Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Those heatsinks can also be linked into a heat exchanger that the fuel runs through, allowing you to pre-heat the fuel before it enters the combustion chamber, which I believe helps with the engine performance/efficiency.

There are all sorts of fun ways aircraft deal with excess heat build-up. ^_^ 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Jaustin89 said:

The whole system looked to be tied into the intake/bleed air lines with 4 vents around each engine. At a guess the system will have two operating modes; one where the heat sink stores thermal energy from the engines and the bleed air is mixed into the exhaust stream to further reduce IR signature, and another where the heatsink exchanges into the bleed air lines to cool off.

It's probably going to have a fairly noticable impact on performance due to the inherent weight of any heat sink materials (heat storage is directly tied to mass). But if that system, RAM, and shape based deflection are all combined you can get an airframe stealthy enough to not really need as much preformance.

You have read what they say about the F-35, right?!! :lol:

Thanks for the explanations about the heat sink.

Edited by F-ZeroOne
Link to post
Share on other sites

That pic reminds me of how I decked out my model planes as a kid.  Just a ridiculous amount of munitions for that unrealistic Doug Masters/Iron Eagle scenario.

Kind of unrealistic give the drag penalties of the Rhino's towed out pylons, but might work as a missile truck far behind F-35s painting the targets.

I do like the look of those CFTs. Certainly better than that ever-present centerline tank, but I wonder what the transonic drag penalties really are relative to the rest of the air frame, especially without the engine upgrades.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I'm honestly not entirely sure who the underdog is there.

The AI's going to be somewhat more predictable and less adaptable to changes but it'll have much better reaction times and if they're properly simulating an AI fighter will be able to maneuver significantly tighter than the manned fighter since the airframe G limits are well above human limits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Russian pilots are just straight-up ballsy; I imagine the F-35 could do this, maybe, but I highly doubt the powers-that-be would ever permit it. The only way an American fighter would ever be maneuvered like this would be well into the test phase, and likely not even then. Or if something went catastrophically wrong.

That's a heck of a way to give slip to a bird that's chasing you and turn the tables. That is, if the pilot isn't too dizzy to aim afterwards. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone I know called it an "aerial 180 pop shove it." :lol: 

Far as an F-35 doing that, I think that's a giant resounding "nope."  The F-35 doesn't have thrust vectoring to do that sort of thing, and I feel like the planform area isn't going to be large enough to actually be that effective at stopping on a dime (maybe the F-35C's wing could do that), even assuming it could remain controllable at that AoA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming that unless you could snap a missile or two off just after the maneuver, that's probably more of a dogfight reset? Break the ongoing scenario (of you losing), have the fighters 'return to their corners' and come back in again.

Edited by Thom
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Thom said:

I'm assuming that unless you could snap a missile or two off just after the maneuver, that's probably more of a dogfight reset? Break the ongoing scenario (of you losing), have the fighters 'return to their corners' and come back in again.

To a point, but if you're in range to even consider that maneuver being effective?  You are probably past the point where a missile is going to be useful.

It's not 100% certain, since missile technology does continue to develop, but if you are using fancy maneuvers like this in an engagement, it's probably because every other preferable option to dispatch a target has failed, and you are both using guns.  You're also putting yourself at tremendous risk.  Just because your target doesn't have any missiles doesn't mean his wingman isn't lining up a shot from twenty miles out.

Those sorts of maneuvers are definitely showy, and in the right circumstances they might give you a split second of surprise.  Properly timed, something like that might even be good to defeat a missile that's going too fast to adjust, but that maneuver also isn't really doing much to move you out of the way of a proximity detonation either, because it stops you dead in mid-air.  Generally speaking, burning off energy like that is extremely risky, because it leaves you a sitting duck with no ability to evade a follow-up.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, electric indigo said:

Regardless of it's practical use, handling a 25 ton fighter like a WWI Triplane is an awesome display of the aerodynamic capabilities of the Flanker design. 

Truly.  But it was repeated maneuvers like this that spelled her doom, constantly exceeding the load limits on the airframe. She lost her left stab during a high-G maneuver and crashed. Fortunately, the pilot was able to eject safely. 

The SU-57 is a pretty bird. The thrust vectoring setup is ingenious; the vectoring occurs in a single plane, but the augmenters are canted at angles, which allows for vectoring in all three axes, depending on how they're independently deflected. The engines are also linked to the flight control systems, which through thrust control and vectoring, assist in maneuvering the aircraft. The F-22 only vectors in the pitch axis, and as Chronocidal mentioned, the F-35 doesn't have thrust vectoring, except for the F-35B version(Navy/Marines), and that's only for hover and landing configurations. So, it would seem, our Russian friends have a leg up, so to speak.

Thrust vectoring is great for airshows, but in practical terms, I believe the US goal in air superiority currently is look first, shoot first, minimal close engagement. We don't want to get close if we don't have to, as it puts the aircraft and pilot at risk. It's why stealth is a salient feature of all modern US fighters and drones- we wanna see the enemy without being seen ourselves, as much as possible. The F-117 opened a lot of eyes to the benefit of low observability, and that philosophy has carried forward since the Nighthawk proved itself over Iraq. To my way of thinking, it's preferable to the gung-ho dogfighting mentality of the 40s-80s. Planes are expensive, the technology prized, and, while pilots may be replaceable, humans are not. It's in our best interest not to lose any of these assets in combat.

That's not to say we shouldn't be prepared for close encounters (of the jet jockey kind, not ET), as one never knows how a situation might evolve. Too, our guys, and theirs, often escort the other when we edge a little too close to borders; if such encounters took an aggressive turn, our pilots need to be ready to engage. It's a fact of life. I just hope it never comes to that, or what lies beyond that first step.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Valkyrie Hunter D said:

The results are in.  A big fat goose egg for the human pilot.

Every time I see something like this, or watch yet another vid of one of Boston Dynamics' amazing robots, I can't help but think we're inexorably  heading towards Cameron's Skynet scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This perhaps shouldn't have come as much of a surprise, on reflection. I remember reading an article on vidoegame A.I. in a magazine a while ago, and various developers were quoted as saying that one their challenges when designing a game is that they have to dial the A.I. down quite a bit, otherwise it tends to make mincemeat of human players.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, M'Kyuun said:

Every time I see something like this, or watch yet another vid of one of Boston Dynamics' amazing robots, I can't help but think we're inexorably  heading towards Cameron's Skynet scenario.

It’s bound to happen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2020 at 9:13 PM, David Hingtgen said:

Su-37 still the master:

FlankerFlip.gif

::edit:: That's odd, it plays faster in the post, than the "raw" gif...

 

Looks like the modern Su-35 as I thought the Su-37 and old 35 had the canards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That---is a very good point, and I should have caught that YEARS ago.  (I saved that gif a long time ago).   Hmmmn.  It's got the -37's camo.  I know the -37 was reverted back to basically -35 config, only flew with TVC for a little while. Then crashed.  Did they remove the canards, too?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2020 at 6:31 PM, Knight26 said:

Oh boy, the new CoD trailer, and all the "interesting" design changes they made to the planes and helicopters in there.  WTF happened?  I'm betting @David Hingtgen is already itching at the inaccuracies.  

Not just @David Hingtgen...:aggressive:

wtf happened? Laziness. Pure. Simple. Laziness.

smells like an activision effort to me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...