Let’s wait for it to be tunnel tested or some CFD view release

Are Orange Amplification known for having their products to be, well… Orange? Yes.

Pretty obvious what it states, Nic. *Sigh.*

Don’t be that angry EE, your thoroughbred is well positioned in the “new race” thx to its cte positive cross section variation.

The real question is: Since there is no 35 nor 22 nor PakFA… What for do we have to go to the static display at Farnborough ? Well free fish&ships someone ?

Yes. It’s a clever move. They have asserted the threat and build something ard that fits 95% of their needs. A duper 15 with a massive AirSup potential and light first strike cap (my guess only).

What I wonder is: is this the first 3D AESA scan radar because that strange thing in the open nose (see Deino’s picture) looks weird for a planar antenna ?

So now, ppl can understand why the future is high up and fast.

Lockheed, Boeing and Northrop (from memory) all seem to have worked out how to use plasma for aircraft applications and how to negate the downsides associated with its use. In 2005 and 2006, around the time when all 3 companies were submitting their patents for hypersonic propulsion systems (the recent SR-72 announcement prompted the search for this information), there was also a whole bunch of technologies patented for using plasma systems in conjunction with electromagnetic aircraft surfaces to negate drag.

Lockheed’s patent claimed to be able to actually use the skin of the aircraft to generate additional propulsion and it removes the need for moving control surfaces on aircraft by controlling the airflow using plasma produced at the leading edges. They also claimed to be able to enhance and control airflow into irregularly shaped inlet ducts. From memory Boeing had plans to use plasma with helicopter rotors.

Will be quite a game changer for aircraft considered by many to be “un-aerodynamic” if these companies have turned the laws of aerodynamics on their head.

Someone mentioned the effects on plasma on radio communications and radar. Don’t remember if it was Boeing on NASA, but there was another patent for technologies to locally negate the effects of plasma. The context of the technology was for eliminating radio blackouts for re-entering spacecraft.

Thank you very much for the debrief. Would you be kind to link some of the patent ?

Also, it would be nice to hve a similar topo on the Russian side. Just for the comparison.

While the saying goes mever say never, I doubt there is something behint the CFTs only with AMK claim. While it’s said that the AMK smoothes integration of heavy stores like Storm Shadow or Taurus it’s apparently not a must. Consider that the CFTs run along the fuselage and are in fact closer to the CG than the stand-off missiles. Furthermore the CFTs are split in three main sections with a transfer tank in the middle. Like the internal fuselage tanks the CFTs can shift fuel from the front to the rear section and the other way round. In other words it sounds like a hoax to me.

Concerning Brimstone we’ll see. It might well be that the customer requires not more than 12 Brimstones which is already plenty. From a technical point of view I see no limitation here that would prevent carriage and employment from the centre wing stations.

Just my 2ct

Scorp,

The prob with CFT is that you have to fight while carrying it. For a fighter that means Alpha*. In the order of +25 – +35 nowadays to stay credible. We known that the Typhoon is alpha sensitive thanks to choice made during the design. If those things restrict the bird bellow 20, then they are useless. That’s how I see things.

You won’t re-establish an aft fleeting CG by transferring 1/3 rd of the fuel carried (when in fact you’d better have those empty before engaging in a fight).

*I have a hard time thinking that supersonic drag is the concern.

I disagree with any 3D printing on board a fighter being useful. There is no weight savings from 3D printing. In fact you will absolutely carry more weight because of the weight of the 3D printer will add to the plane in addition to anything it makes. The smaller the printed item is the larger the weight penalty of the 3D printer will be. The potential advantage of space saving is also negated because you need a internal bay to do the printing and that negates compactness of 3D printing. That only leaves ability to tailor UAV and Munitions to potential targets and in that case you really should just plan your missions better.

Doesn’t that printed UAV looks like an RQ47?!!! 50 years of engineering just for BAe to rebuild Ryan 😉