TFX die Turkische Stealthen plannen! at Paris Le Baguette Airshow 2019

Profile picture for user J-20

Member for

1 year 10 months

Posts: 163

it looks a lot flatter and longer than I thought it would be.

i guess instead of going Thiccccc like the F-35. it went flat

[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"D9RuwPfXYAAWPBx.jpg","data-attachmentid":3865940}[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"D9RrdX2WwAEdpIb.jpg","data-attachmentid":3865939}[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"D9Q9i0UXkAAXGGz.jpg","data-attachmentid":3865938}[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"d9hwd9vxoaarcmhu7k4r.jpg","data-attachmentid":3865934}[/ATTACH]
Some of the bays there.. or is that the wheel bay?

[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"getasset.aspx?itemid=77894.jpg","data-attachmentid":3865937}[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"D9Vm6vDWkAEElTs.jpg","data-attachmentid":3865935}[/ATTACH]

romple

18.25 meters?

[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"TF-X.png","data-attachmentid":3865936}[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"D9RuwO6WwAAftTl.jpg","data-attachmentid":3865941}[/ATTACH]

I wonder what DJ Cross tinks

Original post

Member for

9 years 2 months

Posts: 506

https://youtu.be/mDGhwI0gtbQ

From this Turkish Aerospace Video, seems they go directly to '5 Gen Capabilities' of internal weapon bay.

The aerostructure have some similarities with KFX, but seems TFX goes with more flatter fuselage.

Member for

9 years 1 month

Posts: 276

Another difference is that the F-35 will be built.

Interesting that even the Turks have recognised the benefit of having the canopy leading edge coming to a point and not having exposed frame in the aircraft's front aspect.

An old Sesame Street song comes to mind in regards to a particular "stealth" ish aircraft with name ending with 57. " One of these kids is doing their own thing...."

Also applies to blunt, thick leading edges and to slack adherence to side surface alignment and angular thresholds too.

Member for

1 year 6 months

Posts: 333

Interesting that even the Turks have recognised the benefit of having the canopy leading edge coming to a point and not having exposed frame in the aircraft's front aspect.

That's cause they went with a clamshell. With the Su-57 though the front part is a fixed piece. And so there is no gap there and you can design a continuous conduction path. Irrelevant criticism.

You know, a lot of stealth is circuit analysis. I have some doubts about your eyeball's ability to perceive that. :)

Member for

9 years 1 month

Posts: 276

That's cause they went with a clamshell. With the Su-57 though the front part is a fixed piece. And so there is no gap there and you can design a continuous conduction path. Irrelevant criticism.

You know, a lot of stealth is circuit analysis. I have some doubts about your eyeball's ability to perceive that. :)

Still conductivity difference between aircraft frame and canopy glass. Still a surface discontinuity which will cause a large amount of diffraction and surface wave reflection... Right back towards the emitter.

Profile picture for user J-20

Member for

1 year 10 months

Posts: 163

looking at the size of the missiles on the side.. and the bay doors.

looks like it would have

2 small side bays for 1 missile

and probably 1 large bay on the bottom. doesnt look wide enough to fit 2 side by side

Member for

1 year 6 months

Posts: 333

Still conductivity difference between aircraft frame and canopy glass. Still a surface discontinuity which will cause a large amount of diffraction and surface wave reflection... Right back towards the emitter
.

No, ActionJackson. Because, as they have stated, they applied layers of ITO to the glass. And they can tailor the conductivity of that through the thickness and number of layers, as well as the ratio of indium oxide to tin oxide (there is no molecule ITO). Similarly, the conductivity of the carbon fiber shell and the exterior coatings can be tailored by doped conductive particle size and number.

So do you have any actual evidence that they didn't do any of this? Because I know this is not something you can see. In fact, I would bet you had never thought about it.

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 5,388

Another mockup which does not provide evidence of useful weapons bay volume or mission systems.

A sleek airframe is nice, but military utility comes from sensors, communications and a sufficient amount of weapons. And you need to be able to get close enough to the enemy to employ them without becoming a target yourself.

The Turk mockup, like the DA/Airbus and BAE mockups tell an indeterminate story about military utility.

Interesting that even the Turks have recognised the benefit of having the canopy leading edge coming to a point and not having exposed frame in the aircraft's front aspect.

Or is everybody else just taking the low-risk route by aping the one solution which is proven so far? Which is not the same as it being the *only* effective solution feasible, of course. Do TAI, Chengdu and Shenyang genuinely know more about these things than Northrop (conveniently omitting to mention that it is NOT only Sukhoi who adopt a different approach, again...)?

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 5,388

To determine the effectiveness of an LO design feature, you have to perform measurements. Electrical discontinuities from the fuselage skin, to the canopy frame, to the canopy transparency all become RF scattering sources. It becomes a balance of how much design/manufacturing diligence is required at the feature level to achieve the required dB reduction at the airplane level.

Member for

7 years 10 months

Posts: 4,168

As french i love baguette, but the title is a little bit....

Member for

1 year 10 months

Posts: 24

https://youtu.be/mDGhwI0gtbQ

From this Turkish Aerospace Video, seems they go directly to '5 Gen Capabilities' of internal weapon bay.

The aerostructure have some similarities with KFX, but seems TFX goes with more flatter fuselage.

interesting video , it seems to have 1 central internal bay for 2 long range meteor missiles, and 2 internal bays for short raange missiles.
it also has irst ball like su-57 + bottom romboid irst like f-35 combined.

Or is everybody else just taking the low-risk route by aping the one solution which is proven so far? Which is not the same as it being the *only* effective solution feasible, of course. Do TAI, Chengdu and Shenyang genuinely know more about these things than Northrop (conveniently omitting to mention that it is NOT only Sukhoi who adopt a different approach, again...)?

because you cant make stealth fighter and small fighter. you need internal weapon bays. that also means it should be 2 engines for better area rule , so medium or heavy fighter. look at su-57 800nm combat radius vs f-22 450nm. almost double! sure because area ruling su-57 has worst stealth from some areas but frontal aspect rcs should be the same.
there was a question in some local newspapers about if irst increase detection and they said it wont add more then 30% to rcs. now irst is 20x30 cm that is 0,06m2 ,and they still decided and reduced it in non-active-mod to 1/10 of that.

Member for

7 years 10 months

Posts: 4,168

you know videos... I have see one at MBDA, more internal storage in NGF than in a A400M...

Profile picture for user haavarla

Member for

11 years

Posts: 6,438

it looks a lot flatter and longer than I thought it would be.

i guess instead of going Thiccccc like the F-35. it went flat

J-20@
There is absolutly no reason what so ever for Turkey or Europe 5th gen fighter to go fat and short like F-35.
We all understand why the F-35 ended up short and fat. Navy requirements on CV ramp and fotprint.

If you only have Airforce requirements, then you are free to go longer, flat and sleeknes design.

Member for

9 years 2 months

Posts: 506

There is absolutly no reason what so ever for Turkey or Europe 5th gen fighter to go fat and short like F-35.
We all understand why the F-35 ended up short and fat. Navy requirements on CV ramp and fotprint.

If you only have Airforce requirements, then you are free to go longer, flat and sleeknes design.

Isn't Dasault-Airbus design has also to be the replacement for Rafale Naval ? So it can not be only for Air Force requirements.

Member for

13 years 10 months

Posts: 2,813

because you cant make stealth fighter and small fighter.

Well nobody has tried just yet - I wouldn't call either F-35 or J-31 "small fighters".

that also means it should be 2 engines for better area rule ,

I'm sure Lockheed Martin and US military might disagree. What do you mean by "area rule" in this case?

Profile picture for user haavarla

Member for

11 years

Posts: 6,438

Well nobody has tried just yet - I wouldn't call either F-35 or J-31 "small fighters".

I'm sure Lockheed Martin and US military might disagree. What do you mean by "area rule" in this case?

Better Area rule would be several things;
Less draggy airframe design layout.
A wider and flatter airframe would mean slightly better lift Coifficent(body-lift), depending on Airfoil, LERX, LEVCON etc.
A wider and flatter airframe would also make larger int fuel tanks a little less tricky. You can store lots of fuel in between the two Engines, but depending on how wide the engines are mounted.
See Flanker/T-50 for clues.

Member for

13 years 10 months

Posts: 2,813

Better Area rule would be several things;
Less draggy airframe design layout.
A wider and flatter airframe would mean slightly better lift Coifficent(body-lift), depending on Airfoil, LERX, LEVCON etc.
A wider and flatter airframe would also make larger int fuel tanks a little less tricky. You can store lots of fuel in between the two Engines, but depending on how wide the engines are mounted.
See Flanker/T-50 for clues.

Well, they got over 8 tonnes of fuel inside the airframe of the F-35 which is not bad - the F-35 is probably "wide and flat" enough I'd say.

Profile picture for user haavarla

Member for

11 years

Posts: 6,438

Well, they got over 8 tonnes of fuel inside the airframe of the F-35 which is not bad - the F-35 is probably "wide and flat" enough I'd say.

We are not talking about F-35.
But a two engine design. There could be several tons fuel in difference.

F-22 has over 8 tons, and it has closly connected engines.
See my point?

I am inclined to believe the Su-57 has same amount of fuel as Su-35S.
But lets wait nd see.

Member for

7 years 10 months

Posts: 4,168

Btw, dimensions of NGF model are 14*18m 'easy to remember)
sry wrong topic (apart if comparison with TFX)

Member for

9 years 1 month

Posts: 276

We are not talking about F-35.
But a two engine design. There could be several tons fuel in difference.

F-22 has over 8 tons, and it has closly connected engines.
See my point?

I am inclined to believe the Su-57 has same amount of fuel as Su-35S.
But lets wait nd see.

In this case it's little to do with engine layout and more about the Su-57 and Su-35 being much larger than the F-35 by a huge margin.