Its Official: JXX is going to test fly in the next few days

[mohd497]

Can you give me just one link which says that canard increases the x-36 RCS i will completely agree with you and my doubt will be cleared as of now i cant see anywhere saying that usage of canard in x-36 increases its RCS

 

[Speeder 2]

You mean this
...

Just saying , the US and Russia have , opted against Canards on their planes for a reason.

We all remember this Boeing's 6th gen concept aircraft

.

Don't forget F-22 is 80s design. I 've read it somewhere that one of the 6th gen design concepts of the US is with canards.

For example in such a scenario that I foresee: if JXX comes with a fully blended body/wings design ( resembles F-22, or more like T-50, but with wings much more upfront positionwise) , with some front parts of wings edge movable when needed, while normally act as "fixed" full wings, you then call that them fixed wings or wings with "canards"?

 

[gogbot]

Can you give me just one link which says that canard increases the x-36 RCS i will completely agree with you and my doubt will be cleared as of now i cant see anywhere saying that usage of canard in x-36 increases its RCS

X-36 was not stealth.
Find me a link that says it was.
It is at best low observable.

Any unnecessary surface will increase the RCS .
especially moving parts , like canards.

That is the only explanation one needs.

 

[jagjitnatt]

Can you give me just one link which says that canard increases the x-36 RCS i will completely agree with you and my doubt will be cleared as of now i cant see anywhere saying that usage of canard in x-36 increases its RCS

Its common sense yaar, as the number of surfaces increase so does the radar observability.

Read some.
HowStuffWorks "Uses of Radar"
Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another alternative is asking Gambit. He would surely be able to explain you.

Read this. Explains how canards reduce stealth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canard_%28aeronautics)#Canard_aircraft_characteristics

 

[gogbot]

Don't forget F-22 is 80s design. I 've read it somewhere that one of the 6th gen design concepts of the US is with canards.

I don't know about the F-22 , but there were experimental that used canards .
meaning it may be feasible ,

But none made into a production model.
explantion , difficulties incorporating such a design . perhaps

For example in such a scenario that I foresee: if JXX comes with a fully blended body/wings design ( resembles F-22, or more like T-50, but with wings much more upfront positionwise) , with some front parts of wings edge movable when needed, while normally act as "fixed" full wings, you then call that them fixed wings or wings with "canards"?

The Pak-FA use's those



but i don't think they are called canards , manoeuvrable surfaces is the term i believe.


Yf-23 also used them



B-2 also uses said surfaces to fly ,

It is a very stealth design.

 

[gubbi]

The Pak-FA use's those



but i don't think they are called canards , manoeuvrable surfaces is the term i believe.

It is a very stealth design.

I believe the term is LERX - leading edge root extensions - fillets or strakes. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[mohd497]

X-36 was not stealth.
Find me a link that says it was.
It is at best low observable.

Any unnecessary surface will increase the RCS .
especially moving parts , like canards.

That is the only explanation one needs.

see and hear the link if you people have anymore doubt than dear i cant help

 

[jagjitnatt]

YouTube - Mcdonnell Douglas JSF proposal and x-36
see and hear the link if you people have anymore doubt than dear i cant help

YouTube = not a source. Period.

All your info comes from google searches. But there are a trillion pages out there and only a few are credible.

 

[indiarocks]

a fifth generation stealth plane with forwards canards .....that defies the basic principle of stealth....looks like a great example of fourth generation prototype plane or maybe a heavily modified j-10....well if it is really j-XX...less stealth will be a factor questioning its generation otherwise is a great design except the fwd. canards.

 

[dingyibvs]

I partially agree that china is very progressive, but expecting it to beat the tech masters of today would be an over stretch. If they had RAM coating tech, we would have seen the plane already, don't you think?
Even if not the J-XX we would have seen the tech on J-10 or J11.

Well, I don't think that's a good line of reasoning. The UK doesn't make much use of RAM coating either, and the U.S. hasn't exactly incorporated it into their fleet of F16/15/18's and they've had the tech for quite a while.

My whole point was to show you that , concept art can't be trusted.

It looks really cool , and you want the plane to be that way . But it never is what you hope it to be.

If keep taking all this art as representation of the real thing , you will just be disappointed when you see the real thing.

That Fat art picture you commented on for the Paf-FA m was the one that was , supposedly confirmed by a Sukhoi employee as where close to the real thing , obviously that was only rumour and we'd all been had

Believe what ever you want just putting the possibility out there

Yea, I agree, it could just be all disinformation. I'm certainly not gonna place a whole lot of faith on the fan arts, just makes for some interesting speculation.

X-36 was not stealth.
Find me a link that says it was.
It is at best low observable.

Any unnecessary surface will increase the RCS .
especially moving parts , like canards.

That is the only explanation one needs.

No, not any unnecessary surface will increase RCS. Canards usually increase RCS because they're placed above the wings, which does increase the frontal cross section. However, the JXX, if it uses canards, will likely have it inline with the wings, very much like the PAK-FA's LERX. The only difference, really, is that there's a little gap between the JXX's "LERX" and the wing. As far as frontal RCS is concerned, there is no difference.

If the canards move, of course, it'll increase frontal RCS, but they're not needed to move except during take-off and high speed maneuvers, the latter of which would only be needed during WVR dogfights in which RCS is of little importance. Thus, when cruising toward the target, they can simply have the canards not move, and it wouldn't reduce stealth at all.

 

[Speeder 2]

self-delete

 

[Speeder 2]

No, not any unnecessary surface will increase RCS. Canards usually increase RCS because they're placed above the wings, which does increase the frontal cross section. However, the JXX, if it uses canards, will likely have it inline with the wings, very much like the PAK-FA's LERX. The only difference, really, is that there's a little gap between the JXX's "LERX" and the wing. As far as frontal RCS is concerned, there is no difference.

If the canards move, of course, it'll increase frontal RCS, but they're not needed to move except during take-off and high speed maneuvers, the latter of which would only be needed during WVR dogfights in which RCS is of little importance. Thus, when cruising toward the target, they can simply have the canards not move, and it wouldn't reduce stealth at all.

I thought so as well. I'm not familiar with aerodynamics, hence I am not sure what's the aerodynamics difference btw pacing canards like J-10, and placing them in the same horizontal line as wings like JXX possiblely does (in such a design, as you said, frontal RCS could be almost the same as F-22/T-50 ). However, there must be some differences when conducting super manuever between these 2 kinds of canards designs. The question is if the diff significantly large enough or not.

 

[dingyibvs]

I thought so as well. I'm not familiar with aerodynamics, hence I am not sure what's the aerodynamics difference btw pacing canards like J-10, and placing them in the same horizontal line as wings like JXX possiblely does (in such a design, as you said, frontal RCS could be almost the same as F-22/T-50 ). However, there must be some differences when conducting super manuever between these 2 kinds of canards designs. The question is if the diff significantly large enough or not.

I think canards give you the best lift and maneuverability when placed above the wings, so in-line canards really don't help you that much. But then again, it really doesn't increase hurt your RCS either, unlike canards on the J-10, for example.

 

[no_name]

Thus, when cruising toward the target, they can simply have the canards not move, and it wouldn't reduce stealth at all.

Might be possible if V shaped tails acts as both horizontal and vertical stabilizers. Canards just adds extra maneuverability.

 

[ptldM3]

Sure J-XX can have a low rcs, but what they are aiming for is even lower than Typhoon's.

Only US and now UK have RAM coating tech, not even Russia although Russia is trying pretty hard. So its tough, not impossible though.

I wish Chinese luck for their plane but we shouldn't be over optimistic either.

Not thrue Russia has had extensive work in RAM, read the link below.

RAM considerable reduce RCS. On ram tech , US is no doubt the best. The UK itself is nothing on ram tech but a beneficiary of the US classified info. China, however, arguablelly is the second place in ram tech IMO, since China is a world leader in many aspects of Material Science, clearly ahead of Russia (possiblely ahead of the EU as well), by how much, we don't know as surely it's classified. We only can see that when the real deal comes out.


.

How many times are you going to post worthless rants? Every single one of your posts are the same thing, China is superior to Russia, China's stealth is superior to Russia's and now it's China's RAM is superior to Russia, your opinions don't matter and you know nothing about Russia's capabilities. Moreover, being a "world leader" in "material science" doesn't mean you can have "superior" RAM. Read:


http://www.ato.ru/rus/cis/archive/4-2003/interview/?sess_=4e4563b23abbc3a7be9f31cc67ef52e8

Stealth Aircraft Technology:"Our Capabilities are not Inferior to Those of America"

Andrey Lagarjkov, Director General of the United Institute of High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences (and an Associate Member of the Academy), talks about Russian stealth technology in the following interview with the Russia/CIS Observer.
Until recently, all Russian developments in the field of stealth technologies were strictly classified. There weren't any reports made concerning research institutes dealing with these issues. The veil was raised somewhat last year when it was announced for the first time that the United Institute of High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences was carrying out research in the domain of reduced aircraft visibility. The information was rather sketchy. It was reported that the institute is specialized in creating materials with new properties, in particular with ferromagnetics and so-called artificial magnetics. It was pointed out that technologies developed by the institute were used in designing and manufacturing the Sukhoi Su-27M and Su-37 (Su-47). Director General Lagarjkov, who hasn't spoken about such matters in public before, told Sergey Sokut about work of his institute in greater detail.
- How does Russia's way of making aircraft stealthy differ from the American technology?
- The Americans have two approaches. The first, and earliest one, was used for the F-117 and B-2. The low radar cross-section (RCS) was achieved through the shape of the aircraft and the use of radar-absorbing materials to cover the airframe. In this application, the principle of minimal level of visibility was a cornerstone - and other characteristics had to be sacrificed. For example, both aircraft are subsonic. Later the Americans tried another approach: modern radar absorbing materials are applied to F-16 and F-18, as well as to 5th generation F-22 and JSF combat aircraft, which have a traditional shape. The low level of visibility is achieved through different techniques, which Mikhail Pogosyan, director of Sukhoi, and I are going to reveal in the near future. We and the Americans are close to each other in this type of technology. Russia possesses the technology for upgrading in-service aircraft with modern stealth characteristics, and moreover, this technology is demanded by foreign operators of Russian aircraft. We, together with Sukhoi, have achieved world-class results in this area, which are confirmed by tests of real aircraft. We also can optimize the shape of the aircraft to lower the level of visibility, but I still wouldn't like to speak about the use of our techniques for 5th generation aircraft.
- When would it be possible to speak about achieved results?
- Some discussion is possible today. The exact results of radar cross-section reduction will never be disclosed, neither here in Russia nor abroad. But sometime ago it was announced that the RCS of a MiG-21 fighter after its treatment by our institute is approximately 0.25 sq m. This corresponds to the characteristics of a cruise missile.
- How far is it possible to go in reducing visibility of the 4th generation aircraft, and what additional improvements can be achieved in the next generation?
- My MiG-21 example demonstrates that the RCS of upgraded/modernized aircraft can be reduced 12-15 times. If we speak about new designed models, I wouldn't want to discuss the numbers publically.
- In the press, information has been published about exotic technologies for providing low visibility, for example, plasma. How effective is it?
- We use plasma in solving the problems of RCS of an aircraft's nosecone. In general, plasma technologies are very useful at flight altitudes of more than 25 km. At low altitudes it is impossible to use them, because there is not enough power on board.
- What is the share of stealth technologies in the total aircraft cost?
- If stringent, but reasonable requirements for visibility are implemented in the project from the very beginning, it won't be too large. I'd like to point out here that at my institue, we have carried out advanced work in fundamental research. I also want to stress here that we had to do this without governmental support - funding our research from out-of-budget sources during the last 10-15 years.
- It is known that you cooperate closely with Sukhoi. What about the institute's work with other design bureaus?
- Recently, we have started cooperating intensively with the others as well.
- If we compare achievements of different countries in the reduction of aircraft visibility, who would the leaders be? Obviously, the Americans would hit the top, wouldn't they?
- The Americans are no. 1 because of the application of stealth to a large volume of real products. But considering the understanding of the whole problem in general - and the potential - I don't think the Americans are better than we are. We are able to achieve, and already have achieved, the same - and even in some areas, we have had somewhat better results. Another plus for the Americans is their broader application of stealth. In particular, they are entering the world market with the stealthy aircraft. Similar developments are being made in Europe, but the level of these countries is not so high. The French are tackling this problem as well. They have very good research equipment - anechoic chambers, for example. Their Rafale fighter is advertised as an aircraft with a low radar cross-section.