over G(and maybe even someone will remember what design the USAF once favoured for a strike aircraft instead of an “enlarged” Raptor…)
This phrase comes from that RSM55 guy….someone knows which plane is?, supossely it has a delta configuration
Also said something about a new generation of engines that dont goes well with rectangular intakes, and sont need variable intakes…and well all engines needs at some point variable intakes, so im clueless with which kind of engine is…i dont think is about variable bypass
On another description he said it would look like a lifting body with atached engines and maybe delta wing, im suspecting it wont have tailplanes….and only vertical fins, any idea?
Anyway speculations are always funny 😉
over GAs for those thingos at the rear they look like they are to do with shock waves
Hmm don’t think so, maybe tolerances for thermic structural dilatation?, there are others of these on the dorsal panels?
At the end these could be just be some kind of “nails” for material replacement/maintenance
over GThe F-35 will clearly be the best choice for attack missions up in the Ishavet, but it’s not a fighter.
Care to tell why the 35 is not a fighter? it has enough agility (f-16 class, seems), a nice AESA radar, Amraans, and a nice engine
About the EF and Rafale, if they will add conformal tanks, the performance will not be reduced?, more powerful engines are the key when you add stuff on an airframe, so there is any plan for a 11-12 tons Ej200?
over G(AESA) radar antenna in the nose to pump out its electronic firepower. It would then have the weakness of any AESA array in that it is flat with a field of view of less than 180 degrees, perhaps an effective field of regard for effective attack of 60-90 degrees.
That actually bug me a bit, ppl always when is talking about AESA like to say the search azimuth of 120 degrees, but that is the theorical one, i know the modern AESA can deflect a single target tracking beam +-60 degrees, but not sure about the whole search beam, that is the reason, maybe , why conformal arrays are required
The 35’s radar also have a bit trouble with the inclination of the array (which is optimised for air combat -turning orientation-), dont know how can do it against cruiser missiles or ground targets
It will no longer to be a fighter…..
Lets wait and see, the plane is not finished yet, also you must consider that seems there wont be many on service -so there comes the GC definition-, i dont know what is the final produccion number, someone can tell me?
over GOzzy seems you like the argument that an Irbis with 21kw power will be easy to locate with RWR (as if it cares a bit)…
The true is the energy detected has a lot to do with the aperture of the radar, for example an 21 kws radar that has more aperture than a lower powered radar with less aperture, at the end of the day the first one can put less energy on the especific location for detection duties, is not so simple as you are saying “with it 21kws peak!… blah blah blah…”
Realy there are not “LPI” radars, and by basic physics LPI is not strategic, the enemy RWR system will get the radar signal more clearer than the emissor, so im sure that LPI myth/gizmo, that came with the stealth fashion, will fall pretty quickly
Can we avoid these arguments of the “russians have not budget” ?, i mean, is not like they are stucked, they are still developing systems
About your arguments about a same generation AESA is better than PESA, well i can be sure with the target and multimode capacity, but i think PESA has better managment of energy and detection performance, also it has other pluses, like fitting the antena on a very movable mount…only for that point i would preffer PESA than AESA
Jesus, when the fanboys come out to play…
can you guys just stop that “ur a fanboy!” crap?, it was funny for some time, but now everybody is saying the same stuff….
over G*I guess it might also delay further the vortex formation and flow separation
Are you sure the inclination on the Stuka wing has nothing to do with structural design and the landing gear location?
The cranked wing generate vortices over the outboard wing’s side, you can “delay ” it formation ,to find a better location to generate vortices (which depends with the wing design), the crank itself doesnt generate the flow, neither the inner wing section -yes low swept wings dont have that “vortex flow”-, but the highly swept leading edge does
over GIm sure these canted intakes/fins are aerodynamic features that have to do with shockwave interaction-shaping/location with controlable airflow/ placement on lower airflow after the shockwave(s) “shield”, avoid SW forces on the main fuselage, etc..but if you think canting intakes inward/downward will reduce it Rcs facing all the surface to the EM emmisor……(remember is a conventional cone -shape with not gradient differences)
This stuff is off-topic anyway
over GThe sr-71 design was chosen, because the thermic-structural tension would brake the airframe of any conventional layout at such operative enviorement (try to keep it jointed with a 3 dimention thermal dilatation)
Funny, when they designed it for RCS reduction, they just forgot these 2 huge intakes…
over GIn a war against russia , you need nuke strikes before to use your B-2s…(actually, that is the mission)
Are very well known my doubts for these RCSs figures so i wont start again that tedious debate, mother nature also have these doubts…just lets wait and see, im sure im right
over GSome things here and there
1-Dont take seriously the claims from pilots, i never do…is a bad idea to drop pilot’s claims into arguments
2-To replace the f-35’s with b-2’s is the worst idea i have read, the 35 is a “for dirty job” USAF plane , the B-2 needs cover (yes 50 planes to escort) and tomahawks to clear it path, too big, too slow, too easy target, again is a example how the JSF program is underated, despite being a far more successful program than the born flawed ATF, reality vs fantasy
3-About the B-2, seems many people still dont understand what is it real mission
4-In the su-35 engines, as far i understand, the improvements were done in the reheat (reheat, because afterburned is becoming in another doomed word like canard or delta) performance, and not in the core, would be interesting to learn the uel consume on “reheat” for the new engine and the older one
*Rators stealth coating is NOT all aspect only on it’s edges, who’s beem telling you this
You know.. the super edges RAM coated raptor is here…the f-117 should be ashamed, the true is the 22s was meant to have a reduced RCS, but comparing with a stealth/shaped RAM protected nighthawk is another way to overhype the raptor
*This is 3rd gen of US stealth , even we dumba$$es have made some progress even though
The f-22s is the first generation stealth fighter, which is very different to be a 3th generation stealth plane
over Ghowever up to what i understand the main wing has the notch of less swept to reduce pitch down loads created by the canard down wash.
The vortex effect on the aft-section on the wing? (the canard generated), what you are saying there (if is that the case), resulting in a downward nose pitch?
All very swept wings have the tendency to generate vortexs at a specific speed, is probably the Viggen engineers preferred these vortexs at that section, than the very energized canard flow on a more backwarded wing surface
That is not the case of the Lca, which seems to use the very angled swept to generate vortexs, and if you take a look, that section starts in a forwared position, and it doesnt have canard to worry about, i dont know the efficiency for that configuration (compared with other “styles”), but probably it was chosen due size/weight savings and size limits for the wing…among other possible reasons
over GIm really not so sure that Viggen use the vortex generation as a primary aerodynamic feature, the crank shape is located very aft-side of the plane , in the case of the viggen im not sure if they chosen that wing for vortex generation or just to move a bit forward the lift vector location relative with the airframe, or to increase the wing area, etc..
not because it have a crank means it use some specific aerodynamic concepts (or was meant to), you can have sometimes some effects…but these can even been counter-productive
the topology of both wings are also quite different (something that most ppl dont obverve on the wings is actually it topology)
over Gozzy,i think the key of AESA is not the level of noise that is avoided, actually i have a little suspect that PESA has less parasite signals than AESA
The key of AESA radars is the use of many independient output power modules, so you can use some for different tasks, lets say 500 for air combat, 500 for ground targeting, etc, etc, etc, i know is not the exactly the way how work it, but basically it is
AESA itself does not increase the detection level, only increase the number of tasks that can be done by the system
Cant say if AESA is worth the efford to replace a mechanical PESA antena
over GThe tejas is not finished yet….not worth to criticise something that is still under development…of course China has a superior industrial research/development, but in the case of the tejas, is better to wait and see…than to start a very speculative and subjetive discussion
About the J-10, well i have seen some vids about it, and seems it have a decent agility, agree that we need more j-10 info
How come none of the American planes like the F-16, F-22 and JSF have one
Many JSF projects had ..the VTOL requirement was too much for these concepts, f-16 was the first operative unstable design so is reasonable they chose a conventional configuration, the f-22 is a special case (and no, that have nothing to do with stealth)…but is not worth to discuss here
One thing, isnt like if u add canards your plane magiclly will become great…adding canards wasnt worth for the su-35, because it is based on a design that did not need canards, and a canard/delta also has their problems
over GCome on guys, one thing is to complain about spam-flame-off/topic issues..but to complain baut grammar is for a professional whinner…
Sign In
