Boeing’s latest sixth-gen fighter concept is a tail-less canard

[500]

I was talking about radar blockers, and yes radar blocker technology is much harder to make than S-duct which is no problem for Sukhoi.

Thats absolutely baseless claim. And by the way, radar blocker is nothing but a grill made from radar absorbing material. There is nothing complex in it and it does not require the redesign of the plane. Also it is not installed yet on pak fa and maybe never will be.

Fact is that all leading countries make fighters with S-ducts now and only exception is Sukhoi, which never made an operational fighter with S-duct before. Thats why I assume that S-duct is better.

You call words like dumb, idiot, stupid cursing

what are you? A nun

In contrast to you I never said anything about ur personality. I am commenting only your behavior.

 

[Arzamas 16]

Thats absolutely baseless claim. And by the way, radar blocker is nothing but a grill made from radar absorbing material. There is nothing complex in it and it does not require the redesign of the plane. Also it is not installed yet on pak fa and maybe never will be.

Fact is that all leading countries make fighters with S-ducts now and only exception is Sukhoi, which never made an operational fighter with S-duct before. Thats why I assume that S-duct is better.

Its fact, for example Sukhoi experienced no difficulty in making S-Ducts for Su-47, but they yet have to make a working Radar blocker technology for PAK FA, the fact of the matter is that the blockers on the PAK FA will be the most advanced ever made which will likely result from a breakthrough in aerospace materials that will give us the edge in the future.

In contrast to you I never said anything about ur personality. I am commenting only your behavior.

and I am only commenting on the fact that you think PG-13 words are considered "cursing".

 

[500]

Its fact, for example Sukhoi experienced no difficulty in making S-Ducts for Su-47

You dont know that. For instance I already can tell one difficulty: the weapon bay on Su-47 was tiny (just two missiles).

but they yet have to make a working Radar blocker technology for PAK FA, the fact of the matter is that the blockers on the PAK FA will be the most advanced ever made which will likely result from a breakthrough in aerospace materials that will give us the edge in the future.

You dont know that.

and I am only commenting on the fact that you think PG-13 words are considered "cursing".

I mean your ad hominem argumentation, I dont mind bad words.

 

[420canada]

looks neat but i thought f-22b was the next 5+ generation fighter, before this

 

[Arzamas 16]

You dont know that. For instance I already can tell one difficulty: the weapon bay on Su-47 was tiny (just two missiles).

Su-47 was a technology demonstrator it was build to test various advanced concepts, things like weapon load didn't matter, because it was never going to become a operational fighter.

You dont know that.

The logic is very simple, since no one ever made a operational 5th generation fighter with radar blockers by default they have to be more advanced than the ones in 4/4.5 generation fighters.

I could go into a much more detailed explanation as too "why" but I don't have the time.

Your going to have to wait.

 

[500]

Su-47 was a technology demonstrator it was build to test various advanced concepts, things like weapon load didn't matter, because it was never going to become a operational fighter.

Fact you dont know if they had difficulties or no. Fact they did not make a normal weapon bay on it.

The logic is very simple, since no one ever made a operational 5th generation fighter with radar blockers by default they have to be more advanced than the ones in 4/4.5 generation fighters.

I could go into a much more detailed explanation as too "why" but I don't have the time.

Your going to have to wait.

Again. Thats only your assumption, not a fact.

 

[ptldM3]

Good reason why #1 country chooses S-ducts for both of its fighters. Good reason why all new designs except pak fa chose S-duct.

The Japanese did not.

YF-22 with S-duct won YF-23 without S-duct.

Yet even with those mystical S-ducts the YF-22 could not match the YF-23's RCS, in fact it could not match it's range or supercruise either.

Now Boeing redesigned failed YF-23 and called it 6th generation.

Boeing was never involved with the YF-23 design.

Fact is that all leading countries make fighters with S-ducts now and only exception is Sukhoi, which never made an operational fighter with S-duct before. Thats why I assume that S-duct is better.

The SU-24 had a so called 'S-duct'. also Your deliberate wording particularly the use of the word 'operational' is a deliberate attempt to discredit the SU-47 without you being direct. Operational or not the aircraft had the S-duct, it went through the design phase, wind tunnel and flight testing. Furthermore, your comment about the SU-47's weapons bays and S-ducts have zero correlation.

Yes there is a photo of an SU-47 with two missiles in it's weapons bays; however, you make the statement that it can only carry two missiles--this is pure speculation on your part since weapons bays have different payload configurations, but that is not important since the statement was very much a cheap shot at SUkhoi and in-particularly the SU-47 since the SU-47 had only one weapons bay and not the standard 4 bays that are common today, so factually speaking the SU-47's weapons bays have no detrimental bearing on payload as you have implied because one weapons bay proves that Sukhoi can fit at least two missiles per bay which is standard.

and believe it or not the Mig-15 had a ducted intake as did the Mig-23

Mig-15: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7s_qLRLYKoY/SnDOJQzj6eI/AAAAAAAAADY/qIQU7iQuXwI/s1600-h/IMG_3253.JPG

 

[rcrmj]

Su-47 was a technology demonstrator it was build to test various advanced concepts, things like weapon load didn't matter, because it was never going to become a operational fighter.




The logic is very simple, since no one ever made a operational 5th generation fighter with radar blockers by default they have to be more advanced than the ones in 4/4.5 generation fighters.

I could go into a much more detailed explanation as too "why" but I don't have the time.

Your going to have to wait.

this puts all of your arguments into dust````as your so-called 'facts' are purly an amature's assumptions

and by your laughble assumption, next time if someone takes a toliet paper on a 5th fighter jet, and he will be well deserved to claim he 'made' the world 'most advanced' toilet paper `(as by defualt, none of toilet papers have 'served' on a 5th gen jet fighter)!

 

[500]

The Japanese did not.

Japanese did not make a new plane, only F-16 modification.

Yet even with those mystical S-ducts the YF-22 could not match the YF-23's RCS

Frontal RCS?

Boeing was never involved with the YF-23 design.

Anyhow Boeing's 6th gen is no really different from failed 5th gen, except the rudder configuration.

The SU-24 had a so called 'S-duct'.

No it had not.

http://monino.ru/img/db/su_24.jpg

also Your deliberate wording particularly the use of the word 'operational' is a deliberate attempt to discredit the SU-47 without you being direct. Operational or not the aircraft had the S-duct, it went through the design phase, wind tunnel and flight testing. Furthermore, your comment about the SU-47's weapons bays and S-ducts have zero correlation.

There is a huge distance between the testbed and operational plane.

Yes there is a photo of an SU-47 with two missiles in it's weapons bays; however, you make the statement that it can only carry two missiles--this is pure speculation on your part since weapons bays have different payload configurations, but that is not important since the statement was very much a cheap shot at SUkhoi and in-particularly the SU-47 since the SU-47 had only one weapons bay and not the standard 4 bays that are common today, so factually speaking the SU-47's weapons bays have no detrimental bearing on payload as you have implied because one weapons bay proves that Sukhoi can fit at least two missiles per bay which is standard.

How does it matter the number of bays? One big or 4 small, fact that Su-47 had very tiny internal weapon space.

 

[ptldM3]

Japanese did not make a new plane, only F-16 modification.

I'm not talking about the F-16, I was talking about the ATD-X:

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ve...6ef3c1f-e83c-4d73-a392-0e05947e4ff6.Large.jpg


The intakes can be considered 'ducted' but it's engine is easily exposed.

Frontal RCS?

It does not matter whether the YF-23's RCS figures were frontal or not; either way it discredits your argument. If we assume it was frontal figures then the entire 'ducted' argument can be thrown out. Similarly, If the YF-23's RCS was an averaged figure then your argument again can be thrown out. Think about it, if 'exposed engines' or none ducted intakes were so detrimental how would the YF-23 have lower RCS figures as compared to the YF-22?

Anyhow Boeing's 6th gen is no really different from failed 5th gen, except the rudder configuration.

Besides a few minor changes like radically different intakes, canards, and V-tails they are identical.

No it had not.

http://monino.ru/img/db/su_24.jpg

That picture proves nothing

There is little quality photos depicting the SU-24's intake, but this is the best I found:

http://images2.jetphotos.net/img/3/0/0/2/27794_1325029200.jpg

If you look closely you will see a lower ramp; moreover, the engines are are tucked inwards. Here is a model that depicts this:

gallery image 11

There is a huge distance between the testbed and operational plane.

So what is your point? Be specific, throwing vague sentences around proves nothing. A prototype and operational aircraft are more similar then you think. Prototype aircraft test load bearing, weapons capabilities, avionics, and basic flight performance.

A prototype aircraft goes from conceptional design to small scale wind tunnel tests, from there large scale static models are built and put through wind tunnels. This means that an aircraft's performance and characteristics are well known before it even takes off the ground.

what you are suggesting is that the SU-47 was somehow a failure and that it's ducts and weapons bays were sub-par and this is based on....wait for it.....absolutely nothing but assumptions.

How does it matter the number of bays? One big or 4 small, fact that Su-47 had very tiny internal weapon space.

This is truly a desperate attempt to try and argue for the sake of arguing. Try to fit 2 liters of water into a quart and see how that works. You saying that the SU-47s weapons bay is big does not make it so, anyone can pull up a picture of the SU-47s weapons bay and compare it to the f-22 weapons bays and see that the SU-47s bay is about equal in size to one of the f-22s main weapons bays.

 

[500]

I'm not talking about the F-16, I was talking about the ATD-X:

Thats just plastic toy like Qaher-313.

It does not matter whether the YF-23's RCS figures were frontal or not;

Of course it matters. S-ducts are needed to reduce the frontal RCS. Do u have a proof that F-23th frontal RCS was lower or at least qual to F-22?

Besides a few minor changes like radically different intakes, canards, and V-tails they are identical.

Intake shape can can change from model to model. When J-10 got DSI, or when Iranian added one rudder to F-5 that did not make a new plane.

If you look closely you will see a lower ramp; moreover, the engines are are tucked inwards. Here is a model that depicts this:

gallery image 11

So it shows that there is no any S-duct.

So what is your point?

My point that Sulkhoi never made an operational fighter with S-duct.

what you are suggesting is that the SU-47 was somehow a failure and that it's ducts and weapons bays were sub-par and this is based on....wait for it.....absolutely nothing but assumptions.

Su-47 had not a sufficient weapon bay size. S-ducts require some volume.

This is truly a desperate attempt to try and argue for the sake of arguing. Try to fit 2 liters of water into a quart and see how that works. You saying that the SU-47s weapons bay is big does not make it so, anyone can pull up a picture of the SU-47s weapons bay and compare it to the f-22 weapons bays and see that the SU-47s bay is about equal in size to one of the f-22s main weapons bays.

I can see only two missiles inside. Thats not enough. By removing S-duct they could add additional weapon bay.

Su-47 with S-duct:

Now we remove S-duct, and voila, we can add another weapon bay (Pak Fa):

 

[michaeljordan]

They are awesome Boeing at its best !

 

[BeyondHeretic]

a tail less canoe

 

[That Guy]

building a 6th gen right now would be asking for the US economy to commit suicide. Anyone in the US gov that proposes that building this is a good idea should be fired and have his head checked.