Not saying this is anyone, just thought you would enjoy it.

Where can one find a “butt-shaped mouse”?

What’s the thrust to weight ratio of the F-35’s competitors, when they’re carrying 5,500lbs of weapons, and external fuel tanks?

I’m referring to loaded weight/SL wet thrust. Off the top of my head, ballpark figures:

Rafale- 1.1 (much higher for 9t engine)
Eurofighter- 1.21
F-22- 1.23
Gripen- 0.98 (much higher for NG)
Super Hornet- ~1.0
F-35- 0.85-1.0 region

Now, as I said, the F-35 doesn’t have to carry weapons externally (well, unless it wants >4 missiles), so it has the benefit of “clean” drag- how draggy the airframe is may be another problem in itself. The Typhoon carries missiles semi-recessed- if you look how they are mounted they are held very close to the fuselage, almost like they are mounted conformally. And of course, it all varies greatly by mission, fuel, altitude, etc… so things are not set in stone/black and white so to speak, and these are very “ball-park” figures. Unfortunately, it seems the F-35 does have a bit of a weight problem- manifesting itself as a poor thrust/weight and poor wing loading. Decent FBW, unstable design, and low drag may be helpful in mitigating these issues to some extent, but we won’t be able to judge just yet, I don’t think.

Also, in the event of a dog-fight where thrust/weight and wing loading are most useful, one would usually jettison the fuel tanks. That is my understanding at least, someone more knowledgeable is free to correct me on that.

But the used continuous curvature make the bistatic problem even worser.
You should not mixed up monostatic angle with bistatic angle.
You can’t have at the same time a low monostatic RCS and a low bistatic RCS.

The laws of physics maintain that energy must be conserved. If the monostatic RCS is reduced by shaping, the incident energy must be distributed elsewhere. As such, the target signature is increased at some or all bistatic angles.

Rocket guiding per bistatic is possible it’s simple illuminating the target and the rocket RX is for shure spaced more as some hundred feet away. Another possible scenario is inverses SAR you look for black holes, where no returns there is the target. Especially when these black EM-holes are moving fast. Or track before detect. :diablo:

Not to be picky, but conservation of energy is only approximately correct, and is invalid in relativistic scenarios. 😀
Also, what djcross said.

Poisson d’Avril…

Depends what speed you optimize the propulsion system and engine for.

Which one is that?

http://www.flightglobal.com/directory/uav/saab-aerosystems-21995/filur-3549.html

Bill Sweetman once wrote at least one article or book chapter that mentioned the reason behind the US aversion to canards, complete with a comment from an identified US senior designer that the best place for a canard was on the other guy’s aircraft. But I can’t track it down. Does anyone recognise the comment? Given that he’d discussed the topic with senior industry people, his report might clarify what is being argued about here.

I recognize the quote. I think Northrop was somehow connected with the comment. But I’m not sure.

RF from a front sector threat forms a traveling wave that re-radiates at the trailing edge of a canard, especially from the tips of the canard. That re-radiated RF hits the wing leading edge (which essentially becomes a huge reflector) causing the RF to bounce back towards the threat emitter. Bingo! You’ve been detected due to the additive RF return of wing specular and reflected return of the canard. The same reflection phenomenon occurs with an aft tail, but the length of the aft tail is far shorter and thus does not reflect as badly as the long wing leading edge.

The best solution is to not have a tail at all (e.g. B-2, X-47, X-45, Neuron, Skat).

Thanks for the excellent explanation the canard-RCS problem. I certainly found it informative. I am not an electromagnetics/RF expert at all, but I think one can get around this difficulty somewhat by using dispersive materials or R-cards in the canards which would help mitigate the traveling wave problem. Also, wasn’t there a Saab patent for mitigating the stealth problems in a close coupled canard design? I think it involved making a crease between the canard TE and wing LE, forming z-shape along which edge currents would presumably flow (or maybe it re-radiates the RF outwards to the side, I don’t know). Perhaps an electrical engineer or someone else who knows anything about RF might be able to explain the rationale behind this design?

So did the F-15 SMTD back in 1988. So? It’s still an F-15 and those are still Flankers. If I stick an AESA on an F-4 will it make the Phantom the same generation as a Typhoon? (Or ahead I suppose since the Typhoon doesn’t have an AESA).

No production models have it though. I’m not suggesting that a Su-30 or 35 is a 5th gen. You asked for something unique about a certain type of 4.5 gen aircraft- so I named the Su-30/35 as it is the only aircraft in its generation with thrust vectoring. Maybe I misunderstood your question? :confused:

Fedaykin:
4th generation: Look-down, shoot-down radar, renewed ephasis on manuevrability, afterburning turbofans, greater emphasis on cockpit visiblity. Aircraft: F-teens, Flanker, Fulcrum, Mirage 2000.

5th generation: Sensor fusion, stealth. Aircraft: F-22, F-35, and (possibly) PAK-FA. On the face of it PAK-FA should have been a no-brainer but that giant RCS back end makes it less than clear. Maybe it’s an F-111B (not that I think it’s a failure, but that it’s not clear cut). Maybe they’ll fix the back end in the production aircraft.

Thanks for the informative breakdown of generations. However, as I’m sure you are well aware, some 4.5 gens do possess substantial sensor fusion. In addition some of them feature thrust vectoring and supercruise capability (also, as I am sure you are well aware)- something often associated with 5th generation fighters (though IMHO it shouldn’t be), and yet the F-35 seems to lack both (well, we’re not sure about the supercruise part). I think the big divider is design for inherent emphasis on stealth- i.e. F-35, F-22, and PAK-FA. That is the one thing that the clearly separates 5th generation from 4.5th generation. And likewise, there are substantial differences between 4th generation and 4.5th generation. In some cases, a 4.5 generation may even do a better job than a 5th gen (i.e. need an affordable, reliable, advanced aircraft for air policing role). Things seem a bit muddled now, but I do think there is a clear delineation between 4.5th gen and 5th gen in terms of stealth.