Ideal PLAAF/PLANAF fighter?

I was wondering, the developement should not just stop at the fighter level... but also proceed to designing and developing stealthy missiles (AA and AG), as well as the external pylons for the aircrafts. Wouldn't it also increase the fighters' stealth feature and radar signature with stealthy missiles loaded even externally?

Hey ... nice tread !

What do You think about something like that ? (Source: www)


Deino

rhino123 said:

I was wondering, the developement should not just stop at the fighter level... but also proceed to designing and developing stealthy missiles (AA and AG), as well as the external pylons for the aircrafts. Wouldn't it also increase the fighters' stealth feature and radar signature with stealthy missiles loaded even externally?

Click to expand...

Quite sure would stealthy missiles on external hard points help somewhat in RCS reduction meassures. Not to the extant internal carriage does, but it's a start.
I don't think there's much room to make A-A missiles stealthy though. They have to max perform aerodynamicly to defeat modern aircraft, they also should be as light as possible. Therefore I think their shape is pretty much a given. A stealthy weapon carrying pod to store those might be an option, though.
A-G missiles on the other hand have litteraly more room to incooperate (V)LO meassure into them. JASSM, JSOW, Taurus are a few examples here.

Yeah not sure stealthy AAMs is practical.

Here's a line of thought for the light/middleweight mass production fighter. Would replace Q-5, J-7 and maybe some J-8s. Multirole design, suitible for export - not "swing role" though. No TVC or other expensive options. Stealth but mostly via simple blending and avoidance of corner reflections etc/

Starting point was FC-1. To gain internal space for weapons bays I added large blended lifting body structures blending from the fuselage to the wings and LERX.



On export market this would compete with F-35, Gripen etc.


A modification, looks a bit liker the SAAB Draken

I love the new draken design! That thing is big, can't be under 11-12 tons empty. Definitely middleweight class, there should be no mention of light fighter class. Can't see something like that being cheap, really. Also, wings may be too small. Body lift is fine and all, but I don't believe it can really substitute for the lift coming from the wings.

If i am seeing things correctly it seems to have two very large weapon bays plus a smaller one in the center. That seems WAY too much. Why not make the whole thing smaller and leaner and retain internal space for just: 4 aams OR brimstone class missiles OR four/two 250/500kg bombs...

Valid line of thought sir!


The long bays are not necessarily deep, just long enough for PL-12s. The centre ones are WVR missiles only.

I'm not sure we should be so hasty to remove internal stowage in the quest for cheapness. Build cost is somewhere between FC-1 and J-10.

Main cost saving should be R&D, ie minimise cost and risk by using basic technologies wherever possible.
* limited glass cockpit etc
* radar from FC-1 in initial/export versions
* existing engine
* no TVC
* RAM optional extra
* gold lined canopy optional extra
* fixed inlets (without splitter plate?)
* FBW from J-10 or FC-1
* radar-less strike version available (limited service in PLAAF but export option)
* no two-seat version, instead specially optimised L-15s with 'fake' systems in student seat to simulate this jet (ie flick a switch and the student only 'sees' one engine, has FC-1's radar, etc.
* LO limited to 'common sense' shaping etc, aiming to have much smaller RCS than current generation especially when fully laden, but not quest to be radar invisible. Of course many customer nations and their neighbors will still see it as a 'stealth fighter'.

Bigger challenge is finding a suitable Chinese engine. RD-33 is probably on the small side, plus export complications. WS-10 too large/expensive? Spey?

Overall dimensions on the small side (FC-1/MiG-21 etc) but internal volume large - lots of empty space though. Extensive use of composites to reduce airframe weight.

This is a trade-off. 'clean' performance would be unremarkable, so official stats would look lowish. BUT, and this is a huge but, when armed, the internal carriage means excellent performance when compared to an equivalent armed 4th gen fighter.

Range would be good due to massive internal stowage.

Two underwing hardpoints for semi-stealth and/or regular ordinance. Wingtips can be 'swapped' for launch rails.


If China built a fighter in this class you can easily imagine PAF and many overseas nations who cannot afford/cannot negotiate F-35s buying some. Egypt, Sudan, Angola, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Burma, Venezuela, even Serbia etc...

China could then sell 'anti-stealth' radars etc to the neighbours for a second bite of the cherry


Once the first batches of exports are made China can set about upgrading avionics etc to full PLAAF 4.9 gen spec, researching TVC, better RAM, optimising shaping etc.

But can a off the shelf technology fighter with all that internal space and fuel required to drag all that through the air (larger drag area) really be lightweight? I say ws10 is absolute lower limit for the required powerplant. That's if somehow loaded plane is under 15 tons. Realistically, i think bigger powerplant is needed. If possible, avoid the downfalls of twin engined crafts. It requires a leap of faith in chinese aeroengine manufacturing but since we're doing that already with the whole plane - why not?

It's true that it'd have relatively high form drag vs a clean FC-1 etc. Then again it's essentially a lifting body design so farm drag is probably less of an issue(?). On the plus side it doesn't have a bunch of pylons hanging off it (less form/intersection drag?)

Even with all that fuel, f35 doesn't have much bigger range than today's fighters. It just has a big area and, presumably, drag coefficient optimized for subsonic speeds. And those two are constant all the time, on route to mission area and on the way back. Most other planes are basically clean on the way back.

Main issue i see is empty weight. If one is to use a ws10 class engine, empty weight can't be over 8 tons for a modern fighter. That is also a reason why i dont see RAM being a modular, configurable thing. RA materials of any kind are not only voluminous but also rather heavy. To add that stuff around the plane would not only screw with the center of mass but would simply make the whole thing way too heavy for the given wings/engine. Even though F22 allegedly uses RAM only for the edges of various surfaces, I believe one of the reasons it is so heavy for its size is precisely RAM.

I think you are over-estimating the aircraft size/weight.

SAAB DRAKEN - 1950s, similar layout:

Specifications (J 35F Draken)
Data from The Great Book of Fighters[3]

General characteristics

Crew: One
Length: 15.34 m (50 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 9.42 m (30 ft 10 in)
Height: 3.89 m (12 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 49.22 m² (529.82 ft²)
Empty weight: 7,865 kg (17,340 lb)
Loaded weight: 11,400 kg (25,132 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 16,000 kg (35,273 lb)
Powerplant: 1× Volvo Flygmotor RM 6C afterburning turbojet
Dry thrust: 56.5 kN (12,787 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 78.4 kN (17,637 lbf)
Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2+,[1] 2,120 km/h (1,317 mph) at 11,000 m (36,100 ft)
Range: 3,250 km (2,020 mi) with external drop tanks
Service ceiling: 20,000 m (65,600 ft)
Rate of climb: 175 m/s (34,450 ft/min)
Wing loading: 231.6 kg/m² (47.4 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.70
Takeoff roll: 650 m (2,133 ft)'



Fast forward to 2010 and the airframe could be largely composite to reduce weight, and the engine could easily be as powerful or much more-so. We're looking at making the inner wing sections fatter to accommodate more fuel and weapons bays, but not really "fat".