By: eagle1
- 18th June 2019 at 09:49Permalink- Edited 18th June 2019 at 09:50
NGF looks more "pointy"/sharp to me with a greater emphasis on speed than the Tempest. Engine looks massive from behind. Just on looks I much prefer the NGF. One seems more inclined towards AtA and the other AtG.
By: Wanderlei
- 18th June 2019 at 15:30Permalink- Edited 18th June 2019 at 15:33
It is obvious that Franco-German design incorporates design features for possibilities of much higher speeds than TEMPEST. I dont see Tempest flying above Mach 1.8..Probably F-35 equivalent in that area. Just look at the profile angles on the side view of both. SCAF design is in comfortable high MACH 2 range, and materials/ coatings used will be only factor in limiting the speed with these engines. It will be able to fly way faster than TEMPEST if general shape remains as now on both.
[USER="8037"]Wanderlei[/USER] - It's got a DSI. So it's not likely to go much higher than Mach 2. That said, the point of a stealth aircraft is stealth. You won't be going faster than that anyways because heating becomes too much of a concern.
By: Wanderlei
- 18th June 2019 at 16:20Permalink- Edited 18th June 2019 at 16:22
[USER="8037"]Wanderlei[/USER] - It's got a DSI. So it's not likely to go much higher than Mach 2. That said, the point of a stealth aircraft is stealth. You won't be going faster than that anyways because heating becomes too much of a concern.
You gotta good point about DSI, but why exclude possibility of movable DSI where at higher speeds it accommodates the position slightly for less drag, and increases air flow. Yes.. while decreasing frontal stealth. Heating becomes much less if you reduce air resistance which is what they did in this design. Otherwise, why make it that slim and elongated at all. It reduces pilot visibility and options for internal storage of ..anything. But if you want higher speed, then its physics in air. Im not expert, just the way I see it.
A DSI just won't produce good airflow past Mach 1.9-2.0. So it isn't going to be possible to go much beyond that because you are working your engines harder than you would have if you had used a diverter.
The project is brand new, and so I don't know why they opted for the sleekness. (Maybe they thought it looked cool - I do.) A guess would be that they want a high supercruise together with stealth (a DSI is more complimentary to stealth than a diverter). Maybe it's a design to supercruise at Mach 1.8 and it redlines at Mach 2.1. You get great stealth, a high and fuel efficient supercruise, and although the afterburners don't give you much you won't use them much anyways. It's all speculation though until we hear what performance targets they are shooting for.
[USER="8037"]Wanderlei[/USER] - It's got a DSI. So it's not likely to go much higher than Mach 2. That said, the point of a stealth aircraft is stealth. You won't be going faster than that anyways because heating becomes too much of a concern.
i may be wrong, but i think DSI equipped F-16 reached mach2
By: FBW
- 18th June 2019 at 21:05Permalink- Edited 18th June 2019 at 21:12
i may be wrong, but i think DSI equipped F-16 reached mach2
It did, the CFD analysis paper showed optimal ranges for that particular DSI/inlet shape, Spillage increased approaching Mach 2. You’re going to optimize the DSI, inlet shape, BLC for efficiency across the widest range of relevant speeds.
By: LMFS
- 18th June 2019 at 21:58Permalink- Edited 18th June 2019 at 21:58
A DSI just won't produce good airflow past Mach 1.9-2.0. So it isn't going to be possible to go much beyond that because you are working your engines harder than you would have if you had used a diverter.
The project is brand new, and so I don't know why they opted for the sleekness. (Maybe they thought it looked cool - I do.) A guess would be that they want a high supercruise together with stealth (a DSI is more complimentary to stealth than a diverter). Maybe it's a design to supercruise at Mach 1.8 and it redlines at Mach 2.1. You get great stealth, a high and fuel efficient supercruise, and although the afterburners don't give you much you won't use them much anyways. It's all speculation though until we hear what performance targets they are shooting for.
True, the more engines are optimized for supercruising (be it due to low or variable bypass), the less reheat is going to add on top of that, specially at high speeds (unless we talk about very special VCEs devised to work as ramjet). None of the newer supercruising designs seem to care much about going beyond their cruising speed and I would even doubt it is intended to use the afterburners for top speed but rather for acceleration when going slower or in manoeuvring combat.
In any case I understand an adjustable intake would optimize the airflow at high speeds better than fixed or DSI ones / oversize the intakes further and hence attain higher supercruise performance
By: halloweene
- 19th June 2019 at 09:14Permalink- Edited 19th June 2019 at 12:46
No. Absolutely not, quite the opposite. this is a proposed general layout in 2019. flying demonstrator is expected within 5 years.
Take a look at this video
By: Wanderlei
- 19th June 2019 at 14:38Permalink- Edited 19th June 2019 at 15:21
Yes, in 5 years we will be able to comment more :-)
However, we should keep in mind that this is not project design to catch up with 5th generation as quickly as possible. It is supposed to be replacement for future old guys such as 4+ generation and F-22/F-35 class. Keeping open mind and not designing mainframe with todays limitations is very important. Meaning, in my opinion, there is no reason to plan speed limit to mach 2.00 due to stealth coatings or DSI, or similar technology we think we know limits of today. This frame will likely be designed to not only be best in 2035-40, but also not be limiting in 2050-2060 for mid life upgrade engine, and new materials that will likely overcome limitations of today, as well as limitations of 2030-40 technology. Only early versions of this bird will be entering service around 2040
New
By: Anonymous
- 19th June 2019 at 18:53Permalink- Edited 19th June 2019 at 18:57
You can design a DSI for whatever speed you like in principle, out to Mach 3.0 and beyond (though at such high speed you'd probably be better off adopting an inward turning intake for lower cowl drag). As it is a fixed geometry type however, off-design performance of a DSI will suffer at Mach numbers appreciably different from that optimum condition, like FBW says. If you were to select a design point high enough to enable efficient operation at Mach >2.0, pressure recovery at lower speed would be compromised which is no good for a fighter that will spend a lot (if not most) of its time at Mach <1.6.
By: haavarla
- 19th June 2019 at 20:44Permalink- Edited 20th June 2019 at 05:39
No. Absolutely not, quite the opposite. this is a proposed general layout in 2019. flying demonstrator is expected within 5 years.
Take a look at this video
Some programs gets a healty sprinkle of cost/Risk reduction as demonstrator transcended into a viable design.
Just sayin..
Better do something like enlarge Airintakes. If you want lots of hot air out the nozzles, you need lots of cold air into the Fans.
Blended Elevators, Verticals makes for very tricly recovery once you depart controlled flight. Computers can only fix as much, you need large and noumerous control surfaces, in order to avoid nasty surprises and stay nimble on a fighter.
I think they all look very interesting...
because they are mockups. Although, it’s ironic that the pointy nose gets all the “love” on the forum analysis. The critical design feature that would make a difference (if carried over to the demonstrator) would be the integrated nozzle/fuselage of the Tempest, that is the next technological leap for materials, IR reduction , lower weight. Fluidic thrust vectoring, BAE already has experience with this, not to mention the way forward for eliminating vertical tails in a supersonic aircraft.
Drag doesn’t just happen at the front of the aircraft, an integrated nozzle will be a major breakthrough, the F-22’s 2-d non-axis symmetric nozzle was the baby step to major drag reduction.
Posts: 1,120
By: eagle1 - 18th June 2019 at 09:49 Permalink - Edited 18th June 2019 at 09:50
NGF looks more "pointy"/sharp to me with a greater emphasis on speed than the Tempest. Engine looks massive from behind. Just on looks I much prefer the NGF. One seems more inclined towards AtA and the other AtG.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 18th June 2019 at 10:00 Permalink
The "pointly" look comes from conformal radar modules (df Mancuso conferences)
Posts: 480
By: Wanderlei - 18th June 2019 at 15:30 Permalink - Edited 18th June 2019 at 15:33
It is obvious that Franco-German design incorporates design features for possibilities of much higher speeds than TEMPEST. I dont see Tempest flying above Mach 1.8..Probably F-35 equivalent in that area. Just look at the profile angles on the side view of both. SCAF design is in comfortable high MACH 2 range, and materials/ coatings used will be only factor in limiting the speed with these engines. It will be able to fly way faster than TEMPEST if general shape remains as now on both.
Posts: 333
By: XB-70 - 18th June 2019 at 15:56 Permalink
[USER="8037"]Wanderlei[/USER] - It's got a DSI. So it's not likely to go much higher than Mach 2. That said, the point of a stealth aircraft is stealth. You won't be going faster than that anyways because heating becomes too much of a concern.
Posts: 480
By: Wanderlei - 18th June 2019 at 16:20 Permalink - Edited 18th June 2019 at 16:22
You gotta good point about DSI, but why exclude possibility of movable DSI where at higher speeds it accommodates the position slightly for less drag, and increases air flow. Yes.. while decreasing frontal stealth. Heating becomes much less if you reduce air resistance which is what they did in this design. Otherwise, why make it that slim and elongated at all. It reduces pilot visibility and options for internal storage of ..anything. But if you want higher speed, then its physics in air. Im not expert, just the way I see it.
Posts: 333
By: XB-70 - 18th June 2019 at 16:46 Permalink
A DSI just won't produce good airflow past Mach 1.9-2.0. So it isn't going to be possible to go much beyond that because you are working your engines harder than you would have if you had used a diverter.
The project is brand new, and so I don't know why they opted for the sleekness. (Maybe they thought it looked cool - I do.) A guess would be that they want a high supercruise together with stealth (a DSI is more complimentary to stealth than a diverter). Maybe it's a design to supercruise at Mach 1.8 and it redlines at Mach 2.1. You get great stealth, a high and fuel efficient supercruise, and although the afterburners don't give you much you won't use them much anyways. It's all speculation though until we hear what performance targets they are shooting for.
Posts: 480
By: Wanderlei - 18th June 2019 at 17:08 Permalink
Good point. Its got very big intakes. Yes, we will see what happens..
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 18th June 2019 at 20:06 Permalink
i may be wrong, but i think DSI equipped F-16 reached mach2
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 18th June 2019 at 21:05 Permalink - Edited 18th June 2019 at 21:12
It did, the CFD analysis paper showed optimal ranges for that particular DSI/inlet shape, Spillage increased approaching Mach 2. You’re going to optimize the DSI, inlet shape, BLC for efficiency across the widest range of relevant speeds.
Posts: 484
By: LMFS - 18th June 2019 at 21:58 Permalink - Edited 18th June 2019 at 21:58
True, the more engines are optimized for supercruising (be it due to low or variable bypass), the less reheat is going to add on top of that, specially at high speeds (unless we talk about very special VCEs devised to work as ramjet). None of the newer supercruising designs seem to care much about going beyond their cruising speed and I would even doubt it is intended to use the afterburners for top speed but rather for acceleration when going slower or in manoeuvring combat.
In any case I understand an adjustable intake would optimize the airflow at high speeds better than fixed or DSI ones / oversize the intakes further and hence attain higher supercruise performance
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 18th June 2019 at 22:01 Permalink
LEt's remember it is just a model. demo should fly within 4 years (expected) and may be changed again for final configuration.
Posts: 1,010
By: totoro - 19th June 2019 at 07:46 Permalink
Was there an announcement that this was the definitive configuration for the demo plane?
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 19th June 2019 at 09:14 Permalink - Edited 19th June 2019 at 12:46
No. Absolutely not, quite the opposite. this is a proposed general layout in 2019. flying demonstrator is expected within 5 years.
Take a look at this video
https://youtu.be/CqpeiiFtJR4
Posts: 480
By: Wanderlei - 19th June 2019 at 14:38 Permalink - Edited 19th June 2019 at 15:21
Yes, in 5 years we will be able to comment more :-)
However, we should keep in mind that this is not project design to catch up with 5th generation as quickly as possible. It is supposed to be replacement for future old guys such as 4+ generation and F-22/F-35 class. Keeping open mind and not designing mainframe with todays limitations is very important. Meaning, in my opinion, there is no reason to plan speed limit to mach 2.00 due to stealth coatings or DSI, or similar technology we think we know limits of today. This frame will likely be designed to not only be best in 2035-40, but also not be limiting in 2050-2060 for mid life upgrade engine, and new materials that will likely overcome limitations of today, as well as limitations of 2030-40 technology. Only early versions of this bird will be entering service around 2040
By: Anonymous - 19th June 2019 at 18:53 Permalink - Edited 19th June 2019 at 18:57
You can design a DSI for whatever speed you like in principle, out to Mach 3.0 and beyond (though at such high speed you'd probably be better off adopting an inward turning intake for lower cowl drag). As it is a fixed geometry type however, off-design performance of a DSI will suffer at Mach numbers appreciably different from that optimum condition, like FBW says. If you were to select a design point high enough to enable efficient operation at Mach >2.0, pressure recovery at lower speed would be compromised which is no good for a fighter that will spend a lot (if not most) of its time at Mach <1.6.
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 19th June 2019 at 20:44 Permalink - Edited 20th June 2019 at 05:39
Some programs gets a healty sprinkle of cost/Risk reduction as demonstrator transcended into a viable design.
Just sayin..
Better do something like enlarge Airintakes. If you want lots of hot air out the nozzles, you need lots of cold air into the Fans.
Blended Elevators, Verticals makes for very tricly recovery once you depart controlled flight. Computers can only fix as much, you need large and noumerous control surfaces, in order to avoid nasty surprises and stay nimble on a fighter.
Posts: 1,286
By: Jō Asakura - 20th June 2019 at 01:53 Permalink
Dassault NGF looks absolutely amazing! Major kudos! Look forward to seeing how Northrop's effort compares aesthetically, will they go tail-less?
Will be interesting to see the Generative Design solutions implemented on both:
https://www.autodesk.com/customer-stories/airbus
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 20th June 2019 at 04:10 Permalink - Edited 20th June 2019 at 04:23
I think they all look very interesting...
because they are mockups. Although, it’s ironic that the pointy nose gets all the “love” on the forum analysis. The critical design feature that would make a difference (if carried over to the demonstrator) would be the integrated nozzle/fuselage of the Tempest, that is the next technological leap for materials, IR reduction , lower weight. Fluidic thrust vectoring, BAE already has experience with this, not to mention the way forward for eliminating vertical tails in a supersonic aircraft.
Drag doesn’t just happen at the front of the aircraft, an integrated nozzle will be a major breakthrough, the F-22’s 2-d non-axis symmetric nozzle was the baby step to major drag reduction.
Posts: 163
By: J-20 - 20th June 2019 at 05:38 Permalink - Edited 2nd October 2019 at 14:50
Die evolution of FCAS. it changes every year har har
2014 model
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"fcas_web.jpg","data-attachmentid":3865944}[/ATTACH]
2015 model
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"sistema-FCAS-kD6H--620x349@abc.jpg","data-attachmentid":3865946}[/ATTACH]
2017 model
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"Airbus-concept-for-Future-Combat-Air-System-1024x503.jpg","data-attachmentid":3865943}[/ATTACH]
2018 model
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"Airbus_Dassault_join_forces_for_FCAS_program_001.jpg","data-attachmentid":3865945}[/ATTACH]
2019 model
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"FCAS_06.jpg?fit=980%2C426&ssl=1.jpg","data-attachmentid":3865947}[/ATTACH]
Posts: 1,286
By: Jō Asakura - 20th June 2019 at 12:35 Permalink
Meh, tempest...Just wait...