i.e.-sure, the F-16 can jettison fuel, and bombs to get ready for WVR combat, but…that results in A- a mission kill and B-losing persistence.
you are telling us, that a F-35 combat pilot in a mission would not drop its a2g ordinance? that a F-35 would still achieve all of its maneuvering capability and performance with its a2g ordinance strapped in.
i.e.The fact that you’re inferring that, from my statement doesn’t constitute evidence of a reversal. At no point in that statement did I specify any particular requirements/specs/trade offs. I was pointing out that those that cite examples of planes carrying external ordinance, as evidence that there must be no trade off, are being disengenuous.
I am pretty sure that the discussion was limited to total level flight drag F35 vs F-16. so ” as evidence that there must be no trade off,” is bit disingenuous.
Is it true to the fact that you said others are smoking dope when other said F-16 external load may have less drag than F-35 carrying internal load.
while you yourself concede to the very same possibility.
anyways. the fact that you understand now that there is a “tradeoff” but not oneway street indicate that this is a beneficial discussion. 😀
i.e.Song’s paper on high lift fighter configuration states that “future fighter” would have a longitudinal static margin in the magnitude of (negative) 10% of mean chord. Considering payload variation, a static margin between 15% to -10% is appropriate for modelling.
fighters variation usually is not that big.
but consider that he also cautioned against having such a high negative static margin in the same paper,citing reason such as control power could be problmatic.
The first J-10 had a static margin around 0%-5%.which was considered typical.
practical side,
typically when you design control law closing loops around the mainly pitchrate to provide artificial stability. theoretically everything is fine and dandy. but practically the demand for sensor, actuator performance and control power goes up when your static margin goes too negative. also you would get some difficulty in preserve your loop stability margins.
i.e.Actually the aircraft shape and quality of surfaces looks very good! Way better than those on the T-50-1. Have you notices that the diameter of the engine ducts is decreasing until the exhausts? Looks like larger diameter engines could be retrofitted.
yeah I was thinking of same thing. the engine look undersized.
also,
by all “chatter” information this is a modified WS-10 series engine. F135 class WS-15 is due to be in couple of years later into the flight test program.
i.e.What the hell are you talking about?
Global Commitments, let me explain again:
.
in a single conflict:
sortie rates mate. sortie rates.
global comitments doesn’t mean parcel out your resources to deal with everyone at same time. USAF is still built to do big battles with big adversaries. so sortie rates matter. which goes back to my original point, Europe better-off in long run to man up and build a 5/6-gen fighter. even initially it is substantially less capable than f-35′ geewiz. optimize for air defense role, and sell them in bulk to whoever got cash.
save industry, save experties. save $$$. rather than to buy F-35 to hual bombs for USAF but find your self couldn’t keep up with PAK-FA on airdefence missions.
europe got good things going. replica was a good program. it’s got good AESA system going compare to r.o.w. good engine research. good missiles, and you would need the same type of tech anyways when you dive full into ucavs anyways.
…
rest of your stuff, imho, is fluff. 😀
i.e.No position shift. I said that unless we know what the requirements/priorities were, it’s difficult to say the reasoning behind one trade off vs another.
AH.
So without going into details, you are conceding the fact that a F-35 carrying a ordinance inside could be draggier than similarly configured fighter carrying ordinance outside?
let me remind you what said previously:
Than an F-16 with a comparable load? You all are smoking some good dope.
to Amiga500’s assertion that:
I cannot give you numbers, but the substantially lower frontal area of the F-16 will mean a significantly lower zero lift drag coefficient.
and now you are saying
“it’s difficult to say the reasoning behind one trade off vs another”.
Just tell me, how is accusing others of smoking dope when some assertion is made when at later time you admit that “it is difficult to say”…
not a shift position. 😀
apparently “it wasn’t difficult” for you tp say he was smoking dope. 😀
i.e.If I can’t even spot the joints on control surfaces, it’s very unlikely I can spot weapon bay joint/slot on the same photo right? Regarding photo quality and/or engineering level.
It would be interesting to see some closeup shots where it’s gears are up.
if we can’t see the gear doors by the same logic those stupid chinese forgot to put in gears :diablo:
anyways. I know in recent years the volume of materials research paper originating from china is huge. so it wouldn’t surprise me if they had some proprietary stuff.
more likely it is a grainy photo issue though.
But again I see your logic.
i.e.actually for strike platforms.
with out LO considerations.
If I remember correctly,
drag wise, smaller the empty store full fuel weight, and smaller the volme, higher the store-to-empty weight ratio, the trade will usually tend to trade to extenal carriage.
as platform size gets larger, the trade tend to go for internal carriage more and more.
this is a rather simplistic way of lookng at things ofcourse.
i may be full of s**t who knows.
😉
i.e.Yes but this was the requirements back in the good old days.
But not to day.
When Pak-Da eventually turn up, its internal W-bays all along just as the Tu-22M2/95/160, F-117/B1/B2.
Thats for the Bombers..Strikers on the other hand, F-15E, F-16, Su-30, Su-24M3, Su-34 etc etc will do just fine without any internal W-bays for the next decade or two.
Aircraft still has to be affordeble to procure and operate you know.
my point is that back the days when Su-24/ Tornado/ F-111 these dedicated strike platforms were designed with the aerodynamic tool that are not that different from today. they can estimate the drag penalty tradeoff associated with internal carriage/bigger wetted area vs external carriage with about the same level accuracy that we have today.
our friends here in the forums think that external carriage is always draggier than more wetted area of internal carrage. thus the trade off always went to the internal carriage. I merely asked why does he think that is the case, necessarily.
i.e.I’m not sure the prototype has an IRST installed yet. There are no obvious fairings. CAC already has a new domestic IRST that they are testing on the J10B (the J10B is said to use much of the avionics designed for the J20, and this was done so to help speed up J20 development work), my guess is that they are still working on a ‘stealthy’ way to mount it on the airframe, so they decided not to just slap a regular IRST on for the sake of having one.
At this stage, they are probably much more interested in testing just how stealthy the J20 is in real world conditions.
The would likely have reserved space for things like IRST and IFR probes, but these are low priority items and probably won’t be fitted until the pre-production batch.
look closely at the nose they already had a pretty large diamond cooling vents on the side of the nose. and that was carefully patched up with mesh. next to its airdata probes.
alot of avionics in there that generate alot of heat. radar.
I am not surprised if one day some IRST bulb start to pop up from the fueslage.
i.e.Of course different designs have varying trade offs, but without knowing the specifics of the requirements, it’s hard to say why one trade off was chosen vs another. There’s far more involved than merely saying “such and such aircraft does the following, therefore X must be the case/be the preferred technique.”
uh… isn’t you who insisted that internal loads are less-draggy than external loads therefore:
Why don’t bomber designers build very sleek aircraft, and then hang 50k lbs of bombs under the wings, along with EFTs? Which do you suppose would suffer a higher drag penalty?
I am intrigued by the 180 deg turn in position all of sudden. :rolleyes:
i.e.What IRST-solution have the Chinese designers chosed? Consealed in the frame like F-35, or carried externaly in some form of “stealthified” pod? (Yes I assume it has -or at least will have- an IRST of some sort).
I remember seeing a pic somewhere they had a HMDS in lab that is fairly similar to the one 35 has. may be they have integrated that into a DAS system close to what 35 has? donno.
i.e.It would be nice follow the rule. But everytime i see a flame-up of nationalistic tendencies of japan vs. china or vice versa, it reminds me a bit of Europe before WW2. A lot of bad emotions are around there…. Nanking massacre, etc.
Yeah the similarity right? Stealth fighter being the new dreadnaughts?
peace is always, always, always cheaper. and really there is nothing people can’t settle on negotiating tables that they can do in a war.
The pessimist side of me think that some sort of conflict may be un-avoidable, given the human nature, and the winner will be those who walk away from the brink. and when ashes settles, there will be a good peace, a generous and lasting peace.
the optimist side of me think that this will all blow over like the last winter snow in a long and hard spring, before the spring sun melts the last vestiages of last century away.
either way I like the old way of doing things: have your best warriors settle the difference one on one.
i.e.actually, Russia is part of the “east” and debateably more or less on par with the west.
much of the European part of the “west”, isn’t even superior to old china to begin with in terms of military might.
well, back in the late 60s early 70s china was boxed in from south east by Us and Soviets in North West. their J-6s and HQ-2s has no chance in hell to against what Soviet Union had to offer. and guess what there were peace.
on the part of eurpean military might, I think I am talking about technological superiority in general not total-war capability.
i.e.If anything, this is the new threat that the USAF has been dying for. They can justify expensive new programs now.
I highly doubt that.
as far as I can tell the whole project 718 for china has been relatively cheap and does not seem to require extrodinary fiscal measures. I doubt any new expensive toys in us can effectively put away any doubt of challenges to absolute superiority, rational people can clearly see that.
now, I am not sure every one is rational. but to maintain tech superiority vs FAKFA and J20, requires $$$ us don’t have and even it does choke up the money doubts would still be there.
may be I am wrong though, they can always dust off the foo-fighters they got in back then in rosewell right?
…
one can always go for quantity, since US is in the lead.
Sign In
