wrightwingI’ve heard that lockheed and other US manufacturers went after all the former MBB/Rockwell/Whatever engineers who would have experience on delta canard and went through all of their work, and then concluded that it was worthless in comparison to the normal layout.
After all normal layout worked very well with the P51, which proceeded to win the war all by itself.
Nic
Ah yes, when facts get in the way of a good story, there’s always the comfort of hyperbole.
wrightwingI personally don’t need to discuss separate events. But let me sum it up:
– you said that Raptor only has been locked by an F-18F because it has disengaged prior to that. What exactly does it mean? That you only can place a pipper on an F-22 that is not maneuvring / not engaging? What is your explanation for that?
– if the above mentioned should be true, then what about the T-38 vs F-22 case? we got it on a video, for me personally the F-22 does not seem to be NOT engaged in a fight. Why does it lose, then?
NO, I said that the reason that the F-18 had gotten the F-22 in its sights, was because it violated the ROE. I said nothing about the circumstances involving the T-38.
wrightwingUS is not one entity. There are several companies competing against each other. From three canard designs, only one was completely new, made by Rockwell/MBB. Other two were reworked existing designs, one F-5E modified by Grumman and one F-15 modified by Dryden FRC. None of the aircraft was ever procured, produced in series or operated by any branch of armed forces..
Exactly what experience with canards has Lockheed, for example? Maybe some expertise from Lavi project, that’s all.
Oh, I dunno- perhaps seeing as how some of these companies have either merged, or aren’t in existence any longer, their engineers went to where the work is. I’m pretty sure that they didn’t destroy all of their research either.
wrightwingYou are right of course, but it’s not just black and white. As there’s quite alot of money involved in designing and producing a fighter jet, any country would prefer to go the safe route. That is, you go with what you know best. It’s undeniably so that the US are far more experienced with conventional designs than with canard/delta ones.
Operationally yes. That’s not to say that the US doesn’t also have a lot of experience with canard/delta designs, to the point of knowing that if X is the requirement, there are other designs that meet that requirement, that might just be better. Every design has some sort of trade off. It just depends on which trade offs that you’d rather have.
wrightwingPerhaps the configuration is undesirable for the US, but, for some reason, plenty of other countries found the delta/canard config quite desirable. And they have proven to work well, wouldn’t you agree?
Also, a design that was desirable when it was concieved, might due to changes in scenarios and threats quickly become undesirable. Would the F-104, Draken, Mirage etc be designed they way they were had the constructors known that high speed high altitude interception wasn’t realistic a few years after they came into service? Probably not, but, lessons were learned.
The point is that given the requirements for X, the engineers decided that the best way to achieve that goal was without canards. If there are different requirements, then perhaps canards are the way to go. To say that the reason was lack of experience, fear, etc… is just BS though(not saying that’s what you’re trying to say).
wrightwingDon’t flatter yourself. More like “is this person really worth my time?” Does it really make more sense to you that despite all their experience with canards, the US would choose to limit themselves just to be fashionable? Really?
Well it could always be argued that in the name of national pride, the US preferred intelligent design. 😎
wrightwingSure 🙂 Don’t let the facts spoil your little self-bragging round… 🙂
For the others who are more interested in naked truth, here the listing of all canard types, including experimental aircraft.
Control canard aircraft include J-10, Typhoon, Gripen, Su-30MKI/MKA/MKM, Su-33, Su-34, Su-35/37, Berkut, X-31, EAP, F-15 ACTIVE, X-29, MiG 1.44, Mitsubishi T-2 CCV, Rafale (close coupled control type)
Cheetah, Kfir, JA37 Viggen, HiMAT, YF-4E PACT and Tu-144, too have close-coupled canards but fixed (or with landing flaps). Despite appearance, they are no canard-designs.
Sukhoi T-4, MiG E-8, XB-70 Valkyrie or J-9 only have lifting canards, that means fixed surfaces for creation of additional lift. Similar surfaces can be found on Mirage IIIS, Mirage IIING or Mirage 2000 (strakes).
The purpose of canards on YF-16/CCV/AFTI escapes me, looks like ventral fins, can anyone shed more light into this?
That means:
China: 1
Japan: 1
Israel: 1
EU: 4+1 (X-31)
USA: 2+1 (X-31)
Russia: roughly 5 or 6 (depending on how we take the Su-30 and Su-33)
Su-30MKI/MKA/MKM, Su-33, Su-34, Su-35/37- These are all more or less Flankers no? That would be akin to saying that F-15A/B/C/D/E were 5 distinct designs.
wrightwingFlown and tested, but with no operational experience. Sweden for example has over 40 years of operational experience with canards. One of the reasons the Gripen ended up with a delta/canard configuration is because Saab had more experience here than with supersonic tail designs.
I’m certain the US is fully capable of developing and producing a fully operational delta/canard design. But in the end they went with the more familiar tail arrangement.
However, As we are dealing with human beings here it can be just a matter of national pride. Meaning “everyone else has canards, so we must be different”?
If in the testing stage, it is decided that a design is undesirable, why the heck would you make an operational version, in order to get more experience with it? That’s the very definition of counterintuitive.
wrightwingDisengaged? You mean the one that got locked by T-38? How do you know?
Let’s stick to one event at a time. The event in question was with the Super Hornet, not the T-38.
wrightwingiranian AF official claim that F-14 fleet being retrofit with “home made radar and engine”.
surely he mean russian radar and engine.
back in late 90’s janes defense weekly reported that,there’s a deal between tehran and moscow to upgrade phantom jet and F-14.
You have to remember who the target audience is, when those statements are made.
wrightwingI think we are debating past one another. People are only contesting the claim that a weapon system be it a gun or an IR guided training round cannot be placed on an F22.
For that Wrightwing answers the F 18/T 38 cannot possibly have the F 22 on its sights if they do not break the ROE. Well we hardly care, Simply answer
1. Can an IR seeker acquire an F 22 ?
2. Can you point the guns on the thing (like the T38 pilot is doing),
For the point of that exercise, the F-22 had already disengaged, so having it in his sights at that point didn’t really have relevance.
In the exercise with the RAAF pilot, he was unable to put a weapon system on the F-22. In the exercise with the Rafale, that pilot was unable to get the F-22 in his sights. I think the focus here is should be that it’s very hard to get an F-22 in one’s sights, rather than argue if it’s impossible to or not. Obviously under very narrow conditions it is possible. The question is how many times can one repeat that feat(regularly, occasionally, or only if the Raptor pilot makes a series of blunders)?
wrightwingWHAT?!?!
XXXXXXXXXXX
The jet plume is at a delta of over 500 degK to ambient. What the hell is a paint coating gonna do for that?
(Unless you actually think an IR missile locks onto the aircraft, and not the thermal centroid behind the aircraft?!?!)
Ever since all aspect IR missiles came about, they’ve been able to detect the heat from the aircraft itself, rather than having to be fired from the rear aspect. Unless the Raptor is using its afterburners, you’re not going to see a jet plume.
wrightwingRCS; I agree.
Situational awareness; I am not so sure if the difference will be that big if the Eurocanards get their updates in the future. We should not compare F-35 with e.g. Rafale F3 or the latest Typhoon but whatever they will have in 2016. The F-35 will still have an edge also in situational awareness, but it may be smaller than what some people like to think…
I haven’t heard any mention of the Rafale/Typhoon/etc… putting in the IR cameras, providing 360 degree coverage, and projecting the imagery on the pilot’s helmet display.
wrightwingHardly. They are not gonna face legacy designs forever. BTW, even some 4+ gen fighters are already approaching this standard. (Rafale)..
Not even the Rafale has anything like DAS, nor does any other 4+ gen fighter. It would also appear that the PAK FA doesn’t have an analogous system either. No 4+ gen fighter is approaching the RCS of the F-35, or level of situational awareness.
wrightwingI am not telling you he lied. I am telling you I didn’t like his ultimate stance allowing no exceptions. That makes his opinions highly biased and subjective.
If you ask me a question in a field I am good at, I can answer you in four/five versions, each having a different outcome, even if I am not directly lying. I can simply decide to highlight positives and withhold negatives (or vice versa)and persuade you to think what I want you to think.
Of course, unless you are comparably good in that area and can counter my arguments. I would love to have this Dozer guy crossed by few SHornet or Rafale jocks in direct verbal confrontation, you would wonder how many *meaningless* details would suddenly come out 🙂
Regardless of who all was involved in the discussion, the fact remains that the F-18 violated the rules of engagement.
Sign In
