YesThis one?
View attachment 717523
View attachment 717521View attachment 717522View attachment 717520
So much on "canards can't be stealth"!
Surely a difference between Boeing and Lockheed since the start of Boeing rendering on the Ngad we see canardsThat was one reason why the F-22 does not have canards unlike the Typhoon and Rafale, LM realised that fact early on in the ATF competition and decided not to go with them.
Check out LM's ASTOVL/JAST model: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lockheed-astovl-jast-jsf-projects.238/page-3That was one reason why the F-22 does not have canards unlike the Typhoon and Rafale, LM realised that fact early on in the ATF competition and decided not to go with them.
Supposedly, small canards show up a lot better than you'd expect. That and stealthing them needs volumes that small canards don't have, so you end up with stealthy canards so big they're almost a second wing.I don't know if canards are inherently a problem for radar cross section. I don't see why they'd automatically be worse than the horizontal tails on a more conventional layout.
Better controllability, better maneuverability, shorter takeoff runs.That said I really don't see what the benefits of using canards on NGAD or F/A-XX would be.
As long as the canard dont move or move a little, everything is fine. The contribution would be relatively minimal.
It's then open to question why canard layout is considered during that design phase.
All true but wouldn't some sort of tail at the rear of the aircraft provide all those same benefits while having less of an impact on RCS?Better controllability, better maneuverability, shorter takeoff runs.
And for FAXX specifically, slower approach and landing speeds.
because for a air superiority fighter frontal stealth is the most important aspect.I don't know if canards are inherently a problem for radar cross section. I don't see why they'd automatically be worse than the horizontal tails on a more conventional layout.
That said I really don't see what the benefits of using canards on NGAD or F/A-XX would be.
Same. as long as they have limited movement, they wont do anything. But of course more visualization effort is needed.What about LEVCONs? It seems they are kind of a stealth-variant of canards.
Specifically for the USN plane, using a conventional tail also means a longer aircraft overall.All true but wouldn't some sort of tail at the rear of the aircraft provide all those same benefits while having less of an impact on RCS?
Nope...using a conventional tail also means a longer aircraft overall.
Really? so why are F-15, F-22, and F-35 horizontal stabilators all on booms extending aft of the turkey feathers?Nope
the canard version's body is longer which means it's either a larger plane OR since it's longer they are able to make it more slender leading to even lesser drag (beside the advantage of a higher sweep wing and larger wing area)A few posts above...
View attachment 717660
A predator doesn't turn its back on its prey.because for a air superiority fighter frontal stealth is the most important aspect.
Depends. Do you want your prey to think that *it* is the predator? if so, pretending to be either unaware or simply stupid is a dandy way to get the prey to try to sneak up on *you.* Whereupon either you attack... or your partner, which your prey was unaware even existed, leaps out of the bushes at it.A predator doesn't turn its back on its prey.
While I agree this is a tactic, couldn't this be accomplished via EW? I mean this is also discussed in F35 circles. Say in a 4 ship flight, 1 or 2 are using active radar while the remainder are cued targets.Depends. Do you want your prey to think that *it* is the predator? if so, pretending to be either unaware or simply stupid is a dandy way to get the prey to try to sneak up on *you.* Whereupon either you attack... or your partner, which your prey was unaware even existed, leaps out of the bushes at it.
I can see this being a common enough tactic for 5th/6th gen fighters... a group that can be readily seen serving as bait for the fighters that *can't* be seen.
Is a longer aircraft overall really a bad thing in this case? The Navy is going to need a rather big aircraft for the range and payload they desire anyway. As far as I know the reason the early Lockheed Martin JAST/JSF designs used a canard layout was because of an overall length limit imposed by the dimensions of the aircraft elevators on Navy LHA/LHDs that would be operating the STOVL variant. In that context such a layout allowed for better performance than a similar length conventional design.Specifically for the USN plane, using a conventional tail also means a longer aircraft overall.
So now that the canard-haters are likely out of the USN, I think it's likely that the FAXX will have a canard.
You still have a hard limit defined by the size of the elevators, even on the Ford class (and remember, the Ford is down one entire elevator compared to the Nimitz)Is a longer aircraft overall really a bad thing in this case? The Navy is going to need a rather big aircraft for the range and payload they desire anyway. As far as I know the reason the early Lockheed Martin JAST/JSF designs used a canard layout was because of an overall length limit imposed by the dimensions of the aircraft elevators on Navy LHA/LHDs that would be operating the STOVL variant. In that context such a layout allowed for better performance than a similar length conventional design.
The NATF-23 needed the canards to meet the USN landing speed requirements from what I understand (I think this is mentioned in Paul Metz's book as well). Also the NATF-23 had three large elevons per wing, again for pitch control in conjunction with the canards, plus the NATF-23 also had vectored thrust. No matter how you configure canards, you are paying an LO penalty. Just being in the Navy environment with the salt water/salt air, you need more of a maintainable OML and trade-off some LO but you will have a level of LO capability though not to the levels like USAF platforms.You still have a hard limit defined by the size of the elevators, even on the Ford class (and remember, the Ford is down one entire elevator compared to the Nimitz)
Remember that the NF23 proposal chopped the tail way back instead of the super stealthy exhaust trough from the YF23.
That's the role the F-15 (and others) has been playing in exercises. Increases the noise level and let's stealth aircraft sneak around better.Depends. Do you want your prey to think that *it* is the predator? if so, pretending to be either unaware or simply stupid is a dandy way to get the prey to try to sneak up on *you.* Whereupon either you attack... or your partner, which your prey was unaware even existed, leaps out of the bushes at it.
I can see this being a common enough tactic for 5th/6th gen fighters... a group that can be readily seen serving as bait for the fighters that *can't* be seen.
Sure, but once the US is out of legacy fighters that's no longer an option.That's the role the F-15 (and others) has been playing in exercises. Increases the noise level and let's stealth aircraft sneak around better.
J-20. Glad somebody mentionned that one.Some people did the stealth shaping analysis on the J-20, and found that canards contribute a relatively minor amount to the return. I don't want to dig up the article but it was posted here.
LEVCONs (e.g. dropping leading edge control surfaces) are definitely the long-term solution.What about LEVCONs? It seems they are kind of a stealth-variant of canards.
Still wondering if we'll ever see Fluidic Thrust Vectoring on a production aircraft.LEVCONs (e.g. dropping leading edge control surfaces) are definitely the long-term solution.
CF-18, HAL Tejas, etc. already use dropping leading edge flaps to increase wing camber and lift to help slow landing speeds.
The next step is configuring LEVCONs to improve maneuverability.
The third step involves incorporating boundary bleed air to substitute for hinges. Hinges are difficult to “stealthily.”
Eliminating vertical tails is another step to “stealthifying” combat airplanes. Wind tunnel tests and a few unmanned X-planes have been done to confirm stability and control without vertical tails. Think about the tip-mounted drag-rudders on B-2 flying-wing. The next step is incorporating boundary layer blowing to replace moveable control surfaces.
Already done on Su-57The next step is configuring LEVCONs to improve maneuverability.
LEVCONs (e.g. dropping leading edge control surfaces) are definitely the long-term solution.
CF-18, HAL Tejas, etc. already use dropping leading edge flaps to increase wing camber and lift to help slow landing speeds.
The next step is configuring LEVCONs to improve maneuverability.
The third step involves incorporating boundary bleed air to substitute for hinges. Hinges are difficult to “stealthily.”
Eliminating vertical tails is another step to “stealthifying” combat airplanes. Wind tunnel tests and a few unmanned X-planes have been done to confirm stability and control without vertical tails. Think about the tip-mounted drag-rudders on B-2 flying-wing. The next step is incorporating boundary layer blowing to replace moveable control surfaces.