lol I’m low-key curious if orangeboi was like “all those Russian planes have the little front wings, ours should have that too”. Because for a stealth platform, canards are a pretty dumb idea. And last I heard, the NGAD program was exploring boundary-layer stuff in lieu of a lot of the control surfaces.
If you’re going for max stealth (which the NGAD was), you want to absolutely minimize the amount of control surfaces, because those have joints and expose less stealth-optimized parts of the airframe when the surfaces move.
Note that the B-2 and B-21 look largely identical in terms of basic design - this is essentially carcinization in the stealth aircraft domain. It’s the best general layout for minimizing radar returns. Also, combine that with the fact that ACM is actually, finally, beginning to become conceptually obsolete (as a result of extremely capable missiles, unmanned drones that can probably pull 30Gs indefinitely, and directed energy weapons). So these days, in the cutting edge of the air combat domain that the US expects it would actually have to throw down within, maneuverability has stopped mattering quite so much. TL;DR ‘nards on the new stealth fighter is a genuinely pretty dumb idea.
Note that this whole statement is completely predicated on the existence and functioning of an absolute shitload of other support systems and infrastructure, and we’re tearing a lot of that shit up, so who fucking knows what’s gonna happen.
I think that’s also why the f35 and j35 look alike. Well maybe. But if you have a design brief where the two planes do the same thing, it’s not surprising they’d look alike
Yes, if you imagine the vehicle as covered in a mirror, areas where you could see yourself will have the highest return. Shape is the most important thing with stealth.
lol I’m low-key curious if orangeboi was like “all those Russian planes have the little front wings, ours should have that too”. Because for a stealth platform, canards are a pretty dumb idea. And last I heard, the NGAD program was exploring boundary-layer stuff in lieu of a lot of the control surfaces.
What’s the problem with canards and stealth?
If you’re going for max stealth (which the NGAD was), you want to absolutely minimize the amount of control surfaces, because those have joints and expose less stealth-optimized parts of the airframe when the surfaces move.
Note that the B-2 and B-21 look largely identical in terms of basic design - this is essentially carcinization in the stealth aircraft domain. It’s the best general layout for minimizing radar returns. Also, combine that with the fact that ACM is actually, finally, beginning to become conceptually obsolete (as a result of extremely capable missiles, unmanned drones that can probably pull 30Gs indefinitely, and directed energy weapons). So these days, in the cutting edge of the air combat domain that the US expects it would actually have to throw down within, maneuverability has stopped mattering quite so much. TL;DR ‘nards on the new stealth fighter is a genuinely pretty dumb idea.
Note that this whole statement is completely predicated on the existence and functioning of an absolute shitload of other support systems and infrastructure, and we’re tearing a lot of that shit up, so who fucking knows what’s gonna happen.
I think that’s also why the f35 and j35 look alike. Well maybe. But if you have a design brief where the two planes do the same thing, it’s not surprising they’d look alike
Well, also, there was a MASSIVE data leak/espionage op run by the CCP where they got a ton of the design files for the F-35.
Breaks in continuity of the skin will cause issues. Canards are huge breaks, you go from air to a conductive surface back to air.
Could be retractable? Ie, only used during high angle of attack/landing/takeoff. In stealth cruise or normal maneuvering, maybe they retract.
Wouldn’t the break be the same/similar as a moving tail on the F22? Does it’s position in the front make a difference?
The canards are probably visible for 270 degrees by a ground radar, the tail probably around 90.
Does radar get line of sight blocked like that? I thought it was more based on the overall shape, not just the visible sections.
Yes, if you imagine the vehicle as covered in a mirror, areas where you could see yourself will have the highest return. Shape is the most important thing with stealth.
Hence why chines are superior.