Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 93

Thread: British and Japan: new stealth fighter?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Quote Originally Posted by Y-20 Bacon
    ^ same here.
    I prefer the pancake style of 5th gen jets (yf-23, pakfa, 24dmu).

    I would like to know why they decided against this route, and why more designs more or less use the LockMart template.
    i'm guessing less risk
    Possibly the result of aerodynamics and radar signature testing.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    870
    @Ryan

    The YF 23 was better in those 2 regards. It was mainly mothballed b/c it was ahead of its time.

    I think Y 20 is right. Its much simpler for these conglomerates to go with a conventional design. Only Russia and the US have the experience to let their imagination roll

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,362
    What LO experience did Russia have before ?

    That said, I agree that there is obviously a formula which countries starting from scratch, find easier to follow. Even neuron puts me in mind of the F117when viewed from underneath, and there are probably only so many ways to skin a cat.

    If you look at the number of LO designs that were around in the US in the 70s and 80s, not all of then worked and I suppose LMs formula is now the most tried and tested, therefore best understood by third parties.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    The YF 23 was better in those 2 regards. It was mainly mothballed b/c it was ahead of its time.

    I think Y 20 is right. Its much simpler for these conglomerates to go with a conventional design. Only Russia and the US have the experience to let their imagination roll
    It's radar signature was allegedly lower than the F-22s but that doesn't mean it's the most perfect geometric shape for stealth possible. None of planforms seem to directly duplicate any previous stealth aircraft.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,420
    As head of the Lampyridae project said, Maxwell's equations have been public for over 100 years. The big problem was the quantity of calculation needed, but then computers came along, & processing power has got cheaper & cheaper.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,745
    What LO experience did Russia have before ?
    And exactly what "LO experience" do you need? Stealth principles are well known..

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,362
    KGBs contention was that:

    "Only Russia and the US have the experience to let their imagination roll"

    Whilst I am aware of literally dozens of LO designs dating back to the late 1950s originating from the US, I can think of only 2 from MiG and one from Sukhoi (which is now flying).

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,152
    KGB is fanboying like usual, so I am not sure why you are bothering to look into deeper meaning from his words.

    USSR did factor RCS reduction into aircraft though, if not outright LO. See Tu-160s claimed low-ish RCS, the extensive RAM treatment for the engines, etc.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,362
    TR1, yes you are right on both counts

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    41
    its quite sure that the japanese cannot match up with european or american technology, tho theyve got technology transfers regarding the F110-GE-129 in the 90s during FSX program in exchange for the composite integral wing and Fighter AESA technology. They also claim that their XF5 developed by 1998 is already above the level of F110-GE-129 or F-100-PW-220.

    Now they aim to develop a turbofan engine with TIT of 1800 degrees celsius till 2025 and completely develop a fully operational and combat capable engine with 15 tons of thrust with a size similar to F414 or EJ200 till 2030 and use it for F-3. It's going to be named High Power Slim Engine (HPSE).
    (Well, on top of that, F135 already has a TIT of 2000 degrees celcsius and GE is developing 26,750 lbs F414 EPE, so I don't actually really think F414 sized engine with 15 tons of thrust is sth impossible for country like Japan to develop)

    They were already aware - at least by 2010 - about some lacking and short comings of infrastructures for such high tech development compared to the states. Guess they will also construct some testing and other facilities, too.


    I'm currently reading through some of the japanese documents regarding their engine development so I can get some details later on
    Last edited by Maro.Kyo; 19th May 2017 at 19:07. Reason: left keys indoors

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    I remember hearing that F135 TET figure is in Rankine.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    870
    I didn't just mean LO. I meant the entire design of the aircraft. Russia made the su 37 Berkut for fun.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan
    I remember hearing that F135 TET figure is in Rankine.
    That's not even 1000 degrees celsius.... I find it unlikely

  14. #44
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,758
    Quote Originally Posted by mrmalaya
    Whilst I am aware of literally dozens of LO designs dating back to the late 1950s originating from the US, I can think of only 2 from MiG and one from Sukhoi (which is now flying).
    Somewhat OT, but this had me wondering...

    Depending on how you define LO and assuming the design doesn't necessarily need to have flown, I can think of 3 Yakovlev projects, one Tupolev project, 2 MiG projects and 4 Sukhoi projects that display strong LO features in published images. Such traits being at least several if not all of the following: chined fuselage, planform alignment, s-ducts, edge serrations, twin canted tails, internal weapons bays, 2D nozzles, caret or DSI intakes (i.e. they go beyond something like the Tu-160 or Eurocanards). Additionally, there are at least two more Sukhoi projects, one more MiG project and one further Tupolev project of which no public images exist but that are highly likely to fall into this category going by available information. Also, two projects not attributed to any of the big design bureaux but that can be considered credible engineering.

    Most of these pre-date the first flight of the T-50 (though a couple were simply part of the PAK-FA programme).

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,362
    You know after saying it, I could think of one or two more which had flown with some design traits that might, in the right light, have been done to reduce RCS.

    They aren't of the level we see in US projects though are they.

    It might actually be worth starting a thread with images on this subject!

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,465
    Think that the notation was directed more to the about the general shape (and consequently the overall flight envelope performances of the plane)than to engines or the stealth features.

    PAK-FA frame is an evolution of the MiG-29/Su-27 passing trough all successive Flanker models one modified ( "pancaked") to made it stealth.

    So it is a result of a more than thirty years of work on a given general pattern, something not so easy not just to replicate but even further advance, hence the probable shift to a more experimented pattern.

    It would work also in reverse, however, in the case russian engineers suddenly went crazy and decides to abandon their actual, well know shapes and try to experiment something, maybe seeemingly even more conventional but in which they have not any experience like, just to say, the tailless delta.
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 20th May 2017 at 07:44.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,758
    Quote Originally Posted by mrmalaya
    It might actually be worth starting a thread with images on this subject!
    Yes it definitely is, I was thinking in terms of a collage, but the number of projects is probably too high already.

    BTW, the first LO research in Russia was performed on ballistic missile RVs as early as the 1960s, in response to the looming threat of US ABM deployment. So they too have considerable heritage, though it took much longer than in the US for the subject to spread into aircraft design. And until the T-50 in 2010, the J-20 in 2011, Neuron in 2012, Taranis in 2013 and X-2 last year, which project *anywhere* could lay credible claim to be approaching true LO characteristics? I mean, you can quite plausibly argue that until then, the Su-47 (as modest as its RCS reduction features are) was the "stealthiest" aircraft flown outside the US - and in fact remains "stealthier" than any manned combat aircraft flown in Western Europe.

    You can compare to the US, and conclude that they were far behind - or you can compare to anyone else, and conclude that they were doing pretty damn well!

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    That's not even 1000 degrees celsius.... I find it unlikely
    3600 Rankine. Discussion about it here. The 2000degC figure came from assuming they meant Fahrenheit.

    http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=210703

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,362
    The UK (relevant here because of the potential participation in the project) had quite a treasure trove of genuine LO designs in the development of what would later become JSF.

    BAE has a hefty heritage of LO research from the 1980s and 90s, and there are those among us who would suggest that something stealthy flew before the Raven/Corax demonstrator ten years before Taranis.

    I might move on to this new thread...

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,148
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    And exactly what "LO experience" do you need? Stealth principles are well known..
    What do you think it means?

    The principles of jet engines, fighter airframes, radars, etc, are all "well known," but that doesn't mean just anyone can build a competitive design, especially on their first attempt. The devil is in the details.

    Russia has experience in most of the relevant technologies but stealth isn't something that they have experience in. That is likely a big part of why the PAK FA is running so late.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    870
    @hopsalot

    The PakFa isn't running late. It took 14 years for the Raptor to go from contract award to service.

    The PakFa was awarded the contract in 2002. So if it goes into service this year, it will be within 14 years and if its next year, it will be off by a year which is not "so late"

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,465
    Boys, why always going on a male reproduction organ measuring contest there?

    T-50 has actually had less problem that the T-10 before becoming that outstanding success story collectively know as Flanker (15 prototypes, 2 crashes with death of pilots) and this without any stealth involved.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,148
    The PakFa isn't running late. It took 14 years for the Raptor to go from contract award to service.

    The PakFa was awarded the contract in 2002. So if it goes into service this year, it will be within 14 years and if its next year, it will be off by a year which is not "so late"
    Yes, it most certainly is. It was originally supposed to go into service in 2015, and then in 2013 no less than Putin himself said it would go into service in 2016.

    ...and guess what, it isn't going into service in 2017 either.


    OSCOW, April 25 (RIA Novosti) – Russia’s fifth-generation T-50 fighter jet will enter service with the country’s armed forces in 2016, and not 2015 as was previously announced, President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday.

    “The T-50 fifth generation jet should go into serial production and enter service in 2016,” Putin said at a live Q&A session with the Russian public.

    The Defense Ministry had earlier said the jet would be ready in 2015.

    Russia will start state flight tests of the T-50 in 2014, United Aircraft Corporation's President Mikhail Pogosyan said on Tuesday.
    https://sputniknews.com/military/201...n-2016--Putin/


    In 2016, the Russian military will start deploying two advanced weapons, the fifth-generation fighter jet PAK FA and the long-range surface-to-air missile systems S-500, chief of the Russian Air Forces said.

    Lieutenant General Viktor Bondarev gave an outline of his branch's modernization plans, including the build-up of Arctic infrastructure, in a radio interview with the Russian News Service station on Sunday.

    The flight trials of PAK FA (T-50) will soon be over, and in 2016 the Air Force is planning to start commissioning the aircraft into service, the general said.

    PAK FA is Russia's first fifth-generation fighter jet built by the Sukhoi Corporation. So far five prototypes have been completed and are undergoing various tests. The fighter is scheduled to eventually replace Sukhoi Su-27s.
    https://www.rt.com/news/179256-russi...s500-missiles/
    Last edited by hopsalot; 20th May 2017 at 17:44.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,745
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot
    What do you think it means?

    The principles of jet engines, fighter airframes, radars, etc, are all "well known," but that doesn't mean just anyone can build a competitive design, especially on their first attempt. The devil is in the details.
    I can see where this is leading.. no one can build stealth, just us.. it took 30+ years from Tacit Blue to the F-35, now everyone has to repeat the same mistakes.. right..

    Face it, every a$$ and his brother can build a stealth aircraft.. Russia, UK, China, Japan, France, Korea, Sweden (sans propulsion).. it only depends on money and time.. if you gave a $300 billion programme and a promise for an order of over 3,000 units to French, for that money their final aircraft would not only do conventional take-off, STOVL and CATOBAR, but also fly into space and dive like a submarine..

    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot
    Russia has experience in most of the relevant technologies but stealth isn't something that they have experience in. That is likely a big part of why the PAK FA is running so late.
    What do you know about it? They have lost at least two years due to structural problems with the spar between the wings, as well as the fire of the 055.
    Last edited by MSphere; 20th May 2017 at 17:53.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,370
    Russia has experience in most of the relevant technologies but stealth isn't something that they have experience in. That is likely a big part of why the PAK FA is running so late
    .

    PAKFA is flat aircraft with FBW control 3D TVC designed for higher altitude and speed with longest range on internal fuel of any fighter its not medium altitude aircraft. it is 6 generation airframe.

    smart skin.
    http://rostec.ru/en/news/4514847
    The unique system of active and passive radars and optical rangefinders is integrated into the aircraft body and acts as a “smart skin”. Its use not only enhances the aircraft’s protection against jamming and its survivability, but also counters, to a great extent, the effects of low-observability (stealth) technology of enemy aircraft, the Concern’s Press Service reports.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR
    PAKFA is flat aircraft with FBW control 3D TVC designed for higher altitude and speed with longest range on internal fuel of any fighter its not medium altitude aircraft. it is 6 generation airframe.

    smart skin.
    Give it a rest JSR, the T-50 isn't some magical ultra stealthy Mach 3+ wonder weapon you're making it out to be.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    870
    @hapsalot. You quoted RT and Sputnik. Those are unacceptable sources don't you know..

    Yes according to their self imposed targets, they are a bit late. But the way people word it, is to claim that the Raptor was designed and flying in half the time. It wasn't. Compared to other real projects, its not late.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,362
    That's the problem with this thread, there isn't lots to actually talk about on topic.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,148
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    I can see where this is leading.. no one can build stealth, just us.. it took 30+ years from Tacit Blue to the F-35, now everyone has to repeat the same mistakes.. right..

    Face it, every a$$ and his brother can build a stealth aircraft.. Russia, UK, China, Japan, France, Korea, Sweden (sans propulsion).. it only depends on money and time.. if you gave a $300 billion programme and a promise for an order of over 3,000 units to French, for that money their final aircraft would not only do conventional take-off, STOVL and CATOBAR, but also fly into space and dive like a submarine..

    What do you know about it? They have lost at least two years due to structural problems with the spar between the wings, as well as the fire of the 055.
    More rage...

    I stated a simple fact, stealth requires a variety of technologies and materials that simply aren't needed in a 4th generation design... experience is valuable. No need to send your blood pressure through the roof.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,148
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    @hapsalot. You quoted RT and Sputnik. Those are unacceptable sources don't you know..

    Yes according to their self imposed targets, they are a bit late. But the way people word it, is to claim that the Raptor was designed and flying in half the time. It wasn't. Compared to other real projects, its not late.
    It is years late, simple as that. It hasn't taken longer than some other designs but it is already years behind its original schedule.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES