@@muffdiver4973 really, is Google the burning bush the gospel truth? I went through tech school and was a technician on it so they are not as the OP alleges. If Google is so reverent, what are they called then? I'll let you answer that.
I flew the Bone for 20 years and never once referred to them as canards. They're called SMCS (pronounced Smucks) vanes and are used at low level to control stresses on the airframe while performing low level maneuvering. They are not associated with the pilots inputs like normal canard control surfaces are, but rather by their own independent system (called the SMCS Exciter) that drives them to control the structural loads on the airframe, and give the crew a little better ride.
@@muffdiver4973 Well UA-cam deleted my comments yet again, I said again no triggered words, what else does Google tell you that they are? Google is not the Oracle it's not the gospel. They are not canards, what did Google say they were if anything? I was a technician I went to tech school in the mid-90s and they are absolutely not canards. Look at the size them that should tell you that something but you know aircraft experience I take it because of your comment.
If you want to be picky, the very very first F-14’s had small canards that deployed when the wings were fully swept back. They were removed for the main production runs but were a design element very late into testing and development.
Why does everyone not understand what vortex stabilization is, and that those things are vortext stabilizers, their pitch doesn’t change so it isn’t a canard.
those are glove vanes and it wasnt the very very first f14s that had them all f14As had them but they were removed for increasing the maintenance cost and time
@@cheem2473 To further expand, it wasn't worth the maintenance cost because effectively zero dogfighting occurs at supersonic speeds where the vanes only purpose was to provide a marginal increase in turn rate. Also they were never removed off the A's, they just had the hydraulic system disabled and the vanes welded to the airframe, they wouldn't be removed from the design until the Bombcat's appeared.
The reference was actually that of Harry Hillaker, chief designer of the F-16, who famously stated: "The optimum position for canards is on somebody else's aircraft".
LMAO what a crock of shit lol Neither US government nor USAF tell the developers what aerodynamic layout to use. It's entirely up to the developer what layout to adopt.
I would consider 'normal' to be a cross shaped airplane where the wings are exactly perpendicular like the c130, a10, and ww2 fighters. The wing pattern on the f15, f22, and f35 are approaching blended wing aircraft since much of the lift comes from the fuselage. I believe the f22 wing is called a lambda,...maybe gamma, wing, but it is correct to say the US doesn't use delta wing aircraft. The sr71 is probably the closest to delta that was flown by US production aircraft
It's just a difference of philosophy. Canards will give you better maneuverability but you lose energy faster. It was a decision based on 90's technology but with the advent of longer range and HOBS missiles, most likely European fighters will soon give up canard wings as well.
also aren't the current fighter jets more maneuverable than the human body can survive? increasing maneuverability is pointless when the meatbag at the controls is going to pass out or die under the g forces.
@@BassRacerx remote operation. The planes will be partially AI-capable, with human pilots able to take them over at any time. The remotes can pull insane 15G maneuvers, because the human isn't in them.
Modern aircraft that utilise canards are not the aircraft of "old." Nowadays, they are attached to lightweight airframes with vast amounts of excess thrust & highly advanced FCS, allowing them to maintain energy much longer than their contemporaries (albeit, if flown right). CASE IN POINT : DACT in the Typhoon | James Sainty (Clip) / Aircrew Interview ua-cam.com/video/1AF-pytPalE/v-deo.html
Could you do an episode on the F 16 with deltawings ("XL") and why it never came into service, while it had a much bigger ranger and could carry more weapons. Was that because there would have been overlapping with the role of other planes in service ?
How can you even say in your opening statement that the USA believes canards are only used on underpowered aircraft? The euro fighter used by lots of nations including my Home country of the UK has a first a weight ratio greater than one for that statements thrown out the window straight away. I do believe the French Raphael is in pretty much the same category.
One thing to add - though the Eurofighter in its final stages was a joint European program, its origins can be traced back to a joint Germany-US project aircraft called the Rockwell X-31.
Delta-wing aircraft rely on vortex lift to remain airborne. Close-coupled canards encourage the generation of such vortices. The Eurofighter is an exception to this, as at its intentionally high level of pitch instability (16% MAC) for minimal drag close-coupled canards no longer provide a lift benefit, instead going for a longer lever allowing for smaller canards and even further reduced drag.
The F-16 Fighting Falcon AFTI had slanted canards under the intakes, which worked wonders in flight, and the pilots couldn't believe how powerful those wings were. Of course, they didn't use them outside of testing.
Fly by wire was pioneered in 1954 on the prototype A3J Vigilante design which entered service in 1961 and became the A5A in 1962 and then became the RA5C in 1065. The F4 had leading edge slats from the beginning. Slats on jets were introduced in the late 1940's on aircraft like the F86. With the claims made at the start of the video being wrong what else did they get wrong?
@@donaldsmith1055 After checking with some sources, this is false. F-4Bs didn't have slats, slats started on F-4E Block 48 Agile Eagle, fitted in 1972 but were not used on Combat. F-4S has it too, but that was introduced in 1977.
Video says that to exploit canards, you need "advanced flight control and fly by wire".... And then you think of the IAI Kfir and Mirage 3 and 5 derivatives that had the canards concept from the 70s...
"Canard" definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: An airplane with horizontal stabilizing and control surfaces in front of supporting surfaces also : a small airfoil in front of the wing of an aircraft that can increase the aircraft's performance"
The biggest aerodynamic advantage of canard configuration fighters is eliminating trim drag to sustain a given maneuvering state. Conventional configurations with negative pitch stiffness effectively achieve the same thing by moving the Cg far enough aft. But conventional surfaces are more conducive to frontal RCS reduction and visibility.
Canards can be useful for specific situations. But... With an aft tail airplane you can properly size the wing and incorporate leading and trailing edge maneuvering flaps to achieve better sustained load factor capability (much better drag polar). Also being able to fly a few percent statically unstable when subsonic largely alleviates the tail trim download issue.
The canard wings of the United States are a conventional layout with a pair of canard wings "added". The increase in wing surface will reduce stealth performance, while the canard wings of other countries simply turn the tail wing into canard wings, which does not reduce stealth performance.
Why aren't top hats cool anymore. Variable thrust does the same thing without the added drag and radar sig. Besides, F/A-18 does the same thing with its frame shape alone.
Although thrust vectoring greatly reduces the RCS, it still comes at a price of cost, a big weight penalty & more complexity. The canards on modern aircraft do not produce that much drag. Aircraft such as the modern "Euro Deltas" are all capable of supercruise & are more than capable of out-rating anything in the US arsenal. In terms of performance, the only aircraft that gives them a "headache" is the Raptor (& so it should, considering how much more it cost to develop, buy & operate). CASE IN POINT : DACT in the Typhoon | James Sainty (Clip). @Aircrew Interview ua-cam.com/video/1AF-pytPalE/v-deo.html Typhoon instructor talks about DACT against the F15. @Aircrew Interview ua-cam.com/video/AHuBZoIhtyc/v-deo.html Fighting in the Typhoon | Paul Godfrey. @Aircrew Interview ua-cam.com/video/5UijGM8tOvI/v-deo.html
@@THE-BUNKEN-DRUM Thrust-vectoring isn't super-useful if you don't have great TWR anyways, for example I forgot what AF did it but it had a joint mock WVR fights and their Su-30s with TVC after using it would literally fall out of the sky.
Anyone who has seen the Rafale at an airshow cannot understand your statement about reduced maneuverability with canards. Also the episode with a "clean" f22 does not support this claim.
Money is the reason for no canards. In the DoD pricing schedules the cost formula is cost = w x (1.6 x 17560)(2500 X 400). So each canard would cost $24.6 million
I seem to remember a NASA research plane associated with DARPA that featured a modified F16 called the Cranked Arrow that featured delta wings with canards that purportedly was well received and highly maneuverable but never heard more about it. Was this craft explored in your research of this topic?
While I understand that their comment is about the front winglets. Why does it feel like people don't understand what the canard is. Because the tail wings of the F16, F22 and the F35 are functionally the exact same as the canard but on the back of the aircraft.
I don't think so....they're behind the cockpits on those planes. But with the Eurofighter, the large canards are right below and a little forward of the cockpit. I once put that to a RAF Eurofighter pilot and he admitted he'd have to roll/bank the plane to get a downward view.
Canards are a nothing more than an additional control surface that can also provide additional lift or aid in airflow over the fuselage. The U.S. Military and Aircraft producers use an alternative known as "LEX" or Leading Edge Extensions. LEX are most visible on the Navy's F/A-18 models, but are also on later F-16s and, to a lesser extent F-14s and F-15s. While the F-22 & F-35 mixes LEX with air intakes to a much lesser degree. The dogma of the U.S. Military over the past few decades has been to produce aircraft capable of traveling to a theater of war quickly, engage the enemy at a distance through superior RADAR, shoot & kill the enemy with missiles before they've a chance to engage your aircraft. Canards don't help in that scenario
Perhaps it is appropriate to remember when the US NAVY and the MARINE CORPS used the F-21 Kfir aircraft for several years in dissimilar aerial training, which I understand have canards, although it is true that they are two different organizations of the USAF.
Canard’s downwash reduces the effective angle of attack of the wing. This reduces lift. On the other hand, the canards tip vortex supplies a ‘fence’ that inhibits span-wise flow on the wing,an idea similar to a leading edge dog tooth. This keeps the wing flying at greater AoA. Optimizing canard control thru all flight regimes …a challenge to say the least! The U.S. tail heavy approach must have some advantages. Likely it’s just a trade of preferences. But considering the F15 kill ratio is what? 120 to 0 U.S. must be doing something right. Cheers
The future is in stealth drones with no moving flight controls, maneuvering by active flow control in an AI augmented networked hive that takes orders from a manned command plane or surface control facility and creatively tackle combat without micro managing from a human.
Dont say "no aircraft" - the B1A has canards/whiskers. You missed some others and some of the images of the aircraft with canards were wrong as well. The F-5 never had a canard version. The second image is the X-29 and the last was not the F-35. It was a potential Navy version of the F-22. There was also the F-15 ACTIVE that had canards and thrust vectoring AND my favorite, the X-31 EFM. Hands down the coolest supermaneuverable x plane we ever made. Where did you get your info? Its bad. Or did you just guess?
This video is extremely misinformative, in several aspects. First, American aircraft usually have 2 eating surfaces (tail and wings) + lex. According to many aircraft that had delta wings, they only had one control surface. The introduction of canards in delta wings began with the Viggen, Kfir, Cheetha and Mirage 4000 precisely to improve maneuverability at low speeds and generate more lift, thus also having 2 comand surfaces. just like lex, canards has pros and cons are very similar. There are American aircraft that have canards, f14 has contractible canards, lex and variable geometry wings...completely non-function. The US Navy has already purchased and operated Kfir as training aircraft. Russian aircraft like su33, su30, su34 use canards as a third control surface to increase their maneuverability, and it works amazingly both at low speeds and at high speeds. Chinese aircraft also use canards like the J15, J10 and J20 (and don't tell me that this makes the aircraft less stealthy because the Rafale has the lowest RCS of the 4th gen aircraft). The USA does not use canards because they do not have enough know-how to apply canards to their aircraft and they do not want to have to change existing production lines or modernize existing aircraft for cost reasons. but canards and lex are extremely functional for the aerospace industry, and we will increasingly see aircraft with one of these designs.
The main reason is they look stupid, and ruin the sexy lines when flying over the football stadium during the senators homecomeing . This is how the DOD gets cash to do its day job.
i say canards dont look supid take for example the gripen or the viggen they still look amazing even with the canards because the canards is what brings the whole plane together to give it that nice look otherwise the viggen would just look like a plane that put its wings too far back and the gripen would just look like an f20 or an f5 although the look of canards on some planes can be stupid i just have to disagree with you on this one
NASA has huge amounts of data on aerodynamic of various aircraft, with nearly 90 years of data. NACA played an important role for WW2 aircraft. And since then. Fly-by-wire technology makes many aerodynamics systems practical. The US has also used LERX, Leading Wing Root EXtensions as an alternative. Especially the F-18. The US was even able to fly the F-117 and alternative stealth research aircraft with poor aerodynamics. Also forward swept and flying wing aircraft. The B-21 could be adapted to a number of different roles requiring stealth, survivability, endurance, range, and heavy loads. Also working with various drones for communications, C3I and sensor loads. The XB-47 is a proven aircraft for these roles. Including the ability to carry many long range air-to-air missiles. There are many potential options. Ramjets could potentially be fitted to air-to-air missiles to increase speed and range.
Canards also makes the Fighter slugish, make it slower due to the higher drag and vortex on the canards and wings, while we need less drag to make a fighter faster and also give kinetic energy to the BVR missiles to make them fly further
So is that why F-35 needs fuel guzzling afterburner to sustain supersonic speeds? While "Euro-canards" are capable to supercruise in their typical AA loadout.
It is the cost. AirForce writes specs and the companies make their proposals. One reason is they have never done it before so thats the way the spec is written. Use only true and tried designs. So we can have WW2 components in the designs.
The F-15 has those Engine intake ducts That are movable. I'd think they could act as canards possibly if they had a different shape. Also they are in the right position to act as a strake for generating a Vortex for the wing like the strake on an F-18.
This video has very little detail on the disadvantages of canards. Adding two more control surfaces is no small matter when it comes to RCS, weight, complexity, and maintenance.
I always believed the whole point of all the testing the U.S. did with canards was to convince other countries that they were a good idea. China with the American-financed design they bought from Israel, as an example. As to maneuverability, I'm not too sure that any canard equipped aircraft can out-maneuver an F-22 with thrust vectoring. Besides, with helmet cueing targeting and all aspect missiles, what good is that ability. Fighter pilots (or maybe Fighter Generals) always want a great dogfighting a/c. Maybe they plan to mix it up with a Fokker Triplane or a Mitsubishi Zero.
Im not an expert, by any means, but the only canards I see in use are on the current production European fighters, (Typhoon, Rafale & Gripen) and they all use the delta wing configuration. I'm only guessing, but it seems the canards are used in place of traditional stabilators, since a delta wing design has no empennage. _edit:_ I dont really keep up with Russian and Chinese jets, so I dont know what those guys are doing.
I look forward to when we are intelligent enough to take advantage of canard wings in tandem with vectored thrust. while we are at it we might as well use gravity as our source of propulsion. magnets and whatnot.
Easiest way to think about it, front wheel steering vs rear wheel steering for a car. Front wheel is better for maintaining speed and control, but rear wheel steering is more maneuverable and better able to get nose on target faster. It all depends on what traits are valued more and the mission it's designed for. You also can't stall canard aircraft because the canards lose lift before the main wing, so the nose just drops while the main wing still has lift.
It was mainly an assertion that dogfighting would be less common so fewer dogfighting tricks would be incorporated in the design. I don't buy it considering just how manueverable the F/A-18 and F-22 are (even the F-35 is much more manueverable than people realize)
@@johnh2410 none but some of the artist concept designs floating out there have what look like retractable canards (which honestly if they could make that work and only deploy them during a merge would be pretty sweet!) and like every concept I’ve seen go the f/a-xx have canards I was just saying, like in general cuz I mean the j-20 has them and that’s supposed to be 5th gen…but you are right the only supposed 6th gen I’ve seen is the b-21 and the tempest/godzilla (FCAS?) design
If I had to say why the usaf does have them? Every 4 star general that was a pilot looked at them and thought they looked stupid and wouldn't approve any design with them.
because maintenance crews probably would tear them off or weld them to the frame anyways xDD like the turkey feathers on the F-15E's or the glove vanes on the Tomcats xDDD
If you use canards forplanes with delta wings it says much safer at slower speeds & landing Otherwise landings a lot faster changing landing distance the French Rafale they use on aircraft carriers and our Eurofighter Typhoon not a naval aircraft
Bots cracking jokes about canards being an obsolete and odd european habit while lets take a look at the most credible F/A-XX shapes😂😂 (it most likely will have canards)
I think that the solution to knowing if the B-1B has canards or not, can be solved by knowing what the definition of canard is according to some official USAF nomenclature document, this regardless of what the damping system is actually called in the bomber plane manual. In that way, the interesting discussion could be ended. It would also help to know the original definition of the term in French, its language of origin, but only if in France there is a single academy that manages the language, which I understand is not the case for the English language. For example, I found the word canard in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, but not in the Oxford dictionary.
If you are going to use canard wings on an airplane, you have to design the airplane around those, not slapping them onto an already existing airplane. Seems that the US Air Force didn't get that memo!
The irony of the whole debate around the dominance of medium/long range in future air combat is that the the canard equipped planes of the NATO Air Forces actually have a distinct advantage here because of their Meteor missile, which is significantly better than even the latest iteration of the AMRAAM missiles equipping US planes! One hears much about the "latest" fancy family of "superior" missiles destined for the US planes, but to date the delivery dates keep extending out into infinity! Even then, the projected (hypothetical) performance of the these missiles still doesn't eclipse the Meteor! Much is also made of the F-35 Block 4 release package which would (maybe, and at least theoretically) enable new F-35 builds to mount Meteor missiles, this is by no means certain, and certainly not definite. NATO customers of F-35 (especially UK) are waiting in desperation for this capability. The Royal Navy has two new big carriers, which were actually designed specifically for the F-35B variant, and now sits with older low spec F-35Bs which can never carry its primary weapon, the Meteor missile. By the time the order of 48 F-35s has been delivered to the Royal Navy, the ships would be approaching their first major refit! Fortunately for the French, their carrier is equipped with Dassault Refale, which has a carrier capability, so they are not so badly affected, as Rafale is Meteor capable. It's a sad state of affairs!
The only department it is "significantly" better is really in range, other than that seeker wise, all modern missiles perform similarly (except R-77-1).
@@M16_Akula-III The Meteor also has a throttleable capability. In other words Meteor can conserve fuel till very far into its range then throttle up to full speed for the final intercept phase at top speed. As far as I am aware no other similar missile has this capability. This makes the "no escape zone" much larger than any other missile. [Not sure if exact terminology is correct, but one hopefully gets the picture.]
@dennisleighton2812 Well, it only works, if it doesn't work flame out. If the Meteor flames out, there will be no more thrust as the engine isn't restartable
@@M16_Akula-III If pigs could fly we'd shoot for pork! Worst case scenario in any case in the case you mention is that then it would just operate just like an AMRAAM, which at that point in its flight would have been ballistic (not powered) anyway. As far as I've been able to find, such occurrences appear not to be a problem at all, but I admit my sources could be in error. Can you point to any more detailed info on "flame out"? I'd be interest to read of such accounts.
@dennisleighton2812 The Meteor uses a rocket ramjet basically. In certain cases when pulling too many Gs, the airflow will be cut, and after that there's no way for it to re-light. Although in reality, the Meteor approaches terminal at around M3.8, while most rocket-powered missiles would go terminal at around M2.8-3.1. Even if the seeker performance is worse, the speed advantage hugely makes up for it. Any AAM that runs ramjet can also re-lock and attack the same target, provided it still has fuel.
@@kdrapertrucker Stealth technology remains relevant today; however, for countries like China, Russia, and the United States, its significance has diminished. These nations have developed their own systems and methods to detect, identify, and track stealthy silhouettes, frequencies, and heat signatures.
They don't put guns in modern aircraft. The original F-15 was designed fifty years ago. An example of a modern aircraft would be the F-35, which doesn't have a gun.
@@PzIV-E it has gun its the GAU-22/A a simpel Google search would have given you the answer. the variant that doesn't have one mounted at all times is the F-35 B because of take of weight.
Nothing to do with conservative thinking by the decision makers or the influence of the 'not invented here' syndrome then? I'm sure someone will correct me but isn't it nigh on impossible to stall an aircraft with horizontal canard control surfaces? The comment, about them being good radar reflectors is specious, they're just little wings, if they can design main wings to be stealthy they can design canards to be stealthy also!
I hate fake voices
I know Raf-aylee????
THIS!
@ you have a point, but unless they don’t speak English I’d prefer to hear a human voice.
bur some people sound shit, and would do better with AI instead of this ... but this video could have been done in 5minuits instead of 10
grYpen
Your statement that "No plane in the US Air Force doesn't have canards." Ah Contraire - The B1B has Canards!
Those are not canards.
@@JSFGuy Google disagrees with your statement.
@@muffdiver4973 really, is Google the burning bush the gospel truth? I went through tech school and was a technician on it so they are not as the OP alleges. If Google is so reverent, what are they called then? I'll let you answer that.
I flew the Bone for 20 years and never once referred to them as canards. They're called SMCS (pronounced Smucks) vanes and are used at low level to control stresses on the airframe while performing low level maneuvering. They are not associated with the pilots inputs like normal canard control surfaces are, but rather by their own independent system (called the SMCS Exciter) that drives them to control the structural loads on the airframe, and give the crew a little better ride.
@@muffdiver4973 Well UA-cam deleted my comments yet again, I said again no triggered words, what else does Google tell you that they are? Google is not the Oracle it's not the gospel. They are not canards, what did Google say they were if anything? I was a technician I went to tech school in the mid-90s and they are absolutely not canards. Look at the size them that should tell you that something but you know aircraft experience I take it because of your comment.
If you want to be picky, the very very first F-14’s had small canards that deployed when the wings were fully swept back. They were removed for the main production runs but were a design element very late into testing and development.
Well those ar not real canards, they arefixed pitch stabilizers, that can only be deployed or retracted, cannot be used to change the plane attitude.
Why does everyone not understand what vortex stabilization is, and that those things are vortext stabilizers, their pitch doesn’t change so it isn’t a canard.
those are glove vanes and it wasnt the very very first f14s that had them all f14As had them but they were removed for increasing the maintenance cost and time
@@cheem2473 To further expand, it wasn't worth the maintenance cost because effectively zero dogfighting occurs at supersonic speeds where the vanes only purpose was to provide a marginal increase in turn rate.
Also they were never removed off the A's, they just had the hydraulic system disabled and the vanes welded to the airframe, they wouldn't be removed from the design until the Bombcat's appeared.
The reference was actually that of Harry Hillaker, chief designer of the F-16, who famously stated: "The optimum position for canards is on somebody else's aircraft".
I prefer the quote from the F-22, who stated: "Canards are gay".
@@t1m3f0xsilly comment
LMAO what a crock of shit lol Neither US government nor USAF tell the developers what aerodynamic layout to use. It's entirely up to the developer what layout to adopt.
When did it say that the developers were told not to use them?
well, canard wings are better for Delta Wings, america mostly builds normal configurations ...
I would consider 'normal' to be a cross shaped airplane where the wings are exactly perpendicular like the c130, a10, and ww2 fighters. The wing pattern on the f15, f22, and f35 are approaching blended wing aircraft since much of the lift comes from the fuselage. I believe the f22 wing is called a lambda,...maybe gamma, wing, but it is correct to say the US doesn't use delta wing aircraft. The sr71 is probably the closest to delta that was flown by US production aircraft
@@fredsmith9714The F4D, F-102, and F-106 would like a word with you.
@@griffinfaulkner3514 Also, the B-58 Hustler.
@fredsmith9714 the a4 sky hawk is a delta-winged aircraft...
@griffinfaulkner3514 don't forget the a4
Your AI voicebot needs upgrading.
FFS, just have a REAL person read this stuff. The AI is horrid.
Too right! WTF is a Rafailey? 😄
Not if you're high as fukkkk. Hahahaha
American pride baby, that's why.
It's just a difference of philosophy. Canards will give you better maneuverability but you lose energy faster. It was a decision based on 90's technology but with the advent of longer range and HOBS missiles, most likely European fighters will soon give up canard wings as well.
Apparently, China's J-20 still adopts the canard philosophy.
also aren't the current fighter jets more maneuverable than the human body can survive? increasing maneuverability is pointless when the meatbag at the controls is going to pass out or die under the g forces.
@BassRacerx Good point!
@@BassRacerx remote operation. The planes will be partially AI-capable, with human pilots able to take them over at any time. The remotes can pull insane 15G maneuvers, because the human isn't in them.
Modern aircraft that utilise canards are not the aircraft of "old." Nowadays, they are attached to lightweight airframes with vast amounts of excess thrust & highly advanced FCS, allowing them to maintain energy much longer than their contemporaries (albeit, if flown right).
CASE IN POINT :
DACT in the Typhoon | James Sainty (Clip) / Aircrew Interview
ua-cam.com/video/1AF-pytPalE/v-deo.html
Could you do an episode on the F 16 with deltawings ("XL") and why it never came into service, while it had a much bigger ranger and could carry more weapons. Was that because there would have been overlapping with the role of other planes in service ?
before the Gripen, there was the Viggen.
How can you even say in your opening statement that the USA believes canards are only used on underpowered aircraft? The euro fighter used by lots of nations including my Home country of the UK has a first a weight ratio greater than one for that statements thrown out the window straight away. I do believe the French Raphael is in pretty much the same category.
The f15 c has a greater than 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio, so does the f15E and SE and EX...
6:55 Semi mechanical fly by wire system? What does this mean? I'm unaware of any version of the f-16 that was anything other than fly by wire.
One thing to add - though the Eurofighter in its final stages was a joint European program, its origins can be traced back to a joint Germany-US project aircraft called the Rockwell X-31.
That is why European fighters have canards on a high position. Never at the same level as the main wing. To avoid vortex.
U’r wrong, on the rafale, canards increase the vortex a-t-il low speed allowing the plane to lande on carryers
Delta-wing aircraft rely on vortex lift to remain airborne. Close-coupled canards encourage the generation of such vortices.
The Eurofighter is an exception to this, as at its intentionally high level of pitch instability (16% MAC) for minimal drag close-coupled canards no longer provide a lift benefit, instead going for a longer lever allowing for smaller canards and even further reduced drag.
Why f-14 had retractable canards?
The F-16 Fighting Falcon AFTI had slanted canards under the intakes, which worked wonders in flight, and the pilots couldn't believe how powerful those wings were. Of course, they didn't use them outside of testing.
Because there is a shortage of ducks.
Fly by wire was pioneered in 1954 on the prototype A3J Vigilante design which entered service in 1961 and became the A5A in 1962 and then became the RA5C in 1065. The F4 had leading edge slats from the beginning. Slats on jets were introduced in the late 1940's on aircraft like the F86. With the claims made at the start of the video being wrong what else did they get wrong?
Early F-4 variants didn't have slats, at least movable ones.
@@M16_Akula-III Navy aircraft as early as the F4B had them. They were power not free fall like on the A4.. Slats have to move to work.
@donaldsmith1055 Only Agile Eagle early Phantoms had them, outside of that, no other early Phantoms did.
@@donaldsmith1055 After checking with some sources, this is false. F-4Bs didn't have slats, slats started on F-4E Block 48 Agile Eagle, fitted in 1972 but were not used on Combat. F-4S has it too, but that was introduced in 1977.
Video says that to exploit canards, you need "advanced flight control and fly by wire".... And then you think of the IAI Kfir and Mirage 3 and 5 derivatives that had the canards concept from the 70s...
Extremely interesting! I'd always wondered. Warmest compliments. Thank you.
Raffeylee
"Canard" definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: An airplane with horizontal stabilizing and control surfaces in front of supporting surfaces
also : a small airfoil in front of the wing of an aircraft that can increase the aircraft's performance"
The biggest aerodynamic advantage of canard configuration fighters is eliminating trim drag to sustain a given maneuvering state. Conventional configurations with negative pitch stiffness effectively achieve the same thing by moving the Cg far enough aft. But conventional surfaces are more conducive to frontal RCS reduction and visibility.
Canards can be useful for specific situations. But... With an aft tail airplane you can properly size the wing and incorporate leading and trailing edge maneuvering flaps to achieve better sustained load factor capability (much better drag polar). Also being able to fly a few percent statically unstable when subsonic largely alleviates the tail trim download issue.
The canard wings of the United States are a conventional layout with a pair of canard wings "added". The increase in wing surface will reduce stealth performance, while the canard wings of other countries simply turn the tail wing into canard wings, which does not reduce stealth performance.
Why aren't top hats cool anymore. Variable thrust does the same thing without the added drag and radar sig. Besides, F/A-18 does the same thing with its frame shape alone.
Although thrust vectoring greatly reduces the RCS, it still comes at a price of cost, a big weight penalty & more complexity.
The canards on modern aircraft do not produce that much drag. Aircraft such as the modern "Euro Deltas" are all capable of supercruise & are more than capable of out-rating anything in the US arsenal. In terms of performance, the only aircraft that gives them a "headache" is the Raptor (& so it should, considering how much more it cost to develop, buy & operate).
CASE IN POINT :
DACT in the Typhoon | James Sainty (Clip). @Aircrew Interview
ua-cam.com/video/1AF-pytPalE/v-deo.html
Typhoon instructor talks about DACT against the F15. @Aircrew Interview
ua-cam.com/video/AHuBZoIhtyc/v-deo.html
Fighting in the Typhoon | Paul Godfrey.
@Aircrew Interview
ua-cam.com/video/5UijGM8tOvI/v-deo.html
@@THE-BUNKEN-DRUM Thrust-vectoring isn't super-useful if you don't have great TWR anyways, for example I forgot what AF did it but it had a joint mock WVR fights and their Su-30s with TVC after using it would literally fall out of the sky.
I saw the YF-4E last week. It is in storage at the Air Force Museum (NMUSAF). It actually started as a RF-4C.
Grypen? Rafaylee?
Di-a-bo-lick-al saa-boh-tay-jee!
It's AI text-to-switch
What? I thought it was some dumb hick reading 😅 Did you miss the "Marines not wanting to get the F-15s with the canard" . AI might have wrote it too 😅
Anyone who has seen the Rafale at an airshow cannot understand your statement about reduced maneuverability with canards. Also the episode with a "clean" f22 does not support this claim.
Problem number one: "We'll just slap those suckers on an existing aircraft!"... which wasn't designed to have them.
Money is the reason for no canards. In the DoD pricing schedules the cost formula is cost = w x (1.6 x 17560)(2500 X 400). So each canard would cost $24.6 million
I seem to remember a NASA research plane associated with DARPA that featured a modified F16 called the Cranked Arrow that featured delta wings with canards that purportedly was well received and highly maneuverable but never heard more about it. Was this craft explored in your research of this topic?
Tell you don't know what you're talking about without telling me you don't know what you're talking about.
So many errors.
What about the F-21A? The IAI Kfir in adversary role
While I understand that their comment is about the front winglets. Why does it feel like people don't understand what the canard is. Because the tail wings of the F16, F22 and the F35 are functionally the exact same as the canard but on the back of the aircraft.
doesnt the b1 lancer technically have canards though just look at the front of the plane is has tiny canards
The canards on the F-4 were similar to the F-15's horizontal stabs and to help verify the flight control laws.
They’re old news. Not needed and just make great radar reflectors.
Ralafe has the lowest rcs of the 4th gen aircraft...
The canard version of the F-16 could fly like an actual falcon. That's kinda cool. (Lose the fake voice.)
'Canard' means 'Duck' in French
Another example of text to speech being used but not proofread or listened to before publishing. This is lazy video making. Down vote.
At around 4m in, it says the F-15 didn't meet the US Marine Corps' requirements.
Just as well it was designed for the USAF then!
Already AJ 37 Viggen had canards, and tit entered service in 1971. I call BS on the fly-by-wire requirements.
Swiss mirages 3s had them too
Well you only need FBW If the Center of mass is behind the Center of lift. So every confic can be Made Stable and unstable
7:09 I’m sorry what did you just say?
In every single example the USAF have added canards, not part of design. No shit they'll not be perfect.
As the f-22 has said, “canards are gay”
Do the canards on the Gripen and Rafale obstruct pilot lines of sight and therefor situational awareness?
I don't think so....they're behind the cockpits on those planes. But with the Eurofighter, the large canards are right below and a little forward of the cockpit. I once put that to a RAF Eurofighter pilot and he admitted he'd have to roll/bank the plane to get a downward view.
Canards are a nothing more than an additional control surface that can also provide additional lift or aid in airflow over the fuselage. The U.S. Military and Aircraft producers use an alternative known as "LEX" or Leading Edge Extensions. LEX are most visible on the Navy's F/A-18 models, but are also on later F-16s and, to a lesser extent F-14s and F-15s. While the F-22 & F-35 mixes LEX with air intakes to a much lesser degree. The dogma of the U.S. Military over the past few decades has been to produce aircraft capable of traveling to a theater of war quickly, engage the enemy at a distance through superior RADAR, shoot & kill the enemy with missiles before they've a chance to engage your aircraft. Canards don't help in that scenario
Well, the USMC did use Kfir's as aggressors, would that count?
Perhaps it is appropriate to remember when the US NAVY and the MARINE CORPS used the F-21 Kfir aircraft for several years in dissimilar aerial training, which I understand have canards, although it is true that they are two different organizations of the USAF.
Ra faily? Seriously? Its Ra FAL (FAL pronounced like the rifle).
Rafale’s and Gripen’s are not canards technically either, they are vortex generators which the chime and apex on F18 and F16 do.
"Because we build em jets properly, sonni!"
Save some time for you - answer: we don't need them.
I believe the HiMat has some cannards as well
Canard’s downwash reduces the effective angle of attack of the wing. This reduces lift. On the other hand, the canards tip vortex supplies a ‘fence’ that inhibits span-wise flow on the wing,an idea similar to a leading edge dog tooth. This keeps the wing flying at greater AoA. Optimizing canard control thru all flight regimes …a challenge to say the least!
The U.S. tail heavy approach must have some advantages. Likely it’s just a trade of preferences. But considering the F15 kill ratio is what? 120 to 0 U.S. must be doing something right. Cheers
According to "'The Kid" ...."Canards are 🏳🌈."
That "F-5" was an X-29
THANK you. I could believe I was going to be first.
Canards produce a high radar return
The future is in stealth drones with no moving flight controls, maneuvering by active flow control in an AI augmented networked hive that takes orders from a manned command plane or surface control facility and creatively tackle combat without micro managing from a human.
Dont say "no aircraft" - the B1A has canards/whiskers. You missed some others and some of the images of the aircraft with canards were wrong as well. The F-5 never had a canard version. The second image is the X-29 and the last was not the F-35. It was a potential Navy version of the F-22. There was also the F-15 ACTIVE that had canards and thrust vectoring AND my favorite, the X-31 EFM. Hands down the coolest supermaneuverable x plane we ever made.
Where did you get your info? Its bad. Or did you just guess?
This video is extremely misinformative, in several aspects.
First, American aircraft usually have 2 eating surfaces (tail and wings) + lex.
According to many aircraft that had delta wings, they only had one control surface. The introduction of canards in delta wings began with the Viggen, Kfir, Cheetha and Mirage 4000 precisely to improve maneuverability at low speeds and generate more lift, thus also having 2 comand surfaces.
just like lex, canards has pros and cons are very similar.
There are American aircraft that have canards, f14 has contractible canards, lex and variable geometry wings...completely non-function.
The US Navy has already purchased and operated Kfir as training aircraft.
Russian aircraft like su33, su30, su34 use canards as a third control surface to increase their maneuverability, and it works amazingly both at low speeds and at high speeds.
Chinese aircraft also use canards like the J15, J10 and J20 (and don't tell me that this makes the aircraft less stealthy because the Rafale has the lowest RCS of the 4th gen aircraft).
The USA does not use canards because they do not have enough know-how to apply canards to their aircraft and they do not want to have to change existing production lines or modernize existing aircraft for cost reasons.
but canards and lex are extremely functional for the aerospace industry, and we will increasingly see aircraft with one of these designs.
The main reason is they look stupid, and ruin the sexy lines when flying over the football stadium during the senators homecomeing . This is how the DOD gets cash to do its day job.
Finally someone addressed the look! It's like a delta wing jet ran up the ass of a tiny one and stayed there.
i say canards dont look supid take for example the gripen or the viggen they still look amazing even with the canards because the canards is what brings the whole plane together to give it that nice look otherwise the viggen would just look like a plane that put its wings too far back and the gripen would just look like an f20 or an f5
although the look of canards on some planes can be stupid i just have to disagree with you on this one
NASA has huge amounts of data on aerodynamic of various aircraft, with nearly 90 years of data. NACA played an important role for WW2 aircraft. And since then. Fly-by-wire technology makes many aerodynamics systems practical. The US has also used LERX, Leading Wing Root EXtensions as an alternative. Especially the F-18. The US was even able to fly the F-117 and alternative stealth research aircraft with poor aerodynamics. Also forward swept and flying wing aircraft. The B-21 could be adapted to a number of different roles requiring stealth, survivability, endurance, range, and heavy loads. Also working with various drones for communications, C3I and sensor loads. The XB-47 is a proven aircraft for these roles. Including the ability to carry many long range air-to-air missiles. There are many potential options. Ramjets could potentially be fitted to air-to-air missiles to increase speed and range.
AI voice sucks
Canards also makes the Fighter slugish, make it slower due to the higher drag and vortex on the canards and wings, while we need less drag to make a fighter faster and also give kinetic energy to the BVR missiles to make them fly further
The Typhoon isn't sluggish and it's engine power is nothing to write home about.
So is that why F-35 needs fuel guzzling afterburner to sustain supersonic speeds?
While "Euro-canards" are capable to supercruise in their typical AA loadout.
It is the cost. AirForce writes specs and the companies make their proposals. One reason is they have never done it before so thats the way the spec is written. Use only true and tried designs. So we can have WW2 components in the designs.
The F-15 has those Engine intake ducts That are movable. I'd think they could act as canards possibly if they had a different shape. Also they are in the right position to act as a strake for generating a Vortex for the wing like the strake on an F-18.
The Su-57 does basically that
This video has very little detail on the disadvantages of canards. Adding two more control surfaces is no small matter when it comes to RCS, weight, complexity, and maintenance.
they never learn.. seems to me they made the mistake of thinking the days of dogfighting were over .then had to put guns back on fighters....
I always believed the whole point of all the testing the U.S. did with canards was to convince other countries that they were a good idea. China with the American-financed design they bought from Israel, as an example. As to maneuverability, I'm not too sure that any canard equipped aircraft can out-maneuver an F-22 with thrust vectoring. Besides, with helmet cueing targeting and all aspect missiles, what good is that ability. Fighter pilots (or maybe Fighter Generals) always want a great dogfighting a/c. Maybe they plan to mix it up with a Fokker Triplane or a Mitsubishi Zero.
Increasing the F-15's range 13% by adding canards is pretty significant.
How about add-on canards that can be jettisoned if the situation arises?
This is mostly due to reducing wing loading
one of the only plane with a canard was the stovl f15 / nasa f15 that was designed for stovl
I have read that the unique moving ramp air intakes of the F15 have the effect of canards.
Im not an expert, by any means, but the only canards I see in use are on the current production European fighters, (Typhoon, Rafale & Gripen) and they all use the delta wing configuration. I'm only guessing, but it seems the canards are used in place of traditional stabilators, since a delta wing design has no empennage.
_edit:_ I dont really keep up with Russian and Chinese jets, so I dont know what those guys are doing.
A number of Flanker derivatives have added canards in front of their wing roots. The latest "stealth" SU-57 also has canards in front of its intakes.
@@ronaldwong7969 Levcons. The "canards" on Su-33, Su-30 are non-operational by the pilot.
I look forward to when we are intelligent enough to take advantage of canard wings in tandem with vectored thrust.
while we are at it we might as well use gravity as our source of propulsion.
magnets and whatnot.
Chinese AF uses Canards in 5th Gen fighters too
If you're going to include the X-59, you should also be including the F-14 and B-1.
Xp55?
the short answer, the US still haven't figure out what the others have done.
BUT
it figured out the best excuses.
Easiest way to think about it, front wheel steering vs rear wheel steering for a car. Front wheel is better for maintaining speed and control, but rear wheel steering is more maneuverable and better able to get nose on target faster. It all depends on what traits are valued more and the mission it's designed for. You also can't stall canard aircraft because the canards lose lift before the main wing, so the nose just drops while the main wing still has lift.
ai trash video gets to the point at 6:00 or so
If stealth is the reason than why are a good amount of the future 5th and 6th gen fighters still going for canard designs?
It was mainly an assertion that dogfighting would be less common so fewer dogfighting tricks would be incorporated in the design. I don't buy it considering just how manueverable the F/A-18 and F-22 are (even the F-35 is much more manueverable than people realize)
What 6th gen fighter have you seen???
@@johnh2410 none but some of the artist concept designs floating out there have what look like retractable canards (which honestly if they could make that work and only deploy them during a merge would be pretty sweet!) and like every concept I’ve seen go the f/a-xx have canards I was just saying, like in general cuz I mean the j-20 has them and that’s supposed to be 5th gen…but you are right the only supposed 6th gen I’ve seen is the b-21 and the tempest/godzilla (FCAS?) design
The more complicated you make something, the rate of failure increases. KISS' Keep it simple stupid.
Canards are not inherently I'm stealthy the USAAF has state of this themselves
If I had to say why the usaf does have them? Every 4 star general that was a pilot looked at them and thought they looked stupid and wouldn't approve any design with them.
because maintenance crews probably would tear them off or weld them to the frame anyways xDD like the turkey feathers on the F-15E's or the glove vanes on the Tomcats xDDD
No mention of the Swedish Viggen, Israeli Kfir, or the South African Cheetah?
Since they are discussing US Air Force jets, foreign planes weren’t discussed.
Does israel still use kfirs?
@@snugglecity3500 Nope. But they're used as adversary aircraft for Top Gun.
@@DSmith-skeptic You mean like the Tornado or Eurofighter?
@@StephenYang Yup, the title didn't say NATO jets.... US Airforce.
If you use canards forplanes with delta wings it says much safer at slower speeds & landing
Otherwise landings a lot faster changing landing distance the French Rafale they use on aircraft carriers and our Eurofighter Typhoon not a naval aircraft
Stealth focus. Next thing to go would be the tail.
Bots cracking jokes about canards being an obsolete and odd european habit while lets take a look at the most credible F/A-XX shapes😂😂 (it most likely will have canards)
MOST of US fighter jets have good enough fixed canards. aka, LEX
May b with canards u get more maneuverability but at the cost of losing stealth 🙃
Rafale has the lowest rcs of the 4th gen aircraft
For me this video could have got the the meat of the video much sooner not have to wait until the very close to the end of the video.
I think that the solution to knowing if the B-1B has canards or not, can be solved by knowing what the definition of canard is according to some official USAF nomenclature document, this regardless of what the damping system is actually called in the bomber plane manual. In that way, the interesting discussion could be ended. It would also help to know the original definition of the term in French, its language of origin, but only if in France there is a single academy that manages the language, which I understand is not the case for the English language. For example, I found the word canard in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, but not in the Oxford dictionary.
The meaning of"canard" in French is "duck", as in "if she weighs as much as a duck, she's a witch".
F14 joins the chat...
Glove vanes are not canards
@@bigsteveh999 As they are a forewing in front of the main wing, they are. Technically called glove vane canards...
F-14 was not an Air Force Jet.
The F-14 is a navel jet, this video focuses on the U.S.A.F (United states air force)
@@kdrapertrucker Pretty sure the douche that made the video says "Air Force" and means anything that flies....
You had one job.
If you are going to use canard wings on an airplane, you have to design the airplane around those, not slapping them onto an already existing airplane. Seems that the US Air Force didn't get that memo!
The irony of the whole debate around the dominance of medium/long range in future air combat is that the the canard equipped planes of the NATO Air Forces actually have a distinct advantage here because of their Meteor missile, which is significantly better than even the latest iteration of the AMRAAM missiles equipping US planes!
One hears much about the "latest" fancy family of "superior" missiles destined for the US planes, but to date the delivery dates keep extending out into infinity! Even then, the projected (hypothetical) performance of the these missiles still doesn't eclipse the Meteor! Much is also made of the F-35 Block 4 release package which would (maybe, and at least theoretically) enable new F-35 builds to mount Meteor missiles, this is by no means certain, and certainly not definite. NATO customers of F-35 (especially UK) are waiting in desperation for this capability. The Royal Navy has two new big carriers, which were actually designed specifically for the F-35B variant, and now sits with older low spec F-35Bs which can never carry its primary weapon, the Meteor missile. By the time the order of 48 F-35s has been delivered to the Royal Navy, the ships would be approaching their first major refit! Fortunately for the French, their carrier is equipped with Dassault Refale, which has a carrier capability, so they are not so badly affected, as Rafale is Meteor capable.
It's a sad state of affairs!
The only department it is "significantly" better is really in range, other than that seeker wise, all modern missiles perform similarly (except R-77-1).
@@M16_Akula-III The Meteor also has a throttleable capability. In other words Meteor can conserve fuel till very far into its range then throttle up to full speed for the final intercept phase at top speed. As far as I am aware no other similar missile has this capability. This makes the "no escape zone" much larger than any other missile. [Not sure if exact terminology is correct, but one hopefully gets the picture.]
@dennisleighton2812 Well, it only works, if it doesn't work flame out. If the Meteor flames out, there will be no more thrust as the engine isn't restartable
@@M16_Akula-III If pigs could fly we'd shoot for pork!
Worst case scenario in any case in the case you mention is that then it would just operate just like an AMRAAM, which at that point in its flight would have been ballistic (not powered) anyway. As far as I've been able to find, such occurrences appear not to be a problem at all, but I admit my sources could be in error. Can you point to any more detailed info on "flame out"? I'd be interest to read of such accounts.
@dennisleighton2812 The Meteor uses a rocket ramjet basically. In certain cases when pulling too many Gs, the airflow will be cut, and after that there's no way for it to re-light. Although in reality, the Meteor approaches terminal at around M3.8, while most rocket-powered missiles would go terminal at around M2.8-3.1. Even if the seeker performance is worse, the speed advantage hugely makes up for it. Any AAM that runs ramjet can also re-lock and attack the same target, provided it still has fuel.
« The declining needs for canards in modern aircraft » because of the focus on MRM missiles… so why do they still put a gun in them?
The U.S. doesn't use canards because they design aircraft to do the same thing without the extra drag, plus canards are not stealthy.
@@kdrapertrucker Stealth technology remains relevant today; however, for countries like China, Russia, and the United States, its significance has diminished. These nations have developed their own systems and methods to detect, identify, and track stealthy silhouettes, frequencies, and heat signatures.
They don't put guns in modern aircraft. The original F-15 was designed fifty years ago. An example of a modern aircraft would be the F-35, which doesn't have a gun.
@@PzIV-E it has gun its the GAU-22/A a simpel Google search would have given you the answer.
the variant that doesn't have one mounted at all times is the F-35 B because of take of weight.
@@maggyyolokraut1941neither does the F-35c
Nothing to do with conservative thinking by the decision makers or the influence of the 'not invented here' syndrome then? I'm sure someone will correct me but isn't it nigh on impossible to stall an aircraft with horizontal canard control surfaces? The comment, about them being good radar reflectors is specious, they're just little wings, if they can design main wings to be stealthy they can design canards to be stealthy also!