It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK's FOAS project

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
RAB

posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 02:13 AM
link   
The UK's FOAS has now enter the defination stage, the FOAS is to replaace the Tornado GR4 in around 2012. And could take the shape of UCAV, manned aircarft, missiles or more like a mix of all three.

A few links:

www.mod.uk...

www.airforce-technology.com...

www.janes.com...

But my question to everyone is what sort of capilbilitys will a counntry like the UK need in 2012? Being a middle weight country will a number of requirements I can see this turning into a very complex and mixed systems of systems.

But what do you guys think?

RAB

[edit on 25-4-2005 by RAB]




posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   
I think the RAF DOES need a mix of aircraft for its future strike needs. I have read of a variant of the Typhoon being considered and, although it is an excellent aircraft, I think this would be a mistake. The Typhoon is already going to replace the Jaguar in the tactical role and that, I think, is enough. It is the wrong airframe to be now thinking of turning into a deep penetration strike aircraft, which is what the Tornado is.

One likely option for future 'force projection' ops is probably something like the C-17 or A-400 acting as a cruise missile launcher. The reason why this would be desirable rather than just relying of the Royal Navy's launch capabilities is that it is obviously much more rapidly deployable, with a cruising speed of around 500mph, compared to a surface ship.

This however can only form a part of any future solution. Even though it is one that the RAF actually wants, whether it gets it is another matter.

My personal favourite option is another RAF 'desire'. The mixed force manned aircraft/UCAV option. The centrpoint of this would be an all new strike aircraft which can best be described as a sort of 'YF-23 bomber' (a loose description, not to be taken literally) which can be operated on its own strengths as a strike aircraft or as a 'control ship' in a much bigger 'UCAV swarm' force. Current thinking is of a ratio of one manned 2 seater + three slaved UCAV's, ie a massed raid might consist of 5 manned 'leaders' plus 15 UCAVS or alternativelty a target might demand a precision strike by just one or two manned aircraft.

I think this option plus a couple of squadrons worth of the bigger long range missileers mentioned earlier would give the RAF a sufficiently flexible and potent strike force.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Waynos, I highly doubt the UK will have entirely new deep strike plane as you said. Maybe they will buy F/B-22 if it's produced, but I don't believe they will develop something new in next 20years. It is more likely it will be improved Typhoon (although it has some disadvantages) or X-45/47.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   
I think one thing you can guarantee is there will not be an all new UK strike aircraft. Ther TSR 2 was the last one of those we will ever see. Maybe there could be grounds for UK participation in the F/B-22, a la the F-35?

This would provide the RAF with a top notch strike platform for sure but would also represent further erosion of UK industrial capability as BAE would only get to work on systems and non-critical airfame components yet again.

Politically and Industrially therefore we are looking at either a 'Typhoon GR3' or a 'Eurostriker' project. The most likely of those (however mistaken I personally feel it to be) is the Typhoon GR3 option.

However the fact that the Typhoon exists at all when, for a very long time, the F-18L looked like being the most likely new RAF fighter at a time when the BAe ACA was just a drawing, might be a cause for some optimism that BAE and EADS can get their collective act together on this one. After all Italy and Germany will also want to replace their Tornadoes as well as France's Mirage 2000N so the chance is there if only our industry will take it.

[edit on 25-4-2005 by waynos]



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
It Would be nice to see the FB22 produced because of its Standoff launcher and speed, aerodynamics, etc. They Found a good way to make up for a small Ground attack payload with the Standoff. But i doubt it will be produced because of the money situation. we cant even produce 300 F-22's yet were going to try and make a bomber out of it.You can thank bush for our money problems.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   

we cant even produce 300 F-22's yet were going to try and make a bomber out of it.You can thank bush for our money problems.


WTF get your facts straight, the official approved number of Raptors to get produced is 339. And you want to blame Bush for not having money for the military? He raised the DOD budget by 200B since he has been in office.

I too agree a F/B-22 would be a nice strike future bomber, but I do like some of those pictures about how some of the British FOAS looked.


[edit on 25-4-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by phantompatriot
But i doubt it will be produced because of the money situation. we cant even produce 300 F-22's yet were going to try and make a bomber out of it.You can thank bush for our money problems.


Oh yeah, Bush nearly DOUBLES the DoD budget and thats why we can't afford it


The fact is we ARE getting more then 300, and the reason it costs so much are because of things added to it's requirement under CLINTON, not Bush.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man


Oh yeah, Bush nearly DOUBLES the DoD budget and thats why we can't afford it


The fact is we ARE getting more then 300, and the reason it costs so much are because of things added to it's requirement under CLINTON, not Bush.

y
But look where are the funds going - it's certainly not F-22, instead they are going to the corrupt non functionig programs like misile defense or they help to keep Haliburton before collapse.

Just because someone rises the budget doesn't mean it's better. I personally think during Clinton the military recieved more funds for high tech than toda.


RAB

posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Not sure the UK would select the FB22 way to expensive for this poor little place and I do not think the F35 has the range.

I also do not reallly think the Eurofighter is up to the job, hasn't got the range of the GR4. Personally think in the future the US and Europe will find it's self fighting smallish long distance wars against African or middle east countrys and as such the replacement for the GR4 needs long legs.

RAB



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   
It is indeed too expensive for us RAB, we don't even have all of our own scientists and great thinkers in this country to create our own competitive strike aircraft. I mean, most of them are abroad working on other projects including the "black" projects. I have a good friend of mine who worked for BAE, then was hired for secret work in holland, and was then hired by an unknown (to me) U.S. secret development program making 120,000$ a year. He told me he left because of the secrecy and pressure on his personal life. He now works as an insurance salesman in London, God knows why, he is only making 40K. And the typhoon or any other aircraft fighter or bomber will not hold up to what the U.S. has in its aresenal, I have been told about the use of Pulse detonation engines and the development of smart weapons capable of breaking down aircraft structure at the molecular level.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I would just like to bring to people`s attention the secret aircraft project the uk is working on called H.A.L.O. I think the uk has more up it`s sleeve than you think!



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Found some info on the H.A.L.O. and it looks interesting, but I still don't know if it is a stealth reconnaissance plane or a stealth fighter?



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Found some info on the H.A.L.O. and it looks interesting, but I still don't know if it is a stealth reconnaissance plane or a stealth fighter?


Found this on my travels -



BAe has been flying a small, unmanned low observable testbed from their "Skunk Works" operation at Warton for over a year. A number of "UFO" sightings around Warton and several Military Operating Areas have been obvious sightings of the HALO prototype. HALO reportedly stands for "High Agility Low Observable", while a source close to this joint US-UK program has reffered to it as "Hawk Low Observables". The aircraft's shape has been widely published as an anonymous design study in a number of BAe advertisments in trade journals, with a theme highlighting BAe innovations. HALO closely resembles several recent Lockheed designs for combat UAVs (such as pictured above), and more than one private source has noted that HALO is a joint program.


I offer no guarantees about the info, places and names look 'right'.

Also this - HALO link



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I think it is probably a recon aircraft. The word is that the tech was taken from the uk`s close work with the US on the f35 project(bae). And that it could have plasma stealth technolgy. Possible OFFICIAL completion date said to be around 2012. The same time that the UK TAKES DELIVERY OF THE F35! Interesting, hey?



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Just a quick thought. I don't have time to source this but I'm sure you can find info if you want to verify this.

Some references to "Hawk" when refering to Halo might possibly be confusing a Bae project which actually has been using the hawk aircraft as flown by the Red Arrows as a test bed for an optical stealth research project. I forget the details but it was something involving using an LED kind of coating on the aircraft to help the aircraft blend withit's environment.

This may be rubbish but I have seen a few sources mentioning this project, but nothing in depth or concrete. Anyone else heard of this or have I had too many beers this evening?



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
So now its unmanned? I think unmanned would make sense, but why so much secrecy on a UAV?




West Point, Out.


RAB

posted on May, 2 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I has to be said my view is bent in that, I personally think the UK could build a GR4 replacement all by it's self.

Take Bae systems a world leader in systems intreagtion and plane design, the repleca the hawk etc etc. I'm sure between the people at DERA, Kinetic, the MOD and BAE I'm sure they could build a very respectable GR4 replacement.

RAB



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Would it really be that difficult to make the typhoon or any FBW aircraft into a UCAV? All you have to due is add another two computers or so some better coms and interface directly with the FBW and ordinance systems surely?



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infidellic
Would it really be that difficult to make the typhoon or any FBW aircraft into a UCAV? All you have to due is add another two computers or so some better coms and interface directly with the FBW and ordinance systems surely?


Typhoon is too expensive to be converted to the UCAV (remeber the main UCAV advantage is that they are cheap) besides it has not the best range for tactcal bomber (the UCAV UK needs).



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by RAB
I has to be said my view is bent in that, I personally think the UK could build a GR4 replacement all by it's self.

Take Bae systems a world leader in systems intreagtion and plane design, the repleca the hawk etc etc. I'm sure between the people at DERA, Kinetic, the MOD and BAE I'm sure they could build a very respectable GR4 replacement.

RAB


this might be picky but DERA and Qinetiq are the same thing (DERA become Qinetiq [and DSTL] when they were privatised)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join