Tempest Manned Unmanned Fighter Concept

Ahh.

That would explain it. :thumleft:
Here's a few more details:
Theresa May signs a £100 million deal with Turkey to help them design their new fighter.

The Turkish Aerospace web site says that BAE is involved in development of the aircraft. Rolls Royce are apparently also providing them with the engine design.
TF-X aircraft will be a multi-role aircraft, it will be designed mainly for air-to-air role with a consideration to air-to-surface roles as well. Upon engineering analysis, TF-X aircraft will be a multi-role aircraft, it will be designed mainly for air-to-air role with a consideration to air-to-surface roles as well. Upon engineering analysis, preliminary calculations, based on received information of suppliers of candidate engines, TF-X aircraft is decided to be a twin engine configuration.

In this regard a Heads of Agreement (HoA) has been signed between Turkish Aerospace and BAE Systems on 28th of January 2017, in the presence of the Prime Ministers of Turkey and the United Kingdom. In addition, the Letter of Agreement (LOA) has been signed during the IDEF 2017. The TAI-BAE Systems Collaboration Agreement was signed and entered in to effect on 25th of August 2017.
Here's the BAE web site on jobs in Turkey. They are looking for engineers in "Aerodynamics, Flight Control Software, Weights, Environmental and Flight Systems".
The TF-X Programme was launched in December 2010 for the acquisition of a domestically developed aircraft to fulfil the Turkish Air Force’s requirements for combat aircraft beyond 2020. It is a National Prestige Program for a fifth generation fighter.

There are a range of exciting roles available based in Ankara in Turkey between 2020 and 2022. These will be predominantly located at the Turkish Aerospace Industries site in Ankara. As a valued team member you'll enjoy a competitive salary and benefits package, as well having the chance to further your skills by working on an exciting and cutting edge project.

The majority of our roles are in the Engineering disciplines of Aerodynamics, Flight Control Software, Weights, Environmental and Flight Systems. New recruits for the duration of the programme are offered permanent employment contracts to join BAE Systems Turkey.
 
I get a fuzzy feeling when I see the Franco-German name (with other Euro hangers on) and military - they speak of one Europe, not one will have the balls to give up national sovereignty in this field because deep down there is complete mistrust between them, between them and everyone I might add.
 
Have the Germans put in a requirement for 500 units yet, to get workshare before dropping their purchase to a dozen?
To be fair they were booted from the DASS workshare when they didnt want it, then when they wanted it we had to start the German lines, I dont recall if the partners shared the bill for starting German lines with test sets, FAI and tooling etc.
 

Mr._Average

Old-Salt
Not sure where this should go but thought here was appropriate. There's a bit of commentary in some flight magazines where the Americans seem to be a little snippy about it, which may well mean it's not a bad aircraft. It's still a '5th Generation', as opposed to a '6th Generation', aircraft, and the Koreans say it will have LO characteristics somewhat equivalent to the F35, though it will be a bit quicker. First flight scheduled in some18 months or so.

 
Not sure why the Americans would be 'snippy'. They probably have a lot of Intellectual Property in the KF-X, they supply the Engines and it wont compete with the F-35?

Out of interest, why does South Korea need a twin engine? Is it because the HAL Tejas (which it says has the same engine) is claimed to be under powered?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Not sure why the Americans would be 'snippy'. They probably have a lot of Intellectual Property in the KF-X, they supply the Engines and it wont compete with the F-35?

Out of interest, why does South Korea need a twin engine? Is it because the HAL Tejas (which it says has the same engine) is claimed to be under powered?
The donk on the F-35 is huge and powerful, partly because the slab sided shape (because of the weapons bays) doesn't allow area-ruling. Huge, powerful and noisy.

A single engine also limits the size of the weapons bays and so stealthy weapons carriage.

Two engines allows a central, larger weapons bay. Plus engine redundancy.
 
Last edited:
The donk on the F-35 is huge and powerful, partly because the slab sided shape (because of the weapons bays) doesn't allow area-ruling. Huge, powerful and noisy.

A single engine also limits the size of the weapons bays and so stealthy weapons carriage.

Two engines allows a central, larger weapons bay. Plus engine redundancy.
What? Try again. I have not got a clue what you are saying except for redundancy.

So with two engines (needing more fuel) two engines give you a larger weapons bay?

I hope you didnt just have a stroke because that is a weird post.
 
Width of the aircraft. Two engines with a certain amount of separation between them makes for a wider fuselage. Fuel needed depends on the SFC of the engines. 2 engines of 10000lb thrust with an SFC of 0.5lb/hr/lb thrust will consume the same as a 20000lb thrust engine with the same SFC.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
What? Try again. I have not got a clue what you are saying except for redundancy.

So with two engines (needing more fuel) two engines give you a larger weapons bay?

I hope you didnt just have a stroke because that is a weird post.
You're not getting it. Which is nice way of saying you're wrong.

@ThunderBox, a less-nice way of saying it is don't patronise me, not least because I'm right. I've been tracking the F-35 programme personally and professionally since it was the Common Affordable Light Fighter (CALF), quite some years ago.

No, I've not had a stroke.

From the days of CALF to now, the F-35 (as it has become) is a single-engined design which was/is designed to replace the F-16. Single-engined, in multiple versions (which is part of the problem).

I'll start with area ruling. When we were first trying to regularly punch production aircraft through the sound barrier, we found that we were struggling. We were getting close but the speed curve would fall off.

The reason was found to be air compression; when air moving along the airframe met the wing, it suddenly had the width of the fuselage and the wing to deal with. The solution, given the engine/thrust limitations of the time, was to make the airframe skinnier where the wings are.

That meant that the fuselage and then fuselage/wing were of constant sectional area. In other words, no compression over the wing area. Look at the first supersonic service jets; they had a characteristic 'coke bottle' shape to the body.

Happily, there's a Wikipedia page if you want to read more.


The F-35 tries to do several things but, in this instance, we're talking about be a single-engined design and stealthy. That means single-engined with internal weapons carriage. Look at an F-35 in plan view; there's no area ruling. It's straight/slab-sided because of the weapons bay. It buries the weapons bay between the intakes.

The only way over that - 'that' being to attain supersonic performance - is to use a big engine. The F135 produces 40,000lb of thrust. Compare that to, say, the F100/110 used on the F-15 and 16 which in their developed forms produce about 10,000lb thrust less, give or take the spare change.

Two engines means you don't need as large/powerful engines to achieve the same amount of thrust. Look at the RB199 from as old a design as the Tornado to see how compact an engine can be - and see @oldsoak's comment about specific fuel consumption.

Pick any amount of other stealth designs. F-22, Su-57, J-20, J-31 - all twin-engined designs with a ventral main weapons bay but with the same slab-sided design. Some have additional weapons bays on the fuselage sides.
 
Last edited:
The F-35 is arguably compromised by trying to be all things to all men, in the form of being delivered in A, B and C versions which are all fairly different yet 'the same'.
To Be Honest I would only have developed 2 versions B and C - The A would have been ala Phantom in airforce service - If you really dont think its (carier related bits) needed then leave it in the hanger
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
To Be Honest I would only have developed 2 versions B and C - The A would have been ala Phantom in airforce service - If you really dont think its (carier related bits) needed then leave it in the hanger
Yes, makes equal sense. But never forget inter-service politics in the US. This is a country where each service designs its own camouflage patterns Just Because.

The air force wanted its own aircraft. It only adopted the F-4 because it was just so far ahead of anything else.
 
You're not getting it. Which is nice way of saying you're wrong.

@ThunderBox, a less-nice way of saying it is don't patronise me, not least because I'm right. I've been tracking the F-35 programme personally and professionally since it was the Common Affordable Light Fighter (CALF), quite some years ago.

No, I've not had a stroke.

From the days of CALF to now, the F-35 (as it has become) is a single-engined design which was/is designed to replace the F-16. Single-engined, in multiple versions (which is part of the problem).

I'll start with area ruling. When we were first trying to regularly punch production aircraft through the sound barrier, we found that we were struggling. We were getting close but the speed curve would fall off.

The reason was found to be air compression; when air moving along the airframe met the wing, it suddenly had the width of the fuselage and the wing to deal with. The solution, given the engine/thrust limitations of the time, was to make the airframe skinnier where the wings are.

That meant that the fuselage and then fuselage/wing were of constant sectional area. In other words, no compression over the wing area. Look at the first supersonic service jets; they had a characteristic 'coke bottle' shape to the body.

Happily, there's a Wikipedia page if you want to read more.


The F-35 tries to do several things but, in this instance, we're talking about be a single-engined design and stealthy. That means single-engined with internal weapons carriage. The only place those weapons bays can go is on the fuselage sides. Look at an F-35 in plan view; there's no area ruling. It's straight/slab-sided because of the bays.

The only way over that - 'that' being to attain supersonic performance - is to use a big engine. The F135 produces 40,000lb of thrust. Compare that to, say, the F100/110 used on the F-15 and 16 which in their developed forms produce about 10,000lb thrust less, give or take the spare change.

Two engines means you don't need as large/powerful engines to achieve the same amount of thrust. Look at the RB199 from as old a design as the Tornado to see how compact an engine can be - and see @oldsoak's comment about specific fuel consumption. It also means that you can be more flexible in planform - including weapons bay(s) and systems location.

Pick any amount of other stealth designs. F-22, Su-57, J-20, J-31 - all twin-engined designs with a ventral main weapons bay. There's good reason for that, volume being one of them ,and the ventral positioning is opened up (literally) by the twin-engine design.

The F-35 is arguably compromised by trying to be all things to all men, in the form of being delivered in A, B and C versions which are all fairly different yet 'the same'.
I wasn’t challenging your knowledge, I couldn’t understand your first paragraph, never heard of a donk and area ruling, put that together with a couple of tins of beer and it sounded like a word salad.

however thank you for persevering and explaining!
 

Mr._Average

Old-Salt
Not sure why the Americans would be 'snippy'. They probably have a lot of Intellectual Property in the KF-X, they supply the Engines and it wont compete with the F-35?

Out of interest, why does South Korea need a twin engine? Is it because the HAL Tejas (which it says has the same engine) is claimed to be under powered?

Well, I'm not sure why they would be snippy either other than from having a touch of the 'not invented here' attitude. I imagine there were/are commercial interests as well and Lockheed / Boeing et al were indulging in a bit of early competition bashing through their proxies in the press (as you say, the Koreans were acquiring technology, in particular, from Lockheed although the US government stepped in to halt some of the key transfers).
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I wasn’t challenging your knowledge, I couldn’t understand your first paragraph, never heard of a donk and area ruling, put that together with a couple of tins of beer and it sounded like a word salad.

however thank you for persevering and explaining!
You’re welcome. Donk is a slang term for an engine.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
If they are, the whispers might point to there being an announcement at the Air & Space Power Conference next week; there's usually one or two interesting announcements at the event, and this would fit the bill.
Possibly, but there is a report due in Q3 on whether to fully commit to the project, so might be a couple of months before we hear anything. Until then, they're sticking with "Interested Observer" status.
 

Latest Threads

Top