The YF-23's intakes weren't perfectly concealed, though one could argue that the PAK-FA's are much less concealed than the YF-23s.
T50's conventional cone shaped exhaust is not stealthy, hope china doesn't follow
- Thread starter antimatter
- Start date
The YF-23's intakes weren't perfectly concealed, though one could argue that the PAK-FA's are much less concealed than the YF-23s.
Quickie
Colonel
My opinion is, other than the engine inlets, it's less obvious the structure of the flanker is less stealthier than the F-15, for example. Is the flankers commonly fitted with radar blockers?
Hyperwarp
Captain
NO...
The Su-35BM has very heavily modified intakes (lowest quoted RCS figure I have come across when clean is 1m^2). Lot of surgery had been done. Despite having more powerful engines her top speed had dropped to Mach 2.25 compared the the Mach 2.35 of the older flankers.
J-11B also has modified intakes (lowest figure I have come across is 3m^2)
But whether they have F/A-18E/F, EF-Typhoon style blockers I don't know.
I am just asking about the possibility that the T-50 having a large inlet is because of a different engine being used at this point.
As for re-design, wouldn't that be something common for a prototype? Furthermore, anyone know if the new engine the Russian is developing for the T-50 production version has similar dimensions to that used in the Su-27?
BTW, what does a radar blocker look like? Can someone post some example of existing aircraft using radar blocker? Thanks!
Hyperwarp
Captain
That seems to be the case when it come to the F/A-18E/F. From some internet chit-chat the current T-50 does not have the blocker. The current engine cannot cope with it. The blocker will be installed from prototype 3 or 4 IIRC
NO!
X-32 lost due to weight issues and having the looks of Monica Lewinsky
:nana:YF-23? It had a Lower RCS than the YF-22. It also had lower IR signature. It was also faster than the YF-22 (Both supercruise & in afterburner). And from one documentary I watched the YF-23 was said to be "Much faster" than the YF-22. YF-23 powered by the GE-120 had blasted to a still classified value. Many details of the YF-23 are still classified. The area the YF-22 was superior was low-speed handling. But when it came to supersonic maneuverability its not so clear.
The reason the YF-22 won was because it was a less complicated bird to build and the USAF had more confidence in the LM-Boeing team to deliver the goods on time & budget.
YF-23 did NOT lose because it was technically inferior. In fact it was superior to the YF-22 in BOTH Stealth & Supercruise. The YF-23 also met all the maneuverability (subsonic/supersonic) requirements of the ATF competition
I have heard that ditching YF-23 was one of the dumbest decisions by the USAF. One reason the F-22 Raptor was cancelled after 183 planes is because it had very poor internal air-to-ground capabilities. And guess what! The YF-23 weapons bay was at least theoretically better suited from A-G Munitions. YF-23 had a much deeper weapons bay...
Londo Molari
Junior Member
They went with F-22 because they figured being more conventional in design, it would be far cheaper and have far fewer unforeseen maintenance problems... that did NOT turn out as expected... or maybe it did and F-23 would have been an even bigger maintainence hog O_O
peperez
New Member
The Su35BM also uses ferrite cover over the front engine blades to absorb radiation...
Cheers
Pepe
Londo Molari
Junior Member
I'm not an expert, but compared to this hull fastening, JF-17 and J-10 don't look bad at all.
Last edited:
The info is too weighty for me to digest, I mean technically and mechanically
but I to me each one is unique