All Things Stealth

[Archie Pellagio]

Don't take my word for it: Unleash the googles!

 

[R011]

That's not an F-35. Do look at the RAF F-35 photos posted ere ans elsewhere on the web. They don't have the sky-blue and salmon pink roundels other RAF fighters have.

[Archie Pellagio]

Ah, I see.

Your comment was unclear.

 

Can someone explain why they can have red stripes surrounding the RAF roundel and blue decorations on the tails, but the roundels themselves have to be gray on gray?

 

Only the photo of the typhoon has the red insignia around the roundel.

The F35 is all grey on grey with no colour except for the USMC aircraft with blue tail flash.
You're mixing the two liveries up.

[Ivanhoe]

The colors on the Typhoon roundel are greyed-out because MOD bought the Home version rather than the Pro version.

[R011]

You're mixing the two liveries up.

 

So I was. My error.

[mnm]

Ah, monochrome, yes, why not?

 

[R011]

I'm sure there won't be any confusion. While the UK is using grey on grey, Denmark, Japan, Italy, and Turkey will probably be using grey on grey, grey, grey on grey, and grey on grey, respectively.

[Mr King]

wrong thread

Edited June 1, 2014 by Mr King

[Mr King]

[bojan]

Engine fire on landing:

[Josh]

Bit of a setback. But they have several other a/c in flight tests I believe. Though IMO PAK-FA is far from being a sure thing to go into production.

[Juan Sosa]

The big question is the cause of the fire. If it was FOD and they can determine that quickly, then it makes sense to just keep flying the others. If there is some sort of design issue with the engine, fuel system or some other part of the aircraft, then it would be prudent to halt flight ops until root cause is known.

[Mr King]

[Marcello]

Bit of a setback. But they have several other a/c in flight tests I believe. Though IMO PAK-FA is far from being a sure thing to go into production.

 

I do not think they have much in the way of alternatives. Both the West and the chinese are going to put 5th generation fighters in service, they have to keep up even if only with a compromise design.

[X-Files]

The Sealion program

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/unmasking-the-columbia-rivers-mysterious-stealth-boats-1583093889/1583423415/+travis

[Mr King]

[Sardaukar]

 

Bit of a setback. But they have several other a/c in flight tests I believe. Though IMO PAK-FA is far from being a sure thing to go into production.

 

I do not think they have much in the way of alternatives. Both the West and the chinese are going to put 5th generation fighters in service, they have to keep up even if only with a compromise design.

 

 

It's developed mainly with Indian money...so it depends a lot if India gets too annoyed about delays and setbacks. There have been news/rumours that Indians are far from happy about PAK-FA project and especially problems with it's engines. AFAIK, it uses older type engines now, because they haven't been able to make the new ones yet...

[Archie Pellagio]

 

I suddenly feel very old...

[Loopycrank]

Not convinced enought PAK-FA is stealthy beyond the external looks. Potemkin stealth?

 

The external looks are a huge part of stealth. I am convinced that PAK-FA is stealthy, albeit not so much as F-22, for the following reasons:

 

 

1) Look at the shapes of the plane. They have scrupulously avoided any right angles, with the exception of the various bay doors. Most aircraft, take EF-2000 for example, are covered in right angles, from the right angle formed by the tail and wings to the boxy air intakes. Not so PAK-FA. This makes the plane more of a PITA to design, but cuts down on radar returns because right angles make excellent corner reflectors.

 

2) Look at the position of the horizontal stabilizers relative to the wing. They are on the same plane with one another. This is not the case in the flanker. Having the wing and horizontal stabilizers on the same plane is aerodynamically less efficient, but stealthier as the wing hides returns from the stab. F-22 vs F-15 is the same way. This design decision makes no sense whatsoever unless they were deliberately trying to reduce radar signature.

 

3) Look at the wings and tail, and the leading edges of the leading-edge control surface thingies. The trailing edges of the horizontal stabilizers are parallel with the trailing edges of the corresponding wing, while the cutouts at the end of each wing are parallel with the leading edge of the opposite wing. The leading edges of the wings are of course parallel with the leading edge root thingies and the leading edges of each horizontal stabilizer. This is called "planform alignment," and again, forces aerodynamic compromises that make no sense unless you were after stealth.

 

4) The faceted, chined fuselage design is less structurally efficient (round structures have less surface area for a given volume than angular ones) than the design on the flanker. While it's conceivable that this design serves some sort of aerodynamic purpose, this sort of design is also seen in all stealth aircraft.

 

 

All that said, the lack of sawtooth edges on the service panels, and the fact that you can see the engine compressor faces from the front of the inlets are puzzling because they would appear to badly compromise stealth. In these respects the J-20 appears more carefully designed with regard to stealth. However, the YF-22 and YF-23 were just aerodynamic demonstrators and did not include all of the stealth features of the intended production aircraft. Indeed, the F-23A would have had a completely different inlet design than the YF-23 did, so if the current PAK-FA is basically just an aerodynamic demonstrator, it's entirely possible that the production aircraft will clean up all these deficiencies somehow.

 

The podded engine configuration, variable-geometry inlets, external ordnance stores, IRST, and two-part canopy all appear to compromise stealth compared to the F-22, and unless the design is radically altered, it's probably a safe bet that the production design will have bigger RCS than the raptor. However, I think it's also a safe bet that the production bird will have a much smaller RCS than a flanker or fulcrum, or even EF-2000 for that matter.

[sunday]

 

Not convinced enought PAK-FA is stealthy beyond the external looks. Potemkin stealth?

 

The external looks are a huge part of stealth. I am convinced that PAK-FA is stealthy, albeit not so much as F-22, for the following reasons:

 

 

(...)

 

 

Quite a collection of fair points. I did not think it was basically a aerodynamic prototype.

[Loopycrank]

 

 

Not convinced enought PAK-FA is stealthy beyond the external looks. Potemkin stealth?

 

The external looks are a huge part of stealth. I am convinced that PAK-FA is stealthy, albeit not so much as F-22, for the following reasons:

 

 

(...)

 

 

Quite a collection of fair points. I did not think it was basically a aerodynamic prototype.

 

 

Thank you.

 

I am not sure what to make of the PAK-FA test program. YF-23 and YF-22 had two prototypes each, PAK-FA is up to what, seven? That suggests they're managing the program rather differently.

 

Anyone have latest news on South Korean, Turkish and Swedish 5th generation designs?

 

Also, I wonder what Dassault is cooking up to replace Rafale.

[Juan Sosa]

YF-22 and YF-23 were technology demonstrators like the X-32 and X-32 for JSF. PAK-FA seems a full blown prototype that more closely reassembles the final production idea. If I am wrong, then I don't get the point of seven tech demonstrators.

[Getz]

Having more prototypes could accelerate the test program - obviously you can log twice the flight hours in the same time when you have twice as many airframes. Presumably the Russians want to close the "stealth jet gap" quickly.

[Josh]

They seem to manage their programs differently...but I agree that the fact there are so many pre-production planes would normally indcate more than a prototype or demostrator. What path have other Russian designs followed? The original MiG-29 or Su-27? I feel like the Su-35 and such were not different enough a/c to warrant the same level of development PAKFA would; I think we have to reach back to the 80's for that.

[Mr King]