J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)

Status
Not open for further replies.

plawolf

Lieutenant General
....I have always wondered why the US has NEVER fielded any production fighter with canards. The US is by far the most advanced nation in aircraft technologies and canards is not exactly a recent discovery. It's been around for a long time.

Canards might be as old as powered flight, but the full benefits of an all moving canard delta design could not be realised until fairly recently with the introduction of advanced FBW systems, because to truly make the most out of the configuration would make the plane uncontrollable with manual controls.

There is a reason why every major aviation power bar the US went with canards during the late 80s, which mostly matured and entered production and service during the late 90s and 2000s. The Europeans had their three Eurocanards, the Chinese went with the J10, and the soviets would have gone with the Mig1.44 had the USSR not imploded. The Su35 and other super flankers that the Russians are marketing now are really just an evolutionary advancement of the original Su27 design because the Russians simply lacked the resources to pursue a revolutionary design like everyone else during that time.

The reason the Americans did not go with canards was because they were following a different path to maximising agility
like everyone else, and that was stealth technology.

Since stealth technology was relatively new and unproven at the time, it made good sense for the Americans to try and reduce the unknowns and risk factors as much as possible. Since the US had never put a canard design into production and service before, adding that unknown and risky radical design concept to the already extremely risky and radical stealth concept would have simply been too much of a risk, so it made more sense for the US to stick with what it knows well - the conventional layout.

Shenyang pretty much went with a similar approach when they were competing with Chengdu for the PLAAF 5th gen contract, and then with the J31. Having had already designed and built an advanced canard delta, Chengdu felt familiar and comfortable enough with the canard concept that they do not consider it as a risky unknown, so they felt confident enough to try and incorporate a canard delta design with stealth. But without the experience with the J10, I think CAC would have also opted with a conventional design. Conversely, had stealth not been an option at the time, I think the US would have also opted for a design that maximised agility and put some of the testing data from its canarded x31 to use in a production fighter.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
....I have always wondered why the US has NEVER fielded any production fighter with canards. The US is by far the most advanced nation in aircraft technologies and canards is not exactly a recent discovery. It's been around for a long time.

Why field a mainstay solution that takes unnecessary risks? To field a mainstay fighter with canards the US would need to deviate from familiar design lineage, which increases both costs and risks. When the Pentagon is gauging whether to pick up a program by how successful it will be in both a time and cost metric, there's no incentive to do something so experimental as change design planforms, especially when they already have alternative solutions that could yield as good or better results (mainly superior engines).
 
Last edited:

Equation

Lieutenant General
In addition, even the Soviets never fully challenged US in terms of technologies during the cold war, the challenge was .

I don't know dude, but when the Mig 25 came out the US counter it with the design of the F-15. Soviet scientists and engineers were just as capable as the West and NATO were during that time.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

luhai

Banned Idiot
I don't know dude, but when the Mig 25 came out the US counter it with the design of the F-15. Soviet scientists and engineers were just as capable as the West and NATO were during that time.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That response is due error in evaluating the MiG-25, since the west though it was an air superiority fight instead of an interceptor. Also interesting The Soviets to start Su-27/MiG-29 pair to counter the F-15.

As for canards, US solved the maneuverability problem by increasing wing area and control surfaces and still maintain high thrust to weight ratio. This is under pinned by powerful engines, which neither Russian, Chinese or Europeans can match. So they all opted for canards to increase maneuverability. US never actually abandoned the idea, it's just deemed unnecessary. The current US doctrine seems to place more priority on BVR than WVR, so stealth > maneuverability. (And since current maneuverability limit is beyond what pilots can take anyways. If things changes, expect things to change.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Engineer

Major
....I have always wondered why the US has NEVER fielded any production fighter with canards. The US is by far the most advanced nation in aircraft technologies and canards is not exactly a recent discovery. It's been around for a long time.

The US has always been able to get top-notch performance in their aircraft through their lead in engine technologies. There is no compelling reason for US to resort to more complicated aerodynamics such as canard layout.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
The US has always been able to get top-notch performance in their aircraft through their lead in engine technologies. There is no compelling reason for US to resort to more complicated aerodynamics such as canard layout.

The Eng and luhai have nailed this discussion, and the US had supercomputers which Bill Clinton's friends at Loral--shared with China-- not a State Department approved technology transfer, but did put money in the Clinton's warchest... The F-22 is not in any way inferior to ANY currently flying aircraft or prototype. It remains the Gold Standard in A2A. BRAT

actually the Boeing Navy prototype is now my screen saver, and it grows on me by the day, I love the design drawings of each of these manufacturer, but they do look more and more like star wars designs, but like I said, aircraft design is ever aware of style........ very kool, Air Forc Brat
 
Last edited:

kwaigonegin

Colonel
The US has always been able to get top-notch performance in their aircraft through their lead in engine technologies. There is no compelling reason for US to resort to more complicated aerodynamics such as canard layout.

but why not? isn't that the entire reason why we even have a robust aviation industry? to always push the envelop of flight? As some have said the reason why canards were not use was possibly be due to lack of computational abilities such as calculating complex algorithms etc but that hurdle has since been conquered with the advent of powerful processors today.

If the argument is canards offer much better aerodynamics (assuming it is done right) then therotically ALL aircraft that needs superior aerodynamics SHOULD have canards in the future.

Not saying that is what I think should or will happen but just playing devil's advocate so we can academically discuss it.
 

luhai

Banned Idiot
The Eng and luhai have nailed this discussion, and the US had supercomputers which Bill Clinton's friends at Loral--shared with China-- not a State Department approved technology transfer, but did put money in the Clinton's warchest...

People have blown the scope Loral tech transfer well out of the proportions. The actual transfer is simply give the Chinese enough to diagnose the fault of the lunch in the welds of the rocket. How this is related to super computer and technology with stealth fighters is just beyond me.

Here is the famed Cox report:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Here is the news about this incident
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Background information
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


At first the Chinese rockets launched only weather and scientific satellites for China's own use. Then in 1985, China, desperate for hard currency, started marketing its rockets as vehicles to send Western satellites into orbit at a time of growing demand for TV, radio, telephone and data services.

For the first time, the Chinese had to open up their technologies and procedures to Western investors and insurance executives who were risking hundreds of millions of dollars. The Westerners were nervous when Chinese space officials never properly explained why a number of their early launches from the Xichang launch facility, in the mountainous province of Sichuan, failed to put the satellites into the correct orbit.

Then, in December 1992, the top portion of a Long March peeled away 45 seconds into flight, just as it was hitting supersonic speeds. The satellite inside, built by Hughes Electronics Corp. for use in Australian telecommunications, was instantly destroyed. Bystanders on the ground saw a bright flash in the sky as volatile rocket propellant in separate tanks mixed and exploded.

Hughes and the state-controlled Chinese rocket company, China Great Wall Industry Corp., agreed that stiff winds of up to 100 miles an hour above the launch site played a role in the accident, but they disagreed about the details. The Chinese government-controlled press said Hughes's satellite was somehow responsible, but Western space executives scoffed at the suggestion. Then the two sides released statements asserting the specific cause was unknown.

"The lack of a finding left a bad taste in the industry's mouth, and Hughes and China Great Wall committed themselves to reaching a conclusion" the next time a problem occurred, said Aviation Week & Space Technology, an industry bible on space accidents.

Then, on Jan. 25, 1995, the top of a Long March disintegrated just as it hit supersonic speeds and encountered high-altitude winds. Again, a Hughes satellite was destroyed. This time the rocket's debris fell on villagers -- the Chinese said six people were killed, but Westerners believe the toll was higher.

Again, Hughes privately argued bitterly with the Chinese, who blamed the company's satellite. And again, Western space experts didn't believe them. "The Chinese just kept blaming Hughes," one U.S. space executive said.

The tensions presented a quandary for the firm. Hughes wanted to curry favor with Chinese officials in order to land other high-tech business there.

For years, Hughes had been America's cheerleader for the Long March rocket. It told fellow U.S. satellite-builders such as Loral that they should join Hughes in launching on the Chinese rockets because their low price -- about $50 million per launch -- would force the market leader, France's Arianespace rocket company, to reduce its price of $110 million or so per ride. (A U.S. Atlas rocket costs about $100 million.)

"It was very hush-hush between the two sides," said Marshall Kaplan, chairman of Launchspace Inc., a space consulting firm. But Hughes officials finally fought back, privately telling the U.S. space establishment that the Chinese rocket was responsible for the crash. Chinese officials "became unglued" at the company's cheek, an industry official said.

Hughes executives couldn't defend themselves in the subsequent angry talks, industry officials said, because they knew the dangers of revealing too much U.S. technical know-how. As is the rule in such cases, Pentagon security officers monitored all of Hughes's contacts with the Chinese because straightening out China's error-prone rockets can assist its ballistic missile engineers.

Then the Loral satellite -- Intelsat 7A -- blew up. The Chinese rocket detonated 22 seconds into flight, obliterating the hotel where Western observers had dropped off their luggage only hours before. U.S. engineers were held in a bunker for five hours before they could retrieve the melted pieces of their three-ton satellite, which was to have beamed TV shows to Latin America for Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

In the following days, China said six mountain villagers burned and choked to death in the cascade of flaming rocket propellant. Later they raised the estimate to 26, and then, after an Israeli engineer's tape of blazing rubble circulated in the United States, Chinese officials hiked their toll to 56. But U.S. defense intelligence officials estimate the deaths at about 200.

China blamed the accident on a low-tech problem, the faulty soldering of a wire on a computer circuit board. But this time, skeptical U.S. and European insurers -- who ultimately paid $219 million -- demanded that a panel of independent experts review that conclusion.

In May 1996, a Loral representative on that panel faxed Chinese space officials Loral's findings -- a breach that company superiors immediately reported to the State Department. Later, the Pentagon concluded that the information helped China's military missile effort and damaged U.S. national security. (In its defense, the firm says the Loral engineer who faxed the report, Nick Yen, first removed what he believed were sensitive passages, which the firm says indicates he thought all along it was permissible to send the report to the Chinese.)

Now the Justice Department also is investigating whether President Clinton's decision last February granting Loral the right to launch aboard yet another Chinese rocket -- despite an objection from the Justice Department -- was made because Loral CEO Bernard L. Schwartz is the Democratic Party's largest individual donor.

Meanwhile, a string of successful Long March launches has partially rehabilitated the rocket's name. And Western companies are showing renewed interest in the Chinese space vehicle. A Lockheed Martin Corp. satellite was launched inside a Long March recently for use by Chinese telecommunications providers, and Loral plans a similar launch in a few months -- using the controversial waiver approved by President Clinton. And within several months, Loral and Motorola Inc. will launch satellites on Long Marches to handle wireless telephone calls for their competing systems.

But the ongoing investigation is teaching U.S. space engineers to keep their mouths shut in China.

"It's hard for [U.S.] engineers, if they see a solution to something, not to say, 'Why don't you try this?' " Kaplan said.

The truth is the opening of China allowed it access to consumer technology (and quantum leap in the consumer technology itself), and utilizing consumer technology for non-consumer uses are well in China capabilities. For example, what was China's and world's fastest supercomputer for a time is built with server CPUs and gaming graphics cards. Which can be brought at your locale Fry's or Bestbuy...
I believe similar things are happen in other Industry as well, since basic science is universal and consumer technology today is way beyond what top secret technology was just a few decades ago.

Tianhe-1 was powered by 4,096 Intel Xeon E5540 processors and 1,024 Intel Xeon E5450 processors, with 5,120 AMD graphics processing units (GPUs), which were made up of 2,560 dual-GPU ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 graphics cards
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

jobjed

Captain
but why not? isn't that the entire reason why we even have a robust aviation industry? to always push the envelop of flight? As some have said the reason why canards were not use was possibly be due to lack of computational abilities such as calculating complex algorithms etc but that hurdle has since been conquered with the advent of powerful processors today.

If the argument is canards offer much better aerodynamics (assuming it is done right) then therotically ALL aircraft that needs superior aerodynamics SHOULD have canards in the future.

Not saying that is what I think should or will happen but just playing devil's advocate so we can academically discuss it.

Budget cuts?
 

MiG-29

Banned Idiot
but why not? isn't that the entire reason why we even have a robust aviation industry? to always push the envelop of flight? As some have said the reason why canards were not use was possibly be due to lack of computational abilities such as calculating complex algorithms etc but that hurdle has since been conquered with the advent of powerful processors today.

If the argument is canards offer much better aerodynamics (assuming it is done right) then therotically ALL aircraft that needs superior aerodynamics SHOULD have canards in the future.

Not saying that is what I think should or will happen but just playing devil's advocate so we can academically discuss it.

You assertion is wrong in terms of question.

Aircraft fly upon two things alone, lift and thrust.

to get more lift you need bigger wing or lighter airplane.

Metallurgy is essential and chemestry to get lighter aircraft.

Using canard, lerx, triplane configurations is mission dependant.

At the end of the day is a combination of factors.

lighter aircraft, more powerful engines, type of performance needed.

J-20 has them simple as a combination of parameters that support each other.

F-35, F-22, PAKFA lacks them to other combination of factors.

Canards are niether worse or better, everything is mission dependant

In few words canards just fix bad contradictions in wing design due to a contradicctions on aircraft performance requierements.

F-14 did all that with variable swing wing.

F-16 or Su-27 do all that with LERX.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top