Snow MonkeyAmazing, I had never thought anybody was considering PAK-FA´s canopy as a signifigant (co)definer of it´s level of stealth.
I had taken the leaked tender as an indication of a planned one-piece canopy, but didn´t hold it´s absence/presence as crucial to RCS reduction… Rather just more pertinent to it´s visual looks (clear line of sight for pilot being the only operational advantage I assumed for a single-piece canopy, though I don´t really think that´s such a huge difference in reality).
Regarding things underneath the coated glass, I´d expect that besides the helmet, the ejection seat is going to be alot bigger signature item than the frame. Assuming they need to make the frame of metallics to begin with (?), edge alignment seems alot easier there than the ejection seat and various other gear inside the cockpit.
Snow MonkeyIt appears it’s not only the Russians who think S-ducts are yesterday’s tech, the Japanese do too:
…in other words, expect something very similar for the PAK-FA.
From what I can see, it seems at least broadly similar to the ‘helical’ design that was on YouTube a while ago.
I agree about the S-curve, I mean it patently does not seem the most space effficient means to achieve LOS blockage.
Obviously it’s alot simpler though, which is why the US went for it (and Sukhoi pursued it with it’s demonstrator)
If the image posted by Flateric is anything close to what they’re now working on, I don’t expect the intake/blocker to appear like the Japanese mock-up (in any case there certainly is substantial curvature in PAKFA’s intake), though all approaches may very well be successful at their aim (radar blocking), though ancilliary effects on airflow, etc, will very likely differ substantially.
The article’s supposition about cooperative development with the US for the F-22 follow-on seems to be nothing more than hot-air, but if it was realized, any Japanese engine would more or less have to conform to the same space factor / inlet layout as an American engine.
Snow MonkeyWell, obviously the MRTT had more capacity, but if it was more than 1% difference, that`s that, if anybody wanted to complain about that number they should have done so before… Of course, it will be interesting to see how Boeing performs, both in development and production costs, and runway/operating costs, not to mention true utilization/capability.
I think the fact USAF was looking at one specific role, rather than including the larger KC-Y and as much emphasis on cargo capacity, certainly helped Boeing… It can be seen why the MRTT is as popular as it is with every other airforce that has looked at it… providing a single tanking platform (or single larger platform complementary to KC-130/C-390) that also provides superior cargo capacity.
Snow Monkeywhat do you think the likely hood that brasil is waiting to see the outcome of Indias MMRCA?
Zero. On the other hand, Brazil is suffering from natural disaster and economic distress on the part of most of it`s citizens, while trying to reduce it`s deficit in order to control inflation (yet facing a US dollar regime which is happy to let the dollar depreciate). What do you think the likelihood is that Brazil will buy the F-22? Sometimes it`s best to accept the obvious, publicly stated reasons.
Snow MonkeyMeaning actually pay Boeing to develop it`s tanker before a purchase decision?
Boeing refused to offer it`s tanker to India, because it doesn`t actually exist yet, and without the KC-X order it isn`t viable to fund. That`s why Airbus` product is lower risk, although I don`t think that actually is playing a big part in the decision. To have to wait for Boeing to fully develop and produce it`s product is silly… Further, having a fly-off between Boeing`s 1st prototype and Airbus` by then utterly mature product isn`t likely going to result in a `split` competition result, any delay will just let Airbus remove ALL kinks from it`s product… Unless such a huge delay is allowed as for Boeing to actually fully get it`s product up to speed. USAF released a tender under the current set-up with trade-space for cost/performance/etc, and nothing has happened to invalidate that, in fact that`s how one would expect competitive tenders to be run. If Boeing supporters in Congress want to play games, the delay will be in their hands, and they will eventually approve funds in all likelihood. USAF giving up on it`s tender result for no reasonable reason, and restarting some other process would not be a faster process. I have no idea how split-buy is provisioned in the tender process, but going around the tender to institute some additional fly-off is not going to happen.
Snow MonkeyThe Rafale will not go faster or accelerate faster because the engine will give the same thrust but more juice .
Look, I agree with you on Bluewings´ inanely partisan posts.
But your comment above just doesn´t hold up. All reports say UAE wants 9t engine for aerodynamic performance reasons – enabling higher cruise speeds under normal load, but in their case more specifically, carrying more payload, e..g more Black Shaheens. Yes, if they didn´t ALSO plan to increase electrical generation, they could get MORE thrust out of the engine, but it is not an exclusive one or the other proposition, they can get both. Likewise, I don´t see any reason why a bigger electrical generator can´t be fitted to M88-EPE engines, they might just draw off more thrust if used fully used (but that can be tuned down if desired while maintaining commonality with new generator).
Snow Monkeyre: Future Weapons for Typhoon
That`s such transparent crap. ANY MMRCA candidate can conceivably use just about any munition (at least of the classes shown there), though their hardpoints and payload capacity determines how much of what munition they can carry with what other stores, etc. So to show off munitions that `could` be integrated is a joke. If India wants to buy any of those missiles/bombs, there`s no reason it can`t integrate them into it`s choice of MMRCA (certainly given the ToT aspect). If they are ALREADY integrated, yeah, that saves money and time… Otherwise, it`s meaningless, since potential integration isn`t a real differentiator… Possibly barring MiG-35, but I doubt even MiG is INCAPABLE of integrating any (Western) munition. Promos like this just look extra weak.
Snow Monkey4) Rafale : …Problem is the price and the offset possibilities compared EADS/BAE and Boeing or LM.
Overall, I`m in total agreement with your take on all the platforms, but regards offsets I think Rafale is much better placed than you make out. Rafale is sold by a consortium of Dassault AND Snecma and Thales. Between the last two, there really shouldn`t be a problem with off-sets. Besides local production of the engine, which should synergize with Snecma`s participation in Kaveria Mk.2 economically justifying heavier offsets, Snecma is involved with civil airliner engine maintenance (civil aerospace and non-military security and training all now count for off-sets, remember) and setting up an engine service center in India isn`t such a stretch given how air travel is taking off. Thales has so many subsidiaries that finding something to invest in India shouldn`t be overly problematic.
Snow MonkeyThanks for the sharp eye, TMor AND Poney…
Snow MonkeyOk. I stand corrected.
Even so, ‘Boeing 808’ just doesn’t sound right, in much the same way as ‘Mazda Dreamliner’ wouldn’t.
Or Nissan Skyliner? 😉
…Personally, I see nothing wrong with 797, though that´s the last available in that series obviously.
Snow MonkeyInteresting to see what the new AESA NIIP array can do, especially on a bird the size of the Flanker. Irbis tracks 30 and engages 8 simultaneously, expect that to be increased significantly, and I guess the traditionally stated advances from AESA, high reliability, simultaneous A2A and A2G performance? Irbis can already engage aerial targets while performing ground mapping…
simple increase of simutaneously target aquistion doesn’t make any sense. How many missles can an internal bay accommodate?
It´s pretty likely that PAK-FA will be fitted for installable external hard-points, even if not every plane uses them. Also, data-linking allows one PAK-FA to share it´s tracks with other, non-emitting PAK-FA (or other platforms), so one radar may be exploited by multiple PAK-FA´s missile payload. A high tracking capacity makes the most of this data-link.
Snow Monkey@Flateric: TO clarify my last post, I could see a SIMILAR blocker for a straight in-line w/ compressor face inlet, but it would probably look more like the ´helical´ design that was on You Tube, which since it has no external curvature to exploit, creates internal curvature for the same effect. I have no idea how that actually works, with torsional air-flows heading to compressor, etc… But the air-flow parallel concentric ´russia doll´ design you posted would seem to have no problems in that regard, and very efficient in all aspects. …Your thoughts?
Snow MonkeySure, I´m not saying other radar blockers don´t work, but the line image you yourself posted earlier isn´t a regular radar blocker, right?
Anyhow, how do you expect the concentric channels to block radar, if not for the flow-parallel dividers which still need SOME curvature (less than needed by F-22 intakes)?
If you have a completely straight intake, flow-parallel means parallel with LoS, but with minor curvature each concentric channel blocks a portion of Los.
I could be completely off, but I don´t know how else you´re interpreting the concentric channels…. Enlighten me!
(I would also wonder why a slight S-curve would be used, rather than a straight intake, if the slight curve wasn´t to be exploited by the blocker system)
EDIT: And please, no more X-32 images, this is an aviation enthusiast forum, not an aviation horror forum!!! 😉
Snow MonkeyBut trademarks such as product titles are applied for within given fields of commerce, e.g. cars or airplanes.
I doubt Boeing has applied to trade-mark the number 787 within the lawn-mower market, for example.
As a direct example, Roland marketed drum synthesizers under the names 808 and 707 which obviously overlaps with previous Boeing and Mazda products.Only if you are competing in a market which could potentially cause ´confusion´ can a trademark be asserted. Cars don´t fly.
Snow Monkeyjust part is shown – blocker lenght rougly equals its diameter and not a mirror copy of this section
Any reason why the same/similar blocker couldn’t be applied to the Su-35? The engines are similar…
But the inlet is completely straight as opposed to the PAK-FA, whose curvature means those ´russian doll´ channels block LoS. In other words, concentric channels like that need LESS inlet curvature to result in the same LoS blockage as a larger, but unblocked, S-curve intake like F-22, but they still need some curvature. …Or at least that´s my take on it. 😉
Sign In
