Incorrect. Canards are not stealthy because the entire point of them is to angle off axis as compared to the wing leading edges. This is fundamental to stealth because minimizing leading edge angles is what frontal aspect stealth is all about.
Even when you see planes like the J-20 use canards, they try to balance out the issue by using materials that won't show up on radar, which mandates a small canard. It's also illogical that the canard root can actually be made out of such materials.
Yup, it gives a significant boost to turning rate in exchange for less stability and stealth. However, we realized that BVR was more and more common so we optimized for the BVR fight.
>less stealth
Just repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make it true.
The control surfaces in a canard configuration are smaller than in a conventional configuration. And, all else being equal, stealth is a function of size.
Compared to a true delta wing or flying wing yes, but not compared to conventional horizontal stabilizers. Granted, F35 and F22 ARE stealthier than the Eurocanards. But this is due to factors other than canards vs horizontal stabilizers.
The fact that the Typhoon has to use software to manage the Canards indicates that they are a liability that needs to be managed. There will inevitably be times where the software must put the stability of the plane ahead of the stealth of the plane.
>The fact that the Typhoon has to use software to manage the Canards indicates that they are a liability that needs to be managed.
No it means where there's chance for improvement, it is being taken. And you can be dead certain the same is being done in F22 and F35. Again, the design goals were different and, hence, the planes differ in various aspects. But a statement as simple as "canards are less stealthy than horizontal stabilizers" is just nonsensical.
>There will inevitably be times where the software must put the stability of the plane ahead of the stealth of the plane.
Yeah, during the merge, when stealth is irrelevant.
>Yeah, during the merge, when stealth is irrelevant.
And during missile evasion when stealth is more relevant.
Are you refering to digital fly by wire?
Because...F22 and F35 also use it.
Pretty much all modern jets are design as aerodynamicly unstable which means fly by wire is a must
It's not just fly by wire. It's the fact you're burdening the fly-by-wire with additional objectives when really it should only be focused on keeping the plane stable while the pilot puts it through maneuvers.
If the aircraft is inherently unstable then fly-by-wire is doing its job keeping the plane straight and level. This the same whether there are canards or not. This not an additional burden, its just a normal part of modern aircraft design.
4 months ago
Anonymous
But you're also giving the fly-by-wire an additional job of keeping the plane stealthy. That can conflict with keeping the plane stable.
>And during missile evasion when stealth is more relevant.
When your signature on the enemy's radar is so big that he's not just able to see you but even generate a firing solution, then stealth is irrelevant.
Are you refering to digital fly by wire?
Because...F22 and F35 also use it.
Pretty much all modern jets are design as aerodynamicly unstable which means fly by wire is a must
>The fact that the Typhoon has to use software to manage the Canards indicates that they are a liability that needs to be managed.
You are literally moronic.
You can only get maximum manoeuvrability when at the edge of stability.
If you don't understand how stop fricking talking about it you low end bellcurve moron, you're obviously missing some fundamentals.
And you're ignoring the fact that you're jsut putting more load on the Fly-By-Wire. Rather than address that you throw insults because you know I have you. There ain't no free lunch and their ain't no free stealth.
Oh no not the fly by wiiire, however will a computer cope with one of the things computers are better than humans at doing because theres no 150-250ms delay + flight stick delay nooooooo
Shut the frick up moron,
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Be Computer >Have to decide between keeping canards at stealthy angle or keeping the plane from falling out of the sky >Choose stealth >Plane is now flying lower than NoE.
Why so mad? Is only internet argument,
4 months ago
Anonymous
You're not helping yourself but fine I'll dripfeed you
The most maneuverable fighters are not only those on the edge of instability, but those that can reach the very edge of stalling through fly by wire, canards help with that.
The way these work via fly by wire is they usually only need mild corrections in normal flight, meaning the reflections don't make huge changes to frontal or side RCS as they're mostly 90-150 degree angles regardless of whichever angle you point them, meaning that unless theyre flat against the enemy (unlikely) they are not going to give a return back to the original source. Of course this gives the aircraft some potential for riskier frontal angles given a manouvre, but this is the case for pretty much all stealth aircraft. There is likely a stealth mode if you can call it that can reduce the risk of 180 degree reflection in particular angles, but generally they do not require it due to how the plane is flown when turning from contact. Even so, you can designate angles of reflection that do not interfere with stealth that can help the aircraft hard turn, it really depends on both the turn profile and the aircraft itself, as many will (theoretically) have a turn that virtually gives off no return to frontal if the rest of the plane is designed with it in mind.
Yes, the code for it will require some workarounds including heading information, but this is not really difficult, and you're basically making up non-existant problems because our favourite aircraft has tail canards instead.
You can get both stealth and canard maneuverability, these things are not mutually exclusive and I'm tired of bargain basement morons who've never done a radar crosssection in their life giving their dumb opinions.
I bet you don't even know what dBsm or SNR means.
Honest question: Do you seriously believe that the F-35 or F-22, which are both designed to be longitudinally unstable, don't need to move their horizontal stabilizers?
As far as leading edge surfaces, it is. The Soviet Union famously goofed by publicly publishing physics papers of Pyotr Ufimtsev because they thought that a plane with reduced frontal RCS was impossible. Even non-stealth planes like the Super Hornet can lower frontal RCS by applying those lessons, and that's why the Super Hornet has a lower frontal RCS than the legacy Hornet even though the Super Hornet is a lot bigger.
In real life, large planes will still have greater RCS than a small plane because you have to make concessions like having more maintenance access panels or other imperfections on the surface of the plane. But no, if you actually take a small stealth plane and "just enlarge it" with absolutely no other differences, then the frontal aspect RCS remains the same.
That sounds more like something somebody in an internet forum would make up to disguise his lack of substance than an actual quote.
Not that I'm accusing you of anything. You do have a credible source for that, don't you?
That looks alot like a J-20, makes one ponder
Yes, and you can see that they made a trade study and decided to dump them
>risk/affordability analysis
yes, tailplanes were considered cheaper/easier to design than canards
'canards are not stealthy' is a meme
Chang, you haven’t eaten a bite of your rice… is something wrong?
Incorrect. Canards are not stealthy because the entire point of them is to angle off axis as compared to the wing leading edges. This is fundamental to stealth because minimizing leading edge angles is what frontal aspect stealth is all about.
Even when you see planes like the J-20 use canards, they try to balance out the issue by using materials that won't show up on radar, which mandates a small canard. It's also illogical that the canard root can actually be made out of such materials.
The J-20's canards form a dihedral angle: https://youtu.be/E6BsAiY9Wk8?t=375
First of all, that still isn't stealthy. Second of all, they do not form a dihedral angle when actuated.
Don’t worry, based Chinks will make a F-35 copy with canards sooner or later
Should look up some of the wild proposals for the Advanced tactical fighter
for me its 180c
Yup, it gives a significant boost to turning rate in exchange for less stability and stealth. However, we realized that BVR was more and more common so we optimized for the BVR fight.
>less stealth
Just repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make it true.
The control surfaces in a canard configuration are smaller than in a conventional configuration. And, all else being equal, stealth is a function of size.
Compared to a true delta wing or flying wing yes, but not compared to conventional horizontal stabilizers. Granted, F35 and F22 ARE stealthier than the Eurocanards. But this is due to factors other than canards vs horizontal stabilizers.
The fact that the Typhoon has to use software to manage the Canards indicates that they are a liability that needs to be managed. There will inevitably be times where the software must put the stability of the plane ahead of the stealth of the plane.
>The fact that the Typhoon has to use software to manage the Canards indicates that they are a liability that needs to be managed.
No it means where there's chance for improvement, it is being taken. And you can be dead certain the same is being done in F22 and F35. Again, the design goals were different and, hence, the planes differ in various aspects. But a statement as simple as "canards are less stealthy than horizontal stabilizers" is just nonsensical.
>There will inevitably be times where the software must put the stability of the plane ahead of the stealth of the plane.
Yeah, during the merge, when stealth is irrelevant.
>Yeah, during the merge, when stealth is irrelevant.
And during missile evasion when stealth is more relevant.
It's not just fly by wire. It's the fact you're burdening the fly-by-wire with additional objectives when really it should only be focused on keeping the plane stable while the pilot puts it through maneuvers.
If the aircraft is inherently unstable then fly-by-wire is doing its job keeping the plane straight and level. This the same whether there are canards or not. This not an additional burden, its just a normal part of modern aircraft design.
But you're also giving the fly-by-wire an additional job of keeping the plane stealthy. That can conflict with keeping the plane stable.
>And during missile evasion when stealth is more relevant.
When your signature on the enemy's radar is so big that he's not just able to see you but even generate a firing solution, then stealth is irrelevant.
Are you refering to digital fly by wire?
Because...F22 and F35 also use it.
Pretty much all modern jets are design as aerodynamicly unstable which means fly by wire is a must
>The fact that the Typhoon has to use software to manage the Canards indicates that they are a liability that needs to be managed.
You are literally moronic.
You can only get maximum manoeuvrability when at the edge of stability.
If you don't understand how stop fricking talking about it you low end bellcurve moron, you're obviously missing some fundamentals.
And you're ignoring the fact that you're jsut putting more load on the Fly-By-Wire. Rather than address that you throw insults because you know I have you. There ain't no free lunch and their ain't no free stealth.
Oh no not the fly by wiiire, however will a computer cope with one of the things computers are better than humans at doing because theres no 150-250ms delay + flight stick delay nooooooo
Shut the frick up moron,
>Be Computer
>Have to decide between keeping canards at stealthy angle or keeping the plane from falling out of the sky
>Choose stealth
>Plane is now flying lower than NoE.
Why so mad? Is only internet argument,
You're not helping yourself but fine I'll dripfeed you
The most maneuverable fighters are not only those on the edge of instability, but those that can reach the very edge of stalling through fly by wire, canards help with that.
The way these work via fly by wire is they usually only need mild corrections in normal flight, meaning the reflections don't make huge changes to frontal or side RCS as they're mostly 90-150 degree angles regardless of whichever angle you point them, meaning that unless theyre flat against the enemy (unlikely) they are not going to give a return back to the original source. Of course this gives the aircraft some potential for riskier frontal angles given a manouvre, but this is the case for pretty much all stealth aircraft. There is likely a stealth mode if you can call it that can reduce the risk of 180 degree reflection in particular angles, but generally they do not require it due to how the plane is flown when turning from contact. Even so, you can designate angles of reflection that do not interfere with stealth that can help the aircraft hard turn, it really depends on both the turn profile and the aircraft itself, as many will (theoretically) have a turn that virtually gives off no return to frontal if the rest of the plane is designed with it in mind.
Yes, the code for it will require some workarounds including heading information, but this is not really difficult, and you're basically making up non-existant problems because our favourite aircraft has tail canards instead.
You can get both stealth and canard maneuverability, these things are not mutually exclusive and I'm tired of bargain basement morons who've never done a radar crosssection in their life giving their dumb opinions.
I bet you don't even know what dBsm or SNR means.
>dripfeed
spoonfeed
Honest question: Do you seriously believe that the F-35 or F-22, which are both designed to be longitudinally unstable, don't need to move their horizontal stabilizers?
>And, all else being equal, stealth is a function of size
tarded
You two clowns are essentially asserting that radar return is independent of surface area.
As far as leading edge surfaces, it is. The Soviet Union famously goofed by publicly publishing physics papers of Pyotr Ufimtsev because they thought that a plane with reduced frontal RCS was impossible. Even non-stealth planes like the Super Hornet can lower frontal RCS by applying those lessons, and that's why the Super Hornet has a lower frontal RCS than the legacy Hornet even though the Super Hornet is a lot bigger.
In real life, large planes will still have greater RCS than a small plane because you have to make concessions like having more maintenance access panels or other imperfections on the surface of the plane. But no, if you actually take a small stealth plane and "just enlarge it" with absolutely no other differences, then the frontal aspect RCS remains the same.
No? Size does not affect stealth if everything is else is actually equal.
canards are fricking gross
180C should have made it
>180C
F4 SEXO
NTA but 180c is my favorite due to looking like a mirage f1
I knew I recognized the wings from somewhere but I could not remember the name for the life of me
It's been done from time to time, but remember the old Harry Hilaker quote: "The best place for a canard is somebody else's airplane."
That sounds more like something somebody in an internet forum would make up to disguise his lack of substance than an actual quote.
Not that I'm accusing you of anything. You do have a credible source for that, don't you?
Anon seems credible enough on his own. If you don't think it's credible, then you're probably a moron.
And if navy versions didn't exist they would probably go with them.