Will this be the future of air systems? Based BAE showing Lockheed and Boeing how it's done

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL#NASA_testing

?

A pilot inside has a series of tubes located near his face. When he wants to turn in one direction, he selects the correct tube and blows really hard into it.

It redirects air

Basically on air
>t.aerospace engunier

It will be canceled in 2020

Implying NASA isn't a vidyagame.
that phoney moon landing should've tipped you off.
I've seen more convinging graphics on a ps vita

The good thing about propellant based manuvering is that it would work in space.

Using air doesn't like a good idea a good idea for anything than moderate changes of direction.

In high AoA maneuvers you will run out of flow pretty fast.

That's a bad idea just for the fact alone because you are losing fuel capacities

>I was merely pretending to be retarded

Thrust vectoring control usually only works well at lower speeds.
Control surface forces scale with dynamic pressure whereas thrust vectoring is limited to engine thrust.
There is also the problem of a complete loss of control should the engine fail.

This stuff is good for cheap drones but that's about it.

Now now, he might just be a real one

Based off blown flaps, and the Demon prototype: Take engine, bleed relatively small quantities of high pressure air from it's exhaust, let compressed air blast out of holes near the edge of wings which in turn changes the drag and lift profile of the surface, do at the front of a wing and it's like it's got massive flaps, do it at the back it acts like an aerilon, do it at the tips of the wings it or along the body it acts like a rudder, do it at the nose it behaves as an airbrake, do it near the tail it acts like an elevator, do it near the exhaust itself it provides thrust vectoring.
And all of it adds no weight to the plane. Bigger question is how hard it is to maintain. If it's fairly easy to remove the tubing and replace/clean on a bespoke fashion it'll be better than having large mechanical systems, if it's a nightmare to remove and clean then it's worse than just using flaperons or something

That's a different thing, those holes are for air intake. Similarly it's not like the Harrier's reaction control system where they took air from the engine and shot it out of nozzles on the wing tips to act as direct thrust for manuevering in hover (when wind going over control surfaces isn't much use in controlling the plane). This is more like wing warping, but without actually physically changing the wing shape.

Attached: The-Demon-UAV.jpg (580x270, 87K)

So it bleeds air from the bypass and uses it to modify airflow in a way analogous to a control surface? That’s really neat. I’m assuming you’d lose your control authority if you lost engine power, though. That seems a bit sketchy for any kind of manned aircraft if they choose to implement a system like that on them.

So what's the point of your post then if the outcome of having a new jet is the same?

Yeah but the thing with drones is you CAN lose them, so building them around something that makes them better able to survive in hostile airspaces sort of works out, maybe. Though by the look of the picture they're still keeping conventional control surfaces on them as a backup control scheme, so use the "virtual" air-blown control surfaces to maintain stealth and conventional surfaces for engine failure or when you need more power from the engines like during takeoffs.

The blown air is described as being supersonic but we have very few details at this stage.

I’m assuming they’re not adding any means to accelerate it after bleeding it from the bypass. Can you get supersonic flow by simply narrowing the cross-section of the pipe?
t. hasn’t studied fluids

The Trailing edge of Mgma has a lot of similarities with the concept model of Tempest we've seen.

Would be naive to assume that BAE is developing new technologies like this in isolation to a next generation product it is hoping to make a success of. The BAE youtube channel has a lot of interesting content. The video of the flight is here:

youtube.com/watch?v=-WP40eL-xS4

Notice the tail has a NATO logo on it.

In addition to this if you go back a few years there are various videos showing future technologies that BAE are investigating. some pretty sci-fi stuff like self repair and lasers to alter atmospheric conditions to improve sensor performance. Hypersonic bombers with SABRE engines youtube.com/watch?v=cInXWApcbew then more near term stuff like uav's with alternate between fixed and rotary wing.

forgot pic

Attached: http___com.ft.imagepublish.upp-prod-eu.s3.amazonaws.png (700x643, 127K)

>self repair

U wot

This video collects some of the older concepts from 2014. The self repair is the 2nd clip but it is also covered onboard 3d printing later on.

youtube.com/watch?v=NatM3_7nQq0

Interesting to note the similarities between the aircraft in these videos and tempest.

>on board 3D printing
That sounds more like fitting every buzzword-worthy emerging technology into an airframe than any sort of serious idea.

Lol I did a report on this back in college, it seemed more like an English college pet project that BAE sponsored back then it's good to see bae has moved forward with the design.

people said the same about lasers. just takes time.

Yeah, but the benefits of lasers are readily apparent. I can’t see an on-board 3D printer doing anything particularly useful other than taking up mass. Best I can tell, there’s zero means of printing anything fast enough to fix a problem that would otherwise require landing or ejecting.

The UK actually had a manned test aircraft using this principle in the 60's en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting_H.126

it's on display at RAF Cosford which is my 2nd favourite air museum after IWM Duxford and before the Fleet Air Arm museum at Yeovilton.

Attached: Hunting_H.126.jpg (1024x662, 576K)

So way ahead they don't know who's going to buy it

Yet the companies building it - BAE, MBDA, Leonardo all see more chance of success with the UK.

When Spain joined FCAS they mentioned that Denmark and Italy were already working with the UK. Sweden, India and Japan have all expressed public interest. Boeing has also said it want's to seek involvement.

There won't be room for any more companies/countries joining until the current development stage is completed in 2020 so there won't be more news until then.

lol @ u

>Denmark and Italy were already working with the UK
Too bad neither of those have actually confirmed what is for now just a rumor

Too bad that those rumours are coming from government, defence think tanks and defence companies.

If your brain requires everything to have a source and a fact that you can regurgitate then you should stick to history and leave the hard work of analysis and prediction to people with the brain power to handle it.

I guess Denmark and Italy are too busy to announce their presence in the program?

Attached: wtf_pics-death-of-a-clown.jpg (413x500, 126K)

Seriously. I want the Tempest to succeed just so there’s another country than the US and China that can actually produce a 5th gen aircraft, but all of the evidence this guy is providing is basically speculation.

What makes you think every defence cooperation gets a press release? Team Tempest existed for at least a year before the public were told.

As i said, before anything more is announced tempest needs to Finnish it's current design stage. At that point the aircraft requirements and specifications will have been outlined (this has already been done, FCAS has not done this) and the general design of the digital prototype and systems to be integrated will be completed.

That's where the project is funded up to.

At that point more partners can join and contribute money in exchange of benefits - features - workshare - priority etc. Then the physical prototype is designed and flies somewhere around 2025 with in ISD of 2035-2040

>What makes you think every defence cooperation gets a press release?
Because it's in their interest to get more people on board. As it stands, the Tempest will have to rely on foreign contracts to make a profit, even if it will actually be built

>Because it's in their interest to get more people on board.

And what makes you think that interest has to be in the public eye? Team Tempest has already been to India in February.

>As it stands, the Tempest will have to rely on foreign contracts to make a profit, even if it will actually be built

I'm sure you have financial information to back that up and not just your own opinion.

>As it stands, the Tempest will have to rely on foreign contracts to make a profit, even if it will actually be built
This is based of what exactly?

>And what makes you think that interest has to be in the public eye? Team Tempest has already been to India in February.
Considering that the public eye votes those politicians into power yes. There is also no reason to hide it from the public, we don't know anything about it yet
>I'm sure you have financial information to back that up and not just your own opinion.
Surely the UK will buy so many Tempests to decrease the cost per unit, more than France+Germany+Spain+probably half the EU combined with the FCAS?

nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2018/9/12/foreign-partnerships-expected-for-new-uk-fighter-project
I'm sure with Brexit looming the first thing in the mind of the UK will be to develop a 6th generation jet (alone) and then buy a huge amount of units to make it economically feasible

>Surely the UK will buy so many Tempests to decrease the cost per unit, more than France+Germany+Spain+probably half the EU combined with the FCAS?

Ah suddenly it becomes clear that you don't have a clue how defence procurement works.

Do you think the US is going to see a profit from the F35 program?

Do you think Lockheed will see a profit from F35?

If you have any idea about defence procurement then you will know why those answers are different and therefore you should know that the UK isn't doing this to make a profitable business decision.

Ah, so you don't know then.

So the US doesn't care if people are buying the F35, and cost per unit isn't going down thanks to economies of scale?

Have you at least read the article?

I have and it doesn't support what you've asserted.

>“Value for money in acquisition is heavily dependent on program volume to offset upfront investment in research and development,”
>The effort is more likely to be a European project, he said. “What they’re going to want in a partnership with a nation is economies of scale in production and unit price, and they’re going to want guaranteed orders beyond just the RAF.”

>So the US doesn't care if people are buying the F35

The US certainly does care, but not because it's going to see any money out of the $1.5 trillion F35 is costing. Because it's going to cost them less money in the long run.

Defence projects are pretty much never profitable for countries. They are almost always profitable for companies. A country spends the money and the company stays in business longer and gets to employ more people.

If a project goes bad the country loses the project and the money - the company has to give up it's work but almost never has to hand back the money - unless it's fucked something up massively which is rarely the case.

You'll agree, even if it isn't profitable, that it is much better to spend less money if you're able to get the same product for less. Now, the US has a massive military and R&D budget, much more than any other country. How could a single European country, in a particularly uncertain spot of its history, not only develop a cutting edge fighter (for the moment completely alone), but also buy enough units to make it economically sensible? Especially with a competitor that will already be bought by 3 countries, 2 of which are the first and second major EU economies?

>You'll agree, even if it isn't profitable, that it is much better to spend less money if you're able to get the same product for less.

Which is why the UK is talking to countries about joining. literally no one is saying the UK is going to do this on it's own - although if it wanted to (it doesn't) it could.

And quote that quote doesn't support
>As it stands, the Tempest will have to rely on foreign contracts to make a profit, even if it will actually be built
You are confusing between what an optimal choice is and being dependent.

>Which is why the UK is talking to countries about joining
My point was that no-one did so far. If it happens good for them, but for now it's just risky imo
>although if it wanted to (it doesn't) it could.
That's very debatable
>You are confusing between what an optimal choice is and being dependent.
Do you think the UK alone will buy more 6th gen jets than Germany, France, and Spain combined?

>That's very debatable

If we're going to spend £177bn on trident's replacement in the next few decades i'm sure we can manage to spend £15-30bn over 10 years to develop a fighter. (the UK's annual budget is about £777bn)

By using the F35 model where the UK is in the driving sea rather than the Tornado/Typhoon consortium model we can reduce costs and get exactly the type of aircraft we want - a requirement that is met by a large number of nations with a similar timescale.

>You'll agree, even if it isn't profitable, that it is much better to spend less money if you're able to get the same product for less.
Not really, as that 'price' or 'cost' doesn't include the value generated by domestic designing or building.
>How could a single European country, in a particularly uncertain spot of its history, not only develop a cutting edge fighter (for the moment completely alone),
Because it has one of the largest aerospace industry in the world and is one of the biggest military spenders.
>Especially with a competitor that will already be bought by 3 countries, 2 of which are the first and second major EU economies?
Because they mutually benefit off each other.

>That's very debatable
How?
>Do you think the UK alone will buy more 6th gen jets than Germany, France, and Spain combined?
So I take it that you cannot support
>As it stands, the Tempest will have to rely on foreign contracts to make a profit, even if it will actually be built
Then?

It's not nearly as implessive as quantum derived hypo-scrotal guided gliding long dong 98 anti capitalist evissoration missile as used by peaceful PLA though.

Sounds like topgun 2

This is true. My fellow westerners would do well to remember such things.

Dead on arrival
ft.com/content/5d3bff26-ac55-11e8-94bd-cba20d67390c

Paywall.

You could also use it as a supplement to existing powered control surfaces, use minimal light weight conventional surfaces, you save less weight and mechanical complexity but still some, or possibly have some beefy auxiliary powerpacks which can spin up the engine and keep it going for just like a minute or something to give you a chance to regain control.
Having a 3D printer manufacture entire new components onboard is fucking retarded, but you could incorporate self-healing alloys and composites in an aircraft. Basically during the manufacturing process a material is saturated with microbeads of two compounds that when they come together form a tough cement, ideally with properties similar to the material they are embedded in. Under wear metal (like airframe struts and skins) develops microfractures that can turn into larger cracks, however when saturated with microbeads of cement these cracks can get filled in as they form, greatly prolonging the life of the material and even in some cases allowing pieces which would normally come completely apart to remain stuck together by the cement leaking out of them.

Amusingly your article says nothing of the sort. Not that you know since you can't get behind the paywall and you hoped no one would look past the headline.

“The UK could theoretically choose to fund both a new combat aircraft through team Tempest and a full 138 F-35 order but it would require a significant increase in the defence budget, or major capability cuts elsewhere.”

>>on board 3D printing
>peaceful PLA
PLA is for chink zoomers, chad boomers go ABS all the way, dangerous fumes for everyone!
(yes, this is a joke about 3d printing)

Which one? Were all of the landings faked? By all 20 something astronauts who went?
Were the Soviets in on the fakery with their radar confirmations and directional radio tracking?
And is the conspiracy still going on? They just took pics of the landing site you can still see the footprints.

Just curious as to how you tards explain all this.

>Can you get supersonic flow by simply narrowing the cross-section of the pipe?
No. Generally, as fuild flow approaches the speed of sound in that fluid it begins cavitating.

I can though, but you already quoted the bit that kills this aborted bong enterprise

except it does nothing of the sort

t. worried BAE System shareholder

Interesting