Of course it will.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
On the specific matter of where the folding V-tails "ought to be situated" so as to mitigate observability, I'd think the proposition of a 'dorsal config' would do little to address this concern precisely because of higher likelihood of usage of "look down" radars, not necessarily from pulse-Doppler or synthetic-aperture rigs like airborne AWACS, AESA and whatnot, but shore-based OTH radars which any stealth bomber like the B-2, the eventual B-21 and H-X would invariably encounter, more so and harder to evade than mobile airborne and surface solutions alike.
Granted tracking is where an OTH radar would fall short... at least I'm not aware of any OTH systems capable of continuous and precise tracking with accuracy in the sub-kilometre range.
Still, in this context it would seem rather moot where one would put a pair of folding fins as RCS would be affected either way, and not least because of the existence of V-tails, folding or not.
If the concern is OTH radars, I think the presence of folded down, flush V tails that would have a similar folded signature to a closed weapons bay door panel, would not significantly alter the detectability of a subsonic flying wing bomber.
Which is to say, if they do decide to go for folding V tails, I think a dorsal fuselage position is still the best place for them.
Whether they go for it is another matter.
There definitely won't be any. For decades flying wings - manned and unmanned - even not using FBW - flew, landed and took off without that creation of someone's wild fantasy, that will add hundreds pounds to airframe. You still have natural verticals adding pitch stability in form of large area MLG doors like on B-2.
I think you are overly dismissive. Some patents about V-tail on flying wing are from CAC or NUAA or Xian Airforce University.
These patents deal with two purpose. One (noted by @Blitzo) deal with low speed landing and taking off. The others deal with high speed, primarily supersonic. We debated about whether H-2 is supersonic before.
The final design of H-20 may not employ V tails if it is limited to subsonic, but the idea is seriously considered.
Your example of flying wing design without FBW and V-tails are all low speed flyers. I am sure even B-2 with sophisticated FBW isn't a good flyer. Of course with FBW, B-2's pilot won't have any trouble in flying it, but the plane can't do better than an airliner because it doesn't have effective control surfaces.
My conclusion is that, V-tail is serious idea in some scenario of H-20, but we have to wait to see if it is utilized.
I have a question kind of related to the discussion.
I guess we want to avoid the tail(s) because the radar reflection angle off them bounces back to the enemy radar, a tail could be at 90 degrees to an enemy emitter, which should return a strong radar reflection.
Doesn’t the same thing happen with satellite radar?, only now the whole wing is at 90 degrees to a satellite above.
Won’t that give a large radar return?
How do we expect a stealth bomber to mitigate that?
Maybe this scenario is most realistic because any space radar net will likely be in operation when the H20 is on a real mission, initially anyway.
I suppose there is no point going tail-less if you can be detected from above, you might as well keep the tail(s) because they will be more stealthy than the wing from the satellite’s PoV.
I guess we want to avoid the tail(s) because the radar reflection angle off them bounces back to the enemy radar, a tail could be at 90 degrees to an enemy emitter, which should return a strong radar reflection.
Doesn’t the same thing happen with satellite radar?, only now the whole wing is at 90 degrees to a satellite above.
Won’t that give a large radar return?
How do we expect a stealth bomber to mitigate that?
Maybe this scenario is most realistic because any space radar net will likely be in operation when the H20 is on a real mission, initially anyway.
I suppose there is no point going tail-less if you can be detected from above, you might as well keep the tail(s) because they will be more stealthy than the wing from the satellite’s PoV.
It depend clearly of the mission profile... if the plan is flying low, vertical surface are a nuisance and can give huge radar reflection.
If you are flying way higher than awacs, having tails on top of the wings area doesn't bother a lot but having tail in the middle of a plane near the center of gravity doesn't give much in term of stability and controls...
I am specifically asking about the radar return from a satellite based radar due to its high vantage point, in addition to and in combination with a regular AWACS aircraft, the flight profile is medium-high altitude I believe we have reached some kind of consensus on.
I am a saying I dont see the point in over optimizing stealth for one of AWACS or Satellite if you can be detected by the other. In other words, what’s the point in having all aspect stealth from the point of view of an AWACS adversary if his cheap radar satellite can detect you from above instead. Or vice versa.
Personally I am not convinced that folding V tails will be present, but I think there's sufficient noise about it to consider how it may be integrated in the aircraft in a realistic manner.
As for the potential role or desire of having additional folding V tails, it could simply be a matter of the PLA having higher requirements for being able to land and take off in a greater variety of adverse conditions than previous flying wings, along with greater PLA caution overall.
the key here is consistent return. anything looking down at a horizontal wing would have to be in a vertical or near vertical position to the plane itself which is extremely unlikely. but even if it gets a instance of return, the plane continue to move and change the angle.