BAE Replica

hi, ive read in past threads & on the net about BAE's project called 'replica' which features BAE making a stealth like aircraft similar to the (f-117 & b-2) for the UK.

www.spyflight.co.uk...

is this project also called 'nightjar?' or is that a totally different project?

well i think it deserves a new thread, so just wondering if this is still in the making? and if anyone has heard any news?

later



[edit on 16-3-2006 by st3ve_o]

Replica was an idea for FOAS , and a manned concept as well. BUT FOAS has now finished and they are looking at vcav`s.

st3ve_o


From what I know(and that aint alot:lol night jar is not Replica ,I believe it is a differant project entirely Replica progrmme to the best of my knowledge
ending in 99.

Last year the MOD joined the Pentagon's Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems program, and probably the nightjar project will play some part in that ,either to provede leverage with the americans or as part of a joint developement.

I can't prove it as i can't remember the source but i seem to recall tht this project is supposed to be benefiting from the chameleon project where digital camofluage was fitted on a Hawk trainer, so that might be a good place to start a googl search mate

[edit on 16-3-2006 by buckaroo]

That project is, as far as I know, over, Britain cancelled it's manned fighter programs, to focus on unmanned vehicles.

Britain joined the US in the J-UCAS program, and "Project Churchill", which goal is to determine the cost-effectiveness of UCAV concepts operating in a US/UK coalition warfare environment.
The MoD is currently working on the Raven and Corax UCAV programs.

[edit on 3-16-2006 by Zion Mainframe]

Originally posted by st3ve_o
hi, ive read in past threads & on the net about BAE's project called 'replica' which features BAE making a stealth like aircraft similar to the (f-117 & b-2) for the UK.

Like an f-117 or a B-2. Not a chance. Nothing personal but america wouldnt help us and we would need huge amounts of money that we dont have.

Justin

Wasn't this the same basic aircraft that was presented by BAE and Northrop Grumman for the JSF competition, but that lost on the second round?

Carcharodan makes a very good point. The BAe Replica looked like this:


The connection between it and BAe's work on the McDonnell Douglas (/BAe) JFS proposal is obvious:

Originally posted by justin_barton3

Like an f-117 or a B-2. Not a chance. Nothing personal but america wouldnt help us and we would need huge amounts of money that we dont have.

Justin

that was the whole basis of the project, to provide a cheaper version hence the name 'replica'.

you say america wouldn't help us? - what does BAE's projects have to do with america??


[edit on 16-3-2006 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by st3ve_o
you say america wouldn't help us? - what does BAE's projects have to do with america??

B-2 and f-117 are american and if we are copying an american design it would make sense to ask for help from the americans.

Justin

Just one thing, 'Replica' is merely a code name for the project and doesn't refer to anything in particular, and certainly not to its being a replica of anything else.

Replica, or at least that aircraft in the thread starters photo, was a concept design by BAE to develop a fully stealthy aircraft independant from any foreign input in order to prove to the US that the UK could develop the technology on their own, and this was a prerequisite to entry into partnership for the JSF program.

It was never meant to fly, it was merely meant to prove that stealth wasnt a technology the US would be giving away in the partnership, as BAE was to be a major contractor which is unusual for US defence programmes.

Replica, or Testbed as it was known in the MoD, was designed “to develop a UK capability to provide a survivable, affordable and supportable air platform to meet perceived Royal Air Force and Royal Navy requirements beyond current programmes.”

The mockup demonstrated shaping, materials and manufacturing techniques required to produce an LO air vehicle. It also demonstrated these in an airframe that was highly representative of an actual combat aircraft which included details such as an internal weapons bay, radome, cockpit, etc. As it was developed as part of the Future Offensive Aircraft programme which had the aim of procuring a Tornado replacement the vehicle itself has a bias towards a strike role.

While the MDA, NGC, BAe JAST proposal and Replica certainly do look alike on the surface they are not related in any real way. BAe began work on both at the same time (1994) and probably used the information from both in each design but the two are not carbon copies of each other, details such as the tail, engine layout, cockpit, degree of wing sweep etc are different.

Some reports suggest that Replica was used to gain a more favourable position with LM in the JSF project but this was not an official aim. Stealth technology was not a major sticking point with the US; agreements were in place that allowed the two countries to share related information so it was not used to prove anything to the US.

After 1996 the MoD began moving away from the idea of a new manned aircraft for its Tornado replacement and began looking at CALCMs and UCAVs in addition to current and/or future manned aircraft. Despite this, work continued on Replica/Testbed until its successful conclusion in 1999. An unmanned version of the concept was also studied after 1996.

I think the pictures on the following links may be these studies but that’s just a guess.

www.qinetiq.com...

www.qinetiq.com...

Edit - Forgot to say, Nightjar is a reconfigurable mockup based on an egg shaped testbody. It followed on from Replica in 2000 with Nightjar I, we're now on Nightjar II which will end in October this year.



[edit on 17-3-2006 by Mike_A]

Originally posted by Mike_A

I think the pictures on the following links may be these studies but that’s just a guess.

www.qinetiq.com...

lol. The link says "Windflow on a UAV model"... nice cockpit...

[edit on 17-3-2006 by planeman]

Don't forget that the Global Hawk looks as though it has a cockpit when it's in silhouette, as does the X-47A but of course they don't.

It could just be a hump accommodating a data link or radar, who knows?

Don't forget that the Global Hawk looks as though it has a ####### when it's in silhouette, as does the X-47A but of course they don't.

It could just be a #### accommodating a data link or radar, who knows?

Maybe but if i was shown that picture and didnt know that it was a UAV then i would put large amounts of money on it being a manned plane.

Justin

I agree, it isn't the same as the hump on the front of the Global Hawk at all and clearly seems to represent a cokpit due to its double curvature at the sides. Blisters like that for avionics are always an afterthought to a design (like the hump on the back of late model A-4's and the Jaguar) The don't tend to appear on design models, especially if one of the aims is LO.


PS Did you censor 'hump' and 'cockpit' yourself?

[edit on 18-3-2006 by waynos]

What do you mean they don't tend to appear on design models? They do if there're meant to be there from the start. If this is the unmanned development of the Replica design then the are that was previously the cockpit is a prime area to place additional avionics hence it looks like there is a cockpit there but there is no reason to believe that it is a cockpit (and hence a mislabelled manned aircraft model).

But there is reason to think this. If the cockpit area is to be given over to systems in a UAV version *at the design stage* and one of the aims is LO (and even if it isn't) then the internals would simply be arranged to fit inside a flat contoured nose, if this was not possible it would be perfectly simple to recontour the nose slightly to accomodate them while leaving a smooth unbroken upper surface, this is basic and obvious design, nothing difficult or complicated, what would be unnecessary and 'spoiling the ship for a ha'peth of tar' would be to accomodate these sysytrems under a 'blister'.

If you are talking about a conversion of an existing manned aircraft then yes, the canopy shape would be left unaltered, but this is not the case here, I think the image was mis-labelled. Whether it was deliberate or simply an error by the site editor I could only guess, but the model definitely shows a cockpit profile. The narrow beam simply screams 'pilot accomodation' in a way no other UAV does, even Global Hawk looks completely different in the way it is blended into the entire width of the fuselage.






[edit on 18-3-2006 by waynos]

the whole plane looks like a manned plane not just the #######.

Justin

I disagree, we don't know anything about the size, configuration or payloads of the UAV, there could be ample reason to have a cockpit like blister, more so if the UAV is based on a conventional design. Without knowing more details I don't think you can say so difinativley.

Also I don't think it's been mislabled as the same concept appears elsewhere on the site and is also refered to as a UAV.