over GK.I.S.S. principle
Come on…when dumb catchphrase becomes popular it turns into a ‘principle’…
over GWho knows…probably Mig is ready for the Su pakfa failure…(not saying it will be a failure, but from the prototype to the operative machine…things can happen…-1 or two crashes, probably…but an spiral weight increase could kill the program-)
There are some reports for the supposed russian government support for a new mig fighter, so the 144 could be a testbed, not saying that such program is running right now, but probably Mig is just waiting, just a “wait and see” attitude.
Also, i doubt the Mig-25/31 kingdom will end with the PAKFA, and i have always seen the 144 as the 31’s replacement, rather than a frontline fighter.
over Ggee, and i even put a LM link that said they are, go back and have a read
Yes, LM said that, it must be true!
Then again, show me any serious research on heavy supersonic high maneouverable UAVs , done by any, LM, northop, Nasa…
They stuffed the “UAV” word, because is on fashion, that’s all..kids love that kind of crap
over Gno, most aircraft cant, without a major redesign, but i’m happy to be taught, if you can show me how
there is not even the remotest possibility of the harrier ever being rebuilt in any form
Where are the testbeds for such development?
Where are the prototypes? (any kind, it must not be a 35)
Where is any kind of serious development on supersonic heavy UAVs
35’s UAVs won’t happen.
And why do you think is not possible to modify a Harrier for UAV concepts? what the 35 does have that makes it so special, all the controls are located in the same place, the cockpit…
over G[QUOTE=Vortex;1513763]
Funny to hear from someone directly comparing weights as a determiner. The actual lifting area includes fuselage, but that counts for Typhoon or Rafale, as well. The overall difference is still there and it is significant. That makes the F-35 a better striker.. and a worse fighter..
QUOTE]
The difference is in the fuselage shaping and strakes….similar to the F22. See images of the full vortex vapors engulfing the F22, expect it to be the same as the F-35. Althought how that translate to aerodynamics on the F35 remains to be seen/proven. I mentioned a few years back from (or prior…forgot) F22 videos that the shaping isn’t only for stealth since you can clearly see it in videos for the segmented vortices and rather flat uppersurface (ideal for the vortices to act on). The only problem i have for the F-35 in this regard is it’s rounded centerline section of the fuselage, which unfortunately due to its small size and large engine is unavoidable, making it less efficient for this type of aerodynamics, thus it’s design remains to be demonstrated….will be interesting. In these cases, the surface area of the fuselage (note i said fuselage, not the wings) isn’t the traditional sense because you’re comparing mainly between attached flow versus predominantly separated flow aerodynamics as in the case of the F22/F35. There are considerable lift enhancement. Drag? Well, that’s much more detailed and would have to see its actual drag polar and make-up. Again, it won’t follow the traditional trend of L/D makeup.
You do not see these on the design of the Typhoon or the Rafale. The Typhoon does have a set of near front fuselage strake but not much lift surfaces to support it, indicating that this is either for trim or stabilizing the separated surface flows on the fuselage, possibily caused by the canard, IIRC the EFA (or EAP?…anyways that prototype) didn’t have it. The Rafale’s wing-root/fuselage is surprisingly blunt (beautiful aircraft but that aspect always surprised me a bit). The way i see it is that there are the following types/generation of using separated flow for fighter aircraft designs so far.
1. Delta wings (started with Me-163, un-intentionally and actually detrimental).
2. Leading edge root extensions (a la F-5/Mirage III/V) used to increase lift performance of a baseline aircraft.
3. Body strakes (a la F-16, F-18, Mig-29, Su-27)….lead to wing/body blending. The difference compared with #5 is that “strake” isn’t full body nor segmented. The F-18 had some intention to maximize that but flight control and aerodynamic understanding probably was inadequate in those early days (IIRC similar tests were done on a mirageIII (or V?).
4. Canard coupled/uncoupled delta (Euro canards)
5. Full fuselage shaping and strakes (F-22, F-35 maybe? we’ll see)didn’t happen was the X-32 using vortex traps, that was interesting. Now, iirc a small chinese company was promoting another kind of vortex trap (longitudinally) however never get a chance to see any diagram of such except words, but even the article doubt it’ll work. Interesting though.
What does all of this have to do with wing loading? Yes it does! in the strictist sense wing loading is Weight/Wing-Area. But what does that mean? It means how much forces is loaded on each normalized wing-area (Say per square feet, sorry guys i’m in the USA). In order to turn, you need to factor in the load factor (or G). Which means that lift (CL-max) not only wing loading is another factor here (imho, the true factor). The area is just a reference area (traditionally used the main wing surface area) since neglecting lift generating “area” from other “areas” will increase the CL-max (higher lift, but same reference area). Thus W/S does not actually allow a strict apple-apple comparison unless the “Wing” is similar and dominates the aircraft. That said, using wing loading to compare between the three euro canards should be very useful, but if it’s used to compare between say a Rafale versus a Su-27, well, not quite 1 for 1.
Conversely, what does a higher W/S mean? It allows a higher Vmax! (other ways include higher T/W, lower CD,0, etc…). So for maneuvering, you want Low W/S, but for high speed you want high W/S. This may seem contradictory for a fighter aircraft until one realize that you can aim for high CL-max instead for maneuvering and maintain a relatively high W/S for V-max. One solution aerodynamically is…see above.
my 2 cents…. 🙂
Now, someone here always lauded the “closed-couple” canard versus the decoupled, what i like to know is what exactly does that mean that one’s better? I have my opinions but just want to know what the person had in mind. How is the coupling between the two vortices necesarily better? maybe, maybe not, what is the details? I wish i can find an article on this specific case.
The sustained g of the 22 is being reported to be into the 3-3.5 gs at 30,000 fts, this is quite conventional, in the same league of the F-16A, the F-15A performed better
The sustained turn of the 35 is 5 gs at 15000 fts-M0.8-, again, close ( a little worse) to the 16A.
I’m sure all these 3 planes have the same sustained turn, with the 22 being better in the instantaneous turning due it TVC.
*************
*************
I have a feeling that the 35B is or will be completelly unsuitable for the US ‘marines’, i’m more than sure that such big machine (13 tons) with such new technology (lift fan) will be a lot more difficult to maintain than the Harrier..
How the 35B classify as a CAS aircraft with bay doors, Ram maintenance, obvious low profile flight requirement (not compatibe with the 35B), 13 tons mass, is out of my comprehension, but hey! let the kids to dream on their shinny pictures in magazines, practical requirements don’t matter…not my problem anyways..
The 35B for Europe makes more sense, since they want a STOL conventional bomber/fighter with better capability than the harrier
Is funny, because under my perspective, the europeans with their imperialist dreaming on bigger carriers and more warfare crap (why?, i don’t know) are needing the 35B, while the US ‘marines’, with the obvious warmongering US policy, are needing a CAS aircraft, something that the 35 will fail miserably.
But the pro US zealots are supporting the 35 as it would be a crusade (while the requirement is for a CAS plane, and only a zealot would see the 35B as a CAS aircraft…oh well..i’m understanding this better)…while the euros are bashing the 35 (while their intentions to have an useless shipborne airforce are clear (sure they have plans to retake all these african colonies..right?), and the 35B is perfect for their smaller carriers)
It’s funny
over GSeekers are not used to hunt down targets on the ground, what can i tell you..
over GThe seeker is there to hunt down ships
Against ground targets GPS-inertial computers are used
The altimeter could be different
Is more/less what happened with the tomahawk, it did not have any seeker, then for multirol tasks they fit a seeker (anti ship)
over GFor that it has to have a better seeker (for attacking land targets)
What better seeker? GPS guidance against fixed targets?
Both missiles are primary anti ship, i don’t know if the russians felt the need to fit the GPS guidance.
For their primary mission, how do you know the brahmos seeker is better?, no, you don’t know.
over GSo back to the original question. Do you think the LCA can be an export success ? Yhea, right…..
Why not?, if the india goverment would be more interested , it could be a export success
There is a huge market for a cheap simple aircraft, check the USA, it lightest new plane is the 35…the 16 production line is not a great threat for new light fighters, since the USAF demand for 16s will decrease with the 35 introduction, same for the mig-29 with the su-35/pakfa introduction.
All the new programs are heavy or mid class weight planes, the su-35/Typhoon/Rafa/f35/pakfa, etc…even probably the J-10
So what is left?, the tejas and the gripen
Latin american/african/asian markets are still waiting for a mirage lll/mig21 replacement, the tejas is perfect
No need to hurry up the things, all that market was completely left by the main fighter producers.
Now remains to be seen if the Tejas will end successfully, what will be it final cost , etc.. that’s another matter
over GRussia’s new Groshkov class frigate will be armed with Brahmos
Remains to be seen, i bet they will fit their versions at the end
The Brahmos is much better at attacking land targets, have a better seeker (?) etc.
How do you know that?
Because they are broke.
How then they are developing PAKFA, and have a lot of other military programs running right now?
The pakfa is important for the aviation industry, is not only the first russian 5th generation aircraft, but also, the second 5th gen plane after the cold war years, no european 5th gen on sight, no other 5th gen plane from the USA, russians know what they are getting, why to share it? IMO it won’t happen.
Is more or less the case of the su-35 in brasil, the russians went out because the ToT thing, why ToT for such new aircraft with new electronics and structural engineering?
The involvement of India in the Pakfa, is again 0, the tales of sharing development between India and Russia have more than 10 years already, despite of this, russians went alone…no they didn’t wait for the indians overlords because they were broken, sorry but you are overrating the indian importance in the development, they will be customers, russians will bring them the flexibility to stuff whatever they want, but they won’t buy pakfas with fantastic indian composites (?) or great indian seekers (?)
over GSo practical decisions have to be taken versus the desire to grab maximum workshare.
Well, let’s see what is practical for the russians.
IMO, such participation, and such russian design resold with indian stuff to the russian air force, won’t happen…how many brahmos the russians have bought?
over GYou make it sound as if India will participate later and just plug its systems in, which is clearly not the case
I think this is the case actually…
This will end like this
Indian composites/out-sourcing electronics on the indian version
Russian everything, on the russian version
India was not involved on the design, testing, etc, and russians did not feel the urgency for indian participation on this fields, until now, India has 0 participation on the pakfa thing..
over GIf the 400 get’s cancelled, what will happen with the engine’s research and development.
I mean ,there is another project that will make use of these props?
IMO there won’t be any cancellation, the aircraft is so new and the development was so unique for it, that it cancellation will leave a very, very bad taste.
They won’t cancel it
over GI was thinking same. It must be lower or may be the officials intentionally did it. 😉
You indians should cancel the pakfa and get some f35s, they have much , much lower RCS….
….:D:D:D
over GIf I were the suspicious type, I would think that some people are latching on to a minor error in the article and trying to discredit the whole argument on that shaky basis
If i were a suspicious guy, i would think you don’t have any kind of experience dealing with heavy industrial hardware…but nevermind i will not correct the huge amount of mistakes, misinterpretations, simpleton thoughts and wrong concepts (the fan a turboprop? :)) in this thread.
Sign In
