Qaher F313 l News & Discussion

[PeeD]

The main reason is that there was no requirement. A Tomahawk with its efficient engine had a sufficient range, hence brute force did the job not a more sophisticated but bulky system.

The large dimensions is the main reason why not design a GE AshM/CM, a Tomahawk fits into a VLS. But for China with its area denial strategy against the USN even such a large system makes sense.
Its likely that this is a reusable drone with suicide capability.

The questions for a country with limited resources are following: Could such a GE drone/CM enable a turbojets like the Noors Toloue to give such a weapon a range only possible with turbofans? If range triples and payload doubles things become interesting especially if the costs are low.
If this bonus is possible with GE, what about a aircraft with inferior engine technology (thrust/efficiency)? Could it achieve similar improvements if it uses GE?

The goal would be for the Qaher to force the advanced adversary to its own operation regime with terrain masking and low level flight. If it manages to do that, it may reach kinematic parity even with inferior engine technology.

 

[Deino]

weapons and fuel:

Indeed .. but did You check the dimensions of both designs ?? ... and upps, the Qaher in that CG even more has two additional center bays. It should have the size of a T50 PAK-Fa for that ?

Plain ridiculous

 

[AmirPatriot]

@Deino

Those CGIs are made by amateur modellers. Just fanboys. Don't get too worked up about them

 

[TruthHurtz]

@Deino

Those CGIs are made by amateur modellers. Just fanboys. Don't get too worked up about them

he will because it affects his life on a personal level

his wife and kids will leave him if he does not disprove qaher 1337

 

[Fafnir]

he will because it affects his life on a personal level

his wife and kids will leave him if he does not disprove qaher 1337

LOL!
Actually,you could almost be forgiven for thinking that judging from some of the posts in this thread

 

[Penguin]

Just a few days ago a photo of a Chinese GE missile/drone was released:

Its performance stats speak for themselves and about the kinematic and effectively propulsive effectiveness of GE. This beast would likely fly more than 1000km out into the sea at very low level and even have time to loiter the target region for the target that has moved since launch (if no mid-course update is used).

Interestingly the Chinese weapon is flying over ground, well possible that Chinese plan to use it over ground too.

The weapon is supposedly designed to fly as low as three feet above the water's surface for an hour and a half, and deliver a whopping 1,000 kilogram (2,200-pound) explosive payload onto its target. Overall, the weapon weighs 3,000 kilogram (6,600 lbs) fully loaded. The system's seeker, engine, and possibly other components like its navigation system are likely ported over from existing, reliable anti-ship missile systems.
Where this system differentiates itself is likely in its range, payload, and — to some degree — its [lesser] detectability [and higher survivability] during its midcourse phase of flight. Long range is probably the biggest benefit of such a system. With a 1.5-hour endurance, even if the system is only capable of say 480 km/h (300 mi/h), that would give it a range of 720km (450 miles). If the craft can reach higher speeds, say 805 km/h (500 mi/h), that range increases drastically to 1,207 km (750 miles).
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...rface-skimming-anti-ship-drone-missile-hybrid

@Penguin also said that downward chanting wings have no effect on a GE aircraft. The Chinese weapon has a top intake (to avoid FOD?), hence the structure below it is not some sort of large intake, but downward chanted edges to better contain the cushion effect.[/QUOTE]
Where did I say that? I have said it has not been proven that downward canted wings (as on F313) have a function in GE aircraft and if so, what exactly.

Looking at the above image, you might be dealing with twin tailbooms emanating from the main wing. Or even a blended wing-body structure. In short, we need several images showing different perspectives on this device before such conclusions can be reached.

 

[gambit]

Oh damn. I knew about ground effect and I obviously knew about cruise missiles. Cruise missiles are designed to fly low and fast. Ground effect makes low level flight very efficient and fast.

Why has no-one connected the dots even though both of these technologies have been available and known for 30 years?

Cruise missiles do not fly low enough to take advantage of any ground effects.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Cruise missiles do not fly low enough to take advantage of any ground effects.

Well, China seems to be wanting to change that.

 

[ilia]

 

[VEVAK]

@Deino

No, I don't take it for granted. The lateral SRAAM bays are nonsense but the center bay or bays are possible. The whole intake and landing gear arrangement should be mainly for the purpose of center bays.

We have discussed the intakes and they make sense if hard maneuvering is not part of the operation regime.
There would be plenty of space for fuel, especially due to the unusual thick main wings and the thick fuselage.

The Qaher is either designed by a genius and highly unconventional or a fake project, there is more or less nothing in between.

A nice coincidence:

@VEVAK said last week that if GE would be useful, the US would have produced GE cruise missiles.

Just a few days ago a photo of a Chinese GE missile/drone was released:

Its performance stats speak for themselves and about the kinematic and effectively propulsive effectiveness of GE. This beast would likely fly more than 1000km out into the sea at very low level and even have time to loiter the target region for the target that has moved since launch (if no mid-course update is used).

Interestingly the Chinese weapon is flying over ground, well possible that Chinese plan to use it over ground too.

@Penguin also said that downward chanting wings have no effect on a GE aircraft. The Chinese weapon has a top intake (to avoid FOD?), hence the structure below it is not some sort of large intake, but downward chanted edges to better contain the cushion effect.

1st What limits the range of Anti-Ship cruise missiles is detection, targeting & guidance NOT the platform for the US has been able to build cruise missiles that can fly for 2500km for some time now!

2ndly building a Jet Powered GE Vehicle is nothing new the Russians did it a long time ago!

As for the Chinese GE vehicle I'll wait for the real facts to come out 1st before commenting!

 

[500]

Oh damn. I knew about ground effect and I obviously knew about cruise missiles. Cruise missiles are designed to fly low and fast. Ground effect makes low level flight very efficient and fast.

Why has no-one connected the dots even though both of these technologies have been available and known for 30 years?

Ground effect height formula is follow:

H = L/2*M

H - ground effect max altitude
L - wing's width
M - mach speed

Tomahawk cruise missile has 0.8 mach speed and 0.45 m wing width.

H = 0.45/2*0.8 = 0.28 m

Obviously Tomahawk can't fly at such a low altitude.


=================


We can count max altitude for Qaher. 5 m wing widths, 0.7 mach speed. => H=5/2*07= 3.5 m. But thats only initial ground effect. For strong ground effect u'll need about 2 meters.

 

[scythian500]

Ground effect height formula is follow:

H = L/2*M

H - ground effect max altitude
L - wing's width
M - mach speed

Tomahawk cruise missile has 0.8 mach speed and 0.45 m wing width.

H = 0.45/2*0.8 = 0.28 m

Obviously Tomahawk can't fly at such a low altitude.


=================


We can count max altitude for Qaher. 5 m wing widths, 0.7 mach speed. => H=5/2*07= 3.5 m. But thats only initial ground effect. For strong ground effect u'll need about 2 meters.

When an aircraft flies at a ground level approximately at or below the length of the aircraft's wingspan or helicopter's rotor diameter, there occurs, depending on airfoil and aircraft design, an often noticeable ground effect

Tomahawk Wingspan: 8 ft 9 in (2.67 m)

Am I wrong?

 

[500]

When an aircraft flies at a ground level approximately at or below the length of the aircraft's wingspan or helicopter's rotor diameter, there occurs, depending on airfoil and aircraft design, an often noticeable ground effect

Tomahawk Wingspan: 8 ft 9 in (2.67 m)

Am I wrong?

For ground effect matters wing's width, not the wingspan. Thats why ground effect vehicles have short and wide wings.

 

[mohsen]

When an aircraft flies at a ground level approximately at or below the length of the aircraft's wingspan or helicopter's rotor diameter, there occurs, depending on airfoil and aircraft design, an often noticeable ground effect

Tomahawk Wingspan: 8 ft 9 in (2.67 m)

Am I wrong?

he knows nothing of aviation.
his little brain can't even understand the usage of elevons on an aircraft. he still thinks sometimes they act as flaps!

 

[Beny Karachun]

he knows nothing of aviation.
his little brain can't even understand the usage of elevons on an aircraft. he still thinks sometimes they act as flaps!

Said the one with a plane that cannot even fly in his profile picture