Now, going into the speculative field, about the future, i think planes will use their radar, and will use them a lot…no matter if are detected, with network advances i think the best way would be to synchronize the scanning between many fighters so many of them will be silent more time, while one is emitting, and while the rest is receiving the signals, then, then they could alternate randomly, other way is the potential of mobile antennas, and who knows , the ability to chance the radar’s phasing with the help of other fighters radars, these concepts are very very complex and i’m clearly speculating here, but in theory is possible, so one plane could emit a signal at a x degrees and with help of other signal it could change it orientation, so the enemy could detect the source, but the source is actually when both signals intercept, in which there is no radar/aircraft….

Simpler smaller fighters are needed, numbers are vital, the capability to cover an area is important, no matter if you have a fortress fighter, for interception and defense covering,numbers are actually the priority.

A fighter is not an air searching system, searching is done on other radar bands, a fighter is a tracking radar with better range and coverage, but still slaved to the command posts, imagine that is like a SAM, only that the tracking radar component and missiles are airborne, is just like that.

Russians fitting LF radars on fighters, is for example an interesting step ahead, they want to give the plane the searching component (which obviously will need a link with a command post to organize the information)

The funny thing is that the Raptors were deployed, is funny to see how effective has been the marketing and advertising over these planes..when people were afraid about it deployment because is a super duper uber top secret….

Even if they had not been deployed, the most likely reason had been a technical/logistic reason, but after years and years of advertising, the enthusiast mind had interpreted it as a “national security” reason….tsss

Ignorant minds are weak minds..

Wouldn’t matter if the F-22 scored 100 to 1 against the Typhoon

yeah, because there are not exercises in which one team is meant to be downed by the other team….

***********
Hope to see some results about this WVR engagements, (Rafale vs F22), 22s have TVCs, so they probably were in advantage in some conditions..if that really happened, and is not just another internet rumor…

The lack of real official data over the EF and the rafale is what i dislike more, aside all the hyping over the F22…the fighting between Rafale and EF fans is just based on rumors and gossips…not very different from the F22 though..in which official data is replaced by gossips…because is the super top secret of the century…

Er, I can’t think of ANY.

Neither had the original F-23 for the early ATF’s bids, at least on the stealth field

Several 4th gen have the manueverabilty bit (Su-30/35, Mig-35 for example), several have reduced RCS (Rafale, Super Hornet, Typhoon), and internal bays on fighters go all the way back to the 50’s with the F-102 and F-106.

how do you know that, do you have the EMD charts of the Su-47, don’t you understand that, for example, one of the goals of the X-29 was to increase the g envelopment at altitude and at supersonic/transonic speed?

I don’t think any CEO has actually total clearance to watch everything in any company, especially when some technologies are compromised with security agreements, my point is that the development is from Bae, and bae was called for some reason to develop these technologies.

There must be control in what is sent, what is developed.

The CEO won’t watch the codes of the 22’s ECM…is absurd, as if they care..but Bae must know, for example, on which technologies is based on.

To be simpler, there is money involved, there are budgets to do, there are resources to locate, there are priorities to make, just because the USAF ask them to develop something for the raptor, they won’t leave everything just to be part of the famous and great F22…and will locate resources blindly..

IIRC

BAE Systems North America now known as BAE Systems Inc. is virtually an all US company with US employee’s and US leadership. I believe the only thing BAE Systems gets from BAE Inc is the profit – in other words they have no access to any of the IP.

BAE Inc do the AN/ALR-94 and I think they are responsible for a lot of the defensive aids on F-35 – but I could be wrong.

Saying this is like saying the Airbus plane that is running for the tanker bid is not a plane of Airbus, but of Airbus America….

BAE designed the systems and have the patents, and most likely they went into the business with a contact with a company of the US, just as the case of the tanker bid.

I believe the only thing BAE Systems gets from BAE Inc is the profit

God…

I though Su47 had internal bays from the beginning, since it adds up with wing integrity problems.

This is debatable, at least for me, i don’t think the 47 had a internal bay

True, but Grumman worked hard to keep the wingtips behind M1.8 Mach cone angle. So, they got a small span, small area and high loading, which isn’t enough for a useful fighter mission. Check the difference between empty weight and MTOW, 6.2t > 8t.

If i recall correctly they did expand the g envelopment, wing loading is relative, we don’t know how efficient was it, the mirage 3 has better wing loading than the f-16…

It was a new concept , you can’t compare it directly with conventional wings

Check the difference between empty weight and MTOW, 6.2t > 8t.

It was a demonstrator

I actually deleted the post to avoid this kind of discussion, since is off-topic, but fluid dynamics are not that simple as one would think.

There are different ways to deal with drag, so you can see different wing designs for high speed aircraft, from the f-104 to the mirage, all them have different sweept, different wing design etc, etc, etc…

The idea behind the FSW was to decrease the wake turbulence (which it does), and the aspect of the wing , meaning it has a shorter leading edge than conventional wings, decreasing drag, that was the idea, if it was successful or not , i don’t know.

Then again people overate the RCS thing, a wing is planar, and unless it has a big leading edge ratio there should not be any big problem with it RCS, planes in general are designed first to fly, and then to everything else…yes, including the f-22/23 and even the 117.

ATF proposals did consider FSW for supercruiser requirements

Now, i’m not saying the Berkut was meant to be a supersonic interceptor, but FSW is not a concept limited just to subsonic performance.

The problem with such wing is that all the wing is under compression, no metal/composite perform very good under compressive deformation.

FSW is good for slower speeds region

The x-29 was not an acrobatic demostrator, it was a supersonic/transonic concept

Weapon bay is, most probably, added to increase top speed which is low even with it and to unload wings from pylon’s/weapon’s weight, to manage wing root integrity requirement.

???, the plane is a testbed now, it’s testing the pakfa’s bays, Su did state that the Berkut’s problem and speed limit (mach 1.5) was due structural problems with the wing

UAZ or somebody else, can you tell me if the reflection on the “IRST dome” is an iris?, doing a zoom it looks square, i can understand it shape could be related with the quality of the picture, but it seems way to defined to be just a sun’s reflection, there is another picture which does look like a reflection, but on this i think is not…

Just remember who revealed that the F-22 vs Rafale mission had taken place, on the day that it took place.

There are only two possible conclusions:

1) I made it up
2) I have good enough sources that I got to hear about it.

I don’t care whether or not you believe whether or not it really happened, Arthuro. I KNOW that it did.

3) Or you have biased sources, as usual