Conceivably, fighters such as Rafale and Eurofighter could undertake a widespread retrofit of CNT RAM because their load bearing structures were designed from inception with CF composites in mind and they already had a large composite surface area, but there still remains the problems of external weapons loads not to mention no planform edge alignment.
So that’s –
1. Lack of internal payload
2. Absence of planform edge alignment
Aside from that, how else do the Eurocanards airframes differ from the PAKFA as far as RCS goes?
The F-15SE can only pay token homage to these solutions- the conformal bays can be made of this stuff and the tail fins have been canted outwards, but the vast majority of its post production RAM treatments Boeing will be forced to adopt, will date from the previous generation. This is why marketing the SE as anything other than ‘RCS reduced’ hasn’t washed with the S.Koreans.
Why would Boeing be forced to resort to an older generation of RAM, especially given its involvement in various stealth program, not to mention the generally high degree of tech share facilitated by the US govt?
The implication of this thread is that the T-50 is nothing more than a ‘Silent Flanker’
Would that be such a terrible thing? One of the world’s premier air dominance fighters + improved performance + improved sensor coverage + improved sensor fusion + LO. Hardly something to scoff at, even for an F-22 pilot.
Also, since this is not the PAK FA’s definitive engine can I assume that the production variant with the 117(?), will have its huge exposed engine area somehow shrouded?
Sign In
