprove?
                1. Cowbra 12 February 2020 09: 18 New
                  • 0
                  • 2
                  -2
                  First, I repeat, it was a question - which country pulled the project alone? The answer is no, the USA CLOSED the project, and ONLY for financial reasons - this is called - they did not pull it, the PROJECT is CLOSED, despite the fact that everything is technically fine in F-22. What is incomprehensible here?
                  About the idiocy that they “riveted” - it’s not necessary here, they and Zyam riveted three pieces - can one also yell that the project “turned out”? This is a cut. And the project was not pulled.
                  What thread of discussion did you find there alternative, which I supposedly lost ?! Once again - even the United States with a military budget - like the 10 countries following it, taken together, didn’t pull the F-22 for money and abandoned the project, the British won’t even pull the R&D
                  Disprove?
                  I am responsible for my words, and not for their free interpretation by all who hit
                  1. Grigory_45 12 February 2020 09: 39 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Cowbra
                    USA CLOSED the project, and ONLY for financial reasons

                    again confusing soft with round. Firstly, the Pentagon’s desire to purchase a cheaper aircraft, the JSF, which Lockheed Martin announced at a price almost cheaper than the F-16, is quite natural. Secondly, the Raptor, a fighter for gaining dominance in the air, Lightning was announced as a station wagon - and in the air he is cool, and he will work on the ground as an attack aircraft. That's why they switched to it, curtailing the F-22 program. There would be no alternative - they would continue to release the Raptor. The printing press is working properly. They didn’t pull in V-2s - all the same, 2 billion per aircraft, that’s too much.
                    1. Cowbra 12 February 2020 09: 53 New
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      -2
                      Once again - I'm not going to discuss fantasies. I said about one topic - YOU sculpt me nonsense. which is you buggy. Go discuss it with imaginary friends, and about the F-16, and about the machine, and about other garbage.
                      It was about that. that no country can pull the 5th generation alone. And even more so Britain. And you go wander on
                      1. Grigory_45 12 February 2020 11: 44 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Cowbra
                        sculpt nonsense. which is you buggy

                        that’s what you’re doing. If you think that the production of F-22 turned only for financial reasons - a march to study the materiel, so as not to disgrace in the future. Although, probably, this is a usual thing for you? You are one of three who believes that "there is only one true opinion, and it is mine"

                        To carry out research and development work, to start production, to produce almost two hundred machines, still operate them, modernize them, and use them in real databases - do you think this can’t be "pulled"? Did not try to treat a little head?
      5. Grigory_45 11 February 2020 15: 22 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        In addition, Britain will not completely pull the project alone. The aircraft is created by BAE Systems (lead contractor), Rolls-Royce, Leonardo (one of the largest engineering holdings in Italy) and MBDA (a leading European developer and manufacturer of rocket systems, was formed by combining the French Aérospatiale Missiles, Matra and Finmeccanica (again Italy)
      6. Keyser soze 11 February 2020 17: 52 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Secondly, you are talking about Poverty in Britain ....


        GDP - $ 2,7 trillion
        GDP per capita - about 40K dollars

        Nuuu, I would say that you need a snack ...
      7. maidan.izrailovich 12 February 2020 03: 48 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Now we put it all together ....

        You have correctly listed everything. But all this is reset to cooperation with the United States.
        If the British have really breakthrough technologies, then the Americans will give money for their sale. And no problems in the British economy can prevent this.
    2. TermNachTer 10 February 2020 19: 51 New
      • 6
      • 12
      -6
      I’m rumbling nimagu))) Looking at the misery the Britons brought the fleet, the army and the Air Force to read these fantastic projections is like listening to Zadornov. True, Zadornov is funnier.
      1. Whalebone 10 February 2020 22: 01 New
        • 6
        • 3
        +3
        Astutes are not very funny. Yes, and 2 new Aviks are not for you to Karakurt.
        1. TermNachTer 10 February 2020 22: 09 New
          • 5
          • 7
          -2
          The Aviks are so good that the Britons are already thinking - who would have a prince?
          1. Grigory_45 11 February 2020 15: 27 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: TermNachTER
            The Aviks are so good that the Britons are already thinking - who would have a prince?

            This is not about the qualities of the ship. The Queen is not bad for her tasks. The Britons cleverly acted. Containing two aircraft carriers is unprofitable. And in the case of the database, they would still provide ships to the NATO Joint Command. So let the Americans pay for the operation of the ship.
            1. TermNachTer 11 February 2020 21: 33 New
              • 0
              • 3
              -3
              There was a very clever idea - during the construction process to rebuild the Prince in the UDC, instead of Ocean. It would be quite a topic, but as always - they wanted the best, but it turned out as always.
              1. Grigory_45 11 February 2020 21: 38 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: TermNachTER
                There was a very clever idea - during the construction process to rebuild the Prince in

                into a real aircraft carrier, capable of receiving aircraft with an ejection launch and a finishing landing. This they will do. Under basing on it F-35C.
                And the Queen - yes, in fact, a huge UDC, with helicopters and VTOL. And in this capacity is not bad. Just the Queen and will be leased by the United States ILC
                1. TermNachTer 11 February 2020 21: 41 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  I read that they wanted to remake the Prince in the UDC, in exchange for Ocean and in order to save.
                  1. Grigory_45 11 February 2020 22: 19 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    The prince is the second ship of the series. The first - Elizabeth - is able to accept only helicopters and VTOL aircraft, which the British did not like. They tried to save on finishers and catapults, and as a result, they received not the aircraft carrier, but the UDC
                    Prince are going to finish building like a normal ship. Otherwise, why would they buy the F-35C?
    3. Gleb39 10 February 2020 20: 29 New
      • 4
      • 7
      -3
      There are several authors on the resource who get rid of how they die from the projections of our "partners". Already can not eat. Here is a typical example. The conclusion is generally astounding: "Great Britain .... can achieve air supremacy." In whose air? In the fight with whom? With Argentina, maybe. Mdya, very self-confident, but without foundation.
    4. stepka_razin 11 February 2020 06: 06 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Funny.
      When they write about the t-50, it’s also the su-57, then there’s only to see plak-plak-plak. Everything failed, nothing works, the series is small. And here is an article about a plane, a flying prototype of which will appear (if it appears) in 10 years. And a series of years in 15-20. And already such delights.

      Well, go and read the sun
      https://topwar.ru/167627-bystree-dalshe-i-manevrennee-v-chem-su-57-prevoshodit-f-35.html
      Admire with the author about the su-57 super invisibility, which has afar when its poor competitor in the form of f-35 does not have it. How wonderful it sells on the market, not that f-35

      They wrote especially for you
    5. kutuz 20 March 2020 20: 26 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Su-57 will also appear in 15-20 years (if it appears)
  2. rocket757 10 February 2020 18: 09 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I agree, there was a time, Britain was the pioneer of fashion in many areas and military equipment too!
    Drendnout, this is their achievement, as well as much more!
    And now .... and now let's see what they get at the END OF THE END ???
  3. svp67 10 February 2020 18: 10 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    High speed makes BAE Systems Tempest an excellent fighter. At Mach 5, another plane flying at Mach 1,8–2,2 is like a fixed target. BAE Systems Tempest can get close to him and hit almost point blank, probably with no chance to dodge. At this speed, a British fighter can knock down an adversary with a cast-iron disc; however, most likely, air-to-air hypersonic missiles will also be developed.
    Not everything is so simple that to hit at point blank range, it will be necessary to sharply slow down and make it comparable to the target, otherwise in case of a miss, the interceptor will fly by and it is not known whether he will be able to go back and find the target again.
    1. kit88 10 February 2020 20: 52 New
      • 11
      • 0
      +11
      So I also have questions.
      About speeds under Mach 5.
      The missile, of course, can also lay 40g, and this new aircraft, leaving the attacking missile, can do something similar. How will the pilot feel?
      Maybe the flight crew will clarify.
      1. Xenofont 10 February 2020 21: 43 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        After such overloads, the pilots will scoop off the debris from the cockpit with spoons. No aircraft capable of withstanding 40g. And living beings even more so.
      2. Ka-52 11 February 2020 05: 17 New
        • 4
        • 3
        +1
        The rocket can of course also lay 40g

        and not every rocket can. Especially negative overloads. This requires structural strength. Such missiles have very large dimensions.
        How will the pilot feel?

        If the overload is pulsed, short-term (0,5-1 sec), and even in the "back-chest" direction, then it can withstand 20g. But if it is negative, from head to ass, then max. 8g and then for a short time.
    2. wehr 11 February 2020 00: 08 New
      • 1
      • 7
      -6
      Have you forgotten what Pokryshkin taught: "Height - speed - maneuver - fire"?
      1. svp67 11 February 2020 03: 49 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: wehr
        Have you forgotten what Pokryshkin taught: "Height - speed - maneuver - fire"?

        When Alexander Ivanovich said this, the planes were such that they broke during overloads, and now it breaks the pilot, and the plane is intact
      2. Grigory_45 11 February 2020 15: 32 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: wehr
        Have you forgotten what Pokryshkin taught: "Height - speed - maneuver - fire"?

        only maneuverability at speeds of more than 2M is out of the question. And the apparatus will fall apart, and the pilot will have to be scrubbed off the walls of the cockpit. Maneuverable battles are conducted at a speed of 0,7-0,9M. The same Blackbird on 3M could fly only a straight line, laying turns with such a radius that it flew out of the airspace of a small country. Just like the MiG-25 over Sinai. And you are for maneuvering at 5M ...
  4. Same lech 10 February 2020 18: 11 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    if in 10-12 years they receive an airplane with the declared characteristics

    One big thing if ... there are many ambitions ... I think in 30 years the figure will be more real.
    And then in the event of an accident, as a pilot, at a speed of 5 mach, he will eject ... this is sure suicide.
  5. ABM
    ABM 10 February 2020 18: 13 New
    • 0
    • 5
    -5
    this miracle will cost like a cast-iron bridge ...
  6. Amateur 10 February 2020 18: 14 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -2
    But if they succeed, if in 10-12 years they receive an airplane with the declared characteristics, in fact the UK will be able to count on achieving air supremacy.

    Inspired.
    If I were a Sultan
    I would have had three wives ...
  7. Masha 10 February 2020 18: 16 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    So I understand ... Britain needs to change the song ...
    Rule, Britain,
    By air seas! wink
    1. Rusland 11 February 2020 16: 30 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      And sea skies yes
  8. Hwostatij 10 February 2020 18: 23 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    And if there is also an ATS, then this fighter can be launched into space by a launch vehicle so that it can shoot down satellites.
  9. Ros 56 10 February 2020 18: 27 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    I would like to look at the manipulations of the pilot in this device at a speed of Mach 4 on evading missiles or on VP figures.
  10. Operator 10 February 2020 18: 51 New
    • 6
    • 5
    +1
    "Rolls-Royce promises to make engines that can accelerate this aircraft weighing approximately like the F-22 (29,2 tons of normal take-off weight) to a speed of Mach 4 or even 5", and the stealth coating, which can withstand only 2,5 M, means on the side laughing

    "British scientists have proven" (C)
    1. Ka-52 11 February 2020 05: 34 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      "Rolls-Royce promises to make engines that could accelerate this aircraft weighing approximately F-22 (29,2 tons of normal take-off weight) to a speed of Mach 4 or even 5," and a stealth coating that can withstand only 2,5 M means on the side laughing

      "British scientists have proven"

      yes here either the "scientists" whether the author was utterly dragged through measures. A bunch of questions and concepts and conclusions of the author.
      1. Why should the command center fly at a speed of 5M? His escort is not able to fly even at a speed of 2M
      2. What materials are the glider going to fulfill to withstand 5M overloads.
      3. What scheme will be implemented in the design of a glider capable of flying at 5M? That's certainly not what the photo is.
      4. How are you supposed to fight at such speeds? In reality, this is only a variant of the long-range interceptor, such as the MiG-31.
      5. How will the new-fangled concept of reducing radar visibility be implemented? In reality, most likely nothing.
      6. The oxidizer injection will be in demand only when switching to afterburner mode with switching to max. speed. And with flying around the sound, and even more so on the sub-sound? Dual-mode engine? Too complicated design will work.
      7
  11. bars1 10 February 2020 18: 52 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    As the saying goes: ,, Be realistic - demand the impossible! "
  12. mark1 10 February 2020 18: 59 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    I can’t imagine a hypersonic air battle, moreover - I can’t imagine a supersonic air battle, at least in the form in which the author is trying to imagine it - it instantly accelerated, dodged, slowed down ... It seems to me after that the pilot will be evenly distributed over the entire interior of the cab. But the shock functions and transatmospheric interception - this is closer to life and the oxidizing agent should be enough.
    1. Petrol cutter 10 February 2020 19: 58 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Honestly, I was also first asked by the question, how realistically would the pilot be in the cockpit of this satanic car? .. recourse
  13. K-50 10 February 2020 19: 06 New
    • 9
    • 2
    +7
    Rolls-Royce promises to make such engines that could accelerate this aircraft weighing approximately as F-22 (29,2 tons of normal take-off weight) to a speed of 4 or even Mach 5. To do this, the engine should be about three times more powerful than the Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100.

    There comes out such a “byak” as aerodynamic heating at such a speed.
    How brazen want to solve this problem? Moreover, it is with a capital letter, since our designers came across this on the MiG-25-m and the best that they could then come up with is to use stainless heat-resistant steel in the structure. Pin dos shiki were unable to do this, and came up with a “sweaty trim” on their SR-71.
    How to get out brazen? what lol
    1. gvozdan 10 February 2020 21: 10 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      SR-71 is titanium, and titanium retains mechanical properties very well when heated. And first appeared the SR-71 and then the MiG-25.

      And there are not many exits, either a carbon coating such as on the shuttle (or on the nozzles of the engines), or extra-atmospheric flight.
  14. Andrey.AN 10 February 2020 19: 17 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    It’s easier to suspend a disposable rocket accelerator, the shuttle, on the contrary, still more than one such acceleration does not feed the tanks.
  15. knn54 10 February 2020 19: 20 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    FINANCIAL the British themselves will not pull.
    And most importantly, the British have no experience in building modern fighters, not to mention the stealth technology.
    1. bars1 10 February 2020 19: 39 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      No longer pulled, teamed up with Italians. It seems they still want to harness the Swedes
  16. Engineer 10 February 2020 19: 20 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    I remember how at one time painted Eurofighter. And he will be able to shoot rockets back, and the mega OLS and AFAR will receive super attacking rocket detectors and a helmet-sight so that the Americans are envious. In fact, they sold everything in half. Of this half, half was crooked. Long and painfully retrofitted and fixed, even for a united Europe was expensive. In fact, they got a little worse than Rafal for a slightly lower price. While Rafal is 8 years older.
    Britain will not pull such a project alone. States needlessly, well, maybe half a glass of technology will be dumped. The Germans and Franks play in their sandbox. Italy will help but it's just Italy.
    1. bars1 10 February 2020 19: 36 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      On Typhoon / EF2000, only now they are planning to put radars with AFAR ... They are replacing the ancient radar with SCAR.
      1. Engineer 10 February 2020 19: 37 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        I'm talking about something that has been declared for a long time. But on the fact of equipping ... There it was awkward with the missiles
        1. Liam 10 February 2020 21: 00 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          And what is wrong with the rockets and the rest of Typhoon? The typhoons have the whole arsenal of the most modern missiles of all classes — BB, VP, VM. They have a very advanced AFAR (which 4 generation aircraft can they boast of?). Almost 2003 have been produced since 600. Sold out in 9 countries of the world. other planes can boast of such numbers over the past 15 years?. Rafal or what?)
  17. abc_alex 10 February 2020 20: 05 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    It has a rocket design rather than an airplane design. Note the relatively small air intakes

    Do you have a layout? Well, of course, he has no engines, he does not fly. The layout can do without air intakes :)

    High speed makes BAE Systems Tempest is an excellent fighter.

    Does? Already doing? not Сdoes? Is the author a guest from the future?

    A pair of squadrons of such interceptors will quite easily be able to destroy the enemy’s very large air fleet, consisting of generation 4 and 4+ aircraft, and achieve complete air supremacy, and then iron the ground in swarms of drones.

    And with the rays of death, wow, wow! And if it also goes into space, then the satellites will be knocked right down to the geostationary orbit. And then again to the ground, transformation, and tanks, tanks. And with all two squadrons, the Union Jack (it’s the standard torn for .... tsy) will overrun the Kremlin towers. :)

    Thus, if a turbojet engine is designed so that, in addition to air, an oxidizing agent, such as liquid oxygen or nitrogen tetroxide, can also be fed into the combustion chamber, then ...


    You can easily lose the turbine :)

    In short, it seems the author, for some reason, did not understand that he was writing about a layout filled with show-offs and promises.
  18. alexander1 10 February 2020 20: 46 New
    • 12
    • 1
    +11
    The author just surpassed our Jules Verne!)))
    Firstly, any old military pilot will tell you that if you do not turn off the afterburner on take-off when doing the box, then on third and some fourth-generation cars, you can come to the third turn with half-empty tanks! Of course, modern engines will be more economical, but even they are power hungry beyond measure! And these are normal planes that take the oxidizer from the air! How much oxidizing agent and fuel do I need to take on board to accelerate from 2 to 4-5 mach cars weighing more than 20 tons? The question is rhetorical! In my opinion, like a proton rocket, 700 tons for 40 tons of load and the entire flight is about 2 minutes! What materials should the glider be assembled from? Does the author even imagine a thermal protection system for such an aircraft? And do not tell me about Iskander and the Dagger - these are missiles - a piece of pipe with a nose fairing, not a plane! To backfill, did someone see Buran or the Space Shuttle near?)) Its thermal protection? I saw Tushino at the Lightning NGO in 1991!
    And one more small question for filling, what material will this huge transparent cap of glazing of the cabin be made of? Something I do not remember such materials in the world to withstand a cloud of plasma? It is not otherwise British scientists, together with the author of the article, thumped together with aliens from the constellation Virgo when they invented this pipelace!
    1. Petrol cutter 10 February 2020 21: 40 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Of plexiglass, of course. Presumably. repeat It would be necessary to put a “janitor” in order to wipe the glass for a better view and guidance of the air battles of the British miracle pilot.
      1. alexander1 10 February 2020 21: 45 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        AAA! And drops of melted hypersound plexiglass will form a three-dimensional diagram of the tactical situation inside the cockpit in front of the pilot's helmet! Cool, where do we get to them!
        1. Petrol cutter 10 February 2020 21: 54 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Duck there, as conceived by the designers as unbearable, a cabin in a helmet. I mean, you can even arrange a cap from cast iron ...
  19. gvozdan 10 February 2020 21: 03 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Apparently after India, and then Turkey, announced that they would develop their fifth generation fighter, British pride could not stand even with a cry of "We, too !!!" rolled out the concept
    1. g1washntwn 11 February 2020 06: 25 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Quote: gvozdan
      British pride could not stand it and shouted "We, too !!!" rolled out the concept

      ... and immediately the 6th generation. Laser lasers, advanced electronic warfare and a swarm of drones attached. It only confuses the appearance, 5M can only be done in a very airless space, and it doesn’t look like TIE-fighter even once. Therefore, after reading the floodlights on this concept, the address of the store where the lip-closing machines are sold pops up in the memory “want not harmful”.
  20. cherkas.oe 10 February 2020 21: 04 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The article could not be sprinkled, but satisfied with the last paragraph with minimal changes. Where 10-12 change to 25-30. In general, fairy tales are not about anything.
    1. alexander1 10 February 2020 21: 31 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Yes, more likely 50-100, and then, if with alpha-centauri technologies help!))))
  21. voyaka uh 10 February 2020 21: 33 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    A virtual cockpit, helmet and the like are already in the F-35.
    Engines are another matter. But here Rolls-Royce needs to jump above the roof ...
    Making twice the powerful engines and shoving them into a small fuselage is unlikely ... recourse
    1. eklmn 11 February 2020 01: 30 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Try to figure out the engine - I'm a wimp in this technique.
      https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2020/09-01-2020-rr-develops-world-first-electrical-technology-for-next-generation-tempest-programme.aspx
      1. voyaka uh 11 February 2020 02: 03 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        Thanks for the link.
        The highlight, they claim, is the built-in engine
        electric starter generator.
        The electrical embedded starter-generator will save space and provide the large amount of electrical power required by future fighters.
        1. g1washntwn 11 February 2020 06: 28 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          The generator is needed for "direct-energy weapon systems". The same concept immediately on the 6th-gen
  22. Whalebone 10 February 2020 21: 57 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Rolls has made and is making some of the best aircraft engines in the world (remember Merlin, who even took mattresses for himself, and much more), for almost a hundred years now. But to draw far-reaching conclusions based on the concept, thinking for the creators, this is already too much.
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. Prisoner 10 February 2020 22: 02 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Eco burst! Delight and tears. winked I suggest our guys at leisure to rivet the layout even taller than this English one. The benefit of our imagination is not to occupy. Let’s see what analysis Mr. Verkhoturov will present us with such a “promising” layout. laughing
  25. NordUral 10 February 2020 22: 34 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    I read the article, read part of the comments. Again in the comments there is a line of hatred and frivolous criticism. It's not about what the article is about.
    And there about the concept of a hypersonic fighter, and at the same time the leader of the pack.
    Not the fact that they will, but the idea is worthwhile.
  26. lexseyOGK 10 February 2020 23: 13 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    It's funny The author writes as if the project has already taken place. The tests have passed. Specifications confirmed. Wonderful author
  27. JD1979 11 February 2020 00: 56 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    High speed makes BAE Systems Tempest an excellent fighter. At Mach 5, another plane flying at Mach 1,8–2,2 is like a fixed target. BAE Systems Tempest can get close to him and hit almost point blank, probably with no chance to dodge. At this speed, a British fighter can knock down an adversary with a cast-iron disc; however, most likely, air-to-air hypersonic missiles will also be developed.

    Author ... Tales and unscientific fiction are usually laid out on the Samizdat website. Look at the maximum licked silhouette of the Thrush, the shape of which was optimized for speed. He gave a maximum of 3,2M. And one of the main problems at such a speed, if not the main one, was OVERHEAT, which had to be solved with a very original way. Now look at the classic "stealth" design of Tempest))), where is 5M? It will actually glow at such a speed in flight))) as a meteorite in dense layers. And what will happen to the design of the airframe when this 5M miracle decides to open the hatch in order to launch the rocket?))), Something tells me that at least the wings will fly away by themselves.
    1. Winnie76 11 February 2020 11: 54 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: JD1979
      And one of the main problems at such a speed, if not the main one, was - OVERHEAT

      Probably this product is planned for space. Airplane landing
  28. eklmn 11 February 2020 01: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    For the curious:
    (Google Translate)
    “On July 19, 2019, Sweden and the United Kingdom signed a memorandum of understanding to explore ways to jointly develop sixth generation technologies. Italy announced its participation on 10 September. 2019 year. A declaration of intent has been signed between the UK participating organizations and the Italian participating companies (Leonardo Italy, Elettronica, Avio Aero and MBDA Italy). ”
    “According to the analyst, it is likely that the Swedes will have similar military demands with the British by the time Tempest is in service.
    “Having a much more assertive Russia on the doorstep, the Swedes may well look at their requirements for capabilities for 2040 and beyond and decide that they need something much more than Gripen,” Barry said.
    Sweden, Japan, Italy, and Turkey were among the countries touted as potential partners for a program aimed at seeing the first plane around 2035.
    There is a gas turbine engine. Back in 2014, the company set about developing an electric starter generator that would be fully integrated into the core of a gas turbine engine, now known as an integrated electric starter generator or the E2SG demo program.
    1. abc_alex 11 February 2020 09: 13 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: eklmn
      There is a gas turbine engine. Back in 2014, the company set about developing an electric starter generator that would be fully integrated into the core of a gas turbine engine, now known as an integrated electric starter generator or the E2SG demo program.


      And how will this allow the engine to double its power?
  29. Boar38 11 February 2020 03: 04 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The last British development was a Tornado ... Unremarkable, not the best plane ... So it's not a fact that the British will be able to build something really worthwhile this time ...
    1. Grigory_45 11 February 2020 15: 45 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Boar38
      The latest British development was the Tornado

      The tornado was created jointly by Britain, Italy and Germany. All the latest European developments (with the exception of Raphael, perhaps) are the fruits of the joint creativity of several countries
  30. EvilLion 11 February 2020 08: 17 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    The joke is unfunny.
  31. Alexey-74 11 February 2020 09: 52 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Tales and Wishlist of Britain ... what will happen in 10-15 years can only be said by very knowledgeable people who are developing the latest weapons, and I think this information is not at all for journalism.
  32. 5-9
    5-9 11 February 2020 15: 48 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Deck Garden.
    We made a layout - here it is.
    What if we can make engines to get a speed of 5M? Oh-wei ... o-la-la ... Why 5M, not 50M? And flying around the moon? How much is not immediately the 9th generation?
  33. Viktor Sergeev 11 February 2020 18: 00 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Interestingly they themselves believe in this nonsense? SK does not know how to make airplanes, its limit is: buying American.
  34. Tuzik 16 February 2020 14: 38 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    As it does not fit, the aircraft command center for UAV control, and at a speed of 4,5 Mach, at what speed should the UAV fly? Anyway, in hypersound how to use weapons? From the inside of the fuselage compartments it is hardly possible at this speed, with an external sling you need armament capable of withstanding these 4,5 mach.
  35. Voltsky 17 February 2020 20: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Britofil wrote an article ?! There is no airplane in iron, how can one reason about the possibilities of something that is not there ?! 2 - galloperidol cubes intravenously.
  36. The comment was deleted.