Ideal naval carrier fighter(aircraft) designs.

Here is another design thought I had based on a joined/box wing. The configuration has many advantages but might have high transonic drag and would be difficult to make stealthy. the novel feature here is not so much that the wings are joined, but that the leading wing is all-moving to give exceptional agility, lighter weight (no need to control smaller surfaces and it is structurally stronger anyway) and very slow stalling speeds especially at high angles of attack:



Earlier design without all-moving forward wings:


more UCAV thoughts:


Manned version:

Dang, Planeman!!! Who'd you work for???
Thanks for jumpstarting the thread.
Radical concepts, too! (Although I must ask, what missions will they commit and with what will they do so? I don't see any area for it to hold arms. Arming the upper wings seem impossible, and the lower wing seems a bit low.)

Drag does look to cost a lot on the outside structure though.
--------------------
Well, here is my design. (Better late then never. )It is based on a delta with LEX (Double delta?), EF-2000 canards(slightly higher than main wing and points down. If I am right, this type of configuration, like on the Lightning, helps lift.) and the Tu-22(Yes, the Blinder) engine configuration.

I decided to put the engines back alone and without a long intake to save weight. I am betting here to use the wing and fuselage to guide in the air for a better AOA, and in reverse use the suction from the engine to enhance lift.

The red line is a movable "crack": the Tu-22's engines' intake can extend the front of its intake, creating a crack that helps suck in more air for takeoff, and I hope it works here.

Smudud, can you give some specs to your design?
A rather big tail-fin there and the fuselage looks a bit thin behind the cockpit. Though with drag reduction in mind I think the best fuselage design is to reduce body diameter at the wing root and then slightly extend it again to the end.
I would suggest making the edges of the intakes going back outward instead of bach inward as it looks in your design (I hope you get my idea). And if possible to put the engines slightly forward to make the wing cover the exhaust from below sensors. You then could alsouse two tail-fins just to the outside of the engines to cover them from the side.

(Oh yea, forgot to mention, I want to fit this plane with DSI. All the suction from the intake is useless if it doesn't adhere to the surface of the wing. Which was why I had forward swept intakes.)

I have no true specs really, but this fighter is suppose to be around the size of the J-10, but bigger. It will be powered by two AL-31, WS-10A, F-414, etc size engines. With the engines and the gadgets in the back, this thing is going to have a very backward center of gravity and I hope this helps in manuverbility and STOL performance.

As for the fin.........yea, I need to reduce it.
I don't feel that the fuselage is too narrow, however. I think there are planes with such narrow fuselage also and I need it to guide air into the intake.

Though with drag reduction in mind I think the best fuselage design is to reduce body diameter at the wing root and then slightly extend it again to the end.

Click to expand...

I am not getting you here. Can you explain?

Below sensors?

If there is to be 2 fins, then they'll just be an extension of the side of engine intakes, but I do not know the consequences of having inward pointing fins, however.

Neutral Zone said:

There's been a lot of speculation about a twin engined J-10 variant for China's future carriers and there have been some sketches shown here. The advantages of twin engines are well documented and as it will be a smaller plane than the giant Flanker it should give a larger airgroup. But just how feasible is such a reworking of the J-10? I'm guessing that it will involve a brand new rear fuselage, bigger jet intakes, wider wings etc. What other problems would have to be resolved?

Click to expand...

With so many changes, it would be better to start with an all new design. Better that the new design should have some built in consideration for a future carrier variant rather than not to think about carrier variants and all, then have to drastically modify the design for it. I don't believe the J-10 had carriers in mind when it was originally designed. I don't think the specs were burdened so the plane can get into service early.

There is also no reason for a twin engine design, and the alleged safety reasons for it. That was a USN invention so F-16s won't be forced on them and so they can get the F-18. But look they have to eat the JSF now and that is a single engined design.

If you want to mod the J-10, you can start with strengthening the landing gear. There is an inherent strength and stiffness that comes with semimonoque delta wing designs so it would enjoy having some more reinforcement but not drastic additions that would severely increase weight. Changing the wings to folding. Then a more powerful engine.

Ok, I can't find a link or picture to illustrate what I mean, so I'll try to explain.
If you have a fuselage that has a certain diameter over the complete length, you get a specific drag. Now if the fuselages diameter is thinner in the middle - where the wings are attached (coke-bottle in english?) - this object has lesser drag than the first one.
I can't really explain the reason now, it's because of aerodynamics.
But it's just an optimisation for a specific speed and not anymore done in modern aircraft.

Next point: to cover the hot engine exhaust from IR sensors below the aircraft.

Several aircrafts have outward pointing fins and it works. Therefore I would imagine that inward poiting would do as well. However, I have never seen that.

Sumdud,

I don't think its a good idea to have the engine intakes up and downstream of the canards and the inner double delta. You won't have a clean airflow, but stuff like vortices and canard wake would flow into the engine intakes, which can lead to consequences.

sumdud said:

Dang, Planeman!!! Who'd you work for???

Click to expand...

Sadly I do not have my dream job so all this hypothesising military technology concepts is just to endulge my creative side. I have had invlovement in a minor player in the UAV world, which is were I picked up an education on the benifits of joined wing technology, but alas a career there is not. at least not as long as I have a mortgage to pay. :coffee:

Actually there are some aspects of joined wing technology which I've been reliably told which I avoid or misrepresent in my design concepts - I respect their innovation and hard work and although I'm sure there are other companies with similar research and findings I feel dutybound to protect their intelectual property. Thus I deliberately make my joined wing concepts less good than I think they could be, but that's part of the game.

sumdud said:

Although I must ask, what missions will they commit and with what will they do so? I don't see any area for it to hold arms. Arming the upper wings seem impossible, and the lower wing seems a bit low.)

Click to expand...

Air to ground with secondary air-air. In the modern environment precision strike is what carriers are used for, fleet air defence only really comes into play if you are fighting a credible opponent. As for hardpoints, four "wing tip" rails for AAMs and light missiles, plus fueslage points and/or a weapons bay.

sumdud said:

Drag does look to cost a lot on the outside structure though.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but then I'm deliberately holding back the key trick up the joined wing's sleeve. Joined wings have the potential to have much less drag than normal wings.

Another joined wing design, this time with twin engines vertically stacked (as opposed to side by side) - this makes for a narrower fuselage which in turn reduces wingspan.

Here's an older idea of a modernised J-8-II, not a serious suggestion of course:


Back to my joined wing designs, top view shows internal weapons bay, which would also house undercarriage, and bottom view is without: