European Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Equation said:

Will it be a stealth typhoon?

Click to expand...

That would be all but impossible. Typhoon was not designed as a full Low Observable, it was designed as a partial low observable.
The changes needed to make it a full stealth would be massive. What they are talking about are mostly system upgrades and updates inspired by the latest fifth gens.
Large touch screen displays like the F35, better networking and sensor fusion, DAS, upgrades to the defensive suite. Upgrades to the engines.

Here is one of the design for Britain next generation fighter jet. Not too shabby.

Doesn't make sense for Brits to pursue a 5th gen fighter. Does make sense for them to keep their aerospace industry going forwards though. Tempest if it materialises should be a 6th gen fighter or at least offer certain attributes the F-35 does not. Currently all technologically advanced and capable nations are politically aligned with the USA except for PRC and Russia. Out of those two nations only Russia poses a remote threat to western Europe. With the capable F-35s in numbers and variants and later upgraded versions, they have that completely covered especially considering that Russia is still working on fielding a 5th gen fighter of their own. Therefore the pressing need for a domestic 5th gen for UK or a French 5th gen is just not there anymore. If they want to fund development, it will probably be exploring what they expect for 6th gen technologies. Another super expensive 5th gen fighter to complement the F-35 in an era where the threat has been dismantled doesn't make sense although the MIC begs to differ. Today western Europe has a greater chance of destroying themselves than Russia rolling through with their tanks.

ougoah said:

Doesn't make sense for Brits to pursue a 5th gen fighter. Does make sense for them to keep their aerospace industry going forwards though. Tempest if it materialises should be a 6th gen fighter or at least offer certain attributes the F-35 does not. Currently all technologically advanced and capable nations are politically aligned with the USA except for PRC and Russia. Out of those two nations only Russia poses a remote threat to western Europe. With the capable F-35s in numbers and variants and later upgraded versions, they have that completely covered especially considering that Russia is still working on fielding a 5th gen fighter of their own. Therefore the pressing need for a domestic 5th gen for UK or a French 5th gen is just not there anymore. If they want to fund development, it will probably be exploring what they expect for 6th gen technologies. Another super expensive 5th gen fighter to complement the F-35 in an era where the threat has been dismantled doesn't make sense although the MIC begs to differ. Today western Europe has a greater chance of destroying themselves than Russia rolling through with their tanks.

Click to expand...

Politically aligned with is not the same as politically or militarily being subject of. To remain geopolitical relevant as one pole of the world and have your "ally" actually listen to your opinion you have to have the means to dump him if he choose to ignore you. Only being independent can one be leader than being led. Europe certainly want to be one of the leaders, so you have the Franco-German NG fighter program, now the British program. Remember, Angela Merkel and Donald Tusk both just said something like "we are on our own" very recently.

Equation said:

Here is one of the design for Britain next generation fighter jet. Not too shabby.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

one of the photos in the link shows "virtual cockpit". Does it mean that the plane can be configured to fly by remote control? But also has the choice of having a real pilot?

In case of being flown as a UCAV in the remote control mode, high maneuverability that demanding a pilot in the loop is not needed. But when the situation demand a pilot in the cockpit, the plane is still not very maneuverable because the vertical stabilizers sits on top the giant wings, preventing high AoA maneuver. Does it act more of a high speed stealthy fighter bomber than a fighter? Or the British has some fancy idea of TVC that can act as good as control surfaces?

taxiya said:

one of the photos in the link shows "virtual cockpit". Does it mean that the plane can be configured to fly by remote control? But also has the choice of having a real pilot?

Click to expand...

That is a want by a number of nations. Manned optional.

In case of being flown as a UCAV in the remote control mode, high maneuverability that demanding a pilot in the loop is not needed. But when the situation demand a pilot in the cockpit, the plane is still not very maneuverable because the vertical stabilizers sits on top the giant wings, preventing high AoA maneuver. Does it act more of a high speed stealthy fighter bomber than a fighter? Or the British has some fancy idea of TVC that can act as good as control surfaces?

Click to expand...

Flying unmanned is right now more limited due to the fact that modern Drones are remote control in combat manouvers. No matter what happens a Man has to step in to operate the Weapons on the bird to.

Something to keep in mind is this is not a flying product this is just a concept mock up. The final product is going to be vastly different .

kinda typical
European Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
these days:
Oops! The Spanish Navy Is Constructing New Submarines That Are Too Big For Their Pens

July 18, 2018

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Jura said:

it's past the edit time of the above post ... here's a summary I've now read:
Trump claims NATO victory after 'go it alone' ultimatum

Updated 17 minutes ago

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Is Trump deliberately miss-calculate, this time targeting Europe? The other time is targeting China for the trade deficit, a separate story but the same tactic Trump has been using in racketeering.

Let's break it down

SPENDING TARGETS
NATO members have committed to spending at least two percent of their national income on defense by 2024, though the terms allow for stretching that in some cases to 2030. The United States, far the biggest economy, spent 3.6 percent last year, while Germany, the second biggest, paid out just 1.2 percent and only a handful of countries met the 2 percent target.

Click to expand...

US is a global power who has military spending all over the world. That 3.6 percent includes any spending in South Korea, Japan, Australia etc. etc. While NATO countries such as Germany has only obligation to defend the NATO boarder, nowhere else. 2% is probably the right figure, 3.6% like US today and 4% that Trump demanded are certainly ridiculous, that is asking Germany to foot the American bill for American's world adventure. This is pretty much like Bush forced the Arabs and Japanese to foot the whole bill of Gulf war.

Equation said:

Here is one of the design for Britain next generation fighter jet. Not too shabby.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

This is a reallly nice looking, and capable looking 6th generation aircraft.

That means it is 15+ years away.

European countries ahve to get from here to there...and get there with enough money left for defense to afford these airaft.

Right now, too many of these nations or cutting more and more defense, and will have little left come 2032 or more.

My concern is that they will only be able to afford a few dozen aircraft ech, nd therefore will not have enough to harly protect themselves, much less participate and commit to their other responsobilities, like in NATO.