More credible J-XX Information
- Thread starter Fennecus
- Start date
Fennecus
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2009
- Messages
- 235
- Reaction score
- 0
A Chinese fighter of nominally the same technology generation as the Lockheed Martin F-22 will soon enter flight testing, while a jet airlifter larger than the Airbus A400M should be unveiled by year-end.
Beijing’s fighter announcement suggests a serious failing in U.S. intelligence assessments, mocking a July 16 statement of U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates that China would have no fifth-generation fighters by 2020. Industrial competition looks more remote than strategic competition, however, since China will want to fill domestic requirements before offering the aircraft abroad, even if it judges export sales to be a wise policy.
The new fighter “is currently under development,” says Gen. He Weirong, deputy air force chief. “[It] may soon undertake its first flight, quickly enter flight testing and then quickly equip the forces.
“According to the current situation, [the entry into service] may take another eight to 10 years,” he adds.
No details of the aircraft were given, but it is almost certainly designed for supersonic cruise without afterburning. In April, Adm. Wu Shengli, the navy chief, listed supercruising fighters among equipment that his service needed. Notably, all the other equipment on his wish list looked quite achievable by the end of the next decade, matching the timing that the air force now suggests for the fighter.
China classifies aircraft of the F-22’s technology level as fourth-generation fighters, although they are called fifth-generation aircraft in the West. China’s current advanced fighter, the J-10, is locally called a third-generation aircraft, which in Chinese terms means that it is comparable with the Lockheed Martin F-16.
Work on “the fourth-generation aircraft is now proceeding intensely,” He says.
Whether the upcoming fighter is really comparable with the F-22 remains to be seen. Low radar reflectivity would not be surprising, since aircraft and missiles with stealthy shapes are now popping up in many countries, including South Korea as recently as last month (AW&ST Oct. 26-Nov. 2, p. 42). But sensor performance, information fusion and maximum supercruise speed would also be assessed critically in measuring a claim to have caught up with technology levels that the U.S. did not deploy until 2005.
The existence of a Chinese fifth-generation fighter, usually tagged J-XX, has been rumored for years without official confirmation.
If the aircraft does go into service before 2020, then at that time China may well have jumped past Britain, France and other Western European countries in terms of deployed, domestically developed combat-aircraft technology. That will depend on how quickly those countries move to field combat drones to replace current strike aircraft, says Andrew Brookes of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Brookes takes seriously the Chinese objective of technology equivalent to the F-22, and he sees no reason to doubt that the F-22 would be the standard against which they would judge their design. The know-how can be imported.
“The Russians have the technology and the Chinese have the money,” he says. “If they really set that as a target, then I think they can do it.”
The aircraft may not bother Western manufacturers in export markets, Brookes suggests, simply because an equivalent of the F-22 would be a destabilizing export that China would be prefer to keep to itself.
Even if China decides that it wants to export the fighter, Lockheed Martin should by then be well entrenched with the F-35, which should be mature and reliable at that point. Other manufactures may not be so well placed, however.
Gen. He made his remarks during an interview on China Central Television as part of the celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the air force of the People’s Republic of China. (The general’s surname is pronounced as “her” but without the “r.”
China is probably working on two fifth-generation concepts, says Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center. One of those concepts, appearing most commonly in bits and pieces of evidence that have turned up from time to time, would be a heavy twin-engine fighter probably of about the same size as the F-22. The other is a single-engine aircraft probably closer to the Lockheed Martin F-35.
Gen. He could be referring to either of the aircraft when predicting an entry into service during the next decade. Fisher’s bet is that he is talking about the twin-engine concept.
Like Brookes, Fisher believes China is realistically aiming at the F-22’s technology level. “One has to assume that the People’s Liberation Army is confident in its projections, as it almost never makes such comments about future military programs, especially one that has been as closely held as its next-generation fighter.
“As such, one has to be asking very hard questions: How did the U.S. intelligence community get this one wrong? And inasmuch as no one expects the F-35 to replace the F-22 in the air superiority role, is it time to acknowledge that F-22 production termination is premature and that a much higher number is needed to sustain deterrence in Asia?”
In his July 16 speech, Gates said that even in 2025 China would have but a handful of fifth-generation aircraft.
The new Chinese fighter could come from the Chengdu or Shenyang plants of Avic Defense.
Gen. He says the Chinese air force plans to emphasize development of four capabilities: reconnaissance and early warning, air strike, strategic supply, and air and missile defense.
The J-10 began large-scale service entry in 2006, state media say.
When Wu raised the prospect of a supercruising fighter, an easy answer seemed to be an advanced version of the J-10. That looks less likely now that He describes the future concept as a full generation ahead of the J-10.
“I believe the Chinese have a difficult road if their design is tied to the J-10,” says a U.S. Air Force officer involved in the development of the F-35. “Significantly reduced signature requires more than coatings. It requires an integrated design philosophy with the right shaping, the right structure and the right surface coatings.”
Fisher assumes that China is developing improved fourth-generation fighters in parallel with the fifth generation.
The existence of the airlifter has been known for several years, if only because pictures of it have appeared fleetingly in presentations by the Chinese aviation conglomerate Avic.
As expected, it turns out to be a product of Avic’s large-airplane subsidiary, Avic Aircraft and, more specifically, of the subsidiary’s core plant, Xi’an Aircraft.
Avic Aircraft General Manager Hu Xiaofeng says the airlifter is in the 200-metric-ton class and will be unveiled at the end of this year.
In fact, its design has already unveiled in pictures shown by state media. The four-engine aircraft adopts the universal high-wing, T-tail configuration. The wing is mounted on top of the circular body, rather than passing through a deep segment of it and cutting out much of the usable cross-section. In that respect it is like the A400M, Ilyushin Il-76 and Kawasaki C-X but unlike the C-17, whose embedded wing presents less frontal area.
The main gear of the Chinese aircraft is housed in very protuberant sponsons, like those of the C-17.
A photograph of the cockpit shows five electronic displays of moderate size and conventional transport-style control columns. Engines are not revealed but would presumably be imported from Russia. A wind-tunnel model shows the engines are enclosed in long nacelles, like those of the Perm PS-90 from Russia.
The PS-90 has a standard maximum thrust of 35,300 lb. in its latest version. The C-17, with a gross weight of 265 tons, is powered by four Pratt & Whitney F117 engines of 40,400 lb. thrust.
The airlifter’s fuselage appears to be of conventional metal construction. The aircraft will be significantly larger than the A400M, which has a 141-metric-ton gross weight.
Hu says it has been independently developed in China. However, his parent company, Avic, has a long history of cooperation with Ukrainian airlifter specialist Antonov.
With David A. Fulghum in Washington.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...lose To Testing Next-Gen Fighter&channel=awst
Beijing’s fighter announcement suggests a serious failing in U.S. intelligence assessments, mocking a July 16 statement of U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates that China would have no fifth-generation fighters by 2020. Industrial competition looks more remote than strategic competition, however, since China will want to fill domestic requirements before offering the aircraft abroad, even if it judges export sales to be a wise policy.
The new fighter “is currently under development,” says Gen. He Weirong, deputy air force chief. “[It] may soon undertake its first flight, quickly enter flight testing and then quickly equip the forces.
“According to the current situation, [the entry into service] may take another eight to 10 years,” he adds.
No details of the aircraft were given, but it is almost certainly designed for supersonic cruise without afterburning. In April, Adm. Wu Shengli, the navy chief, listed supercruising fighters among equipment that his service needed. Notably, all the other equipment on his wish list looked quite achievable by the end of the next decade, matching the timing that the air force now suggests for the fighter.
China classifies aircraft of the F-22’s technology level as fourth-generation fighters, although they are called fifth-generation aircraft in the West. China’s current advanced fighter, the J-10, is locally called a third-generation aircraft, which in Chinese terms means that it is comparable with the Lockheed Martin F-16.
Work on “the fourth-generation aircraft is now proceeding intensely,” He says.
Whether the upcoming fighter is really comparable with the F-22 remains to be seen. Low radar reflectivity would not be surprising, since aircraft and missiles with stealthy shapes are now popping up in many countries, including South Korea as recently as last month (AW&ST Oct. 26-Nov. 2, p. 42). But sensor performance, information fusion and maximum supercruise speed would also be assessed critically in measuring a claim to have caught up with technology levels that the U.S. did not deploy until 2005.
The existence of a Chinese fifth-generation fighter, usually tagged J-XX, has been rumored for years without official confirmation.
If the aircraft does go into service before 2020, then at that time China may well have jumped past Britain, France and other Western European countries in terms of deployed, domestically developed combat-aircraft technology. That will depend on how quickly those countries move to field combat drones to replace current strike aircraft, says Andrew Brookes of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Brookes takes seriously the Chinese objective of technology equivalent to the F-22, and he sees no reason to doubt that the F-22 would be the standard against which they would judge their design. The know-how can be imported.
“The Russians have the technology and the Chinese have the money,” he says. “If they really set that as a target, then I think they can do it.”
The aircraft may not bother Western manufacturers in export markets, Brookes suggests, simply because an equivalent of the F-22 would be a destabilizing export that China would be prefer to keep to itself.
Even if China decides that it wants to export the fighter, Lockheed Martin should by then be well entrenched with the F-35, which should be mature and reliable at that point. Other manufactures may not be so well placed, however.
Gen. He made his remarks during an interview on China Central Television as part of the celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the air force of the People’s Republic of China. (The general’s surname is pronounced as “her” but without the “r.”
China is probably working on two fifth-generation concepts, says Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center. One of those concepts, appearing most commonly in bits and pieces of evidence that have turned up from time to time, would be a heavy twin-engine fighter probably of about the same size as the F-22. The other is a single-engine aircraft probably closer to the Lockheed Martin F-35.
Gen. He could be referring to either of the aircraft when predicting an entry into service during the next decade. Fisher’s bet is that he is talking about the twin-engine concept.
Like Brookes, Fisher believes China is realistically aiming at the F-22’s technology level. “One has to assume that the People’s Liberation Army is confident in its projections, as it almost never makes such comments about future military programs, especially one that has been as closely held as its next-generation fighter.
“As such, one has to be asking very hard questions: How did the U.S. intelligence community get this one wrong? And inasmuch as no one expects the F-35 to replace the F-22 in the air superiority role, is it time to acknowledge that F-22 production termination is premature and that a much higher number is needed to sustain deterrence in Asia?”
In his July 16 speech, Gates said that even in 2025 China would have but a handful of fifth-generation aircraft.
The new Chinese fighter could come from the Chengdu or Shenyang plants of Avic Defense.
Gen. He says the Chinese air force plans to emphasize development of four capabilities: reconnaissance and early warning, air strike, strategic supply, and air and missile defense.
The J-10 began large-scale service entry in 2006, state media say.
When Wu raised the prospect of a supercruising fighter, an easy answer seemed to be an advanced version of the J-10. That looks less likely now that He describes the future concept as a full generation ahead of the J-10.
“I believe the Chinese have a difficult road if their design is tied to the J-10,” says a U.S. Air Force officer involved in the development of the F-35. “Significantly reduced signature requires more than coatings. It requires an integrated design philosophy with the right shaping, the right structure and the right surface coatings.”
Fisher assumes that China is developing improved fourth-generation fighters in parallel with the fifth generation.
The existence of the airlifter has been known for several years, if only because pictures of it have appeared fleetingly in presentations by the Chinese aviation conglomerate Avic.
As expected, it turns out to be a product of Avic’s large-airplane subsidiary, Avic Aircraft and, more specifically, of the subsidiary’s core plant, Xi’an Aircraft.
Avic Aircraft General Manager Hu Xiaofeng says the airlifter is in the 200-metric-ton class and will be unveiled at the end of this year.
In fact, its design has already unveiled in pictures shown by state media. The four-engine aircraft adopts the universal high-wing, T-tail configuration. The wing is mounted on top of the circular body, rather than passing through a deep segment of it and cutting out much of the usable cross-section. In that respect it is like the A400M, Ilyushin Il-76 and Kawasaki C-X but unlike the C-17, whose embedded wing presents less frontal area.
The main gear of the Chinese aircraft is housed in very protuberant sponsons, like those of the C-17.
A photograph of the cockpit shows five electronic displays of moderate size and conventional transport-style control columns. Engines are not revealed but would presumably be imported from Russia. A wind-tunnel model shows the engines are enclosed in long nacelles, like those of the Perm PS-90 from Russia.
The PS-90 has a standard maximum thrust of 35,300 lb. in its latest version. The C-17, with a gross weight of 265 tons, is powered by four Pratt & Whitney F117 engines of 40,400 lb. thrust.
The airlifter’s fuselage appears to be of conventional metal construction. The aircraft will be significantly larger than the A400M, which has a 141-metric-ton gross weight.
Hu says it has been independently developed in China. However, his parent company, Avic, has a long history of cooperation with Ukrainian airlifter specialist Antonov.
With David A. Fulghum in Washington.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...lose To Testing Next-Gen Fighter&channel=awst
BlackenTheSky
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,809
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
thanks.....Any real image i mean not these computerized....?
i read the interview of a famous chinese commander detailing the jxx and that it will be done by 2020
here is the link
China's Fifth-Generation Fighters and the Changing Strategic Balance
Publication: China Brief Volume: 9 Issue: 23November 19, 2009 12:51 PM Age: 1 days
By: Russell Hsiao
PLAAF Deputy Commander Gen. He Weirong
On November 9, General He Weirong, deputy commander of the Peoples Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), confirmed long-standing speculations that the PLAAF is developing fifth-generation fighters (fourth-generation in Chinese standard), which may be in service within 8 to 10 years, and certainly by 2020. During an interview with state-owned China Central Television (CCTV) two days ahead of the 60th anniversary of the PLAAF on November 11, Deputy Commander He announced that the next-generation fighter would soon undergo its first flight, closely followed by flight trials (Xinhua News Agency, November 9). The senior military officer's disclosure reflects the considerable progress that the PLAAF has made in force modernization, which has exceeded Western expectations in terms of the pace of development and the capabilities of its defense industrial base. While China remains several steps behind the United States in operationalizing its advanced fighter jets, the PLA's rapid military modernization has raised concerns among U.S. allies in the region that the military balance is beginning to tilt toward China's favor.
In an interview with Global Times, PLAAF Commander Xu Qiliang stated, superiority in space and in air would mean, to a certain extent, superiority over the land and the oceans (Global Times, November 2), thereby highlighting the PLAAF's position in Chinese military planning. At an event commemorating the PLAAFs 60th anniversary, President Hu Jintao heralded a new chapter in the development of the PLAAF (Global Times, November 10).
Chinas fifth-generation fighters will reportedly have 4S capabilities: stealth, super cruise, super maneuverability and short take-off. According to Air Force Colonel Dai Xu, its most striking characteristic is the capability of invisibility, which also could be called low detectability (Global Times, November 10). The U.S. F-22 Raptor serves as the gold standard of fifth-generation fighters, which is currently the only fifth-generation fighter in service among all the world's armed forces. According to General He's interview, Chengdu Aircraft, the country's leading fighter manufacturer, is reportedly developing the fighter with Shenyang Aircraft (Xinhua News Agency, November 9).
General Hes startling revelation that the next-generation fighter may be in service by 2020 stands in stark contrast to the Chinese habit of closely guarding its military capabilities, yet consistent with a recent trend that reflects the Chinese Armed Forces growing confidence in its military strength. During an interview with the official Xinhua News Agency back in September, Defense Minister Liang Guanglie proclaimed that, "Our [Chinas] capabilities in waging defensive combat under modern conditions have taken a quantum leap It could be said that China has basically all the kinds of equipment possessed by Western countries, much of which reaches or approaches advanced world standards" (Xinhua News Agency, September 21),
Indeed, an ongoing survey conducted by Global Times among its Chinese users revealed some telling observations about how they perceive China's security environment and PLA airpower. The short four-question survey asks the respondents questions ranging from where they think the biggest security threat to China in the future will come from to how they rate China's airpower and what type of air force should be developed in the future. The first question, which asks how respondents view China's security environment, 46 percent of the 9,335 who answered said that they think the biggest security threat to China comes from the sea, while 43 percent responded that it is airborne. The second question asked respondents to rate China's air force, and 50.8 percent rated the Chinese Air Force as average, while 44.9 percent rated it as weak. The third question asked respondents what kind of airforce China should develop, and an overwhelming majority, 75.3 percent, responded that China ought to develop a strategic air force capable of covering the entire globe. The final question asks respondents where China should place its emphasis with regard to air force development, and the majority47.6 percentresponded that China's air force should develop a space-based combat unit (satellites, space weapons, etc.), while 21.3 percent responded that China's emphasis should be placed on developing large airlift platforms (strategic bombers and cargo aircraft, etc.) (Survey.huanqiu.com, November 17).
In light of Chinas rapid air force modernization, Japan is increasingly concerned about Chinese regional air superiority. A Kyodo News report cited by the Global Times quoted Andrei Chang, editor-in-chief of the Canada-based Kanwa Defense Review Monthly, as saying that the PLAAF currently has 280 J-11s, whose combat performance is comparable to Japan's Air Self Defense Forces' 200 F-15s, and 140 J-10s, which are a match for the F-16s. According to a Japanese military source, "even though [Japan] has a disadvantage in numbers at the moment, but combined with its airborne early warning and control system Japan can win in terms of quality." Yet, the source cautioned that, "once China deploys its AEWC [KJ-2000, which were on display at the October 1 National Day Parade] Japan's air superiority will gradually diminish" (China Daily, November 11; Global Times, November 12).
here is the link
China's Fifth-Generation Fighters and the Changing Strategic Balance
Publication: China Brief Volume: 9 Issue: 23November 19, 2009 12:51 PM Age: 1 days
By: Russell Hsiao
PLAAF Deputy Commander Gen. He Weirong
On November 9, General He Weirong, deputy commander of the Peoples Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), confirmed long-standing speculations that the PLAAF is developing fifth-generation fighters (fourth-generation in Chinese standard), which may be in service within 8 to 10 years, and certainly by 2020. During an interview with state-owned China Central Television (CCTV) two days ahead of the 60th anniversary of the PLAAF on November 11, Deputy Commander He announced that the next-generation fighter would soon undergo its first flight, closely followed by flight trials (Xinhua News Agency, November 9). The senior military officer's disclosure reflects the considerable progress that the PLAAF has made in force modernization, which has exceeded Western expectations in terms of the pace of development and the capabilities of its defense industrial base. While China remains several steps behind the United States in operationalizing its advanced fighter jets, the PLA's rapid military modernization has raised concerns among U.S. allies in the region that the military balance is beginning to tilt toward China's favor.
In an interview with Global Times, PLAAF Commander Xu Qiliang stated, superiority in space and in air would mean, to a certain extent, superiority over the land and the oceans (Global Times, November 2), thereby highlighting the PLAAF's position in Chinese military planning. At an event commemorating the PLAAFs 60th anniversary, President Hu Jintao heralded a new chapter in the development of the PLAAF (Global Times, November 10).
Chinas fifth-generation fighters will reportedly have 4S capabilities: stealth, super cruise, super maneuverability and short take-off. According to Air Force Colonel Dai Xu, its most striking characteristic is the capability of invisibility, which also could be called low detectability (Global Times, November 10). The U.S. F-22 Raptor serves as the gold standard of fifth-generation fighters, which is currently the only fifth-generation fighter in service among all the world's armed forces. According to General He's interview, Chengdu Aircraft, the country's leading fighter manufacturer, is reportedly developing the fighter with Shenyang Aircraft (Xinhua News Agency, November 9).
General Hes startling revelation that the next-generation fighter may be in service by 2020 stands in stark contrast to the Chinese habit of closely guarding its military capabilities, yet consistent with a recent trend that reflects the Chinese Armed Forces growing confidence in its military strength. During an interview with the official Xinhua News Agency back in September, Defense Minister Liang Guanglie proclaimed that, "Our [Chinas] capabilities in waging defensive combat under modern conditions have taken a quantum leap It could be said that China has basically all the kinds of equipment possessed by Western countries, much of which reaches or approaches advanced world standards" (Xinhua News Agency, September 21),
Indeed, an ongoing survey conducted by Global Times among its Chinese users revealed some telling observations about how they perceive China's security environment and PLA airpower. The short four-question survey asks the respondents questions ranging from where they think the biggest security threat to China in the future will come from to how they rate China's airpower and what type of air force should be developed in the future. The first question, which asks how respondents view China's security environment, 46 percent of the 9,335 who answered said that they think the biggest security threat to China comes from the sea, while 43 percent responded that it is airborne. The second question asked respondents to rate China's air force, and 50.8 percent rated the Chinese Air Force as average, while 44.9 percent rated it as weak. The third question asked respondents what kind of airforce China should develop, and an overwhelming majority, 75.3 percent, responded that China ought to develop a strategic air force capable of covering the entire globe. The final question asks respondents where China should place its emphasis with regard to air force development, and the majority47.6 percentresponded that China's air force should develop a space-based combat unit (satellites, space weapons, etc.), while 21.3 percent responded that China's emphasis should be placed on developing large airlift platforms (strategic bombers and cargo aircraft, etc.) (Survey.huanqiu.com, November 17).
In light of Chinas rapid air force modernization, Japan is increasingly concerned about Chinese regional air superiority. A Kyodo News report cited by the Global Times quoted Andrei Chang, editor-in-chief of the Canada-based Kanwa Defense Review Monthly, as saying that the PLAAF currently has 280 J-11s, whose combat performance is comparable to Japan's Air Self Defense Forces' 200 F-15s, and 140 J-10s, which are a match for the F-16s. According to a Japanese military source, "even though [Japan] has a disadvantage in numbers at the moment, but combined with its airborne early warning and control system Japan can win in terms of quality." Yet, the source cautioned that, "once China deploys its AEWC [KJ-2000, which were on display at the October 1 National Day Parade] Japan's air superiority will gradually diminish" (China Daily, November 11; Global Times, November 12).
Good news and surely these fighters will be much cheaper than F 35s.
Still F 35 has vtol capability that reduces the disadventage of static targetable airfields.
Yak 141 is vtol and can be modified like F 15 from the front side in my opinion.
A frontal rcs aspect reduced variant like the F 15 silent eagle for only a2a interceptor role. It would be very preferable because of its lower cost as well.
Another option might be modifying the engine inlets of Migs and Sukhois and their Chinese variants including J 10 that would assist J XX.
Still F 35 has vtol capability that reduces the disadventage of static targetable airfields.
Yak 141 is vtol and can be modified like F 15 from the front side in my opinion.
A frontal rcs aspect reduced variant like the F 15 silent eagle for only a2a interceptor role. It would be very preferable because of its lower cost as well.
Another option might be modifying the engine inlets of Migs and Sukhois and their Chinese variants including J 10 that would assist J XX.
ptldM3
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 5,586
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
I have a hard time beleiving that a stealth aircraft would have a circular intake; rather than a two dementional intake. Could this just be the JF-17?
Also can anyone translate the text in the caption?
Lastly is the J-XX going to use canards? and if so, can someone explain why? The way i understand it is, canards emit a large rcs, canards also create drag.
Sukhoi got rid of the canards on the SU-35. Consiquently, the rcs improved dramatically. However, the use of composites probably helped too.
Last edited:
lockh33d
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 596
- Reaction score
- 0
1st of all, no one is sure whether the J-XX will have canards or not.
2nd, why would it have a larger RCS? why can't you just treat the canard as any other wing on the plane?
ptldM3
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 5,586
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
All of the pictures the op posted had aircraft with canards, including a model being tested in a wind tunnel. Moreover, the J-10 uses canards, so i figured the J-XX would use canards aswell. I wasn't sure what kind of setup the J-XX would have, i was hoping someone would answer that for me.
It's common knowlege that Canards give off a larger radar return. Suhkoi performed many tests and concluded that canards do indeed ping back a larger rcs, that is the reason Sukhoi opted not to have canards on the SU-35. Also like i mentioned early canards add drag. Below is an interesting bit just read the bold paragraphs.
Originally the Su-35 project did not contemplate the adoption of canards, however during the development of the aircraft at the beginning of the 1990s, the radar was installed then in development N-011M “Bars” in a prototype of the T-10 / Su-27. At the beginning it was noticed that the extreme weight of N-011M Bars affected the center of gravity of the aircraft, the radar was much heavier than the N-001 radar of the original Su-27. This compelled the designers of the aircraft to adopt some system that supported the frontal surface of the aircraft. The solution of canards appeared to reequilibrate the center of gravity of the aircraft. It was noticed in the flight of tests of the Su-35 that canards had improved the stability of the aircraft, improved the sustentation capacity, in closed maneuvers with very great angles of attack. This change made as much “success” that was adopted in other variants of the Su-27. The down side was that it increased the aerodinamico drag in supersonic regimen and even more increased the wing area of the aircraft, which resulted in an increase of the RCS of the aircraft.
Aiming at to reduce the RCS of the aircraft, the designers of the T-10/ SU-35 had opted to remove canards from the aircraft
Su-35BM (Bolshaya Modernizatsiya - Big Modernization)
Control canards have poor stealth characteristics, because they present large moving surfaces forward of the wing
Canard (aeronautics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is Weki, so take it for what it is.
Last edited:
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Because an aircraft is a complex body and its RCS is the result of many surface radar signal behaviors at any time.
The two illustrations above are basic radar behaviors upon planar surfaces.
Corner reflectors are like beacons and they are useful in coastal marine safety as they amplify small boats on a radar scope.
Safety Reflector
So as we can see that a corner reflector not much larger than hand span can create an RCS of 12 square meters in the bands that most military radars uses, including the missiles themselves.
And that is how the aircraft itself can become a corner reflector, a huge 'no-no' in RCS reduction.
That is the XB-70. Its design exploit the 'compression lift' principle to Mach cruise. Essentially, the body sort of 'surf' the Mach wave the aircraft produces. You can read up on the principle here...
Aerospaceweb.org | Hypersonic Waveriders - Vehicle Characteristics
But in order to exploit compression lift, the design ended up with many corner reflectors as shown with the wing tips and CANARDS. The aggressor radar from below illuminating the bomber will have its radar signals returned to it from the canard corner reflectors and the bent wings. It is bad enough that the wings themselves can reflect radar signals if the approach angle is 'just right' so why compound the problem with canards?
That is not to say that canards 'cannot' be on a body. It simply means that canards present extraordinary RCS issues to overcome. If they are control flight surfaces, their movements will create 'radar scintillations'...
Scintillation (radar) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 'shift' is the movements of the canards as they maintain flight stability, steady or in maneuvers. Other types of radar scintillations, or 'shifts of reflective' points, are main and tail helo rotors. Ballistic missile warheads descending through the atmosphere spins to maintain stability and because the warhead body is not uniform with fins and nozzles and whatever else, those surface imperfections also create radar scintillations.
Those are scatter points on an aircraft. That is how a radar sees a target -- collections of scatter points. A statistic algorithm, and there are levels of complexity for these algorithms, will determine if these scatter points are persistent enough over time, distance and cluster and will display a target. A pair of scintillating scatter points ANYWHERE in that cluster is a giveaway and improperly designed flight control canards will negate any RCS reduction on the rest of the body. This is why I chuckled every time I read some Russian and Chinese junk fanboy's comment -- Oooohhh...Aaahhh...Canards...Coool....
The USAF heartily encourages potential adversaries to install canards on their fighters.
Clear as mud?
lockh33d
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 596
- Reaction score
- 0
Because an aircraft is a complex body and its RCS is the result of many surface radar signal behaviors at any time.
The two illustrations above are basic radar behaviors upon planar surfaces.
Corner reflectors are like beacons and they are useful in coastal marine safety as they amplify small boats on a radar scope.
Safety Reflector
So as we can see that a corner reflector not much larger than hand span can create an RCS of 12 square meters in the bands that most military radars uses, including the missiles themselves.
And that is how the aircraft itself can become a corner reflector, a huge 'no-no' in RCS reduction.
That is the XB-70. Its design exploit the 'compression lift' principle to Mach cruise. Essentially, the body sort of 'surf' the Mach wave the aircraft produces. You can read up on the principle here...
Aerospaceweb.org | Hypersonic Waveriders - Vehicle Characteristics
But in order to exploit compression lift, the design ended up with many corner reflectors as shown with the wing tips and CANARDS. The aggressor radar from below illuminating the bomber will have its radar signals returned to it from the canard corner reflectors and the bent wings. It is bad enough that the wings themselves can reflect radar signals if the approach angle is 'just right' so why compound the problem with canards?
That is not to say that canards 'cannot' be on a body. It simply means that canards present extraordinary RCS issues to overcome. If they are control flight surfaces, their movements will create 'radar scintillations'...
Scintillation (radar) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 'shift' is the movements of the canards as they maintain flight stability, steady or in maneuvers. Other types of radar scintillations, or 'shifts of reflective' points, are main and tail helo rotors. Ballistic missile warheads descending through the atmosphere spins to maintain stability and because the warhead body is not uniform with fins and nozzles and whatever else, those surface imperfections also create radar scintillations.
Those are scatter points on an aircraft. That is how a radar sees a target -- collections of scatter points. A statistic algorithm, and there are levels of complexity for these algorithms, will determine if these scatter points are persistent enough over time, distance and cluster and will display a target. A pair of scintillating scatter points ANYWHERE in that cluster is a giveaway and improperly designed flight control canards will negate any RCS reduction on the rest of the body. This is why I chuckled every time I read some Russian and Chinese junk fanboy's comment -- Oooohhh...Aaahhh...Canards...Coool....
The USAF heartily encourages potential adversaries to install canards on their fighters.
Clear as mud?
Thank you sir for the informative post. 1 last question, say the canard was non-movable, or non-"Shiftable"(Lifting-canard) from your source, and pretend the angles were the same as a standard plane's tail fins, THEN, would canards reflect off less signals back to the source or would it still pose a high RCS threat?
Similar threads
