By: swerve
- 27th March 2014 at 10:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So Swerve, if I do read you clear and loud, emerging countries should organize their advanced technology projects (the ones that they push painfully forward just to cut their dependence) to suit the old order of the post-colonial industrial age? Do I am right?
No, you're wrong.
They should be pragmatic, & organise their advanced technology projects so they have the greatest possible chance of success. If that means getting the co-operation of firms in richer countries, so be it - though they should, of course, be careful in what agreements they make, to ensure they're not handicapped by contract conditions, as S. Korea is with the T/FA-50, or ITAR restrictions.
New
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon
- 28th March 2014 at 04:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think Yak-130 could be more easily made stealth than a JF-17. JF-10/L-15 the same. Twin engine J-7/MiG-21 is pretty heavy and anything but cheap. J-8II requires a similar crew size to an Su-27.
the prototype certainly looked it, with its faceted fueselage
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 28th March 2014 at 04:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It isnt possible to build a small fighter with a bomb bay big enough while keeping aerodynamics to make it competitive in A2A, just look at F-35.
Rather split duty with smaller fighters for A2A, and for those missions that must bank on stealth, a purpose built UAV bomber,
that will have several orders of magnitude lower RCS btw, with no tail or over-sized control surfaces as a fighter wannabe.
New
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii
- 28th March 2014 at 06:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It isnt possible to build a small fighter with a bomb bay big enough while keeping aerodynamics to make it competitive in A2A, just look at F-35.
J-31 shows that it is possible to do better than F-35! And AMCA certainly seems to be targeting high performance with its high fineness ratio.
Internal bays make things challenging, but not impossible I think, particularly if you're willing to accept a bay that can only carry A2A and smaller A2G muntions (like F-22) or only a single 2,000lb or NSM-class munition rather than two like F-35.
Alternatively it should be possible to develop a pod/CFT system like on F-15SE to offer expanded payload options for A2G missions as required; being designed and integrated with the airframe from the very beginning it should be possible to preserve VLO characteristics both with and without such pods fitted.
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 28th March 2014 at 06:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, i think modular "integrated" bomb bays at the root of the wing is the way to go, if you want to accomplish this. (how will you fit landing gear? )
Better yet if you also develop new fineness munition, along NSM lines, to fit.
There is not much point in developing a 'stealth' fighter if it can't bring bombs to bear, most modern fighters can dodge a SAM at alt with a light load,
while none can dodge while lugging 4000 kg worth of bombs, so this is when very low RCS is needed, and i think UAV or stand-off munitions, or both,
is the best bet at the mment
New
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii
- 3rd April 2014 at 08:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sure where to put this really, but it occurs to me that a triangular arrangement between SAAB, Brazil, and Turkey would have a lot going for it, and moreover seems quite plausible given the SAAB-Brazil, SAAB-Turkey, and Turkey-Brazil relationships already established. Could this nexus serve each partner's interests and present the world with another 5+ generation combat aircraft?
By: topspeed
- 3rd April 2014 at 16:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sure where to put this really, but it occurs to me that a triangular arrangement between SAAB, Brazil, and Turkey would have a lot going for it, and moreover seems quite plausible given the SAAB-Brazil, SAAB-Turkey, and Turkey-Brazil relationships already established. Could this nexus serve each partner's interests and present the world with another 5+ generation combat aircraft?
Better yet...Finland aviation industry ( PATRIA ) could deliver more capable 6th generation jets for lesser money ? :applause:
Flying the 4 engine plane with just 2 engines would save fuel and bomb bays could deliver also much needed tents and rice sacks etc !
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii - 26th March 2014 at 22:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
UCAV in the class of Avenger or nEUROn would seem to be your answer there.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 27th March 2014 at 10:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, you're wrong.
They should be pragmatic, & organise their advanced technology projects so they have the greatest possible chance of success. If that means getting the co-operation of firms in richer countries, so be it - though they should, of course, be careful in what agreements they make, to ensure they're not handicapped by contract conditions, as S. Korea is with the T/FA-50, or ITAR restrictions.
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 28th March 2014 at 04:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the prototype certainly looked it, with its faceted fueselage
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 28th March 2014 at 04:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It isnt possible to build a small fighter with a bomb bay big enough while keeping aerodynamics to make it competitive in A2A, just look at F-35.
Rather split duty with smaller fighters for A2A, and for those missions that must bank on stealth, a purpose built UAV bomber,
that will have several orders of magnitude lower RCS btw, with no tail or over-sized control surfaces as a fighter wannabe.
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii - 28th March 2014 at 06:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
J-31 shows that it is possible to do better than F-35! And AMCA certainly seems to be targeting high performance with its high fineness ratio.
Internal bays make things challenging, but not impossible I think, particularly if you're willing to accept a bay that can only carry A2A and smaller A2G muntions (like F-22) or only a single 2,000lb or NSM-class munition rather than two like F-35.
Alternatively it should be possible to develop a pod/CFT system like on F-15SE to offer expanded payload options for A2G missions as required; being designed and integrated with the airframe from the very beginning it should be possible to preserve VLO characteristics both with and without such pods fitted.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 28th March 2014 at 06:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, i think modular "integrated" bomb bays at the root of the wing is the way to go, if you want to accomplish this. (how will you fit landing gear? )
Better yet if you also develop new fineness munition, along NSM lines, to fit.
There is not much point in developing a 'stealth' fighter if it can't bring bombs to bear, most modern fighters can dodge a SAM at alt with a light load,
while none can dodge while lugging 4000 kg worth of bombs, so this is when very low RCS is needed, and i think UAV or stand-off munitions, or both,
is the best bet at the mment
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii - 3rd April 2014 at 08:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sure where to put this really, but it occurs to me that a triangular arrangement between SAAB, Brazil, and Turkey would have a lot going for it, and moreover seems quite plausible given the SAAB-Brazil, SAAB-Turkey, and Turkey-Brazil relationships already established. Could this nexus serve each partner's interests and present the world with another 5+ generation combat aircraft?
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 3rd April 2014 at 16:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Better yet...Finland aviation industry ( PATRIA ) could deliver more capable 6th generation jets for lesser money ? :applause:
Flying the 4 engine plane with just 2 engines would save fuel and bomb bays could deliver also much needed tents and rice sacks etc !