From what I understand, unstable canard equipped fighters has better control authority compared to an unstable aft-tail design. Instead of forcing the tail down decreasing overall lift, the canard lifts the nose, increasing overall lift.

Yup. Because the canard pulls the nose, you can “pitch” up faster. Note that the canard is picking up fresh airstream instead of the wake behind the main wing. That also improves control authority.

When the canard plane stalls, it goes down nose first. Ergo, the canards are the first to pick up the fresh air stream, and you quickly regain control.

Because you can achieve better control authority for a smaller control surface, you can reduce the size of the control surface, ergo, less drag and less weight.

Close coupled canards, meaning the canards are close to the main wing (Rafale is a close coupled canard, Typhoon is not), also act as additional lift surfaces, and the overall wing loading is lowered. If you notice the F-16, no one counts the elevator area as part of the wing loading, but with the Lavi, you can take the area of both canard and main wing, against the weight of the plane to obtain wing loading.

Also, a canard equipped plane can be built with a higher degree of instability than a conventional plane.

You don’t have to intentionally design for instability. Instability comes naturally. It is stability that we always have to intentionally build into a design. Hence the term “relaxed” stability is simply a design that we don’t bother to design in positive stability.

A higher degree of instability comes naturally with an active canard, as I have explained, because the layout of the canard pushes the main wing backward in relation to the fuselage. This throws more of the center of gravity to the rear.

Sweden chose the delta/canard configuation for the Gripen because it offered very low supersonic drag. Also, the canards in conjunction with the main wings slats and elevons offered excellent turning performance and low landing speeds.

Canards also generate vortices useful to stabilize the plane at a high AoA. LERX or leading edge extensions, also do the same thing. But LERX is a fixed and a rather lumpy device in the airstream, which is why many LERXed fighters are known to be draggy, while a canard can be moved to a completely horizontal position, and you get less drag.

Also, an active canard don’t really use elevons, since the canard is forward elevator. In a pure delta, elevons have to be large as they do the purpose of both aileron and elevator. This adds drag, and often contributes to the energy bleed deltas are infamous. With canards, you can remove the elevator function, so the surfaces only need to perform as ailerons. They can be made smaller and less draggier.

That’s absolutely correct.

Also the real intention behind the Rafale mention is political bait. China wants to politically reward France or any other European nation for breaking the embargo by purchasing the arms systems—whether or not China actually needs it. The so called war chest China allocated for this is about 100 billion dollars. That’s a lot of carrots.

Drag? Not necessarily. Other vortice generators like LERXs can create more drag. Maybe there is a reason why LERXed aircraft like the Super Hornet or the Flanker isn’t going to match the high transonic and supersonic maneuverbility of planes like the Typhoon and the Rafale.

RCS? Build it out of carbon fibre or RAM the titanium spar on the front. If you’re concerned of radar reflection leakage around the moving point where the canard meets the fuselage, you can glove it to conceal it from a forward aspect, like what the J-10 does.

The real problem of the active canard is the wake that follows behind it that can produce turbulence all over the fuselage and above the wings. This forces the need for unusually high tails (see Rafale, Typhoon, J-10). Forget about notions of using CFTs here.

The canards also forces the wings to be moved backwards from the center of the plane. This moves the center of the gravity more to the rear of the plane, and stability becomes more negative. This makes the plane the most unstable of all layouts and you need FBW to get things right.

And please correct the notion that the rest of the world has fallen in love with it. The aviation world moves by fads and trends, like delta wings in the late fifties, variable wings in the late sixties. It was active canards in the eighties. Today, its probably stealth and TVC.

A conventional layout with TVC can just achieve every maneuverbility goal you can think of and then some. Planes have become more maneuverable than the human ability to grasp it.

it also depends on what kind of su-33 gets offered (ie: what kind of engine and radar and avionics it gets). If the Russians let China put its own radar on su-33 and use a combination of Russian/Chinese missiles, I think China would be a lot more willing to make the larger purchase.

The AL-31FM1 has been mentioned in previous articles as an upgrade to the current Su-33. Given the purchase of this engine core to the J-10, current interest to upgrade on such for the Su-27s, 30MKKs and J-11s, I regard it very likely the Su-33MK (which I will call the plane for now), will have this.

In order to shorten the takeoff, best to have the TVC nozzles too. No problemo, since you’re already selling a similar engine with TVC nozzles for the J-10. The real question is whether you use the Klimov nozzle like in the -29OVT and Super 10, or the 2D nozzle used in the MKI’s AL-31FP. Chances are higher it would be the former.

Another is the Zhuk MSE for the radar. Its been testing on the Su-33KUB for a while. Remember this radar was a candidate for the Su-30MK2, and for a long while, been considered for Su-27SK and Su-30MKK upgrades. It’s directly related to the Zhuk-ME for the Indian MiG-29K and the Zhemchug proposed for the J-10. Mainly, its the same radar with a bigger antenna and a more powerful emitter.

My candidates for radar goes like this in order of plausibility:

Zhuk MSE
N001VEP Su-30MK2 version
N001VEPF (with Pero phase array) Also known as “Panda”

Please note that Zhuk MSFE aka formerly known as “Sokol”, with phase array, has moved into testing stage on the Su-33KUB.

It appears that the Kh-59MK antiship missile finished development in 2006, and that may be offered for both Su-30MK2 and for this. No, I’m not expecting airborne Klub or Moskit. Would be interesting to see YJ-83 integrated to the Zhuk radar.

Configuration choices is the one thing that interests me. Very likely the first two planes are two seater for training, so you have two choices.

Su-33KUB aka Su-27KUB, two seater side by side similar to Su-34.

Or tandem seating like Su-30MKK.

Su-33KUB is already there, so this is close to an off the shelf purchase. But to make an Su-33 with tandem seating, that will take a bit more time, since no Su-33 has this seating configuration. This will be like Su-35UB mated to an Su-33. But I feel that KnAAPO may have anticipated this for a while, and should have some blueprints handy.

The plane appears relaxed stability, meaning it’s not designed with positive stability in mind in favor of aerodynamics and optimum layout. Generally that also covers the definition of being unstable. Original prototype had a pitch only FBW, but subsequently other channels and axis control is added to the first plane and applied in the start to all the rest. AVIC refers to the flight control system as electronic.

Some correction.

Stuff coming out of the AL-31FN display are not shafts but tubes.

13000kg is typical combat weight for me, not maximum takeoff weight. That would be plus 2 SR AAMs and 2 BVR AAMs.

Got this from the CDF. Breaking news. Looks like China may be in negotiations to obtain Su-33s.

Type “Su-33” and obtain the article.

http://www.kommersant.com/search-result.asp