超级军网前掠翼彻底彻底的杯具了吗？
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/28 21:32:08
当年很为47的前掠翼惊艳，觉得毛子还是有胆量乱搞的。
好像叫金鹰？
现在t50也许可行性比金鹰强，但是山寨22的影子是逃不掉了。
我记得兵器知识上好像有过一个专题，说前掠翼如何如何好云云。
现在感觉各国丝带每一个用它，应该是彻底的悲剧了吧。当年很为47的前掠翼惊艳，觉得毛子还是有胆量乱搞的。
好像叫金鹰？
现在t50也许可行性比金鹰强，但是山寨22的影子是逃不掉了。
我记得兵器知识上好像有过一个专题，说前掠翼如何如何好云云。
现在感觉各国丝带每一个用它，应该是彻底的悲剧了吧。
好像叫金鹰？
现在t50也许可行性比金鹰强，但是山寨22的影子是逃不掉了。
我记得兵器知识上好像有过一个专题，说前掠翼如何如何好云云。
现在感觉各国丝带每一个用它，应该是彻底的悲剧了吧。当年很为47的前掠翼惊艳，觉得毛子还是有胆量乱搞的。
好像叫金鹰？
现在t50也许可行性比金鹰强，但是山寨22的影子是逃不掉了。
我记得兵器知识上好像有过一个专题，说前掠翼如何如何好云云。
现在感觉各国丝带每一个用它，应该是彻底的悲剧了吧。
悲剧了
回LZ：Yes，absolute.
那期《兵器知识》为了吹S37，只讲优点，没讲缺点呗。
有没有可能诈尸？
很久以前还听说鸭翼可能要杯具，现在却蓬勃的很
很久以前还听说鸭翼可能要杯具，现在却蓬勃的很
No less importantly, the PAK-FA is by Western standards a low risk design, following the Russian philosophy of “evolutionary” design, rather than the “Big Bang” approach currently favoured in the West, of trying to start from scratch with most or every key portion of the design.
It is important to note that the Russian approach to development more than often differs from the Western approach, particularly that of the United States industry, with a much stronger Russian focus on risk management and risk minimisation. A powerful approach evident in the development of the Flanker family of aircraft has been, firstly, to plan long term, then to spread developmental risks across the series of planned new aircraft types and variants as well as parallel design/development activities. The benefits of such an approach are clearly obvious.
The best illustration of how much more effective Russian systems development philosophy is, is that the development of the PAK-FA, with a projected budget in the order of US$10 Billion, was launched officially in 2002, concurrently with the launch of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, yet the latter has experienced repeated delays in schedule, repeated problems with basic technology, and remains heavily laden with accumulated design risks as well as inordinately high and growing costs.
If the objective is to produce a design on-time and on-cost without unpleasant surprises, there is much to be said for the Russian approach to systems development.
Russian sources indicate that the prototypes will be fitted with a derivative of the existing Su-35S avionic suite to reduce risk and cost. It is likely that this strategy of risk reduction by the use of existing production hardware will apply to other key internal components. The use of the 117S series engine common to the Su-35S in PAK-FA prototypes is a prime example.
Another example is the basic layout or configuration of the PAK-FA airframe design, which is demonstrably based on the T-10 Flanker series, with a large centre fuselage carapace, a pair of long serpentine engine inlet ducts, with inlets beneath a large LEX, the engines mounted in blast resistant tubes, which also provide the means for reacting empennage control surface and TVC loads, and a blended forward fuselage raised above the engine centrelines, not unlike the Flanker and F-14 series. The forward and centre fuselage design is therefore closer to the Flanker and YF-23 than the F-22A. The wing planform is closest to F-22, reflecting design aims in VLO shaping and supersonic cruise performance.
Where the PAK-FA departs most strongly from the earlier Flanker, the F-22 and the YF-23 is in the aft fuselage design, and the moving LEX or Povorotnaya Chast' Naplyva (PChN) design, intended to provide extreme manoeuvrability and controllability and, thus, extreme agility - an attribute absent in the F-22 and YF-23, but extant in some later Flanker variants, demonstrators and prototype programs.
To provide extreme agility, Sukhoi's design team employed all-moving stabilators and canted tail fins, a nodding movable LEX design, and 3D axi-symmetric engine nozzles. The wide spacing of the fully articulated fins and engine nozzles provides a much larger moment arm for both aerodynamic and TVC roll and yaw inputs, than observed with previous designs. While the tail surfaces do not impair observables, the use of axi-symmetric 3D nozzles does, no differently than the fixed axisymmetric nozzle of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The latter raises some very interesting questions about key design trade-offs, as yet not explained by Sukhoi. The existing design configuration suggests that extreme manoeuvrability was rated to be more important than all-aspect stealth was, suggesting in turn that the aircraft was not intended for use as a deep penetrator in the manner of the F-22 and YF-23. Given the low priority given in Western nations to the maintenance of deep overlapping SAM belt air defences, the susceptibility to aft quarter SAM shots inherent in limited all aspect stealth performance may not have been assessed as a risk worth serious investment in defeating.
Conversely, the current design may be an expedient development shortcut, with a more refined aft quarter VLO design to appear with the final production engine. The quality of the front quarter VLO design demonstrates that Sukhoi are capable of producing an aft quarter VLO shaping design no worse than the F-22A or YF-23 designs.
With the current PAK-FA configuration, which may well differ from a production configuration, stealth appears to be used primarily to deny an aerial opponent an early BVR firing opportunity, permitting the PAK-FA to close to a distance where its superior energy performance, extreme agility and large internal missile payload permit it to dominate the close combat engagement.
The combination of aerodynamic design features for extreme agility, high thrust/weight performance supersonic cruise engines to provide supersonic persistence, and the large combat persistence provided by a large internal fuel load and large weapons loads, make the PAK-FA the best fit to the Boyd “energy manoeuvrability” model yet to be developed.
The extreme agility of the PAK-FA design, when employed harmoniously with the other 5th generation design features, opens up a range of new tactical options, not feasible with established or currently planned Western fighter designs.
Consider a conventional BVR tail chase engagement geometry against an operational PAK-FA derivative air dominance fighter. A conventional fighter with legacy teen series class aerodynamic design and performance, an example being the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, is positioned behind the PAK-FA, at a range of ~50 nm, with its X-band multimode radar locked and tracking, assuming that the PAK-FA aircraft retains the high signature aft fuselage and nozzle design.
The use of extreme agility design features would permit the PAK-FA derivative to perform reversal manoeuvres faster than conventional fighter designs, causing the pursuing fighter to lose radar lock as the PAK-FA presents its VLO class nose aspect to the pursuing fighter. Within seconds the PAK-FA can establish a weapons lock, as the weapon system will have established the position and identity of the pursuing fighter during the immediately preceding tailchase. The pilot of the initially pursuing fighter will then be presented with a salvo of mixed seeker equipped BVR missiles closing at high speed on a reciprocal heading.
The full tactical potential of extreme agility, especially in BVR engagements, remains to be explored at this time, as most studies to date have been strongly focussed on the close combat advantages arising from this flight regime.
Multiple Russian sources state that the PAK-FA will carry eight Air-to-Air Missiles in internal bays, with the option of another eight externally carried weapons in “permissive” threat environments. This emulates the strategy pursued by American designers in the F-22, and claimed but not properly implemented with the F-35 designs.
The PAK-FA has an unusually robust undercarriage design, more typical for carrier based naval fighters than land based fighters. This is consistent with the intended STOL capability to operate from short field FOBs, or MOBs with damaged runways, but also fulfils the intent to deploy a navalised carrier variant in the future. The latter was the subject of some discussion during the public debate in Russia, at the time the PAK-FA program was launched, but not a feature of the more recent debate. The configuration of the existing design would require that the tailhook be carried in the aft centreline weapons bay.
Based on analysis of the features and history of the PAK-FA design observed to date, an apt summary of this aircraft would be a High Speed/High Agility Interceptor/Air Dominance Fighter/Persistent Strike/ISR Platform, built for operation from short unprepared FOBs, and readily adapted for aircraft carrier operations.
What is abundantly clear from the basic design of the PAK-FA, is that this aircraft is the only design globally, which will be credibly capable of competing with the F-22 Raptor in air combat. It is also a much better fit to the stated, but very poorly implemented in the F-35, intent for a multi-service multirole fighter
It is important to note that the Russian approach to development more than often differs from the Western approach, particularly that of the United States industry, with a much stronger Russian focus on risk management and risk minimisation. A powerful approach evident in the development of the Flanker family of aircraft has been, firstly, to plan long term, then to spread developmental risks across the series of planned new aircraft types and variants as well as parallel design/development activities. The benefits of such an approach are clearly obvious.
The best illustration of how much more effective Russian systems development philosophy is, is that the development of the PAK-FA, with a projected budget in the order of US$10 Billion, was launched officially in 2002, concurrently with the launch of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, yet the latter has experienced repeated delays in schedule, repeated problems with basic technology, and remains heavily laden with accumulated design risks as well as inordinately high and growing costs.
If the objective is to produce a design on-time and on-cost without unpleasant surprises, there is much to be said for the Russian approach to systems development.
Russian sources indicate that the prototypes will be fitted with a derivative of the existing Su-35S avionic suite to reduce risk and cost. It is likely that this strategy of risk reduction by the use of existing production hardware will apply to other key internal components. The use of the 117S series engine common to the Su-35S in PAK-FA prototypes is a prime example.
Another example is the basic layout or configuration of the PAK-FA airframe design, which is demonstrably based on the T-10 Flanker series, with a large centre fuselage carapace, a pair of long serpentine engine inlet ducts, with inlets beneath a large LEX, the engines mounted in blast resistant tubes, which also provide the means for reacting empennage control surface and TVC loads, and a blended forward fuselage raised above the engine centrelines, not unlike the Flanker and F-14 series. The forward and centre fuselage design is therefore closer to the Flanker and YF-23 than the F-22A. The wing planform is closest to F-22, reflecting design aims in VLO shaping and supersonic cruise performance.
Where the PAK-FA departs most strongly from the earlier Flanker, the F-22 and the YF-23 is in the aft fuselage design, and the moving LEX or Povorotnaya Chast' Naplyva (PChN) design, intended to provide extreme manoeuvrability and controllability and, thus, extreme agility - an attribute absent in the F-22 and YF-23, but extant in some later Flanker variants, demonstrators and prototype programs.
To provide extreme agility, Sukhoi's design team employed all-moving stabilators and canted tail fins, a nodding movable LEX design, and 3D axi-symmetric engine nozzles. The wide spacing of the fully articulated fins and engine nozzles provides a much larger moment arm for both aerodynamic and TVC roll and yaw inputs, than observed with previous designs. While the tail surfaces do not impair observables, the use of axi-symmetric 3D nozzles does, no differently than the fixed axisymmetric nozzle of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The latter raises some very interesting questions about key design trade-offs, as yet not explained by Sukhoi. The existing design configuration suggests that extreme manoeuvrability was rated to be more important than all-aspect stealth was, suggesting in turn that the aircraft was not intended for use as a deep penetrator in the manner of the F-22 and YF-23. Given the low priority given in Western nations to the maintenance of deep overlapping SAM belt air defences, the susceptibility to aft quarter SAM shots inherent in limited all aspect stealth performance may not have been assessed as a risk worth serious investment in defeating.
Conversely, the current design may be an expedient development shortcut, with a more refined aft quarter VLO design to appear with the final production engine. The quality of the front quarter VLO design demonstrates that Sukhoi are capable of producing an aft quarter VLO shaping design no worse than the F-22A or YF-23 designs.
With the current PAK-FA configuration, which may well differ from a production configuration, stealth appears to be used primarily to deny an aerial opponent an early BVR firing opportunity, permitting the PAK-FA to close to a distance where its superior energy performance, extreme agility and large internal missile payload permit it to dominate the close combat engagement.
The combination of aerodynamic design features for extreme agility, high thrust/weight performance supersonic cruise engines to provide supersonic persistence, and the large combat persistence provided by a large internal fuel load and large weapons loads, make the PAK-FA the best fit to the Boyd “energy manoeuvrability” model yet to be developed.
The extreme agility of the PAK-FA design, when employed harmoniously with the other 5th generation design features, opens up a range of new tactical options, not feasible with established or currently planned Western fighter designs.
Consider a conventional BVR tail chase engagement geometry against an operational PAK-FA derivative air dominance fighter. A conventional fighter with legacy teen series class aerodynamic design and performance, an example being the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, is positioned behind the PAK-FA, at a range of ~50 nm, with its X-band multimode radar locked and tracking, assuming that the PAK-FA aircraft retains the high signature aft fuselage and nozzle design.
The use of extreme agility design features would permit the PAK-FA derivative to perform reversal manoeuvres faster than conventional fighter designs, causing the pursuing fighter to lose radar lock as the PAK-FA presents its VLO class nose aspect to the pursuing fighter. Within seconds the PAK-FA can establish a weapons lock, as the weapon system will have established the position and identity of the pursuing fighter during the immediately preceding tailchase. The pilot of the initially pursuing fighter will then be presented with a salvo of mixed seeker equipped BVR missiles closing at high speed on a reciprocal heading.
The full tactical potential of extreme agility, especially in BVR engagements, remains to be explored at this time, as most studies to date have been strongly focussed on the close combat advantages arising from this flight regime.
Multiple Russian sources state that the PAK-FA will carry eight Air-to-Air Missiles in internal bays, with the option of another eight externally carried weapons in “permissive” threat environments. This emulates the strategy pursued by American designers in the F-22, and claimed but not properly implemented with the F-35 designs.
The PAK-FA has an unusually robust undercarriage design, more typical for carrier based naval fighters than land based fighters. This is consistent with the intended STOL capability to operate from short field FOBs, or MOBs with damaged runways, but also fulfils the intent to deploy a navalised carrier variant in the future. The latter was the subject of some discussion during the public debate in Russia, at the time the PAK-FA program was launched, but not a feature of the more recent debate. The configuration of the existing design would require that the tailhook be carried in the aft centreline weapons bay.
Based on analysis of the features and history of the PAK-FA design observed to date, an apt summary of this aircraft would be a High Speed/High Agility Interceptor/Air Dominance Fighter/Persistent Strike/ISR Platform, built for operation from short unprepared FOBs, and readily adapted for aircraft carrier operations.
What is abundantly clear from the basic design of the PAK-FA, is that this aircraft is the only design globally, which will be credibly capable of competing with the F-22 Raptor in air combat. It is also a much better fit to the stated, but very poorly implemented in the F-35, intent for a multi-service multirole fighter
材料进步下去，说不定以后民航用前掠翼了
《绝密飞行》中的飞机都是前掠翼的
总的来说，前掠翼并没有突出的优势，反而对材料的要求较高．
那个叫做S47金雕
前掠翼貌似实质上的缺点不多，优点不少，就是工艺材料要求..
前掠翼貌似实质上的缺点不多，优点不少，就是工艺材料要求..
ms前掠起降距离短，控制难，杨伟好像比较喜欢。不过他是搞飞控的，不是气动
作为MAVE控坚信前掠翼在材料过关和基于电致动器的智能蒙皮搞出来以后应该能有一个发展前途。。。
冰特凉 发表于 2010-2-16 20:08 
是可变掠翼的说...除了那个无人机 :D
是可变掠翼的说...除了那个无人机 :D
有隐身这个死穴，前掠以相当的杯具。。。
是叫金雕···
隐身性不好也是个死穴吧。这个不像别的，很难克服。
canghaiyijing 发表于 2010-2-16 21:19
MD不参与的话，不知何年何月了
MD不参与的话，不知何年何月了
hehaozhi 发表于 2010-2-16 19:40
没有x29探路，毛子有胆量才见鬼。
没有x29探路，毛子有胆量才见鬼。
先想想自从金雕出来后世界上又新研制成了几种飞机？现在四代机了，新机出得越来越慢，自然还没人用。前掠翼可以大幅提高升力，至于隐身，应该不会有太大影响！
kwah 发表于 2010-2-16 19:42 absolutely.这里作副词用
absolutely.这里作副词用qzs_wyf 发表于 2010-2-16 20:14
本来就没有什么突出优点，美国和苏联试验过之后就压根不提了。SU47本来就是验证机，验证一下前掠翼也很正常，中国某些小白说什么都不必惊讶，本来就什么都不懂，一看苏联人试验前掠翼就狂说前掠翼好。
本来就没有什么突出优点，美国和苏联试验过之后就压根不提了。SU47本来就是验证机，验证一下前掠翼也很正常，中国某些小白说什么都不必惊讶，本来就什么都不懂，一看苏联人试验前掠翼就狂说前掠翼好。
如果水平尾翼或鸭翼还是后掠的，前掠翼从定义上就没法做到前后缘任何之一与水平尾翼或鸭翼的某个缘平行，没办法形成较少的雷达波束的反射方向。
此外前掠翼机翼和机身之间的角是锐角，个人估计更有可能在前向的某个方向形成类似角反射器的雷达波反射效应。
此外前掠翼机翼和机身之间的角是锐角，个人估计更有可能在前向的某个方向形成类似角反射器的雷达波反射效应。
看技术发展呗，鸭式曾经杯具过，现在洗具了。
小折刀很好，用在海军截击/攻击机上不错
人家绝密飞行里的MD舰载机都是前掠翼的嘛。。。
我觉得前掠翼是方便空中倒车用的
这个可不一定.还是有发展前途的.
{:3_77:} 总有一天会行的
ok1985 发表于 2010-2-18 20:06
这句话说的，我也可以说人类总有一天会灭绝的
这句话说的，我也可以说人类总有一天会灭绝的
其实，看看s-47的吨位和双发的配置，不是一般的验证机那么简单的，苏夫伊不会在毫无把握的情况下花费巨资制造个重量级机出来验证一些幻想的东西....8;纯粹为了验证前略翼的话完全可以在现有机种里选一个改装一下来测试，比如用苏24或苏25都可以...
其实，看看s-47的吨位和双发的配置，不是一般的验证机那么简单的，苏夫伊不会在毫无把握的情况下花费巨资制造个重量级机出来验证一些幻想的东西....8;纯粹为了验证前略翼的话完全可以在现有机种里选一个改装一下来测试，比如用苏24或苏25都可以...