vesicles
Colonel
I don't think we are arguing about which sized ball reflects more signal. My posts have been targeted to your earlier claim that a curved surface is different from a ball, a fundamental geometry problem.
J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter crobato
- Start date
- Status
I don't think we are arguing about which sized ball reflects more signal. My posts have been targeted to your earlier claim that a curved surface is different from a ball, a fundamental geometry problem.
Quickie
Colonel
I didn't make the claim. It's only a misunderstanding then.
Quickie
Colonel
The bump may be slightly stealthier than air flow control surfaces of a variable intake, but it's still a source of radar reflection. The fixed intake of the F-22 has no such obstacle. As to the use of DSI in the F-35, it's better than using the variable intake since the designers don't have access to F-22 intake's technology? Or its design doesn't hide the jet engines completely from the intake's line of sight? Furthermore, note how small is the "bump" relative to the size of the aircraft. In the case of J-10, the solution as to the choice of type of intake, would also depend on available technology and maybe the design of J-10 itself. So, I still maintain my stand on that statement. You can maintain yours. Now, can we let this go?
Last edited:
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Are you aware that both aircraft are made by Lockheed Martin? Once again, there is nothing special about the F-22's inlets at all. Anyone can make inlets like that. Fixed intakes are the oldest design there are.
Quickie
Colonel
If that's the case, how does the F-22's engine handle the high pressure in the intake when flying at supersonic speed, since a Fixed intake will not be able to control the inlet air-flow - something which the variable intake or the DSI intake would be able to handle? Furthermore, I tend to think that the F-35 is meant to be marketed among member countries, whereas the U.S. seem to keep the more capable F-22 just for themselves.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
The F-16 has fixed intakes. Fixed intakes leads to compromised performance and fuel efficiency at higher speeds. Since DSI was not available at the time, Lockheed was forced to choose conventional intakes, but not by choice. This is why most aviation sources do not think the F-22 cannot achieve speeds over Mach 2.0. The F-22 compensates by having supercruise ability, very high AoA, extreme maneuverability, and very good climb rates. The intake itself incorporates a S-duct design, which may help with air compression to the engines and thus alleviate some of the drawbacks with a fixed inlet. At very high speeds, the J-10 or Flanker or even F-15 will outperform the F-22. This is irrelevant though since all of the aforementioned fighters can sustain such speeds for only an extremely brief period of time.
Overall, the F-35 is a smaller, single-engined fighter and follows a more conventional layout when it comes to design. Its intake is actually more advanced, because DSI is a more complex and newer technology than fixed inlet. It is said to be less stealthy, but I assure you it has nothing to do with intake design. The airframe of the F-35 itself its lacking; there is no piece of technology (that we know off) that is off limits to the F-35.
vesicles
Colonel
NICE!
I know this is not true, but J-10A always looks kind of flimsy to me. But J-10B looks so solid and tough, which is wonderful. To make a comparison with laptop computers, J-10A looks like a Dell while J-10B looks like an IBM thinkpad. Both are wonderful laptops, Dell just has this flimsy look while thinkpad looks like it'll just be fine even when you slam it against the wall.
- Status