why the bell x-1 with weak thrust and very trapezium wing can even reach mach 2.44 while aircraft like f-35 , f-16 have much slower speed
how did the bell x-2 even reach mach 3.12 with it very low thrust engine and not very low drag profile compared to sr-71
Compare the relative weight of the engine (engine power / the weight of the engine = specific gravity).
XLR11: 27kN / 95 kg = 2770 kg / 95 kg = 29 kg / kg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Motors_XLR11
F135-PW-100: 19507 kg / 1701 kg = 11.5 kg / kg


All clear
Варианты боевой нагрузки самолета Як 38 при вертикальном взлете и варианте с коротким разбегом
Options payload Yak 38 with a vertical take-off and short-takeoff version
ВЕРТИКАЛЬНЫЙ ВЗЛЕТ
vertical takeoff
ВЗЛЕТ С КОРОТКИМ РАЗБЕГОМ
Take off with the short run
РАКЕТА Р-60М
The R-60M
БЛОК
BLOCK
РЕАКТИВНЫЙ СНАРЯД С-24Б
Rockets
АВИАБОМБА
aerobomb
ЗАЖИГАТЕЛЬНЫЙ БАК
Incendiary suspension tank
УПРАВЛЯЕМОЕ РАКЕТНОЕ ВООРУЖЕНИЕ
Guided missile WEAPONS
УПРАВЛЯЕМОЕ РЕАКТИВНОЕ ВООРУЖЕНИЕ
Control reactive WEAPONS
БОМБАРДИРОВОЧНОЕ ВООРУЖЕНИЕ
bomber ARMS
АРТИЛЛЕРИЙСКОЕ ВООРУЖЕНИЕ
Artillery weapons
РАКЕТА Р-60
The R-60
ПУШЕЧНЫЙ КОНТЕЙНЕР УПН-23-250
Gun pods UPN-23-250
РЕАКТИВНЫЙ СНАРЯД
missile
АВИАБОМБА
aerobomb
ПУШЕЧНЫЙ КОНТЕЙНЕР
gun pods
во-Первых, почему существуют два самолета в верхней части таблицы?
Почему он говорит:
1. вертикального взлета
2. короткого взлета
Знание языка не требуется. Google – переводчик, чтобы помочь вам 😉
http://translate.google.ru/

From the book “Modern fighters,” the price of these machines is not there, so they are approximate:
F-4 “Phantom”, which first flew in 1958, series of 1960, built 5195 pcs., The price of 3 – 5 $ million.
F-15 “Eagle”, the first flight in 1972, the series in 1974, was built in 1239 pcs., The price of 20 – 25 million $.
F-22 “Raptor”, which first flew in 1991, series 1997, built 183 units (or 381 units), the price of 137 – 220 million $.
And what does that mean? And the fact that the sixth-generation American fighter:
F-26 “…”, which first flew in 2017, series 2035, built 18 – 50., The price of 685 million – $ 1 billion 😀
This is the latest image from LM referencing a possible 6th Generation design
Low maneuverability. RCS about 0.2 square meters. In close air combat, fight super maneuverable fighter PAK FA / Su-35 or against highly maneuverable fighter F-22, can only with all-aspect short-range missiles.
19.8 m x 13.2 m 😎
The fuselage of the Su-27, MiG-29, F-14 or PAK FA has high lifting properties, through the tunnel between the engines. Maneuverability, range – better. RCS – worse. This design type as the fuselage F-16 provides ideal conditions for the engines.
The fuselage of the MiG-25/31, F-15, F-22 is better suited for the aircraft at supersonic cruising speed. Because it has a lower resistance to the speed of M> 1. Load-bearing properties of the fuselage below, maneuverability and range – is worse. RCS – better.
Beautiful plane – flies well! (Andrei Tupolev)
Born to crawl – can not fly! :p

All B-1Bs were delivered with RAM coating.
All F-15s delivered after 1990 have RAM coating.
All F-16s delivered after 1988 have RAM coating.
All F-18s delivered after 1991 have RAM coating.
Work on the creation of ship radar absorbing materials were started in the 50’s. At this time, developed radio-absorbing coating – “Tilt”, “Mail”, “leaf”, “The Shield.” However, the first generation of radar absorbing coatings (EPA) was not implemented in shipbuilding because of the large mass and size characteristics, and also due to the complex technology of fastening them to the protected ship structures. To create a new radar absorbing materials to attract a wider range of organizations of the Navy, and the Academy of Sciences, Ministry of Chemical Industry companies, Minneftehimproma, Mintsvetmeta, Ministry of Higher Education and Minsudproma. A great contribution to the studies made by scholars such as YM Patrakov, AP Petrenas, VV Kushelev, JD Donkov: they showed that the introduction of fiberglass semiconducting carbon fabrics gives it absorbing properties. In 1965 he received the first samples of solid absorbing uglestekloplastika, called “Wing”, from which the superstructure is made crew boat. Application of this material has reduced the reflected field vessel of 5-10. Thus was created the first practical radar absorbing material of construction.
For the widespread introduction of radio-absorbing coating on the ships needed a lightweight, thin, durable and resistant to harsh sea conditions. These requirements have left their imprint on the nature and direction of research in this area. In 1972-1974. YM Patrakova, RI Anglin, NB Bessonova, GI Byakin developed the first samples of thin absorbers (“Luck”, “screen”). In 1976, the first covering “Luck” set on one of the small anti-submarine ships. Results of field trials have shown that the coating of “Luck” to reduce the reflected signal of 5-10.
In parallel with the EPA “Luck” in the late 70’s a group of scientists under the direction of A. Alekseyev was developed and implemented full-scale tests of the magnetoelectric cover (“ferroelastic”). It was applied to the large anti-submarine ship. About the effectiveness of the coating is similar to EPA “Luck.” Further developing the third generation ship coatings related to the search for new and more effective fillers, improving application technology (“Lac-5M”), extended frequency response and increased absorption properties (“Lac-1 OM”), reduced weight and size parameters (“Litmus” ).
http://flot.com/science/sk1.htm?print=Y#СЗК
All Soviet ships from the mid-eighties were covered with radio absorbing materials 😎
BTW the engine of Jas-39 also fully masked cause it have only 1 engine and 2 intake
Radio absorb the material? Hidden motor fan? We are talking about the JAS-39? 😮
I want to ask a question, explained to me why greatly reduced RCS aircraft if it has no internal bays? One pylon arms RCS is about 1 square meter! JAS-39 – 7 pylons 😉
still doesn’t explain why it 10000 bigger than what US government say :confused: , and also different to what Gripen producer say :confused::confused:
Advertizing is the engine of commerce…
RCS JAS-39 0.1 square meter?
So the MiG-21 even less! Fully shielded motor fan. As you know, canards has a large ESR. Protruding antenna on the fin, also degrade stealth. 😉


It seems that we do not understand each other. Translator?
Can you imagine what size the B-2?
there are thousand kinds of cruise missiles which one you are talking about ???
H-55 (X-55), Granat, Tomahawk, ALCM, before they began to cover the absorbent

oh i just read it against , so the value is for fighter when they perform maneuverable :confused::confused::confused:
You have to choose: maneuverability 6 – 9 g or RCS less than 0.3 sq.m.
Fighter with low maneuverability and very low visibility (RCS < 0.3 sq.m.). Top position of the air intakes can not actively maneuver.
Russia and honest in the same sentence? Someone must’ve forgotton the Kursk debacle and the Moscow theatre seige. On both of those occasions the Russian military and government lied through their teeth in the full gaze of the international press. I’d reevaluate your thinking on the subject if I were in your shoes.
Politicians lie, always and everywhere, regardless of nationality. I talked about the technical data 😉
Sorry but your figures are worthless.
I do not think so. Calculated RCS Su-27 is identical to the real – 5 and 15 sqm Calculated RCS maneuverable fighter stealth with the data from the article Mikhail Pogosyan – 0.3 sq.m. Calculated RCS cruise missile without radioabsorb material coincide with the real data – 0.2 sq.m.
FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED PROBLEMS Stealth
http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/VRAN/03_10/STELLS.HTM