Chinese Stealth Fighter shows improvement on US technology

reply to post by _Del_


Not the best choice of words, as "gentle turns" is more along the lines of the 5G range, instead of the normal 9+G range. The side bay doors from what I've heard affect maneuvering more than the doors on the belly do, but the speed at which they will be able to open and close, with the Scorpion installed, won't be as much of an affect as without it. Without it, they would have had to have the seeker head exposed much longer (3-5 second range minimum), which would have affected their ability to maneuver hard, which during WVR could be ugly.

reply to post by pheonix358


Old and wrong story, NASA did not spend a dime in R&D. I dislike NASA obtuseness as anyone but see no purpose on this type of propaganda beyond creating a popular view that NASA overspends...

reply to post by Zaphod58


I would hazard that the ventral doors would have a greater effect: more area introducing drag and would destroy some of the lift generated by the fuselage. But perhaps the doors of side bays are not stressed as strongly? It still seems unlikely that the rail launch envelope would be more limited than the AVEL.

Again, I'd be surprised if even the 5g number was correct. I'd guess 7g+, and I'm sure I've seen the 7g number in print regarding the AVEL envelope.

reply to post by _Del_


I've seen 5-7 quoted. Either way, having the doors open for an extended time is a lousy idea. Without the HMCS, if there wasn't another Raptor in the area that could help, they had to leave them open and get around on the target with the seeker head exposed.

They shouldn't be hanging around WVR at high G to get an Aim-9X anyway. Pop it off from 15+ miles and get out of town. Repeat as necessary.

I think it should be a mandatory
weapons system if the readiness is that much better.
A little dose of their own copy cat medicine might be good for them.

reply to post by _Del_


Right, but you know how the best laid plans go. Someone gets fixated on the target at 15 miles, and misses the pop up targets at 5, and it gets ugly.

reply to post by Zaphod58


It seems moot to me. The only reason HMCS wasn't in the first batch of F-22's was that the AF prefers to camel-nose procurement. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist for us. It's a clever fix if you need to have the seeker-head exposed. We don't. Missiles hanging about with the doors closed still produce extra drag and an RCS increase. The door closing probably helps, but how much? Having the doors closed might make launching easier/safer as the boundary layer is bound to be less disturbed.

I also wonder what having the door open and close twice as often does for the cycle times. Once they figure out how to datalink inertial information for LOAL efficiently, will they still want those doors?