The beauty of a Delta Canard design.

>>35097282
Fast. Good interceptor. Not so maneuverable. Bad dog fighter.

>>35097324
Are you on drugs?

>>35097324
>>35097327
I think he's meming based off a recent Sprey interview.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yQSs2kN2GpQ&feature=youtu.be

>>35097461
Eurofighter too big and bulky?

What the hell?

>>35097327
It has a good sustained turn rate and acceleration.
It has a poor instantaneous rate thanks to a relatively severe AOA limit, it has bad roll and yaw rates at the limits of that low AOA.

>Also in 2015, Airbus flight tested a package of aerodynamic upgrades for the Eurofighter known as the Aerodynamic Modification Kit (AMK) that included fuselage strakes and leading-edge root extensions which increases wing lift by 25% resulting in an increased turn rate, tighter turning radius, and improved nose-pointing ability at low speed with angle of attack values around 45% greater than on the standard aircraft and roll rates up to 100% higher.
>Eurofighter's Laurie Hilditch said these improvements should increase subsonic turn rate by 15% and give the Eurofighter the sort of "knife-fight in a phone box" turning capability enjoyed by rivals such as Boeing’s F/A-18E/F or the Lockheed Martin F-16, without sacrificing the transonic and supersonic high-energy agility inherent to its delta wing-canard configuration.

No one has actually upgraded their typhoons with this.

>>35097523
Because no one engage in subsonic if you enjoy a massive energy advantage.

It would be against the very idea of the E-M Theory

File: disDude.jpg (21KB, 720x689px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 720x689px

>>35097461

File: D930Lmf.gif (2MB, 330x248px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 330x248px

>>35097570
>energy advantage

pure sex

>>35097570
>Because no one engage in subsonic if you enjoy a massive energy advantage.
Pretty much no one engages in manoeuvring combat at all desu, if you have lots of energy you are dictating the engagement and you're better off not getting into a merge in the first place.
>It would be against the very idea of the E-M Theory
E-M theory is not as relevant in the traditional sense in modern ACM, E-M theory was important in ACM when the only to kill your enemy was by putting yourself on their tail (ie: aspect was important) but aspect isn't nearly as important in the age of highly agile, all aspect AAMs, let alone HOBS missiles.

File: merkel.jpg (32KB, 334x208px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 334x208px

cuck doritos

File: 308637main_EC97-44354-3_full.jpg (799KB, 3039x2430px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 3039x2430px

Freedom Dorito Is Best Dorito

File: F-16XL_Front.jpg (437KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 1280x720px

Also they need to make these things stealth and make the engine below the center of balance.

File: Mirage 2000.jpg (1MB, 1500x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x1200px

>>35097710

>>35097662
Gaining and maintaining energy is a fundamental principle for good fighter design for a reason.

File: china_viper.jpg (17KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 650x366px

>>35097719

File: Avro Vulcan.jpg (758KB, 3164x2124px) Image search: [Google]

758KB, 3164x2124px

>>35097722

>>35097523
Meaningless. You are bleeding energy like nothing else past moderate AOA and just turn into a flying brick.

File: Saab 37 Viggen.jpg (3MB, 2151x1434px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2151x1434px

>>35097732

File: Me 163.jpg (350KB, 1800x1383px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 1800x1383px

>>35097740
the suicide dorito

>>35097728
Energy of missiles merges into that equation now.

File: F-106.jpg (1MB, 3000x1968px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x1968px

>>35097747

>>35097719
>Leading edge flaps are deflected positively
>Giant prototype AOA/pitot probe

Video games were a mistake

File: Eurofighter Typhoon.jpg (346KB, 2060x1236px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 2060x1236px

>>35097752

>>35097748
This only increase the importance of a well-designed design based on the E-M theory.

Otherwise we could just return to variable swept wing designs if we just care about speed, weaponload and range.

>>35097767
Missiles development decreases importance of aircraft energy. If missile has x10 times more energy then Y aircraft advantage of x1.2 more energy over base X aircraft with 1.0 energy becomes insignificant.

File: cranked arrow2.png (9KB, 220x220px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 220x220px

>>35097523
>It has a good sustained turn rate and acceleration.
>It has a poor instantaneous rate thanks to a relatively severe AOA limit, it has bad roll and yaw rates at the limits of that low AOA.

This is fundamental to delta wings in general right? And wide chord wings in an even more general sense?

How do cranked arrows compete? Do they offer an advantage? To improve AOA would they have to make the center section smaller?

Also what kind of turns can fighters make going supersonic? Like can a raptor in supercruise make anything resembling a tight turn?

>>35097809
>transsonic capable aircraft
>moderate 20° turn
>F-35 is incapable of catching up and enemy is outside of the no escape zone

>>35097738
A flying brick with a firing solution and a high PK Vs a high energy target.

File: f14_gunkill.jpg (9KB, 267x189px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 267x189px

>>35097767
>Otherwise we could just return to variable swept wing designs

Dont variable geometry wings have the west energy management across all aircraft speeds though? How is that bad for EM?

>Missiles development decreases importance of aircraft energy. If missile has x10 times more energy then Y aircraft advantage of x1.2 more energy over base X aircraft with 1.0 energy becomes insignificant.
So countermeasures will be the most important thing but still wouldnt the properly designed aircraft always be better? And are the advantages of missles really that severe? They are rockets so they run out of fuel quickly? Also imagine a missle that can share fuel with the aircraft and using a ram/pulse jet. Also missiles could be made to be telescoping so they can have variable amounts of fuel pumped into them and they can serve as fuel tanks for the beginning of a mission. Although the weight of a telescoping missile might not be better than just dealing with the drag,

>>35097855
>west energy management
Best* energy management

>>35097855
Dumbest post on this board right now

>>35097767
Being superior in the gaining and maintaining high energy states means that the effective no escape zone of your weapon load is superior than the one of the subsonic aircraft.

That's the reason why the Asian countries aren't really happy with the F-35 in that department.

>>35097855
>Dont variable geometry wings have the west energy management across all aircraft speeds though? How is that bad for EM?

F-14 can literally only maintain its energy in a straight line.
It's like trying to turn an arrow midflight

File: switchblade1 (1).jpg (21KB, 586x519px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 586x519px

>>35097865
im just brainstorming here

>>35097869
>F-14 can literally only maintain its energy in a straight line.
>It's like trying to turn an arrow midflight
Maybe the f14 is a bad example but wouldnt variable geometry always be an advantage for any given wing design? Like it doesnt have to be swing wings but maybe some kind of exotic form of flaps.

>>35097523

>This upgrade can make them better
>My logic says that must mean it's really poor!

Thank god you don't design these things.

>>35097761
Disgusting Tranche 1 Typhoons should be euthanized.

>>35097813
>This is fundamental to delta wings in general right?
No actually, Delta wings should mean good Instantaneous turners and poor sustained turners, but because Delta wings tend to be used on designs that compromise for low supersonic drag, they usually don't get coupled with other design features that would allow them to exploit it.
Sustained turns are related to Thrust and Lift over Drag, delta wings have generally bad L/D.
The reason why the EF-2000 has a good sustained turn is it's high TWR and it's Canards, the Gripen and Rafale are similar in this sense.
The limiting factor for instantaneous turns is AOA limit until you hit your G-limit; the Eurofighter has a low AOA limit because of it's single tail that loses airflow at high AOA making the aircraft unstable in Yaw at high AOA therfore preventing roll (due to adverse yaw) and yaw authority at high aoa.
>Also what kind of turns can fighters make going supersonic? Like can a raptor in supercruise make anything resembling a tight turn?
No, that's why this other guy's arguments are ridiculous, G-limitations prevent high turn rates at high speeds.
A 9 G turn at mach 0.7 is 22° per seond
A 9 G turn at mach 1.2 is 13° per second
>>35097833
>The Eurofighter can get out of the tail chase NEZ of an AIM-120C in 10 seconds!
Please explain your scenario in more detail because it makes no sense.

File: f18_turn_rate-web.jpg (28KB, 540x382px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 540x382px

>>35098040
Okie dokie.. one more question.. does wing chord have anything to do with sustained turn rates? A thick wing creates tons of drag at high angles of attack but doing a low AOA turn at high speed shouldnt matter then?

Also is there any kind of technology that could improve human g tolerance? Or will UCAVs dominate in this realm only?

>>35098040
>Please explain your scenario in more detail because it makes no sense.

>Eurofighter enters air battle while supercruising against a subsonic target
>Eurofighter gets fire solution and get into the no-escape zone of its weapon
>fires
>immediately leaves the zone
>subsonic target can't return fire because Eurofighter is already outside of the no-escape zone

>>35097869
>Being superior in the gaining and maintaining high energy states means that the effective no escape zone of your weapon load is superior than the one of the subsonic aircraft.
This isn't E/M theory though: The M in in E/M theory stands of Manoeuvrability.
When we start talking about NEZ we aren't talking about merges or air combat manoeuvering anymore.
The Typhoon is certainly very good at firing high energy missiles in BVR.
>>35098015
give the Eurofighter the sort of "knife-fight in a phone box" turning capability enjoyed by rivals such as... Lockheed Martin F-16

It's worse in this regard than the F-16 apparently, which is hardly the best.

>>35098096
Since humans have higher lateral g tolerances, you could design a seat that reclines as you reach higher g's. The controls would also have to move in such a way that it doesn't feel awkward to the pilot.
needless to say such a system would be fucking expensive and at that point it would be cheaper to use UCAVs
The real focus is in reducing wave drag as much as possible. This gives your aircraft smoother high-supersonic acceleration profiles.

File: XnMJlw.jpg (419KB, 569x800px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 569x800px

>>35098166
interdasting

I guess the other major factor will be advanced countermeasures such as towed decoys or micro missiles and whatnot. OH yeah and lasers.

Is dorsale/ventral really the best place to mount a laser?

>>35098130
The conversation was about 'dogfighting' not BVR combat.
20nm is not a merge.
>fires
>immediately leaves the zone
I must have missed the part where the Typhoon has a rearward facing radar.

>>35098153
>It's worse in this regard than the F-16 apparently, which is hardly the best.

an A2A low weight loadout F-16 is one of the fastest turning aircraft in US inventory..

>>35098194
>I must have missed the part where the Typhoon has a rearward facing radar.

I forgot the Typhoon uses AIM-7s

File: 1500933758704.jpg (35KB, 635x378px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 635x378px

>>35098153

>It's worse in this regard than the F-16 apparently, which is hardly the best.

Again, you completely say exactly what I said you did.

You're taking an extremely vague, extremely lacking in numbers, extremely brief sentence, and extrapolating a huge point out of it with absolutely no detail or talk.

The F/A-18 and F-16 outperform fucking EVERYTHING with that sort of extremely specific turn being discussed. But they completely lack many of the more modern aerodynamic capabilities that are way more important in modern planes (even in the USAF designs such as F-22 (which has to use vectors to do it) and F-35), those same modern designs make those much rarer, less important kinds of "knife fight" turns harder to do, as the focus is elsewhere.

>>35098194

>I must have missed the part where the Typhoon has a rearward facing radar.

Its missiles are active seekers, and its radar is traversable. It can turn away, still guide the missile until it's on to active seeking, then complete its turn and be long gone.

Pic related is a Gripen, but the Gripen and Typhoon have the same traversable radar arcs.

>>35098096
High aspect ratio wings are more efficient in subsonic cruise and do perform better in Low aoa turns, however they have to be long to get the same lift as a low aspect wing and that makes designing aircraft around them difficult (it also lowers G-limits); if you wan't supersonic capability with high aspect wings you need swept wings and that opens up a whole other box of aerodynamic problems.

As for G >>35098166 is right about reclining seats; most modern fighter aircraft have seats that are quite heavily reclined, up to about 30° (the F-22 actually has a system that actively reclines the seat for high G manoeuvring).
It's important to remember that Pilots aren't the only thing that limit Gs however, Designing an airframe to take extreme Gs is costly and requires compromise, ironically enough manoeuvrability i one thing that the increased weight and the structural considerations compromise.
UCAVS probably won't bring about extreme high G maneuvering.

>>35098196
>>35098297
I am talking about yaw and roll authority at high AOA and instantaneous turn which is pretty much directly linked to AOA limit.
>The F/A-18 and F-16 outperform fucking EVERYTHING with that sort of extremely specific turn being discussed.
The F-18 is pretty good in these metrics, the F-16 is not especially good, largely for the same reasons that the Typhoon, or any of the other Euro canards isn't very good in these metrics (albeit with the Typhoon being the worst of the delta-canards by virtue of not being a close coupled canard).
they are all limited to ~25° aoa because of directional instability at high angles of attack.

>>35098226

You need to guide active missiles until they are quite close to their targets because of their small seekers, they aren't fire and forget weapons.

>>35098549
Only that the fire solution range of the aircraft is longer than the no-escape zone of the missile, which isn't even close to the theoretical max range you can read everywhere.

>>35098549
>You need to guide active missiles until they are quite close to their targets because of their small seekers, they aren't fire and forget weapons.

You don't, actually. From long range, sure. Not while in an NEZ.

>>35098737
>NEZ
There's a difference between the missile's seeker basket and the kinematic NEZ.
The kinematic NEZ is the zone in which a given target cannot escape the missile in its current state (altitude, fuel and arispeed). This is often much larger than the seeker's "basket", the cone in which the seeker will detect the target. This is particularly relevant in long range missiles such as the Meteor and Phoenix.
The effect of this is that without midcourse guidance, a target may be missed even though it's in the NEZ due to dodging the missile's flightpath and therefore the seeker's swept zone.
For midcourse guidance you need to see the target and update the missile.

File: general_dynamics_f_16xl_by_generaltate-dbif47k.jpg (2MB, 2196x1175px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2196x1175px

>>35097706

>>35098813
The best example for this is actually torpedoes. With ranges of ~50km and speeds of 55kn, the NEZ against a 30kn ship is quite large; but as seeker range is only around 1-4 km (less with good countermeasures) midcourse guidance (via a wire) is vital for good hit probability.

>>35097308
http://www.janes.com/article/73552/images-show-china-s-j-20-possibly-equipped-with-new-engines

It's gonna be a hell of a ride for the other Asian countries with only the F-35.

When will USA start building F-22 for the export again?

>>35098813
Only that the NEZ is way smaller than the fire solution range these days.

Only ramjet missiles like the Meteor may change that.

>>35097461
How much is the Kremlin paying him to spout off all this bullshit? Has he ever said anything bad about Russian jets in the past decade?

>>35098890
>fire solution range
Which isn't the seeker range. Fire solution uses the aircraft's radar suite and fire control equipment and cannot compensate for enemy maneuvers.
Look at the submarine comparison- fire control solutions can easily be had out to 20+ km, but that's using the sub's sonar.
If your solution is to aim ahead of a target pulling M0.9 across the line of sight and after firing he turns around, you're not going to hit at any great range unless you update the missile to the new fire control solution.

>>35098971
Yes, the aircraft can still provide mid course guidance while outside of the no escape zone of the enemy, that's the point.

>>35098920
Part of being in the "military reformer" group is an inability to admit when enemy equipment is shit (unless it's out of service and proves your point that current US equipment is shit) and to constantly harp on about how US high command is incompetent while the rest of the world "gets it".

>>35098981
Only if they keep the enemy within the radar's field of view.

>>35099001
Just reread what you wrote and you are correct. You can remain outside an enemy NEZ while targeting if you have a kinematic advantage.
Sticking around too long will get you shot by a missile you could have avoided though.

Well, enjoying the kinetic advantage is always a good thing.

>>35098874
RIP F-35

>>35098874
So now the J-20 will be able to supercruise, completely negating it's VLO characteristics?

File: IMG_4230.jpg (1MB, 2520x1966px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2520x1966px

Best one coming through

>>35098350
Design of the airframe becomes less important than the advances in material science. iirc the pentagon is pouring billions of dollars into graphene research because it is supposed to have a hundred times the tensile strength of steel and is incredibly stiff, not to mention all the low-observable stuff you can do with carbon.

File: Gripen-F-em-Axalp-foto-Depto-de-Defesa-da-Suíça.jpg (181KB, 1250x746px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1250x746px

Can't wait to see our airforce flying these.

File: gripen_ng_2340_landing.jpg (388KB, 1800x1012px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 1800x1012px

>>35100044
Also, today's independence day here in huehue land, so hooray for that. :^)

File: Gripen Demo with large tanks.jpg (137KB, 1600x1038px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1600x1038px

>>35100055

>>35100055
>>35100068
NG would be the perfect low-fighter in the USA

>>35100275
Might as well just buy a new block F-16 if we wanted that

>>35100379
>expensive
>inferior

>>35100401
Yes, the Gripen NG is. What of it?