I have to say that I am surprised to see every one focusing on a commercial approach. What can be done to be sold well. What are the service needs that we can fulfill…
I understand the motto behind that but I think over confidence is what really driving such conversation. Do I have to remind all here the old rule when you are dealing with a complex industrial problem ? 80% of design = 100% of time&budget. Refining the last 20% can cost you as much time and a tremendous amount of what ever left in your own pockets.
So lowering complexity is not a prudent approach. It’s a design objective! Or to say it less bluntly: it’s the requirement.
I know that many here thinks the Yanks gradual approach to stealth was only a sign of their deficiencies and blablabla… But look for one second… From have blue to the NGB, how many prudent steps were taken by the top of the cream in this industry? And how many are Turkey, India Korea planing to take? One. ONE!
C’mon guys. That path lead to a concrete wall. You’d either have your industry broke, your pilot frightened to take off in teh new stealthy widow maker, the OP perfs be anemic or the planes lightening up like Christmas tree on everyone scope.
So ppl have to be reasonable. A first stealth jet fighter, for some industries that never have really completed a single modern fighter jet, is an achievement by itself. It’s not because of the internet that you don’t have to keep tracks of this fact.
So. WHat all the digression above does told us ?
– Size have to be small
– Number of paneling components have to be kept low
– Number of connected sub-assembly have to be low
– Shape have to be either radical or completely conservatives
– Mission panel have to be restricted to what the user will need IN NUMBER to balance it’s OP tempo
– One single pilot
– No unmanned
– Mach >1.6 + k*F(available tech) : means that you don’t plan to use supernatural stealth composite to balance for a lack of industrial/R&D knowledge. You take what is supposedly available on the market and derived/create your own similar product.
Months ago (years?) I pushed the idea of a wing on top, single panel wing composite skin design. basically, this is where you start: a bad looking supersonic stealthy Cessna.
Regarding the eng, I known that many think that a twin is a modern choice, but may I remind you that this idea surfaced at the time when reliability of engines was not what we know today? That nowadays most twins are no more survivable that a single enginned fighters ? So unless you are planning to go wide spaced (hence the radical shape option), there is only detrimental consequences to go for a twin.
Etc… Etc…
Sign In
