Scaled Stealth fighter demonstrator flies in Sweden

[PERSIAN]

I dont think so. It takes significant tech base to develop one ok lets see
1- US Yes
2- Russia Yes
3- China Most likely
4- Germany No
5- UK- No
6- Japan Slight Chance (Most likely no after JSF)
7 Saab May be
8- India May be
I can count only eitght with 3 VLO suppliers in the market

your forgetting iran. they are planning to make stealth fighter too

 

[Jungibaaz]

your forgetting iran. they are planning to make stealth fighter too

I seriously doubt it, they have had problems with f-14 maintenance in the past, they hardly have any access to 4.5gen tech.

making it stealthy shouldn't be too hard, but making their own advanced avionics is going to be real difficult.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Shades of the Grippen.

 

[rubyjackass]

TVC is not "magic" and it is not what defines maneouvrability. Do you think it is justt as easy as paste a TVC engine into an aircraft, and that will make it supermaneouvrable? TVC is not always necessary, and to integrate it with an aircraft requires a very big work.

What I meant was that this plan's manoeuvrability
is awsome even without TVC. If it had one, then it would have been magical. I am not saying that it is easy to 'paste' it or that it is necessary but TVC sure does make an aircraft more manoeuvrable.

 

[PERSIAN]

I seriously doubt it, they have had problems with f-14 maintenance in the past, they hardly have any access to 4.5gen tech.

making it stealthy shouldn't be too hard, but making their own advanced avionics is going to be real difficult.

true, i guess we have to wait and see. it looks like very stealth

 

[Chogy]

Remember, it's just an R/C model. All sorts of bizarre R/C models have been flown, including a witch:

and a lawnmower:

Any serious effort at a new fighter involves computer simulations and above all, the tried-and-true wind tunnel. Also, modern fighters often have negative stability (like the F-16) requiring high-speed computers overlaid on the fly-by-wire system to keep the airplane stable. A model like this cannot have such a system due to weight and complexity.

I think it is just a cool model, not a vision of the future.

 

[SBD-3]

Remember, it's just an R/C model. All sorts of bizarre R/C models have been flown, including a witch:

and a lawnmower:

Any serious effort at a new fighter involves computer simulations and above all, the tried-and-true wind tunnel. Also, modern fighters often have negative stability (like the F-16) requiring high-speed computers overlaid on the fly-by-wire system to keep the airplane stable. A model like this cannot have such a system due to weight and complexity.

I think it is just a cool model, not a vision of the future.

The goal of the demonstrator is to:

* Show a cost effective way, with short lead time, to design and manufacture a flying demonstrator of a concept
* Evaluate the usage of scaled demonstrator as a tool for aircraft development, including as “flying wind tunnel”

i wonder what are they upto

 

[Chogy]

The notion of a "flying wind tunnel" is not how it's done these days, especially for a postulated new fighter. When a model is in a wind tunnel, there are dozens of sensors in critical locations to measure lift, drag, stress, flutter, the whole gamut of aerodynamic forces, including supersonic flight. Small turbine models cannot exceed about 300 km/h. I'm very doubtful this model has wireless stress transducers and such.

Also, I'm not enthused about the potential for very low RCS in that shape. Reduced, yes, but not F-22/T-50 or even F-35. Just MO.

I'm thinking it's like any one of thousands of turbine-powered RC models flown by enthusiasts worldwide, except in a futuristic, conceptual configuration.

It's a fun hobby. Here is a jet engine about as big as a soup can:

 

[Firemaster]

GFF: Aero Group: IEI: Linköping University

seems developed from saab gripen(air intakes)

 

[gambit]

your forgetting iran. they are planning to make stealth fighter too

I seriously doubt it, they have had problems with f-14 maintenance in the past, they hardly have any access to 4.5gen tech.

making it stealthy shouldn't be too hard, but making their own advanced avionics is going to be real difficult.

How naive can the gullibles really get...

 

[siegecrossbow]

Remember, it's just an R/C model. All sorts of bizarre R/C models have been flown, including a witch:

and a lawnmower:

Any serious effort at a new fighter involves computer simulations and above all, the tried-and-true wind tunnel. Also, modern fighters often have negative stability (like the F-16) requiring high-speed computers overlaid on the fly-by-wire system to keep the airplane stable. A model like this cannot have such a system due to weight and complexity.

I think it is just a cool model, not a vision of the future.

Do you happen to have a video of the witch flying? I'd like to see what type of manuevers they can pull of with this kind of airframe.

 

[gambit]

true, i guess we have to wait and see. it looks like very stealth

And 'looks' is about as close as this will get to 'stealth'. Am not being flippant but serious.

In a stunt fight, two 'combatants' carefully disguise their blows upon each other, with enough skills honed over time and rehearsals, they can convince the audience that there is a 'realistic' fight going on. On the other hand, there are things whose behaviors and effects we cannot disguise: fire, water, and smoke. In watching the olden days of special effects, we can see how a fire is obviously out of scale on a model car or building. We can see how the flames are just simply too large in appearance compared to the scaled down car or building. Same for water or smoke.

Special Effect Failure - Television Tropes & Idioms

When a special effect looks really cheap and dodgy, to the point of pulling the audience out of the narrative, you have a Special Effect Failure. All-too-common prior to 1980, and still with us today despite relatively inexpensive digital effects that look realistic.

To be a true Special Effect Failure, it has to have looked bad by the standards of the time it was made — and have been remarked on at the time.

This has nothing to do with human incompetence but unlike the pair of stunt 'combatants' where there is cooperation between them, the laws of physics simply will not cooperate with us.

No difference with radar RCS testing of bodies...

Chapter 12: Scale-Model Testing On GlobalSpec

There is a great deal of interest in scale-model testing because of the vastly reduced cost of building and testing models instead of full-scale targets. Unfortunately, electromagnetic scaling laws are material-dependent, and one must decide how to scale the various features of the test object.

If the full-scale test object is perfectly conducting (or even reasonably highly conducting), the scaling laws are simple. Given two objects of identical shape and identical electrical size, as measured in wavelengths, their RCS patterns, when normalized to the square of the wavelength, will be identical. That is to say, the normalized patterns of a set of metal objects each ten wavelengths long cannot be distinguished from one another, no matter what their physical size. The wavelength is the only meaningful yardstick.

The above is just one of many scaling issues, not just in movie making but in RCS calculations.

In finite bodies, and all bodies are finite, a specific wavelength WILL produce different RCS values because of different dimensions. This has been proven with the simple sphere and the 'ten lambda' rule is briefly explained here...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/1100176-post231.html

It is precisely because of different RCS results on different sphere diameters from the same wavelength that the US considers full scale testing the most valid RCS testing regime...

F-22 Raptor History

Verification testing of the F-22's radar cross section (RCS) signature is performed using a full-scale replica of the F-22, built to production tolerances, that incorporating numerous production components and materials, including all major signature contributors.

Keywords for Google: Helendale Benefield Edwards RCS Facility

Edwards Air Force Base - Media Search

So please...Do not be misled by photographs of scale models that 'looks' and therefore imply a certain characteristic. The laws of physics take no side.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Looks like Sweeds used the 6 billion dollars we gave them for Saab Erie eye well don't you say ?

 

[Luftwaffe]

Iranian F-5 derivatives have limited potential. Iran won't alone be able to develop Stealth but the Design could most likely be a Stealth inspired Jet with russian engines/russian radars mainly the Jet could be a replacement of F-14/F-4 and that is achievable by 2022+.

 

[PERSIAN]

i dont know, besides you never know what they are up to, i believe iran are atleast 10 years from 5th gen technology. but i could be wrong