Building a low cost stealth fighter in a tight schedule.

F-22 raptor's main radar stealth derived 90% from its faceting, very limit RAM are applied to the body.
Therefore if you able copy the F-22 shape, you would achieve majority of of its stealth already at least on radar signature

so instead of modifying the 3 rd generation J-11B and its wing structure to become carrier fighter, why not concentrate on building a stealth fighter body. It's not that hard. F-22 body strcuture is pretty well known already. It would be cool if China can have some F-22 lookalike planes /w foldable wings on its new carrier.

You don't need to wait for supercruise capable engine to come out. Just put in couple Ws-10 into the stealth body and use the current avionics and then you could have a low cost stealth fighter in couple yrs which would beat those Su-33 which still using the older generation body type.

the key is to copy the F-22 body shape which I don't think it's too hard.

Problem would be materials; stealth isn't all about shape, its about the materials used. And the Americans are very good about keeping their formulations for the panels of the aircraft secret.

There is materials _and_ shape. The materials are easier because its not hard to find out which materials are radar absorbent and which is not. Basically not much different from the material used in a radome, which is carbon fiber, with a honeycomb matrix where the spaces or the cells within are matched to the length of the frequencies.

Won't matter so much though, all stealth does is make the current generation of radars obsolete. High wattage electronic steering radars with tight beam forming is another matter.

Pointblank said:

Problem would be materials; stealth isn't all about shape, its about the materials used. And the Americans are very good about keeping their formulations for the panels of the aircraft secret.

Click to expand...

haha, I know someone would say something like that. We are not talking about B-2 in here. For F-22 90% of its stealth derive from its shape, nothing else. You can do a research on that if you don't believe.

F-22 purposedly do away with alot of those carbon based RAM due to its difficulty in maintainence.

Also, using more advanced materials such as carbon nanotubes would improve performance for similar design layout.

lilzz said:

haha, I know someone would say something like that. We are not talking about B-2 in here. For F-22 90% of its stealth derive from its shape, nothing else. You can do a research on that if you don't believe.

F-22 purposedly do away with alot of those carbon based RAM due to its difficulty in maintainence.

Click to expand...

No it is not 90% its shape. Keep in mind, the F-35 is a LOT LESS stealthy than the F-22. The F-22 is truly a stealth fighter.

A big part of the F-22's stealth is its low thermal signature. They have designed the entire aircraft for fuel and coolant to flow throughout its body in such a way so as to keep a costant low temperature across all its outside surfaces. Then there is the low probability of interecept AESA radar. Also the materials as mentioned. All these various factors, combine with its overall shape to make something thats almost invisible to traditional sensors.

Replicating the F-22 is not just about shaping the aircraft. Not to mention that even shaping an aircraft like the F-22 also requires very complex fly-by-wire software tailored to its profile, because something with that blocky shape does not fly naturally.

lilzz said:

haha, I know someone would say something like that. We are not talking about B-2 in here. For F-22 90% of its stealth derive from its shape, nothing else. You can do a research on that if you don't believe.

F-22 purposedly do away with alot of those carbon based RAM due to its difficulty in maintainence.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the B-2 is meant to be stealthy against Soviet long range low frequency volume search radar and OTH radars, while the F-22 is meant to be stealthy against high frequency fighter radars on the X-band. There is no universally stealthy shape against all bands because the shaping is determined against the physical length of the waveband. Likewise you will see this with stealth designs on ships too.

lilzz said:

It's not that hard. F-22 body strcuture is pretty well known already. It would be cool if China can have some F-22 lookalike planes /w foldable wings on its new carrier.

Click to expand...

All F1 racing cars are looked the same. But not every car has the same performance. There's bid difference between the front grid cars and the back ones. I mean in fact 'shape' is one of the hardest thing to 'copy', unless you have all the data.

Londo Molari said:

No it is not 90% its shape. Keep in mind, the F-35 is a LOT LESS stealthy than the F-22. The F-22 is truly a stealth fighter.

A big part of the F-22's stealth is its low thermal signature.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's. Who says F-35 is LOT less stealth? Sources only says F-35 is not as capable as F-22.
You talk about IR, yeah sure. But at radar signature far distance, IR doesn't mean a whole lot.

90% come from faceting. and 10% come from small amount of RAM applied to the wing edge against low frequency detection

I recommend you study this , it's very helpful. It talk how faceting is most important aspect in stealth.




Therefore, country can design a stealth plane from normal radar sig stand point just by having the right shape. (excluding performance, IR sig, radar sig at low frequency(RAM dependent))

kickars said:

All F1 racing cars are looked the same. But not every car has the same performance. There's bid difference between the front grid cars and the back ones. I mean in fact 'shape' is one of the hardest thing to 'copy', unless you have all the data.

Click to expand...

wrong, shape is easy to copy, hard to copy is the internals like supercruising engine, IR reduction,...etc.

Hey, at least the normal fire control radar have a hard time to lock on you. That's the objective of having a copied stealth shape.