J-20... The New Generation Fighter

Re: New Generation Fighter

Actually quite a bit of info online about canards... Control Canards inheritedly did have poor stealth characteristic however that is not the end of the world. There are ways in which canards stealth characteristics could be controlled and improved (eg. Eurofighter Typhoon uses software control of its canards in order to reduce its radar cross section (see reference 1).)

Thus it is not as simple as someone from some forum coming out of nowhere to blast canards or any other engineering items with age long understanding of engineering concept... but forget that engineers around the world could actually go pass the hurdle with improvement in engineering knowledge coupled with software advances.

Oh... one more thing... there are many different type of canards configuration. The abovementioned that I have stated is one one type (control canards).

References:

1. )

2. (A good read)

Re: New Generation Fighter

Regarding Stealth and canards are not compatible ... has anyone seen this ???

It was Northrop Grumman's proposal of the navalised ATF-condender based on the YF-23 ... and if I'm not completely mistaken, it has HUUUUGE CANARDS !?



Deino

Re: New Generation Fighter

challenge said:

according to all bloggers in key publishing forum, all agree that canard is not idea solution for stealth aircraft.
if China do retain the canard, this may indicate that they are not going sacrifice manueverity over stealth.

Click to expand...

And thats a blatant lie.

There is a very lively and interesting debate on the Key publishing modern military forum regarding the question of whether canards and stealth and incompatible. But there is certainly no consensus and if anything, the majority would appear to be against the American view that canards are bad for stealth.

Re: New Generation Fighter

the issue about canard also appear in back issue miltech and last year issue asia-pacific defense montly (chinese) .
blogger point out that while mig-MFI and SU-47 berkut do carry canard,T-50 do not.the bigger question to all air force personal,pilot and engineers,do you sacrifice manuever for pure stealth?
other question, do you need forward canard,when you already got TVC.watching discovery channel, NASA engineer said,while they can design aircraft that pull 9 or even 10G manuever,unfortune,no pilot(or human) will ever survive physically.

Re: New Generation Fighter

To Challenge:

Control Canards while in general was regarded as back for stealth due to its ability to move and in certain geometry, it will affect the stealth and radar cross section. However as I have posted before, there are huge number of different type of Canards configuration - one of them is lift canards and some of them are not moving... which basically when designed along the same line as the wings, they have no or very little impact on stealth. And if you look at my references, it is said that firmware (software) could help reduce the radar cross section (as to how, I am not sure, maybe during flight it reduce the movement of the control canards or let it move alone the same line as the wings).

Thus do not just lump everything to this conclusion - Canards are bad for stealth... which clearly is not the case... engineers had found ways to go around it. And as to your example of aircraft able to pull 9 or even 10G or even 100G manuever... I can tell you this... the NASA engineer didn't say the whole story or you didn't relate the whole story.

At present moment or in future, no human can withstand this type of manuevre, but as technology advances, couldn't the engineers or designers or whatever you wanted to call them, design a cockpit (pressurise, controlled or whatever), flightsuit or stuff like that, that could actually reduce the number of G acting on that human in question even when the plane manuvre at huge number of G, the pilot within that plane is actually only subjected to low level or G?

Think about it.

Re: New Generation Fighter

challenge said:

the issue about canard also appear in back issue miltech and last year issue asia-pacific defense montly (chinese) .
blogger point out that while mig-MFI and SU-47 berkut do carry canard,T-50 do not.the bigger question to all air force personal,pilot and engineers,do you sacrifice manuever for pure stealth?
other question, do you need forward canard,when you already got TVC.watching discovery channel, NASA engineer said,while they can design aircraft that pull 9 or even 10G manuever,unfortune,no pilot(or human) will ever survive physically.

Click to expand...

LOL.. Just becos T-50 no canard that means canard is no good? One must be remember, Russian suffer a brain drain after Soviet collaspe. There are not much capable people around. I will put too much faith on their design.

American F-22 was a design finalise in the 90s..

If China come out with 5th generation fighter, I bet it will be the most up to date design on 2000s with huge emphasize on stealth.

Re: New Generation Fighter

This notion that canards are inherently not stealthy is a bit uneducated. The truth is all aircrafts lose some stealthiness when a control surface is moved, so in that sense canards are still better than tail-planes because they're more effective maneuvering surfaces. Though when they move the frontal RCS of the plane is more effected with canards than with tail-planes, in a combat with constant maneuvering and more randomized orientations, I think the relevance of frontal RCS is uncertain at best. After all, maneuvering is really only most important in dogfights, where stealth, though highly advantageous, is far less useful.

Re: New Generation Fighter

ff The problem with Gs that pull you down into the seat is that they also force the blood out of the brain into the legs. With Anti-G-Straining-Maneuvers and G protection suites pilots in todays fighters can withstand 9G for about 30s. At least I think that's what the training profiles in centrifuges go up to. But that is also really physicly exhausting.
On the F-16 the seat is tilted back for example, so it's not 100% head-to-feat Gs, but more transverse Gs, wich are far less worth.
At some point there is a limit to what technology can do, however. ff

Re: New Generation Fighter

Scratch said:

ff The problem with Gs that pull you down into the seat is that they also force the blood out of the brain into the legs. With Anti-G-Straining-Maneuvers and G protection suites pilots in todays fighters can withstand 9G for about 30s. At least I think that's what the training profiles in centrifuges go up to. But that is also really physicly exhausting.
On the F-16 the seat is tilted back for example, so it's not 100% head-to-feat Gs, but more transverse Gs, wich are far less worth.
At some point there is a limit to what technology can do, however. ff

Click to expand...

Just a couple of centuries in the past... flying is also thought to be unthinkable. Right up to the early 90s, no one actually expect computer to be as wide spread as now.

Technology evolve. Although not at present moment, but in future, what will it evolved into? And at the rate of evolution, nothing is impossible now. Why we are not seeing this product at present moment is not because it is impossible but it is not worth doing. However if in near future when there are actually needs to do it, you can bet that it will happen pretty fast.

Finally since the theory behind how G-force actually affect human being, there can be ways to counter it...

I will not go any further... because this is kind of off topic. I just intent to tell everyone here, that there is no such thing as 'impossible' in today's context.

Same thing as, there is no such thing as 'absolute theory'... which go in the line of 'Canards are bad for stealth.', 'G-force cannot be countered', and stuff like that.

Re: New Generation Fighter

Personally I think the G-limitation problem could be overcome, without fancy "inertial dampening devices", with this:

Unmanned Combat Vehicles.

I believe that future jet fighters will no longer be limited by a human pilot. Just think about how much training goes into a human pilot and how simple it is for a trained technician to control a glorified "RC Plane". Perhaps the absence of a pilot will mark the boundary between 5th and 6th generation fighter planes .