FLIR , IRST in air to air mission

Cockpit, radar, helmet-mounted display, and other avionics
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2687
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post03 Jun 2020, 19:51

BDF wrote:I'm well aware that the Chinese have struggled to master high end military turbo fan manufacturing. That is an entirely separate engineering discipline than airframe manufacture or systems integration for example.


And my point was that it's far more complicated to master stealth airframe manufacturing than it is to master turbofan jet engine manufacturing and the evidence of this is that only the USA really masters the former while several countries besides the USA (such as the UK, France, Russia and Canada) masters the later.
So if you can't master a simpler and far well known aerospace engineering field how would you expect to master a far more complicated aerospace engineering field which only one country really masters?


BDF wrote:Look, its obvious that we're simply going to go around and around on this. We'll have to agree to disagree. I hope you're right and that I'm wrong, but I'm not convinced that is the case. I'll bow out now, Regards...


Here, I agree with you and because this discussion is really getting "off topic".
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 894
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post04 Jun 2020, 15:32

zero-one wrote:The 3rd disadvantage listed is very interesting for me. If I'm understanding this correctly you can only configure it for high lift or low drag but not both.

The EF Typhoon's design seem to be high lift and simply uses brute power to compensate for the drag.


Wrong, if you actually read it, it's only referring to induced drag curve, i.e. drag induced from lift, which is dominant at low speeds or when turning, not in level flight. In level flight and cruise, parasitic drag, and at supersonic speeds, wave drag are the dominant ones. Delta wings tend to do well in wave drag, why a lot of early supersonic fighters are pure delta. It's saying that canard aircraft can configure for CLmax or induced drag, which means it can either optimize for max instantaneous turn rate or good sustained turn rate, but having good values for both is much harder.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 894
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post04 Jun 2020, 15:38

ricnunes wrote:And my point was that it's far more complicated to master stealth airframe manufacturing than it is to master turbofan jet engine manufacturing and the evidence of this is that only the USA really masters the former while several countries besides the USA (such as the UK, France, Russia and Canada) masters the later.
So if you can't master a simpler and far well known aerospace engineering field how would you expect to master a far more complicated aerospace engineering field which only one country really masters?

How are you making this claim? That's not really how it works, specifically in terms of jet engines a lot of it is backed by institutional knowledge, so not mastering that part doesn't mean you're not formidable in other aspects of aerospace engineering. For example even though Soviet Union was way behind in gas turbines, it was way ahead of US in ox-rich staged combustion rocket engine, because of experience and institutional knowledge.

Even Japan, a technologically advanced country which is a front runner in engineering of composite materials, struggles with engine technology. Because they don't have the kind of institutional knowledge US or even Russia has.
Offline

zhangmdev

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post04 Jun 2020, 21:32

US rocket engineers thought oxygen-rich staged combustion engine is basically impossible, so why bother? They went down a different path. I think F-22 doesn't have something like Rafale's Front Sector Optronics for the same reason: the benefit isn't worth the effort.

With enough computing power, one can assemble an aircraft virtually, down to every single fastener, fine-tuning the manufacturing process repeatedly without physically making anything. Things went like that since the days of Boeing 777 development. And computers improved a lot since then. One cannot do that to jet engine development. Computer simulation can only help some part of it, like aerodynamics around the blade, combustion in the chamber. Computers cannot simulate the whole thing. That is too complicated even for today's computers. To prove any design change works, one must physically make the component, sometimes the whole engine, and run it. Making physical things are way more difficult and expensive and time-consuming than tweaking parameters in some computer software.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2687
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post08 Jun 2020, 16:28

disconnectedradical wrote:How are you making this claim? That's not really how it works, specifically in terms of jet engines a lot of it is backed by institutional knowledge, so not mastering that part doesn't mean you're not formidable in other aspects of aerospace engineering. For example even though Soviet Union was way behind in gas turbines, it was way ahead of US in ox-rich staged combustion rocket engine, because of experience and institutional knowledge.

Even Japan, a technologically advanced country which is a front runner in engineering of composite materials, struggles with engine technology. Because they don't have the kind of institutional knowledge US or even Russia has.


The above basically concurs with my point.
If mastering well known technologies worldwide (such as jet engines) is very/extremely hard then imagine what would take to master a technology (such as Stealth) which only one country (USA) really masters.

Speaking about "experience and institutional knowledge" I would say that China is probably one of the countries (among the most powerful ones in the world) that have the "lowest level of that" when it comes to Stealth technology.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1019
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post11 Jun 2020, 19:08

hornetfinn mentioned it upthread but the positive and negative contrast that imagers use to locate
targets against backgrounds needed an illustration that I couldn't find in the open literature until now.

from "Reconstruction of the 3D Temperature and Species Concentration Spatial Distribution of a Jet Engine Exhaust Plume Using an Infrared Fourier Transform Spectrometer Hyperspectral Imager" by Mason D. Paulec.

https://scholar.afit.edu/etd/1953/
Attachments
f-15-imagery.png
Previous

Return to F-35 Avionics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests