J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

dingyibvs said:

IMO, very little chance. To stealthify a non-stealthy plane, you'll need to change enough of it to basically make a completely new plane, and the end result will cost just as much as one that's built from the ground up to be stealthy. You do save some development time, but IMO not really worth it.

Click to expand...

The Silent Eagle was basically a F-15 with canted tails and conforming fuel tanks that got converted into internal weapons bays. I'm sure something similar could be done with the J-11s. Weapons bay could be located in the gap between the engines (similar to what was done on PAK-FA).

As for a stealth J-10 or JF-17 I don't think they are viable plans. Neither airframe has the space to store weapons internally. You might work on a reduced RCS version though, like the J-10B.

Put on some nice jammers and you don't even need RAM.

siegecrossbow said:

The Silent Eagle was basically a F-15 with canted tails and conforming fuel tanks that got converted into internal weapons bays. I'm sure something similar could be done with the J-11s. Weapons bay could be located in the gap between the engines (similar to what was done on PAK-FA).

As for a stealth J-10 or JF-17 I don't think they are viable plans. Neither airframe has the space to store weapons internally. You might work on a reduced RCS version though, like the J-10B.

Click to expand...

And the result? A plane that's not as stealthy as the F-35, not as maneuverable as the F-15, and costing more than both. That's why I'm not so keen on the stealth Flanker idea, I think SAC should build something that's evolutionary like the PAK-FA, and not something that's simply modified like the F-15SE.

Bltizo said:

Yes I've seen that movie too -- it's not as gritty as top gun though, and uses too many special effects.



Actually northrop had another design with canards: their NATF proposal, which had canards, and was even on a completely seperate plane from the wings. The idea that canards are bad for stealth are, at this moment too well known and seems unsubstantuated.

Ah yes, it was this footnote inparticular:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

----

I think it is safe to assume the latest variants of PL-12 in service have ranges far beyond 70km, but the max range can also be skewed from the altitude they're fired at, not to mention the platform and the speed the platform is at, etc.

I think it's best to judge by the size and mass of the missile, which can tell you how much propellant they can hold and the size of the seeker -- of course how advanced a seeker and the propellant is can change the range. PL-12 is similar in size to AMRAAM, if not a little bigger so I expect it to have a similar max range (maybe a little lower), assuming propellant and seekers are a tad inferior.

With the incorporation of a ramjet, PL-12 and PL-21 range and kinetic end game performance should be better than AMRAAM. I wonder if the AIM-120 will get a ramjet upgrade any time soon.

Click to expand...

The US Navy prototyped a solid fuel ramjet replacement for Phoenix, but the USAF wanted no part of it because it wouldn't fit the F-22 weapons bay. It is a big missile, as was Phoenix. The cold war ended, the USAF wouldn't buy in and the F-14 was retired. There is a prototype on display in at least one museum.



Aerojet is developing ducted rocket ramjet versions of HARM under a program called High Speed Anti-radiation Demonstration (HSAD)



The same propulsion is being investigated for an air to air missile application;



As simple as they appear, rocket ramjets are fiendishly difficult to design. For the US, our solid fuel rocket technology is so good, the threshold where a ramjet offers a clear advantage over a solid fuel rocket is very high. We apparently can gain more advantage out of a given development dollar invested in seekers than in ramjets, so there is where you see all the development work on AMRAAM.

dingyibvs said:

And the result? A plane that's not as stealthy as the F-35, not as maneuverable as the F-15, and costing more than both. That's why I'm not so keen on the stealth Flanker idea, I think SAC should build something that's evolutionary like the PAK-FA, and not something that's simply modified like the F-15SE.

Click to expand...

Eh, I distinctly recall Boeing stating the Silent Eagle had all the dogfighting agility of any other F-15 variant. Where do some of you come up with this stuff? Read the 9th paragraph.



It remains to be seen if the F-35 ends up coming in under the procurement average unit cost of an F-15.

You know, you buy what you can afford. Sometime good enough really is.

Re: PL-12 (SD-10) equivalent to AIM-120C from a 2008 citation

Bltizo said:

Nice catch -- though that was two years ago, and I'm not sure about the source.

It also says AIM-120D has a max range of 95 km... which puts into doubt the 180km range quoted by asymptote, in whether the 180km number was fired at a much higher altitude and on a faster platform.
----
(Holy cow I posted 15 times today... I need a life)

Click to expand...

The much longer range for the AIM-120D is from an F-22 flying at a much higher speed than standard the Mach 1.1 and 5000m for both F-22 and target. I believe they quote altitude over 10,000m for the F-22, and Mach 1.5 and put the target at 3,000 = 7,000m below. The test regime to give 180 km is very different to the SD-10/PL12 that gives >100km.

I was reading the article a few days ago and will need to find it.

Re: PL-12 (SD-10) equivalent to AIM-120C from a 2008 citation

Are there any reports, rumours about when the second flight might occur ?

Deino

BamBam said:

Now this is just great. it means a superior detection system being implemnted into an aircraft with no stealth capabilities. I am sure by capturing one can turn the tide against the Americans. Apparently the F-22 runs into problem after flying for 1.7 hours and per hour of flight it will require at least 12 hours of maintenance time for it to be operable again? Can someone please confirm this?

Click to expand...

Sure...Apparently you bought into the criticism that the F-22 is somehow so maintenance intensive. All I can say is that those 'reports' are nothing close to objectivity we desired in genuine news reportage.

The maintenance statistics can be interpreted by anyone to fit any preconceived notions. Maintenance logs will contain participants that has nothing to do with actual aircraft hands-on work but is indirectly related in some ways.

For example...

What is a 'wing walker' in aviation maintenance parlance...???

Here's the scenario-30 minutes until shift change and the pro super decides he wants to tow the aircraft to fuel cell in order for the next shift to get a jump on the 12-hour repair. The tow team is assembled, briefed, and the tow is underway. The aircraft is slowly proceeding into the hangar as your attention is diverted to the tow vehicle driver wanting to know where (on the center line) you want the aircraft stopped. Meanwhile, your wing walker notices that the maintenance stand, originally thought to be clear of the wing tip, is in the way, and he's trying to get your attention to stop the aircraft.

Click to expand...

The 'wing walker' is not the guy who performs stunts at airshows. In aviation maintenance, whenever you tow an aircraft, there has to be the tow truck driver, the crew chief, and three 'wing walkers'. One 'wing walker' per wing tip and one man at the rear. That is five man hours added to the stats.

For the F-22 whose surface integrity is important for its low radar observability, if there are extra care taken when towing the aircraft, or removing an access panel, or time to put on 'booties', those time all add up to the stats, giving the initial (but false) impression that the F-22 require so much work just to keep one flying. So if you want to exercise some critical thinking, ask the reporter what were the nature of the 'problems' and odds are more than good the man will have no clue of what he report.

Re: PL-12 (SD-10) equivalent to AIM-120C from a 2008 citation

Deino said:

Are there any reports, rumours about when the second flight might occur ?

Deino

Click to expand...

They're probably doing further flight testings using software simulation that's only possible now with the gigabytes of flight data collected. So, hopefully in another week?

Re: PL-12 (SD-10) equivalent to AIM-120C from a 2008 citation

Quickie said:

They're probably doing further flight testings using software simulation that's only possible now with the gigabytes of flight data collected. So, hopefully in another week?

Click to expand...

What I'm curious about is whether there are still people waiting around the air port. I read on a Chinese forum that someone waited five days, on spot, for the first flight. OMG.