I saw this today and thought it was quite interesting, I'm wondering if you guys could list off some reasons why it would not work.
Sorry for the shit thread, but you blokes seem to know what you are talking about.
>>29308683
because its a russian photoshop image.
>>29308683
Two more images
>>29308683
>why it would not work
Why it wouldn't work for what?
Could you get a plane that looks like that to fly? With fly by wire, anything is possible. But would it be good at its intended roll? There's way too little data to actually know.
>>29308695
Sorry for being vague. I'm trying to find out if it would have an acceptable RCS etc.
>>29308695
I'm also interested in the implications of that sort of intake on a stealth aircraft.
>>29308707
Acceptable by 5th gen standards?
Probably not. A lot of elements go into a low RDS, but there's so much going on. Look at that exposed gun, for instance. And that sensor suite (?) under the nose. Also, just the general shape of the aircraft.
I'm not an expert in stealth technology, but I know enough to see that aircraft will not have a low RCS unless it's using some sort of super secret stealth technology that negates all of the other problems.
>>29308714
Well, nobody has used it in a stealth aircraft up until now, so it might not be that great. Even the X-32, with that huge, single intake, didn't use it.
>>29308689
Because the mig 41 is supposed to be an interceptor and that thing is slower than late 1950's jets
Mach 1.7 max speed? Ffs the real mig 41 is slated to have a top speed I'm the mach 4.5 range.
This is an entirely unremarkable plane
Other than the fat, round IRST ball under the nose, I'm not seeing any major red flags. Minimal compound curves, no visible corner reflectors... the leading and trailing edges aren't aligned along a common axis, so you'll have more hot-zones where RCS spikes corresponding to each one, but aside from these and the other generic hotspots associated with a stealth aircraft, I see nothing to cause any major problems from an RCS standpoint. The most prominent thing, I'd say, are the forward bulges for the weapons bay - they're a fairly large compoundly-curved surfaces, and thus would present a substantial return to any monostatic threat perpendicular to said surface - but even so that surface is quite a ways below the horizon.
The exhaust nozzle is kinda at the aft extremity of the airframe, and the stabilizers aren't well situated to conceal it, so in terms of thermal signature this design isn't as good as it could be. However, it has a flattened exhaust nozzle, which does help.
I wouldn't think that the inlet centerbody on the nose presents any more problems RCS-wise than a side-inlet that's also visible from the front, but it does have other consequences. Namely, it makes for a very small radome, limiting the size of the antenna aperture (which is rather important to radar performance) within it. But perhaps this fighter is envisioned to exist within a largely post-radar combat era, where engagements are largely pursued visually or with passive EO sensors. The fact that the missiles in the side bays are heatseeking R-77Ts would seem to support this notion.
>>29308969
>He thinks theoretical/test-configuration maximum mach matters
>He thinks supersonic fighters ever get anywhere near their on-paper "max speed" in practice
>>29309013
Wow, this is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you!
>>29309024
>safe max of mach 2.8 on mig 25
Dozens of instances of migs reported mach 3 plus by sr71 crews
Israeli radar racks one going mach 2.95 and another going mach 3.2
Interceptors hit the speed wall all the time, it comes with the territory
Meanwhile there has never been a case of an f15 even exceeding 1650 mph even when it could maybe hold up to 1850
>>29308714
Blackbird also had intake spikes, one for each engine. It was still a stealth aircraft at its time.
What counts in RCS evaluation is to determine WHERE the reflections end up. If the radar pulse is reflected multiple times before entering the engine (and thus damped) or reflected away from the emitter, the RCS can still be good.
And that is the weakness in Western thinking of stealth it is always in a monostatic radar system scenario.
>>29309840
Interesting point
>>29308683
>that intake
well looks like you don't want a radar.
The whole thing is pretty clearly a design from someone who knows nothing about aircraft design. It has a "stealthy" look to it, but it's got tons of flaws - the sweep of the wings and tail are different, and there's pretty much no common angles along the aircraft (something you generally want to reduce RCS).
On top of all of that, you have
>retardedly small tail
>tiny wings
>very little space in the airframe for fuel
>Massive intake cone and tiny intake, meaning you probably won't get good airflow to the engine
>>29309197
Some good sources you've got there
>>29309840
>Blackbird also had intake spikes, one for each engine. It was still a stealth aircraft at its time.
Don't forget the D-21. The Blackbird largely failed to achieve low RCS, but the D-21 succeeded (although it was still a far cry from Have Blue/F-117 tier).
>And that is the weakness in Western thinking of stealth it is always in a monostatic radar system scenario.
Well no, but monostatic radar is by far the more abundant threat, and the threat posed by bistatic radar is way overblown. The main issue though with bistatic radar is that it's so hard to analyze (since the number of combinations of transmitter and receiver positions is so much higher), so you really just don't exactly know how well your stealth will work against it (unlike with monostatic radar).
>>29311425
>Don't forget the D-21.
I think this would have been a cheap way of getting stuff into space. Blackbird is already so high ut that the crew needs space suits. Using a D21, possibly augmented with a small O2 injection at the very upper reaches before entering space ballistically would be intriguing.
>>29311425
>Well no, but monostatic radar is by far the more abundant threat, and the threat posed by bistatic radar is way overblown.
I agree on the abundancy but cannot see how it can be overblown. When radio amateurs can cobble up a few SDR dongles costing a few tens of dollars and ghet it to work I wold expect better from defence systems.
Rumours are that the latest systems can use GPS signals in which case the US will have a problem: shutting down the GPS will be more tan awkward. Even P-code and SAAS cannot defeat these radars.
>>29311591
Too expensive, really. For the kind of payloads the D-21 would be able to deploy, it'd be cheaper to just slap a rocket on an F-104 or MiG-21 and call it a day.
>>29313084
Sure? The SR-71 reliability is impressive as is the speed. And what is the payload capable on a D-21?
F-15 was used in ASAT launch and later tested in small satellite launches but that is now terminated.
>>29313456
The issue is that even Mach 3 speeds aren't much compared to orbital velocities. The fastest air-breathing aircraft ever - the X-43 - reached a peak of just over Mach 9, while orbital velocities are roughly Mach 20. I'd have to break out the matlab codes I've got for it just to be sure, but IIRC even with a Mach 3 release, you're still getting less energy from the launch aircraft than you are from the rotation of the earth.
The D-21 in particular has a loaded weight of about 11,000lb, so I'd be genuinely surprised if they could get a payload of more than 1,000lb on it. Meanwhile, companies like Starfighters, Inc, are throwing ~1 ton rockets onto F-104s and putting small cubesats into orbit for comparatively cheap.
For larger planes, there was the ASM-135 ASAT missile, and up until DARPA realized that the rocket was most likely going to explode, there was also the ALASA program to turn the F-15 into an air-launch-to-orbit system. Problem is that F-15s are expensive to fly, and you're still only getting a small payload into orbit.
As disappointing as it sounds, the real promising side of air-launch-to-orbit proposals is with repurposed heavy-lift transports. Virgin Galactic is looking into slapping a rocket under the wing of a 747, for example. These things give you much higher payloads and a much cheaper, reusable "first stage" for the rocket, and, just as importantly, they offer flexibility. Weather is a huge concern with rocket launches, but an air-launched platform can fly around the weather for better conditions. Plus, you've got the much larger operational radius, which is a huge factor as the range of orbits you can directly launch into is determined by your launch latitude.
