Must be why they think an S-400 would be effective against it. :diablo: (BTW it’s common knowledge that it’s RCS is several orders of magnitude smaller than that.)

Its common knowledge that its optimum RCS is several orders of magnitudes better than that.

Its average from all azimuthal angles and over a range of radar wavelengths may well be in and around that.

.00001 sq m sounds VERY unrealistic to me..

Its probably right…. at one specific azimuthal angle and one specific radar wavelength.

However, taking an average of returns in dB over that specific angle would yield higher RCS values, and taking an average of returns over all the frontal hemisphere of the F-22 would return much higher values again.

The extent of the rise is unknown, and I have no basis to quantify it.

It is also a major structural upgrade – no dorsal airbrake, supposedly (although I can’t see it) bigger, wider chord fins, reinforced airframe with wider use of titanium alloys, TVC nozzles, external fuel tanks etc.

Thats what I thought – a major structural change, with much wider use of composites being part of a significant weight saving (I believe 25% reduction in empty weight has been posted on these forums before).

I would seriously doubt some of the structural changes can easily be retrofitted onto existing airframes… :confused:

There is the MSN037 of Fedex. How far did this frame get before cancellation?

They are talking of producing what… 10 next year? with 6 already made, thats 16 to deliver.

I figure that at around MSN020 – still some wayz short of 37.

I highly doubt that frame will ever have been started 🙂

The aircraft could be relatively cheap because it’d not need a radar – or perhaps have a small radar on a retractable pod for non-stealthy intercepts(?) –

Hmm, now that has given me an idea.

With the continued miniaturisation of computing power – would it be feasible to mount an AESA mini-awacs radar (like the Erieye) underneath the centre pylon of a fighter? [a relatively obsolete but big airframe like the F-4 would be ideal]

The feed would then be processed on board (perhaps on wing-pylon mounted processor units) and then data-linked to ground stations and surrounding fighters.

It would effectively become an airborne and mobile part of the GCI network.

Advantages are:

1. Cost compared to full AWACs system.

2. Survivability of a fighter carrying the pod is much greater than a dedicated aircraft.

3. More distribution of source sensors – better for detecting LO infiltrators.

Disadvantages:

1. Increased reliance on small computing

2. No onboard operators for tasking (although that can be done by GCI)

3. Inferior power compared to full blown AWACs.

Here is the next-gen work on swing wings… ‘morphing’ wings to be more accurate.

flightglobal

NextGen Aeronautics has completed the first autonomous flights of a morphing unmanned air vehicle. The MFX-2 technology demonstrator UAV is capable of independently varying wing area and sweep.

An articulating structure and flexible skin enables a 40% change in wing area, 73% change in span and 177% change in aspect ratio, says NextGen. Unlike conventional variable-geometry wings, morphing allows area and sweep to be varied independently to optimise the configuration for multiple flight regimes.

Unswept

Swept

Also, will the A350 design be refined anymore? I know they’ve just confirmed a composite fuselage, A380 nose, and reduced thrust, but none of those has a great impact on appearance, will those ugly wingtips be improved at all? Also, will the ‘XWB’ bit be dropped from the names?

What do you mean by refined? :confused:

By using composite wings, they can make the wing have a lower t/c while offsetting structural issues (the compromise between t/c and structural weight changes for the better) – but Boeing are doing the same on the Dreamliner. But that will be a fundamental part of the program.

I don’t really see the wingtips as ugly myself… :confused:

I do think the horizontal tail looks quite small in that ‘photo’ though.