NTA but I think he means the Solid Axel.
The bit that connects the Canard to the hull is under a lot of mechanical strain so you can't make it out of weaker material like fiberglass.
That's what the J-20 does. The first problem with your plan is that you can't make a very large canard if you do that. There aren't any radar transparent materials that can hold integrity if a large canard is made out of them. The other problem is that the radar will still be able to see the canard root that anchors it to the plane, which means you still need to figure out how to stealthify the canards root.
according to the Implessive team and some western sources: not particularly thanks to materials and computers but you are not going to get a publicly available answer this decade.
>Do canards really affect RCS negatively or not?
if the jet is "implessive" and from China *YES*, and they are absolutely cope bug shit
if the jet is a .jpg concept from America,
then canards are based, red-pilled and ~~*we*~~ always loved them right guys!
hahaha look ~~*everyone*~~ point and laugh at the loser who doesnt >*plop*plop*plop*sexooooo canards!
Yes, there are ways to mitigate it(The j20 for example which has them angled causes side rcs and AOA rcs to increase drastically, but flat frontal aspect it has a minimal impact).
But ultimately it affects it to some degree, if they're pure inline and sideline flat(best case scenario and what this bullshit display showed), you'll still get and increase from high aspects or vertical scanning in alt difference. Canards are not the best for stealth, but there's ways to make it work TM depending on the expected mission/flightstyle.
>J20 canards = "implessive" >NGAD canards = based and redpilled 6th gen sexooo
so easy, even an underpaid airperson can understand it
Depend of type of canards, the one in your pic is the same style as the J20 where the canards are on the same axis as the wings, so it doesn't affect rcs much.
A bit however other planes like the F-22 have fully moving tail surfaces which are basically the same thing but on the back and it does fine.
No, canards are worse. They are much smaller than tail surfaces and therefor have to actuate more to have effect. A tail surface shouldn't be creating reflective angles, a canard must create reflective angles. The only offending issue with tail surfaces is that when they actuate, the leading edge will no longer be in planeform alignment, but canards are always not in planeform alignment because they are tilted.
>No, canards are worse. They are much smaller than tail surfaces and therefor have to actuate more to have effect.
You don't seem to know the first thing about aerodynamics or the kinematics of an airplane. They are smaller because they can be because they have more leverage because they are further from the center of mass. The center of mass is slightly in front of the main landing gear, which in supersonic airplanes is in the aft half.
Compare how much the control surface need to actuate in these videos:
Uh, you're posting videos where you seem to think that canard that is moving at least 20 degrees is moving less than that F-22, which is at most moving 10 degrees.
Every mechanical control surface inherently needs a break between itself and the fuselage/wing in order to move, that break is what fricks up RCS because it sometimes forms a right angle while pointing at the radar.
The same plane with canards will always be less stealthy than if it didn't have them
When a canard moves it presents a larger surface area from the frontal aspect. If you look at a jet from the front, the vertical stabilizers are thin and harder to see. When you look from the side they are much larger and easier to see. Shaping and angles are real important. A J-20 without canards will always be stealthier than a J-20 with canards, it's just no one can tell you how much of a difference it really makes.
The tail on the J-20 has always seemed more obviously sketchy to me.
They have added additional lower vertical stabiliser surface on the bottom, like you commonly see on 4th gen and 3rd gen aircraft.
This is usually done because at supersonic speeds you lose directional stability and therefore need more vertical stabiliser.
However on a 5th gen aircraft you would think they would design without this, since it would obviously negatively impact signature and can be fixed in other ways, especially in an age of CFD and CAD.
No US 5th gen design or proposal has this.
IMO if there is good evidence that the J-20 LO is half assed then that would be it.
Canards do negatively impact LO, but they aren't a deal breaker and there are very obvious reasons why you would want canards.
Yes, some more than others
Depends on the country who does It
Why not just make the canards out of a radar transparent material like fiberglass or something?
Not the canard themselves, but the axis around which they rotate do.
That would make the solid axis RCS problem worse.
Canards were envisioned for both the ATF and the JSF.
>solid axis RCS problem
IDK what that is.
NTA but I think he means the Solid Axel.
The bit that connects the Canard to the hull is under a lot of mechanical strain so you can't make it out of weaker material like fiberglass.
>the ATF
What?
He's talking about the YF-22 and YF-23.
>ATF
>All Terrain Fighter
That's what the J-20 does. The first problem with your plan is that you can't make a very large canard if you do that. There aren't any radar transparent materials that can hold integrity if a large canard is made out of them. The other problem is that the radar will still be able to see the canard root that anchors it to the plane, which means you still need to figure out how to stealthify the canards root.
>boeing
according to the Implessive team and some western sources: not particularly thanks to materials and computers but you are not going to get a publicly available answer this decade.
It's pretty wild how all of these next generation designs have evolved all the way back to a 1950's design.
den e så jävla cooool
>Do canards really affect RCS negatively or not?
if the jet is "implessive" and from China *YES*, and they are absolutely cope bug shit
if the jet is a .jpg concept from America,
then canards are based, red-pilled and ~~*we*~~ always loved them right guys!
hahaha look ~~*everyone*~~ point and laugh at the loser who doesnt
>*plop*plop*plop*sexooooo canards!
could you try that in English, rajesh?
>J20 canards = "implessive"
>NGAD canards = based and redpilled 6th gen sexooo
so easy, even an underpaid airperson can understand it
what are you talking about, rajesh? has your cow urine been extra nasty today?
>anti-china americans drowned in their own /k/oolaid
So many such cases, so many...
Yes, there are ways to mitigate it(The j20 for example which has them angled causes side rcs and AOA rcs to increase drastically, but flat frontal aspect it has a minimal impact).
But ultimately it affects it to some degree, if they're pure inline and sideline flat(best case scenario and what this bullshit display showed), you'll still get and increase from high aspects or vertical scanning in alt difference. Canards are not the best for stealth, but there's ways to make it work TM depending on the expected mission/flightstyle.
have a nice day
>have a nice day
you first airperson
falcons lead the way!
>helmetard spreads to other threads
Really gonna go the warriortard route?
Depend of type of canards, the one in your pic is the same style as the J20 where the canards are on the same axis as the wings, so it doesn't affect rcs much.
Compared to what? A flying wing? Yes. A conventional design with horizontal stabilizers? No.
>canards affect RCS negatively
>but not if you call them stabilizers and put them in the back
this thinking is hillarious
basically this
No, canards are worse. They are much smaller than tail surfaces and therefor have to actuate more to have effect. A tail surface shouldn't be creating reflective angles, a canard must create reflective angles. The only offending issue with tail surfaces is that when they actuate, the leading edge will no longer be in planeform alignment, but canards are always not in planeform alignment because they are tilted.
>No, canards are worse. They are much smaller than tail surfaces and therefor have to actuate more to have effect.
You don't seem to know the first thing about aerodynamics or the kinematics of an airplane. They are smaller because they can be because they have more leverage because they are further from the center of mass. The center of mass is slightly in front of the main landing gear, which in supersonic airplanes is in the aft half.
Compare how much the control surface need to actuate in these videos:
#t=3m22s
#t=10s
Uh, you're posting videos where you seem to think that canard that is moving at least 20 degrees is moving less than that F-22, which is at most moving 10 degrees.
A bit however other planes like the F-22 have fully moving tail surfaces which are basically the same thing but on the back and it does fine.
I'm a bigger fan of the Lockheed NGAD tbh
fricking scifi looking motherfricker, imagine how based it would be if this actually won
yes
but maybe those are pop-out canards? that would mitigate the problem
I'm sorry but this flying triangle thing looks like shit
>abloobloo it doesn't look like a traditional plane give me money
>t. boring aerospace
>It can go mach 3!
>Surface temperature is as hot as a mojave dashboard, can be seen glowing for 1800 miles
>AWACs and wingman drones mean strikes are conducted from 2400 miles away while moving at untouchable speeds
Pshh... Nothing personnel, brownoid.
Every mechanical control surface inherently needs a break between itself and the fuselage/wing in order to move, that break is what fricks up RCS because it sometimes forms a right angle while pointing at the radar.
The same plane with canards will always be less stealthy than if it didn't have them
When a canard moves it presents a larger surface area from the frontal aspect. If you look at a jet from the front, the vertical stabilizers are thin and harder to see. When you look from the side they are much larger and easier to see. Shaping and angles are real important. A J-20 without canards will always be stealthier than a J-20 with canards, it's just no one can tell you how much of a difference it really makes.
/k/ has always been allied with canards
The tail on the J-20 has always seemed more obviously sketchy to me.
They have added additional lower vertical stabiliser surface on the bottom, like you commonly see on 4th gen and 3rd gen aircraft.
This is usually done because at supersonic speeds you lose directional stability and therefore need more vertical stabiliser.
However on a 5th gen aircraft you would think they would design without this, since it would obviously negatively impact signature and can be fixed in other ways, especially in an age of CFD and CAD.
No US 5th gen design or proposal has this.
IMO if there is good evidence that the J-20 LO is half assed then that would be it.
Canards do negatively impact LO, but they aren't a deal breaker and there are very obvious reasons why you would want canards.