Read the forum code of contact
By: - 29th January 2010 at 23:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its kind of boring, copying american designs.....:confused:
Why not take one step ahead, with there own wild and crazy ideas?
Thou china is "bould" with its canards.
By: - 29th January 2010 at 23:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aren't canards a 4th gen characteristic because they're incompatible with stealth?
By: - 29th January 2010 at 23:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
From what I read, If all goes well... the J-XX 1st flight would be around 2011 - 2012. That is IF all goes well.
J-XX will be a delta-canard. !Rumours! flying around suggests it'll have a very flat, blended profile (not too unlike the 'Anjian' UCAV concept), and at one time CAC/611 wanted to eliminate the tail altogether, but have now settled for a small all-moving tail.
Time well tell....
It'll be interesting to see whether the Japanese decide to go all guns blazing with their 5th gen project.
By: - 29th January 2010 at 23:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aren't canards a 4th gen characteristic because they're incompatible with stealth?I think they're only 'incompatable with stealth' when they are diverged from 0*.
Assuming the talk of TVC being added to EJ200 goes forward, the canards would no longer be needed to maintain pitch in level flight, keeping them in the same orientation as the wing surfaces. If anybody can do an all-composite canard, it should be 0-RCS no matter it's inclination. Well, that's what I know :rolleyes:
It's funny that ATD-X's configuration seems HIGHLY similar to PAK-FA.... (but bigger tail & fins)
By: - 30th January 2010 at 00:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aren't canards a 4th gen characteristic because they're incompatible with stealth?
I think that assertion dates back to the time when "stealth" was mostly about the form. With the progression of materials and electronics the basic form plays a less significant role.
Anyways, 5th gen doesn't mean "stealth". It's not my invention but as I understand it LM addressed more to it than just that. "Stealth", because of it's characteristic shaping is just the most obvious part. In reality it's about electronics/software for the most part. Planes directing each others missiles, feeding each others targeting systems, interoperating on a hardware level. That's the more important part of 5th gen. Unfortunately that's copyable without actually building/designing a new aircraft. So the templars of the holy 5th-gen-grail fought their crusade for the differentiation of LM's 5th gen fighters and rest-of-the-world 4.5 or 4++ gen fighters.
Every fighter that entered service this millennium is 5th gen imho. They're all flying computers. In a real world scenario all of them would do about equally good if used correctly as in what they were designed for. Meaning there is no invincible or untouchable one among them.
By: - 30th January 2010 at 00:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Human habitation puts too many performance and cost constraints on an airplane.
- The pilot and ejection seat add weight. More weight = less performance.
- The crew station adds volume and weight because it must be pressurized.
- The power and environmental control systems have to be enlarged to keep the pilot cool on the ground and warm/pressurized at altitude.
- The pilot requires displays, controls and lighting that enlarges electrical and cooling power requirements.
- Enlarged power requirements sap power from the engine(s) reducing range and available thrust.
- The canopy/windows increase RCS which reduces survivability.
- The human can only maintain vigilance for about 10-12 hours before becoming too fatigued and committing mistakes. This limits the endurance/range of the airplane.
- The pilot cannot withstand high Gs or continuous buffeting, limiting maneuvers and choice of flight paths.
By: - 30th January 2010 at 00:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aren't canards a 4th gen characteristic because they're incompatible with stealth?
Yes, they are. My thoughts: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1516659#post1516659
By: - 30th January 2010 at 01:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Human habitation puts too many performance and cost constraints on an airplane.
- The pilot and ejection seat add weight. More weight = less performance.
- The crew station adds volume and weight because it must be pressurized.
- The power and environmental control systems have to be enlarged to keep the pilot cool on the ground and warm/pressurized at altitude.
- The pilot requires displays, controls and lighting that enlarges electrical and cooling power requirements.
- Enlarged power requirements sap power from the engine(s) reducing range and available thrust.
- The canopy/windows increase RCS which reduces survivability.
- The human can only maintain vigilance for about 10-12 hours before becoming too fatigued and committing mistakes. This limits the endurance/range of the airplane.
- The pilot cannot withstand high Gs or continuous buffeting, limiting maneuvers and choice of flight paths.
How much does this take? 500-1000kg? for a high performance aircraft of 14000-20000 kg?
The pilot cannot withstand high Gs or continuous buffeting, limiting maneuvers and choice of flight paths.
For sure you are one of these guys who think a 14-20 tons aircraft will sustain 20gs because will be unmanned?
Maneuvers or flight paths are way more limited by the airframe strength and aerodynamics than by the pilot resistance
Pilots are still important, and will be, for a long time
Real time decisions are important...no machine/remote control can fulfill this important role
The canopy/windows increase RCS which reduces survivability
This is probably the most childish justification
By: - 30th January 2010 at 01:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aren't canards a 4th gen characteristic because they're incompatible with stealth?
Not if they are done right. You can have canards on the same plane as the wing like the American X-36 demonstrator (though that has aerodynamic disadvantages). Saab has also developed a high-mounted canard compatible stealth shaping technique involving making a "Z" shape between the wing and canard. You could also make the canards transparent to radar- i.e. make it out of honeycomb core and a composite skin. Also by use of thrust vectoring and optimization of control scheduling one can avoid exposing canards straight on to a radar source. So there are many ways around this.
As for my answer to the OP's question- I guess JXX, followed by ATD-X, then maybe European solutions or MCA. But Europe doesn't seem to be pursuing 5th gen strongly, and I expect the MCA program to go about as well as the LCA program.
By: - 30th January 2010 at 02:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aren't canards a 4th gen characteristic because they're incompatible with stealth?
That's what Americans claim...but elevators are incompatible with aerodynamics.
One interesting point is that PAKFA has slab verticals, which are almost 100% certainly chosen, because of their ability to reduce RCS, using appropriate deflection.
Same goes for canards and EF claims to reduce canard induced RCS by using appropriate deflection.
Most certainly, it doesn't reflect good on current drag when deflected to reduce RCS, but is otherwise more useful than a vertical, or a canard with fixed wing and movable tab.
- The human can only maintain vigilance for about 10-12 hours before becoming too fatigued and committing mistakes. This limits the endurance/range of the airplane.
That's true, but there's still a plane to be built that can fly longer than 3-4 hours MTBF.
By: - 30th January 2010 at 07:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As for my answer to the OP's question- I guess JXX, followed by ATD-X, then maybe European solutions or MCA. But Europe doesn't seem to be pursuing 5th gen strongly, and I expect the MCA program to go about as well as the LCA program.
The MCA has a new name the NGFA - New Generation Fighter Aircraft. The New Name Is significant as they changed their idea from being a twin engined bigger LCA with stealth features to a fully fledged stealth platform. I doubt it would be plagued by the delays of the LCA. LCA was a project started after many years of inaction, now the knowledge base is already in place and IAF will be working closely from the design stage onwards. Working on the PAK FA will also help towards getting the NGFA ready in time.
There was an also an offer from SAAB for a possible Co-development and marketing of the MCA(NGFA) if the Gripen is selected in the MRCA. The engines will most likely be Snecma-Kaveri. I do not know how much of foriegn assistance the ADA/HAL would take for the MCA, because I expect it to be mostly an indigenous product with Engines, Missiles, Radars electronics all coming from within the country.
By: - 30th January 2010 at 08:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
arent indians yet to start work on so called HAL MCA
By: - 30th January 2010 at 10:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The next will be the Cinese.
By: - 30th January 2010 at 11:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
canards or elevators is allways a good thing, TVC will not make em obsolite.
the engines could be out, and then you cant keep leveled flight!
but you get rid of some other controll surfaces, that help stealth charistics :)
By: - 30th January 2010 at 11:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Next 5th gen aircraft should be a British designed carrier strike fighter for our new CVF's....... I'm daydreaming again!
Failing that, dust off the BAE 'Replica' ......... First public display RIAT 2011 !
But no, we'll just sit here, & let the Yanks, Russians & Chinese do everything... yet again.
I suppose its not all bad, after all we do produce a fair chunk of the JSF. That’s a different subject, so i'll shut up now :)
Thorny
By: - 30th January 2010 at 15:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
China? I'm not too sure wheither China will have something "stealthy" anytime soon, I'm not saying they can't do it, not at all, I think they're just as capable as doing something like this just as anyone, I just have a gut feeling that they'll just purchase PAK-FA's and go on from there...Why not. I maybe wrong though and a bit of me is hoping I am because I'd like to see China take their own root.
Japan? Again they're a clever bunch...But I think the Yanks would have something to do with it...What I mean by that is, "make them" change their mind and buy something American...Yanks seem to be quite good at that I'm affraid. And again I hope I'm wrong about that too as I would really REALLY like to see Japan come up with something and take their own root, I'm sure it'll look quite dramatic like something from a Manga animated movie.
Any country in Europe? I think they'll/we'll come up with something by working together like has been done with the Tornado and Typhoon, I believe the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain (with France maybe?) would want to work together again to come with something to replace the Typhoon and I'd happily bet it'd be a manned aircraft, think of a Typhoon with no tail-fin, flat as you can get air-frame with canards blending into the its delta wing, that'd look rather dandy I think with its TV engines. I believe its safe to say it'd be something like that.
My 2 pennies worth.
By: - 30th January 2010 at 16:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
J-XX can be commented upon, being a PRC project and all, who knows, not planned at all, in project study stage, already on the drawing board, under construction, about to fly.....
When MCA will receive funding through the ministry everyone will know, and then it will take time to design, build and fly the first prototype.
Meanwhile apparently from the strange you tube vids, it seems Japanese have already started work on their prototype, so they have the best chance.
Which one will be operational in a squadron first?
By: - 30th January 2010 at 17:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The MCA has a new name the NGFA - New Generation Fighter Aircraft. The New Name Is significant as they changed their idea from being a twin engined bigger LCA with stealth features to a fully fledged stealth platform. I doubt it would be plagued by the delays of the LCA. LCA was a project started after many years of inaction, now the knowledge base is already in place and IAF will be working closely from the design stage onwards. Working on the PAK FA will also help towards getting the NGFA ready in time.
Disagree, if they try to develop it alone, it will face the same problems like we saw in the LCA development! Check this:
Developing Countries Next Generation Fighter AircraftRecently when Requirements of MCA now re-named to NGFA (Next Generation Fighter Aircraft) by Indian Air force was made public in section of media , IAF clear dedicates what it wants for NGFA and seems to leave very little room for developers ADE and other DRDO labs . IAF seems will not compromise on the aircrafts capabilities from the start.
For years NGFA was rumored to be a strike aircraft with secondary role of Air defence capabilities. Now IAF wants a fully multirole Aircraft with almost all the technology which only a 5TH Generation Aircraft like Pak-Fa which India is partnered with Russia for its development will have ,India’s contribution to Pak-Fa is limited to sub-system of it avionics and its core software very similar work which was done with Sukhoi-Su30 MKI. Other then Avionics which can be further developed from Tejas MK-II platform they are tones of other things which NGFA will need to make it truly a 5TH Generation Aircraft .
IAF seems to be clear that it wants most of the Avionics and Engine for NGFA to be indigenous, Specially the AESA Radar; it seems IAF will not settle for AESA which has been developed by LRDE for Tejas Mk-II, it want to be more sophisticated then the Current AESA technology what LDRE is working on and better Avionics and Self-defence systems for the aircraft which will take lot of time unless similar Pak-Fa Avionics package is chosen.
The Kaveri-Snecma Engine based on core of M-88 has been seen has the possible engine which will power NGFA, Details of this engine is still not clear and what level of Technology French will bring is also crucial, GTRE failed to develop current Kaveri engine in time to power Tejas Combat aircraft .The new engine should be based on consultation with IAF to avoid future disappointments and should be ready in time to power NGFA which will have a tech demonstrator, three prototype vehicles and two production jets . No intermediate Engine has been sought, Kaveri-II have to be ready in time for NGFA to make its first flight.
Stealthy Airframe Requirements seems to have thrown out any DRDO’s plans of having Aircraft with low Stealth characters, it wants Stealthy Airframe from the start and Current level of technology in India does not have such high end materials, composites and radar observing airframe materials and paints. Wind-tunnel model which was displayed at Aero India 2009 of MCA will need designs changes to meet IAF’s demand of full Stealthy Airframe, while wind tunnel model seemed like Aircraft with Stealth features but not fully stealth aircraft.
Time frame set by ADA is again over ambitious. ADA plans to have the first test flight of the NGFA by 7-8 years, once go head is given which may come by end of 2010, this is simply not possible since most of the technology required for it is still not in pipeline, since various Labs will be working on it any delays by any Lab will effect the schedule flight plan and again it will look similar way which LCA was made to go.
Consultancy and joint development of various systems should be considered to meet the deadline for NGFA’s first flight; Aircraft should be developed with possible export market in mind. To give air forces around the world a cheap and high technology 5TH Generation fighter which can compete with American and Chinese aircrafts in future.
Again, too high requirements of IAF, overestimating the industrial capabilities at the moment, not realistic timeframes and wanting everything at once, altough no experience with any of these high techs are available yet.
With a foreign partner, that already has experience with radar, avionics, or even stealth, this development would have better chances.
Besides this I highly doubt there is a real need for MCA at all in IAF! First it was meant as strike fighter, similar to F35, now it should be a fully multi role fighter, what do we have FGFA for? With many 230 MKI, at least 140 LCA and at least 126 MMRCA and the rumoured 250 FGFA, there are more than enough multi role fighters for decades, wouldn't a stealth UCAV like NEURON, Mig Skat, or X47 make much more sense?
By: - 30th January 2010 at 17:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can't see the next manned flying 5th gen aircraft being anything other than Chinese.
If their bird is the image of the PAK-FA, I'll cry. (Luckily I didn't have to use the tissues HAWX ace kindly gave me)
I want to see innovative stealth solutions China, that's an order.
Posts: 3,442
By: J-20 Hotdog - 29th January 2010 at 23:09
J-XX from China?
ATD-X from Mitsubishi
HAL MCA
interestingly, almost all non-American 5th gen projects are being done in Asia (including the Pak-fa)