[翻译] 【FlightGlobal】波音公司披露更新的F/A-XX概念 ...

Boeing reveals updated F/A-XX concept龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com
波音公司披露更新的F/A-XX概念战斗/攻击机


http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/04/boeing-reveals-updated-fa-xx-c.html

By Dave Majumdar on April 7, 2013 11:59 PM
戴伍·马宗达于2013年4月7日晚上11:59发表

Boeing is unveiling an updated version ofits F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter concept at the Navy League's Sea-Air-SpaceExposition in Washington DC this week.
波音公司本周于华盛顿特区举行的海军协会的海空天博览会上推出一款F/A-XX第六代概念战斗机的更新版本。

The tail-less twin-engine stealth fighterdesign comes in "manned and unmanned options as possibilities per the USNavy," Boeing says. The design features diverterless supersonic inletsreminiscent of those found on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
这款无尾双引擎隐形战斗机的设计可以满足“美国海军有人和无人选项的每个可能性,”波音公司声称。该设计突出的无附面层隔道超音速进气道（DSI）让人想起那些基于洛克希德·马丁公司的F-35联合打击战斗机的设计。



The Boeing concept also features canards,which is somewhat of a surprise because the motion of those forward mountedcontrol surfaces is generally assumed to compromise a stealth aircraft'sfrontal radar cross-section. But the lack of vertical tail surfaces suggeststhe aircraft would be optimized for all-aspect broadband stealth, which wouldbe needed for operations in the most challenging anti-access/area denialenvironments.
这款波音的概念战斗机还包括鸭翼,这让人有些惊讶,因为这些前部安装的控制翼面的运动通常被假设为一个隐形飞机的正面雷达截面积的妥协。但没有垂直尾面显示了该战机将被全向宽频隐形优化,这将需要在最具挑战性的反介入/区域封锁的环境下操作。

Also of note in the manned version of thecompany's F/A-XX concept is the placement of the cockpit--rearward visibilityappears to be restricted without the aid of a sensor apparatus similar to theF-35's distributed aperture system of six infrared cameras.
该公司的F/A-XX概念机的有人版本还值得注意的是驾驶舱的布局——向后方的能见度似乎没有被借助类似于F-35的分布式孔径系统的六个红外摄像机的传感器装置限制。

The Boeing F/A-XXconcept is a response to a USN request for information (RFI) from April 2012soliciting data for a replacement for the service's Boeing F/A-18E/F SuperHornet and EA-18G Growler fleets in the 2030s. The Super Hornet fleet isexpected to start reaching the end of the jet's 9000h useful lifespan duringthat time period.
这款波音F/A-XX的概念机是美国海军从2012年4月寻求在2030年代替代现役的波音F/A-18E/F“超级大黄蜂”和EA - 18 G“咆哮者”编队的征集数据信息请求(RFI)的一个回答。超级大黄蜂编队预计在这段时间内将开始达到这种飞机9000小时的有效使用寿命的尾声。

"The intent of this research is tosolicit Industry inputs on candidate solutions for CVN [nuclear-poweredaircraft carrier] based aircraft to provide air supremacy with a multi-rolestrike capability in an anti-access/area denied (A2AD) operationalenvironment," the navy RFI had stated. "Primary missions include, butare not limited to, air warfare (AW), strike warfare (STW), surface warfare(SUW), and close air support (CAS)."
“这项研究的目的是要征求关于核动力航母[CVN]在一个反介入/区域封锁(A2AD)操作环境中提供制空权与多功能打击能力的舰载机候选解决方案的产业投入,”海军信息请求声明道。“主要任务包括（但不限于）空战(AW),打击作战(STW),水面作战(SUW),近距离空中支援(CAS)。”

Navy leaders had said at the time that theyexpect any new F/A-XX design to have greatly increased range and offer farsuperior kinematic performance compared to existing tactical aircraft.
海军领导人说,他们时刻期待任何新的F/A-XX设计来大大增加航程并提供远胜于现有的战术飞机的运动特性。

COMMENTS
评论

wuzafan • 2 days ago

reminds me of the time many years ago thatthe AF wanted to retire the A10( because they werent supersonic ) and use F16s.which usually dont go below 15,000 ft in their attack roles. CAS is down lowand dirty stuff, this abomination with no fins could not maneuver fer shit, andwould have to carry all those dirty weapons exposed to radar. and would theservices want to expose this expensive flying frisbee to ground weapons?
Up 0 Down 1

让我想起多年前空军想退役A10 (因为它们不是超音速的) 并使用F16战斗机的时代。通常不去低于15000英尺的高度行使它们攻击的角色。近距离空中支援是下流和肮脏的事情,这种没有垂尾的可憎的东西无法机动就是狗屁,就不得不搭载所有这些肮脏的武器暴露于雷达之下。而军队会想把这种昂贵的飞行中的飞盘暴露在地面武器面前吗?
顶 0  踩 1

S O →wuzafan • 2 days ago

Face it; A-10's cannot go low againstactual battlefield air defences. It was already a stretch in face of thousandsof Shilkas, and only became really possible in their absence over Iraq andAfghanistan.
Today's CAS is about seeing the enemy withsensors first and foremost. Almost anything you can take out with Mk 1 eyeballsin CAS could be handled by arty as well.
Up 5

面对它; A-10不能降低针对实际战场的空中防御。它已经是面对成千上万的Shilkas的一个延伸,只有在伊拉克和阿富汗它们才可能真的缺席。
今天的近距离空中支援是关于看到首先用传感器的敌人。在近距离空中支援中你都能用Mk 1眼球获得的几乎任何东西同样可以被富有艺术气息地使用。
顶 5

sferrin • 2 days ago

Nice. Cue "sux 'cuz you can't see torear" stupidity. Too bad it'll be a distant 3rd to whatever LM and NG cookup. What I really want to know is are they using fluidic TVC for lateralcontrol.
Up 1 Down 1•

不错。提示“垂尾导致你不能看到后方”太愚蠢了。它将变成一架像洛马和诺格虚构的那样的遥远的第三款飞机就太糟糕了。我真正想知道的是它们把流体推力矢量控制用于横向操作了吗。
顶 1   踩 1

Chad K Gray • 2 days ago

Given the fact this comes in both manned onunmanned versions, I see the unmanned verison doing alot of the a2g work whilethe manned version does alot of a2a work. Secondly, this is only a concept onpaper. I suspect the real thing, if it is ever built, will look alot different.
Up 3

鉴于这里出现有人和无人两个版本这一事实,我看到无人版执行许多空对地的任务,而有人版执行负责很多空对空任务。其次,这仅仅是一个在纸上的概念机。我怀疑是否有真正的东西,如果它已经建成，将看起来有很多不同。
顶 3

peacehugger • 2 days ago

Looks like a copy of the J-20 without thetail.
Up 20   Down 2

除了尾部外看起来像一个J-20的山寨版。
顶 20   踩2

Jeffrey Wu →peacehugger • 2 daysago

OMG, you can't just say that here.... theegocentric Americans will label you as a commie and throw insults at youbecause they don't have the intellect to admit the truth.
Up 10  Down 1

卖糕的, 在这里你不能只说这些....以自我为中心的美国人将给你贴上一个共匪的标签并辱骂你,因为他们没有智力去承认这个事实。
顶 10   踩 1

LOL→Jeffrey Wu • a dayago

Have a look at MD JSF and early LockheedATF design before you say so, smart
Up 7

你这么说之前先去看看MD JSF和早期洛克希德ATF的设计, ,放聪明些
顶7

Yahoo→LOL • 16 hours ago

its a joke. srly you merkans have no senseof humour
Up 0  Down 1

这只是个玩笑，你一点幽默感都没有
顶 0   踩 1

BDF→Jeffrey Wu • a dayago

I'm struggling to see the intellect in thiscomment. To think or infer that this concept borrowed design solutions from theJ-20 is laughable at best (especially considering the PRC's fabulous trackrecord of honoring intellectual property).
1. This is a CONCEPT, NOT an actual workingdesign (if they've even gotten that far yet). They'd NEVER show a workingdesign this far from a down select for security and proprietary reasons.
2. The only design solution that remotelyresembles anything from the J-20 is perhaps the canards with the dihedral. Butthen this isn't the J-20 was the first to examine. As mentioned before severalJAST/JSF design concepts utilized LO designs with canards and in fact theNorthrop/McAir NATF was going to use a canard configuration WITH dihedral.
3. The rest of the jet shares no otherdesign features with the J-20 other than being a twin engine single seatfighter with inlets on the wing root junction. The wing is completely differentbeing a cranked delta, the engines are much wider spaced and most importantlythere are no vertical stabs.
Nothing to see here.
Up 7  Down 1

我努力观察这个评论中的理解力。认为或推断这个概念机是从J-20借鉴的设计方案充其量是可笑的 (特别是考虑到中华人民共和国荒诞的尊重知识产权记录)。
1。这是一架概念机,而不是一个实际的工作设计(假设他们甚至远未做的那么多)。他们从来没有展示一个这样远非向下选择的安全与专利的原因的工作设计。
2。唯一的设计解决方案,仅仅使用了与J - 20类似的东西也许是拥有二面角的鸭翼。不过这不是J- 20首次验证。正如前面提到过的几个JAST/ JSF设计理念,利用鸭翼起降的设计并且事实上诺斯罗普/麦道的海军先进战术战斗机曾将使用一个有二面角的鸭式布局。
3。共享飞机的其余部分没有其他J- 20的设计特点除了拥有进气口位于翼根连接部的双发动机单座战斗机。机翼作为一个弯曲的三角形是完全不同的,发动机有非常宽的间隔,而最重要的是没有垂直尖刺。
没什么好看的。
顶 7   踩1

Ed→peacehugger • 2 daysago

It actually reminded me quite a lot of thePAK FA instead, with its separated, straight ducts and the resulting wide bodydesign. Undoubtedly though there's much more to it, that's completely differentfrom either.
Up 2

相反它实际上提醒了我相当多的PAK FA的特征,其分离,笔直的进气道和由此产生的宽机身设计。毫无疑问尽管还有更多的特征,这是完全不同于其他飞机的。
顶 2

Sferrin→Ed • a day ago

All of you need to get your eyes checked.
Up 4

你们所有人都需要检查眼睛。
顶 4

Ed→sferrin • 10 hoursago

There's a difference between "remindsme of" and "looks like". ;) I was considering the craft's layoutdesign and considerations, not its looks.
It seems to me that this design is asignificant deviation from the more common "inlets apart, enginestogether" horizontal S-duct layout found in the F-22, Su-47 and J-20. Inall fairness, the YF-23 also has its engines spaced apart, but the PAK FA'slayout was what sprang to mind first for me - perhaps because the YF-23 stillhas a bit of an s-duct at least. In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if thedesigners at Boeing followed some similar trains of thought as the designers atSukhoi.
Come to think of it, for the X-32 Boeingalso preferred a radar blocker over an s-duct. Perhaps someone up in Boeingsdesign team doesn't like the concept of s-ducts so much?
0

“让我想起”和“看起来像”是有区别的。;）我正在考虑这款飞机的布局设计和注意事项,而不是它的外表。
在我看来,这种设计与更常见的在F - 22,苏47和J – 20上发现的“分离进气口,无间距引擎”横向S形进气道布局有显著差异。平心而论,YF-23也有引擎间距,但PAK FA的布局是第一个我突然想到的,也许是因为YF-23仍至少有点S形进气道布局的影子。在任何情况下,我不会感到惊讶,如果波音公司的设计师遵循一些苏霍伊设计师的类似思路的话。
想想看,对于X-32波音公司也倾向雷达屏障多于S形进气道。也许波音设计团队的某些人不那么喜欢这个S型进气道的概念?               

Sferrin→Ed • 9 hours ago

With the X-32 Boeing's only option was ablocker. Where would they have put an S-duct?
0
对于X-32波音的唯一的选择是一个雷达屏障。他们会把一个S形进气道放在那里呢?

Ed→sferrin • 5 hoursago

Designing a plane is an integrated process.It's not like they simply decided on some layout, then scratched themselves onthe back of the head and said, "Shit... What about stealth?" In otherwords, stealth is taken into account from the very start of the design process- Boeing could have chosen to implement an s-duct just as readily as LockMartcould (and did). The result would indeed have been a fundamentally differentX-32, one that possibly looked a bit more like the X-35.
Why they didn't make that choice I ofcourse don't know... Perhaps they are experienced with radar blockers? Perhapsthey found that s-ducts would make the fuselage too wide? In any case, withthis new proposal they seem to stand by their belief that they can take care ofthe stealth requirements without s-ducts.
Up 1

设计一架飞机是一个综合的过程。它不像他们简单地决定一些布局,然后挠自己的后脑勺并且说:“妈的……隐身怎么办?“换句话说,隐身从一开始的设计过程就被考虑,波音可能选择实施一个S形进气道只要简单地重复洛马从前的能力(而且确实如此)。结果确实已经是一架从根本上不同的X-32,这可能看起来有点更像X-35。
为什么他们不做出这样的选择，我当然不知道……也许他们有雷达屏障的经验?也许他们发现S形进气道将使机身太宽?在任何情况下,有了这个新提议他们似乎站在他们的信念一边,他们可以照顾隐形需求而没有S形进气道。
顶 1

Dudeman→peacehugger • a dayago

The U.S. doesn't need to copy from planesthat are already copies of the F-22/F-35
Up 8  Down 1
美国不需要山寨F-22 / F–35的山寨版本
顶 8   踩 1

Peacehugger→dudeman • a day ago

the F-22/F-35 don't have canards.
Up 2
F-22/F-35没有鸭翼。
顶2

Ed • 2 days ago

O-M-G. No S-ducts! The bottom and the toparen't flat! Canards, even! How could this possibly be stealthy?!
/sarcasm
At least with these new designs the generalpublic (including me) can get a bit more informed about what may be acceptablefor stealth - in foreign designs too.
One thing I am wondering about though -that wide front body, I *think* that's typically avoided to provide some morevisibility downwards. Perhaps they would provide that electronically in thiscraft?
It looks pretty cool, anyhow.
Up 1

卖-糕-的。没有S形进气道!底部和顶部不是平坦的! 甚至有鸭翼! 这玩意怎么有可能隐形呢? !
/讽刺
公众(包括我)对至少这些新设计可以得到一个更多的了解什么可能达到可接受的隐身-国外设计也一样。
虽然有一件事我感到奇怪——宽广的前机身,我*认为*这是通常避免提供一些更多的向下能见度。也许他们会在这架飞机中以电子成像的方式提供?
总之它看起来很酷。
顶 1

Knut Holt • 2 days ago

It is clear that F-35 does not deliver whatwas promised, so I guess Boeing is working hard to be able to vedge into themarket for F-35 and shut that down with this 6th-generation tool.
0

很明显F – 35无法按时交付,所以我猜波音正在努力能够进入F - 35市场并用第六代战机取代它。

Sferrin→Knut Holt • a dayago

You should alert the USAF, USN, USMC, andRoyal Navy. Apparently they're not as smart as you.
0
你应该警告美国空军,美国海军,美国海军陆战队和皇家海军。显然他们没有像你这样的智慧。

Henry Cobb • 2 days ago

If you want transonic then you need to haveairfoils ahead of or behind the main wing. Canards are simply the more fuelefficient option. Was thrust vectoring mentioned?
0
如果你想要跨音速,那么你需要有位于主翼之前或之后的翼面。鸭翼简单地更高的燃料效率的选项。提到推力矢量了吗?

Sferrin→Henry Cobb • a dayago

Yeah, NASA disagreed with that - about 30years ago. For the speeds fighters typically fly at the best choice is a tailrather than canard *if the rest of your requirements allow it*.
0

是的, 约30年前美国宇航局不赞同。通常的高速战斗机典型飞行对的最好选择是加一个尾翼而不是鸭翼*如果你其他的要求允许它*。

Brad • a day ago

So how about we cancel the F-35 and just gofor this airframe?
Up 1

那么我们取消F – 35并只选择这个机体如何?
顶 1

Sferrin→Brad • a day ago

Yeah that'll work. Then in 20 years whenthis thing is just entering service all the people crying about delays andcosts can say that again.
Up 1

是的,会那么做。然后在20年内当这种飞机刚进入现役时所有的人为延迟交付和成本哭泣可以再说一遍同样的话。
顶1

Danno45 • a day ago

Right. Nice pic. Trouble is 1) this thingisn't ready to be built and Boeing would ask for trillions from the DOD todevelop it. And of course it wouldn't be ready and we would have to spend evenmore than we budgeted for 20 We would have to listen to all the politicalintrigue that John McCain would offer blah...blah...blah. 2) LM would offertheir own pretty picture and it would also cost probably even more thanBoeing's picture. 3) The DOD would ask for 1000 copies and end up with 5.
Up 1

好吧。漂亮的图片。麻烦的是1)这玩意没有准备建造而且波音公司会从国防部要求上万亿来开发它。当然,这不会是准备好了,我们将不得不花更多20倍的预算。我们将不得不听取所有约翰·麦凯恩将提供不拉不拉不拉的废话的政治阴谋。2)洛马将提供他们自己的美丽的图片,它还将花费甚至可能比波音的图片更多的成本。3)美国国防部会要求生产1000架而最终只有5架。
顶1

CF • a day ago

I thought the Americans think that the bestplace for canards is your enemy's plane. No?
0

我认为美国人觉得鸭翼最好的位置是在敌人的飞机上。不是吗？

Adam Holtz • 21 hours ago

I don't get it. Why are the inlet cowlsswept so far back like that? Shouldn't they be swept forward somewhat (like allof the other DSI designs) to position the normal shock in the correct location?
0

我不明白。为什么到目前为止的进气道整流罩仍像那样向后扫掠?他们不应该稍微向前扫掠(像所有其他的DSI设计那样)来定位正激波于正确的位置吗?

bobbymike34 • 21 hours ago

If you were to look at the number of ATFdesigns that appeared in pictures until we finally got to the F-22 and F-23 flyoffs this is just one of dozens of prospective iterations that will make itonto the web in picture form that will probably bear little to no resemblanceto what the 6th Gen will look like when built.
0

如果你看大量出现在照片上的ATF设计,直到我们终于到达了F - 22和F-23飞离这只不过是许多潜在的迭代之一,这将使它以图片的形式在网络上, 当建造时可能会承担少许没有相似性的6代战机未来的外观。

Pseudon. • 18 hours ago

Canards are no more unstealthier thanelevators from a specular RCS standpoint, but creeping waves from the canardsis a cause of concern
0

从一个镜像雷达截面积的角度看，鸭翼比电梯没有更多的非隐形性,但是来自鸭翼的蠕动波是一个重要原因

Anymouse • 6 hours ago

The Navy needs to build this plane ASAP.F-35C is a temporary bandaid that is breaking the bank for little real gain incapability.
0

美国海军需要尽快建造这架飞机。F - 35 C是一个临时急救绷带, 在性能上是为了小的现实利益而倾家荡产。






http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-181157-1-1.html

Boeing reveals updated F/A-XX concept龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com
波音公司披露更新的F/A-XX概念战斗/攻击机


http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/04/boeing-reveals-updated-fa-xx-c.html

By Dave Majumdar on April 7, 2013 11:59 PM
戴伍·马宗达于2013年4月7日晚上11:59发表

Boeing is unveiling an updated version ofits F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter concept at the Navy League's Sea-Air-SpaceExposition in Washington DC this week.
波音公司本周于华盛顿特区举行的海军协会的海空天博览会上推出一款F/A-XX第六代概念战斗机的更新版本。

The tail-less twin-engine stealth fighterdesign comes in "manned and unmanned options as possibilities per the USNavy," Boeing says. The design features diverterless supersonic inletsreminiscent of those found on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
这款无尾双引擎隐形战斗机的设计可以满足“美国海军有人和无人选项的每个可能性,”波音公司声称。该设计突出的无附面层隔道超音速进气道（DSI）让人想起那些基于洛克希德·马丁公司的F-35联合打击战斗机的设计。



The Boeing concept also features canards,which is somewhat of a surprise because the motion of those forward mountedcontrol surfaces is generally assumed to compromise a stealth aircraft'sfrontal radar cross-section. But the lack of vertical tail surfaces suggeststhe aircraft would be optimized for all-aspect broadband stealth, which wouldbe needed for operations in the most challenging anti-access/area denialenvironments.
这款波音的概念战斗机还包括鸭翼,这让人有些惊讶,因为这些前部安装的控制翼面的运动通常被假设为一个隐形飞机的正面雷达截面积的妥协。但没有垂直尾面显示了该战机将被全向宽频隐形优化,这将需要在最具挑战性的反介入/区域封锁的环境下操作。

Also of note in the manned version of thecompany's F/A-XX concept is the placement of the cockpit--rearward visibilityappears to be restricted without the aid of a sensor apparatus similar to theF-35's distributed aperture system of six infrared cameras.
该公司的F/A-XX概念机的有人版本还值得注意的是驾驶舱的布局——向后方的能见度似乎没有被借助类似于F-35的分布式孔径系统的六个红外摄像机的传感器装置限制。

The Boeing F/A-XXconcept is a response to a USN request for information (RFI) from April 2012soliciting data for a replacement for the service's Boeing F/A-18E/F SuperHornet and EA-18G Growler fleets in the 2030s. The Super Hornet fleet isexpected to start reaching the end of the jet's 9000h useful lifespan duringthat time period.
这款波音F/A-XX的概念机是美国海军从2012年4月寻求在2030年代替代现役的波音F/A-18E/F“超级大黄蜂”和EA - 18 G“咆哮者”编队的征集数据信息请求(RFI)的一个回答。超级大黄蜂编队预计在这段时间内将开始达到这种飞机9000小时的有效使用寿命的尾声。

"The intent of this research is tosolicit Industry inputs on candidate solutions for CVN [nuclear-poweredaircraft carrier] based aircraft to provide air supremacy with a multi-rolestrike capability in an anti-access/area denied (A2AD) operationalenvironment," the navy RFI had stated. "Primary missions include, butare not limited to, air warfare (AW), strike warfare (STW), surface warfare(SUW), and close air support (CAS)."
“这项研究的目的是要征求关于核动力航母[CVN]在一个反介入/区域封锁(A2AD)操作环境中提供制空权与多功能打击能力的舰载机候选解决方案的产业投入,”海军信息请求声明道。“主要任务包括（但不限于）空战(AW),打击作战(STW),水面作战(SUW),近距离空中支援(CAS)。”

Navy leaders had said at the time that theyexpect any new F/A-XX design to have greatly increased range and offer farsuperior kinematic performance compared to existing tactical aircraft.
海军领导人说,他们时刻期待任何新的F/A-XX设计来大大增加航程并提供远胜于现有的战术飞机的运动特性。

COMMENTS
评论

wuzafan • 2 days ago

reminds me of the time many years ago thatthe AF wanted to retire the A10( because they werent supersonic ) and use F16s.which usually dont go below 15,000 ft in their attack roles. CAS is down lowand dirty stuff, this abomination with no fins could not maneuver fer shit, andwould have to carry all those dirty weapons exposed to radar. and would theservices want to expose this expensive flying frisbee to ground weapons?
Up 0 Down 1

让我想起多年前空军想退役A10 (因为它们不是超音速的) 并使用F16战斗机的时代。通常不去低于15000英尺的高度行使它们攻击的角色。近距离空中支援是下流和肮脏的事情,这种没有垂尾的可憎的东西无法机动就是狗屁,就不得不搭载所有这些肮脏的武器暴露于雷达之下。而军队会想把这种昂贵的飞行中的飞盘暴露在地面武器面前吗?
顶 0  踩 1

S O →wuzafan • 2 days ago

Face it; A-10's cannot go low againstactual battlefield air defences. It was already a stretch in face of thousandsof Shilkas, and only became really possible in their absence over Iraq andAfghanistan.
Today's CAS is about seeing the enemy withsensors first and foremost. Almost anything you can take out with Mk 1 eyeballsin CAS could be handled by arty as well.
Up 5

面对它; A-10不能降低针对实际战场的空中防御。它已经是面对成千上万的Shilkas的一个延伸,只有在伊拉克和阿富汗它们才可能真的缺席。
今天的近距离空中支援是关于看到首先用传感器的敌人。在近距离空中支援中你都能用Mk 1眼球获得的几乎任何东西同样可以被富有艺术气息地使用。
顶 5

sferrin • 2 days ago

Nice. Cue "sux 'cuz you can't see torear" stupidity. Too bad it'll be a distant 3rd to whatever LM and NG cookup. What I really want to know is are they using fluidic TVC for lateralcontrol.
Up 1 Down 1•

不错。提示“垂尾导致你不能看到后方”太愚蠢了。它将变成一架像洛马和诺格虚构的那样的遥远的第三款飞机就太糟糕了。我真正想知道的是它们把流体推力矢量控制用于横向操作了吗。
顶 1   踩 1

Chad K Gray • 2 days ago

Given the fact this comes in both manned onunmanned versions, I see the unmanned verison doing alot of the a2g work whilethe manned version does alot of a2a work. Secondly, this is only a concept onpaper. I suspect the real thing, if it is ever built, will look alot different.
Up 3

鉴于这里出现有人和无人两个版本这一事实,我看到无人版执行许多空对地的任务,而有人版执行负责很多空对空任务。其次,这仅仅是一个在纸上的概念机。我怀疑是否有真正的东西,如果它已经建成，将看起来有很多不同。
顶 3

peacehugger • 2 days ago

Looks like a copy of the J-20 without thetail.
Up 20   Down 2

除了尾部外看起来像一个J-20的山寨版。
顶 20   踩2

Jeffrey Wu →peacehugger • 2 daysago

OMG, you can't just say that here.... theegocentric Americans will label you as a commie and throw insults at youbecause they don't have the intellect to admit the truth.
Up 10  Down 1

卖糕的, 在这里你不能只说这些....以自我为中心的美国人将给你贴上一个共匪的标签并辱骂你,因为他们没有智力去承认这个事实。
顶 10   踩 1

LOL→Jeffrey Wu • a dayago

Have a look at MD JSF and early LockheedATF design before you say so, smart
Up 7

你这么说之前先去看看MD JSF和早期洛克希德ATF的设计, ,放聪明些
顶7

Yahoo→LOL • 16 hours ago

its a joke. srly you merkans have no senseof humour
Up 0  Down 1

这只是个玩笑，你一点幽默感都没有
顶 0   踩 1

BDF→Jeffrey Wu • a dayago

I'm struggling to see the intellect in thiscomment. To think or infer that this concept borrowed design solutions from theJ-20 is laughable at best (especially considering the PRC's fabulous trackrecord of honoring intellectual property).
1. This is a CONCEPT, NOT an actual workingdesign (if they've even gotten that far yet). They'd NEVER show a workingdesign this far from a down select for security and proprietary reasons.
2. The only design solution that remotelyresembles anything from the J-20 is perhaps the canards with the dihedral. Butthen this isn't the J-20 was the first to examine. As mentioned before severalJAST/JSF design concepts utilized LO designs with canards and in fact theNorthrop/McAir NATF was going to use a canard configuration WITH dihedral.
3. The rest of the jet shares no otherdesign features with the J-20 other than being a twin engine single seatfighter with inlets on the wing root junction. The wing is completely differentbeing a cranked delta, the engines are much wider spaced and most importantlythere are no vertical stabs.
Nothing to see here.
Up 7  Down 1

我努力观察这个评论中的理解力。认为或推断这个概念机是从J-20借鉴的设计方案充其量是可笑的 (特别是考虑到中华人民共和国荒诞的尊重知识产权记录)。
1。这是一架概念机,而不是一个实际的工作设计(假设他们甚至远未做的那么多)。他们从来没有展示一个这样远非向下选择的安全与专利的原因的工作设计。
2。唯一的设计解决方案,仅仅使用了与J - 20类似的东西也许是拥有二面角的鸭翼。不过这不是J- 20首次验证。正如前面提到过的几个JAST/ JSF设计理念,利用鸭翼起降的设计并且事实上诺斯罗普/麦道的海军先进战术战斗机曾将使用一个有二面角的鸭式布局。
3。共享飞机的其余部分没有其他J- 20的设计特点除了拥有进气口位于翼根连接部的双发动机单座战斗机。机翼作为一个弯曲的三角形是完全不同的,发动机有非常宽的间隔,而最重要的是没有垂直尖刺。
没什么好看的。
顶 7   踩1

Ed→peacehugger • 2 daysago

It actually reminded me quite a lot of thePAK FA instead, with its separated, straight ducts and the resulting wide bodydesign. Undoubtedly though there's much more to it, that's completely differentfrom either.
Up 2

相反它实际上提醒了我相当多的PAK FA的特征,其分离,笔直的进气道和由此产生的宽机身设计。毫无疑问尽管还有更多的特征,这是完全不同于其他飞机的。
顶 2

Sferrin→Ed • a day ago

All of you need to get your eyes checked.
Up 4

你们所有人都需要检查眼睛。
顶 4

Ed→sferrin • 10 hoursago

There's a difference between "remindsme of" and "looks like". ;) I was considering the craft's layoutdesign and considerations, not its looks.
It seems to me that this design is asignificant deviation from the more common "inlets apart, enginestogether" horizontal S-duct layout found in the F-22, Su-47 and J-20. Inall fairness, the YF-23 also has its engines spaced apart, but the PAK FA'slayout was what sprang to mind first for me - perhaps because the YF-23 stillhas a bit of an s-duct at least. In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if thedesigners at Boeing followed some similar trains of thought as the designers atSukhoi.
Come to think of it, for the X-32 Boeingalso preferred a radar blocker over an s-duct. Perhaps someone up in Boeingsdesign team doesn't like the concept of s-ducts so much?
0

“让我想起”和“看起来像”是有区别的。;）我正在考虑这款飞机的布局设计和注意事项,而不是它的外表。
在我看来,这种设计与更常见的在F - 22,苏47和J – 20上发现的“分离进气口,无间距引擎”横向S形进气道布局有显著差异。平心而论,YF-23也有引擎间距,但PAK FA的布局是第一个我突然想到的,也许是因为YF-23仍至少有点S形进气道布局的影子。在任何情况下,我不会感到惊讶,如果波音公司的设计师遵循一些苏霍伊设计师的类似思路的话。
想想看,对于X-32波音公司也倾向雷达屏障多于S形进气道。也许波音设计团队的某些人不那么喜欢这个S型进气道的概念?               

Sferrin→Ed • 9 hours ago

With the X-32 Boeing's only option was ablocker. Where would they have put an S-duct?
0
对于X-32波音的唯一的选择是一个雷达屏障。他们会把一个S形进气道放在那里呢?

Ed→sferrin • 5 hoursago

Designing a plane is an integrated process.It's not like they simply decided on some layout, then scratched themselves onthe back of the head and said, "Shit... What about stealth?" In otherwords, stealth is taken into account from the very start of the design process- Boeing could have chosen to implement an s-duct just as readily as LockMartcould (and did). The result would indeed have been a fundamentally differentX-32, one that possibly looked a bit more like the X-35.
Why they didn't make that choice I ofcourse don't know... Perhaps they are experienced with radar blockers? Perhapsthey found that s-ducts would make the fuselage too wide? In any case, withthis new proposal they seem to stand by their belief that they can take care ofthe stealth requirements without s-ducts.
Up 1

设计一架飞机是一个综合的过程。它不像他们简单地决定一些布局,然后挠自己的后脑勺并且说:“妈的……隐身怎么办?“换句话说,隐身从一开始的设计过程就被考虑,波音可能选择实施一个S形进气道只要简单地重复洛马从前的能力(而且确实如此)。结果确实已经是一架从根本上不同的X-32,这可能看起来有点更像X-35。
为什么他们不做出这样的选择，我当然不知道……也许他们有雷达屏障的经验?也许他们发现S形进气道将使机身太宽?在任何情况下,有了这个新提议他们似乎站在他们的信念一边,他们可以照顾隐形需求而没有S形进气道。
顶 1

Dudeman→peacehugger • a dayago

The U.S. doesn't need to copy from planesthat are already copies of the F-22/F-35
Up 8  Down 1
美国不需要山寨F-22 / F–35的山寨版本
顶 8   踩 1

Peacehugger→dudeman • a day ago

the F-22/F-35 don't have canards.
Up 2
F-22/F-35没有鸭翼。
顶2

Ed • 2 days ago

O-M-G. No S-ducts! The bottom and the toparen't flat! Canards, even! How could this possibly be stealthy?!
/sarcasm
At least with these new designs the generalpublic (including me) can get a bit more informed about what may be acceptablefor stealth - in foreign designs too.
One thing I am wondering about though -that wide front body, I *think* that's typically avoided to provide some morevisibility downwards. Perhaps they would provide that electronically in thiscraft?
It looks pretty cool, anyhow.
Up 1

卖-糕-的。没有S形进气道!底部和顶部不是平坦的! 甚至有鸭翼! 这玩意怎么有可能隐形呢? !
/讽刺
公众(包括我)对至少这些新设计可以得到一个更多的了解什么可能达到可接受的隐身-国外设计也一样。
虽然有一件事我感到奇怪——宽广的前机身,我*认为*这是通常避免提供一些更多的向下能见度。也许他们会在这架飞机中以电子成像的方式提供?
总之它看起来很酷。
顶 1

Knut Holt • 2 days ago

It is clear that F-35 does not deliver whatwas promised, so I guess Boeing is working hard to be able to vedge into themarket for F-35 and shut that down with this 6th-generation tool.
0

很明显F – 35无法按时交付,所以我猜波音正在努力能够进入F - 35市场并用第六代战机取代它。

Sferrin→Knut Holt • a dayago

You should alert the USAF, USN, USMC, andRoyal Navy. Apparently they're not as smart as you.
0
你应该警告美国空军,美国海军,美国海军陆战队和皇家海军。显然他们没有像你这样的智慧。

Henry Cobb • 2 days ago

If you want transonic then you need to haveairfoils ahead of or behind the main wing. Canards are simply the more fuelefficient option. Was thrust vectoring mentioned?
0
如果你想要跨音速,那么你需要有位于主翼之前或之后的翼面。鸭翼简单地更高的燃料效率的选项。提到推力矢量了吗?

Sferrin→Henry Cobb • a dayago

Yeah, NASA disagreed with that - about 30years ago. For the speeds fighters typically fly at the best choice is a tailrather than canard *if the rest of your requirements allow it*.
0

是的, 约30年前美国宇航局不赞同。通常的高速战斗机典型飞行对的最好选择是加一个尾翼而不是鸭翼*如果你其他的要求允许它*。

Brad • a day ago

So how about we cancel the F-35 and just gofor this airframe?
Up 1

那么我们取消F – 35并只选择这个机体如何?
顶 1

Sferrin→Brad • a day ago

Yeah that'll work. Then in 20 years whenthis thing is just entering service all the people crying about delays andcosts can say that again.
Up 1

是的,会那么做。然后在20年内当这种飞机刚进入现役时所有的人为延迟交付和成本哭泣可以再说一遍同样的话。
顶1

Danno45 • a day ago

Right. Nice pic. Trouble is 1) this thingisn't ready to be built and Boeing would ask for trillions from the DOD todevelop it. And of course it wouldn't be ready and we would have to spend evenmore than we budgeted for 20 We would have to listen to all the politicalintrigue that John McCain would offer blah...blah...blah. 2) LM would offertheir own pretty picture and it would also cost probably even more thanBoeing's picture. 3) The DOD would ask for 1000 copies and end up with 5.
Up 1

好吧。漂亮的图片。麻烦的是1)这玩意没有准备建造而且波音公司会从国防部要求上万亿来开发它。当然,这不会是准备好了,我们将不得不花更多20倍的预算。我们将不得不听取所有约翰·麦凯恩将提供不拉不拉不拉的废话的政治阴谋。2)洛马将提供他们自己的美丽的图片,它还将花费甚至可能比波音的图片更多的成本。3)美国国防部会要求生产1000架而最终只有5架。
顶1

CF • a day ago

I thought the Americans think that the bestplace for canards is your enemy's plane. No?
0

我认为美国人觉得鸭翼最好的位置是在敌人的飞机上。不是吗？

Adam Holtz • 21 hours ago

I don't get it. Why are the inlet cowlsswept so far back like that? Shouldn't they be swept forward somewhat (like allof the other DSI designs) to position the normal shock in the correct location?
0

我不明白。为什么到目前为止的进气道整流罩仍像那样向后扫掠?他们不应该稍微向前扫掠(像所有其他的DSI设计那样)来定位正激波于正确的位置吗?

bobbymike34 • 21 hours ago

If you were to look at the number of ATFdesigns that appeared in pictures until we finally got to the F-22 and F-23 flyoffs this is just one of dozens of prospective iterations that will make itonto the web in picture form that will probably bear little to no resemblanceto what the 6th Gen will look like when built.
0

如果你看大量出现在照片上的ATF设计,直到我们终于到达了F - 22和F-23飞离这只不过是许多潜在的迭代之一,这将使它以图片的形式在网络上, 当建造时可能会承担少许没有相似性的6代战机未来的外观。

Pseudon. • 18 hours ago

Canards are no more unstealthier thanelevators from a specular RCS standpoint, but creeping waves from the canardsis a cause of concern
0

从一个镜像雷达截面积的角度看，鸭翼比电梯没有更多的非隐形性,但是来自鸭翼的蠕动波是一个重要原因

Anymouse • 6 hours ago

The Navy needs to build this plane ASAP.F-35C is a temporary bandaid that is breaking the bank for little real gain incapability.
0

美国海军需要尽快建造这架飞机。F - 35 C是一个临时急救绷带, 在性能上是为了小的现实利益而倾家荡产。






http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-181157-1-1.html