I read in another thread here that the accuracy issues with the tube-magazine weren't necessarily related to any aerodynamic effects, but rather the ballistic computer not being programmed with the tube in mind, leading to inaccurate drops (much less of an issue with a nuclear weapon, of course). And that's assuming that you're using an iron bomb at all (Which is of course preferable on cost grounds) and not a guided weapon.
The tubes extending to the back of the aircraft take up a lot of volume unless you design new weapons with folding fins etc. With multiple tubes then you'll also end up with a lot of rear fuselage volume which is bad for drag.
I think the volume is the key thing; for a small supersonic aircraft with internal weapon bays then you really need to minimise the numbers of weapons carried as this drives max cross sectional area, then length, mass etc.
That's true, this could only work half decently with a two engine design, and at that point you're immediately straying out of the "light" fighter category.
But in any case 4x-6x SDB and 2x AMRAAM is definitely the minimum anyone would expect. But I still think anyone wanting a 5th gen fighter would specify bays deep enough to hold 2000lb bombs, for those rare targets that need a Surprise Bunkerbuster.
Do you want to fly an unarmed aircraft into a shooting match? At the very least I'd require some defensive AAMs to be carried.
Any nuclear state will insist that their nukes be delivered by a manned plane for a long time. That means your minimum bay size is however big the national nuclear weapon is, IIRC the US/NATO B61 is roughly the length of a 2000lb bomb but is only about as wide as a 1000lb bomb.
While it's technically possible to make a nuclear warhead that would fit into the SDB form factor, it'd be limited to about 1kt based on reported yields of 155mm and 203mm cannon warheads. A warhead that shape, like a rugby ball, has two problems: one is that it'd be very inefficient and so need a lot more fissionables to go boom at all, and the second is that you wouldn't be able to pack nukes as tightly as the SDBs get carried. Packing warheads inches apart would cause a nasty neutron flux that would be unhealthy for pilots and ground crew, not to mention causing radiation effects in the electronics of the plane.
B-52 bomb "clips" and rotary racks show roughly how far apart you can safely stow nukes, and it looks to be a good 30" apart. So one bomb per bay regardless of yield, might as well use one that fills more of the bay and has greater flexibility.
And while I'd ordinarily say that any nation that would be interested in the "smallest" possible stealth fighter wouldn't be one of the nuclear states, sadly, the events of 2022 have proven that any given nation really needs nukes if they don't want one of their unfriendly neighbors to try something.
Make inconspicuous missiles/bombs and weapon bay will not be needed.
In addition to the weapon bay, the take-off weight is also affected by the mass of electronic equipment. The modern fighter has 4.5 - 5% of the maximum take-off weight.
Wouldn't the external ordinance make it hard to keep the jet stealthy, even if those missiles/bombs were shaped with LO qualities? I keep hearing that even if you make the airframe LO, and the missiles LO, and the pylons LO, there are a number of weird reflections and interactions that make it difficult to shape the items so everything is LO when together.
Wouldn't the external ordinance make it hard to keep the jet stealthy, even if those missiles/bombs were shaped with LO qualities? I keep hearing that even if you make the airframe LO, and the missiles LO, and the pylons LO, there are a number of weird reflections and interactions that make it difficult to shape the items so everything is LO when together.
I keep hearing that even if you make the airframe LO, and the missiles LO, and the pylons LO, there are a number of weird reflections and interactions that make it difficult to shape the items so everything is LO when together.
Problem with conformal is it takes away range of weapons that can be mounted there. Also necessitating some large procurements of the weapons and platform. Otherwise one may have a Zummwalt.
Wouldn't the external ordinance make it hard to keep the jet stealthy, even if those missiles/bombs were shaped with LO qualities? I keep hearing that even if you make the airframe LO, and the missiles LO, and the pylons LO, there are a number of weird reflections and interactions that make it difficult to shape the items so everything is LO when together.
Wouldn't the external ordinance make it hard to keep the jet stealthy, even if those missiles/bombs were shaped with LO qualities? I keep hearing that even if you make the airframe LO, and the missiles LO, and the pylons LO, there are a number of weird reflections and interactions that make it difficult to shape the items so everything is LO when together.
Yeah. as therre are multiple reflection phenomenon here, where EM Wave bounce from say a missile to other missile. It creates constructive interference where the reflection strengthen eachother thus you ended up with strong and large reflection. External load is just better be avoided whenever possible.
For example this is my estimates on F-16 with Have Glass-like treatment and how external load affect the RCS
One interesting thing however is about "stealthy external weapon bay" Unfortunately currently i only make single concept for my Su-35 model. This is the external bay, the Su-35 with extenal bay have clean wing also with wingtip ECM's.
Then we compare that one with full counter air suite here. This Su-35 model has 4x R-37, 2 R-77-1 and 2 R-73 also a jammer pod. also with an armed F-16, with 4x Amraam and 2x Sidewinders
Su-35 Counter Air
F-16 Counter Air
The result is as follows. SImulated using Ansys HFSS and data processed in MS Excel.
One may notice the apparent benefit of external weapon bay. Still however it would need some optimizations. I havent test the case for wing mounted bay.
Yeah. as therre are multiple reflection phenomenon here, where EM Wave bounce from say a missile to other missile. It creates constructive interference where the reflection strengthen eachother thus you ended up with strong and large reflection. External load is just better be avoided whenever possible.
For example this is my estimates on F-16 with Have Glass-like treatment and how external load affect the RCS
One interesting thing however is about "stealthy external weapon bay" Unfortunately currently i only make single concept for my Su-35 model. This is the external bay, the Su-35 with extenal bay have clean wing also with wingtip ECM's.
Then we compare that one with full counter air suite here. This Su-35 model has 4x R-37, 2 R-77-1 and 2 R-73 also a jammer pod. also with an armed F-16, with 4x Amraam and 2x Sidewinders
One may notice the apparent benefit of external weapon bay. Still however it would need some optimizations. I havent test the case for wing mounted bay.
It's more like into the shape which to break down the radar reflection into smaller less harmful lobes, while at the same time expanded the velocity range where the inlet can be efficient. The bump can also serve as additional volume where something can be placed there e.g Fuel.
The signature benefit however is remains to be seen. Might be easier to apply thick absorber composite due to nonmoving parts.
It's more like into the shape which to break down the radar reflection into smaller less harmful lobes, while at the same time expanded the velocity range where the inlet can be efficient. The bump can also serve as additional volume where something can be placed there e.g Fuel.
The signature benefit however is remains to be seen. Might be easier to apply thick absorber composite due to nonmoving parts.
The bump can be considered discontinuities tho, that's why it needs to be treated with absorbers, and maybe that careful shaping to make use of the discontinuities to break down the lobes into less harmful thing.
The bump can be considered discontinuities tho, that's why it needs to be treated with absorbers, and maybe that careful shaping to make use of the discontinuities to break down the lobes into less harmful thing.
That solution was studied by Northrop with at least one of the ATF early configuration studies (Critical Technology Demonstrator) of 1983.
See Paul Metz "Northrop YF-23 ATF" book p19.
During World War I, Germany set out to make the first stealth aircraft and successfully did so, creating multiple invisible planes in 1912 that later saw
Dunno if anyone here is following the Northrop Grumman Vanguard but you have a flying stealthy looking plane
internal bay for 2 AIM-120s
max take off wait of 10,000 lbs or 5 tons
41 feet long or 12.5 meters
max altitude of 25,000 feet
expected to have a range of 3000 miles
no idea on the speed
so NG was able to build something with the same IWB capacity as some of the estimates here
but in a much lighter package
I think it's possible to have a smaller but still useful manned aircraft if you drop the supersonic and turning performance requirements while keeping range and payload relevant. Think more of a stealth A-4 or A-7 than F-16. Such a hypothetical aircraft would obviously require a large development program without bringing anything to the table that a slightly larger but more versatile stealth fighter can't, which kind of explains why we haven't seen a plane in this category since the F-117.
However, like others here have said, the obvious answer to your question is drones.
The Model 437 Vanguard is the perfect example of this. It is said to be able to carry two AMRAAM internally and it has a range similar to the F-35. It weighs less than half of a Gripen.
Removing the supersonic requirement easily doubles the range of an aircraft with the similar empty weight. The design can have a longer wing with less wing sweep to dramatically improve lift to drag ratio. The engine can be a high bypass ratio from a private jet.
Removing the turning performance requirement allows a dorsal intake to be used that makes it much easier to fit a big weapons bay in a small design.
The MQ-20 Avenger uses a similar engine to the Model 437 but has much greater wingspan. That translates into a higher MTOW and even greater range. Top speed has now come down to turboprop levels which demonstrates the trade off between speed and range.
The MQ-28 Ghost bat shows a layout that would have higher speed and agility. The intakes are on the sides and the wingspan is less for better transonic drag. A small afterburning engine could allow the MQ-28 to have moderate supersonic performance. The MQ-28 design scaled up ever so slightly to allow a single afterburning Honeywell F124 gives a 6,100lb dry and 9,500lb wet thrust. A manned cockpit with a small AESA radar like the Raytheon PhantomStrike would be good. Three AMRAAM sized weapons in a central bay would be sufficient for air to air. This allows 6 SBD and 2 AMRAAM for strike missions.
It is worth noting that a MK84 2,000lb bomb body without the tail cone is shorter than an AMRAAM and has diameter of the bomb body is the same as the AMRAAM wingspan. It would be possible to developing a bunker buster bomb that fits in the footprint of the AMRAAM. If you look at the GBU-28 4,000lb bunker buster it is very heavy for its size due to the thick steel casing for penetrating bunkers. A 2,000lb bunker buster with a similar heavy steel casing could fit in dimensions of a AMRAAM providing it had pop out fins on the rear and the GPS section is very compact. It is worth making compact weapons for stealth fighters when internal weapons bay volume is so hard to build into the design. Designing a light fighter to have a 5m long weapon bay to fit a 50cm 2,000lb bomb makes no sense. It would be better to simply design a new 2,000lb bomb.
Also tube launched short range missiles would reduce the need for 4+ AMRAAM. Tube launch missiles are very volume efficient that would help in small stealth fighters and small loyal wingman drones. The modifications to the missile wouldn't be that hard. The soft launch feature would be removed so they would fire like an APKWS. If they are mounted on a weapon bay door the rocket exhaust is then outside of the aircraft. Or if the tubes are fixed inside the aircraft then an exhaust duct from the back of the tubes can vent outside of the aircraft. The French Mistral is the most capable tube launched missile weighing just short of 20kg. Being fired at high subsonic speeds would allow it to hit targets 10kms away. Definitely enough to replace the Sidewinder. Stealth versus Stealth engagements might see detection at fairly short range so 10km short range missiles might be very useful.
Yeah. as therre are multiple reflection phenomenon here, where EM Wave bounce from say a missile to other missile. It creates constructive interference where the reflection strengthen eachother thus you ended up with strong and large reflection. External load is just better be avoided whenever possible.
For example this is my estimates on F-16 with Have Glass-like treatment and how external load affect the RCS
One interesting thing however is about "stealthy external weapon bay" Unfortunately currently i only make single concept for my Su-35 model. This is the external bay, the Su-35 with extenal bay have clean wing also with wingtip ECM's.
Then we compare that one with full counter air suite here. This Su-35 model has 4x R-37, 2 R-77-1 and 2 R-73 also a jammer pod. also with an armed F-16, with 4x Amraam and 2x Sidewinders
One may notice the apparent benefit of external weapon bay. Still however it would need some optimizations. I havent test the case for wing mounted bay.
Really interesting stuff . I actually had a similar thought regarding the weapons bay between the engines (maybe), albeit as part of a much larger "effort" in an attempt to turn a MiG-29 into a 5th/6th generation platform purely from the standpoint of rcs, or at least a much more realistic & affordable stealth option for Russia than The Su-57, but only if I'm absurdly lucky. Perhaps think of it as a kind of laser guided/gps bomb upgrade kit for an aircraft, among other things, & since we are calling ours The "NGAD", I give you this.
Enter The NVLAD (yes, the name is a joke) -
With the unfortunate caveat that I am not an engineer of any kind & don't have the necessary skills/software to make a 3D model of this "thing", I did my very best via Libre Office & various blueprints, even if the end "result" puts the "rough" in "rough sketch", with the blue lines representing a 5th generation configuration & the black ones representing further changes in order to create a 6th generation variant (haha, yeah right).
Essentially, I just "performed" a head transplant by exchanging the standard Fulcrum cockpit for a scaled-down version of that from The Felon minus the spherical irst bulb & exchanged it for some kind of EOTS-like capability/device, instead, added levcons & the R-74 missile bays from The Su-57 (I included the overlap with the landing gear doors in the "design" just to show that incorporating said feature might actually be possible with a slight modification, but it's going to be close & I'm really just guessing on that one), the tail from The YF-23 except in the style of the top of the tail of The MiG-29 so that the slant does not provide for a direct radar return, & slightly modified wings for the same reason. The tricky part is explaining the layout for the intakes, so I apologize, in advance, for any confusion.
In order to keep costs down as much as possible, I elected to go with the tried-&-true Soviet/Russian airframe, for the most part, with straight engine intakes, but in order to shield the fan blades from inquiring radars as much as possible, I found a drawing from an early version of The Su-27 that incorporated axisymmetric inlets & modified the front of said design with the classic slant from the intakes from The MiG-29 solely for the purposes of illustration & "installed" a pyramidal shaped, idk, shock thingy #TechnicalTerm instead of the usual cone, with a slanted rectangular radar blocker/fiberglass screen (whatever they used, as I can't remember, atm) like that on The F-117 behind it & in front of the face of the engine in order to hopefully "clean up the rest" of the radio waves.
As for the section between the engines, again, it's complicated, lol, smh. Try to think of a bizarrely shaped/stretched trapezoid like that section directly behind the cockpit, or even a modified version of the very front of the nose from which the pitot tubes emanate, from The Nighthawk -
with the bay that holds the front landing gear opening up down the middle, behind which, of course, is the single main weapons bay. I wouldn't expect to be able to hold more than two missiles in there, but yeah.
For The 6th Generation model, the black lines at the back of the plane are for an enlarged wing sans tail in favor of those 3D thrust-vectoring engines from The MiG-29 OVT. Are they expensive? Yes. Can Russia make them? Also yes. Not sure if anyone else has 3D thrust-vectoring engines, though, but I want to say no, hence the reason for this absurd idea, lol, smh.
Anyway, feel free to rip this "concept" to shreds, guys, & if someone is crazy enough to actually want to make a 3D model of this thing & run some rcs tests on it, feel free, as the numbers for both "designs" would be very interesting to know, but barring completely unforeseen events, I'm not exactly expecting much. It might be decent, I guess, but sadly, this is probably the "best" that I can do. Sigh.
Sorry for the book.
Edit - crap, I almost forgot to mention that the black triangles on the upper & lower parts of the entrances to the air intakes have inward canted angles for stealth (duh). A sawtooth arrangement would be better, but I just couldn't find a way to make that work in the "illustration", not to mention that this "experience" has reminded me as to why I haven't drawn/traced anything in the last 20 years, lol, smh.
Really interesting stuff . I actually had a similar thought regarding the weapons bay between the engines (maybe), albeit as part of a much larger "effort" in an attempt to turn a MiG-29 into a 5th/6th generation platform purely from the standpoint of rcs, or at least a much more realistic & affordable stealth option for Russia than The Su-57
unfortunately tho, the amount to make MiG-29 really "stealth" is basically make a new aircraft. The best you can do is to have some radar absorber treatment. This is my example for MiG-29 treatment options.
Once Starshield and other constellations come on line--would stealth drones even need much in the way of avionics, radars, etc? You want combat craft not much more expensive than small private planes. That should shave off some weight.
unfortunately tho, the amount to make MiG-29 really "stealth" is basically make a new aircraft. The best you can do is to have some radar absorber treatment. This is my example for MiG-29 treatment options.
Thanks, as that really means a lot , & I did see that on Twitter. As you've demonstrated, even armed & without altering the intakes, smoothing the underside, not to mention any potential modifications with regards to the tail, the reduced rcs is quite impressive, imo, hence my "attempt", with the idea being that all MiG-29s could be upgraded to such a standard, & Sukhoi would certainly be welcome to do the same, lol. I'm not sure if this was intentional, but one of the features of The MiG-29 & Su-27, etc., that I really like is the potential to upgrade them via such changes as opposed to having to build an entirely new air frame, & there are certainly plenty of both planes in service, & I'm not picky about the materials, either. Like, use treated wood for the pyramidal shaped thingies as was the case on The MiG-21 for all that I care, LOL, as long as it works. The radar wouldn't be great, of course, but my thought, there, was to do with The Bars Family/Series that which was done to The Irbis-E by greatly increasing range & sensitivity via installing a second twt & stuff. It would still be a PESA, of course, but since money is always an issue, I'd much rather put most of the funds into the shaping & go all-in with other sensors to try to make up the difference as opposed to putting an AESA into The Su-57 that doesn't have a DAS, etc., & there are ways to make a different & potentially better version of that technology for less.
Bottom line - while I don't necessarily support Russia, for some reason, the idea of turning a MiG-29/Flanker into a stealth platform is one of those things that seems to be almost impossible, but if it can be done, idk, I guess that I would find that to be really rewarding, if that makes any sense.
Dunno if anyone here is following the Northrop Grumman Vanguard but you have a flying stealthy looking plane
internal bay for 2 AIM-120s
max take off wait of 10,000 lbs or 5 tons
41 feet long or 12.5 meters
max altitude of 25,000 feet
expected to have a range of 3000 miles
no idea on the speed
so NG was able to build something with the same IWB capacity as some of the estimates here
but in a much lighter package
Once Starshield and other constellations come on line--would stealth drones even need much in the way of avionics, radars, etc? You want combat craft not much more expensive than small private planes. That should shave off some weight.
Once Starshield and other constellations come on line--would stealth drones even need much in the way of avionics, radars, etc? You want combat craft not much more expensive than small private planes. That should shave off some weight.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.wearethemighty.com
. I actually had a similar thought regarding the weapons bay between the engines (maybe), albeit as part of a much larger "effort" in an attempt to turn a MiG-29 into a 5th/6th generation platform purely from the standpoint of rcs, or at least a much more realistic & affordable stealth option for Russia than The Su-57, but only if I'm absurdly lucky. Perhaps think of it as a kind of laser guided/gps bomb upgrade kit for an aircraft, among other things, & since we are calling ours The "NGAD", I give you this.
