STEALTH Killed AERODYNAMICS | why all modern jet fighters look alike
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 кві 2021
- Modern jet fighters all seem to look alike. The reason is Stealth.
The constraints imposed by stealth on the aircraft design means that all the jets adopt similar solutions.
#STEALTH #JET #FIGHTER
Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millenn...
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
tinyurl.com/y4g528lt
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the UA-cam Partner Program, Community guidelines & UA-cam terms of service.
Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millennium-7-history-technology
Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7
I think your roomba is going to unionize.
If you were making the procurement decisions for some country, would you buy more non-stealth fighters or less stealth aircraft for this imaginary country?
I remember the propaganda for stealth airplanes that said they could be stealthy without sacrificing airodynamics. Canards can be stealthy with the patented solution from SAAB. Not only bistatic radars can detect stealth. Broad band secure real time data links make it possible for more than one airplane at different locations to detect a stealth airplane.
i am more of a fan of 4th gen fighters and previous gens
Mac sounds combined with a DOS prompt, meh.
Like my mechanical engineering teacher once said: _"With the right engine even a tram can fly"_
Or a water tower!
Or a toilet
@@kingquackie7284 Or a manhole cover
With the right engine and a computer even a tram can make a soft landing.
@@Desrtfox71 or a dam
Please tell us more about stealth design and aerodynamics , this just feels like a taster!
Are you from china 🧐
@@TR1ppl3 haha no , I think they already stole all the stealth tech anyway
@@TR1ppl3 he looks like the a cybernetic race that wants to assimilate us... we should be careful
@@NickFallon88 Stealth tech is old
@@JABelms I mean, your not exactly wrong tbh lol, the Germans knew what was up towards the end of the Second World War. A flying wing design they where prototyping literally right before Hitler surrendered, it had A LOT of “stealthy” aspects to it, it’s overall shape and lines being the main things. They even went so far as to build an exact 1:1 scale replica of it to run radar tests on it and to their surprise it had a much MUCH smaller radar signature proportional to its size.
I describe stealth as a mirrored aircraft hanging in a dark hanger, and you shine a torch (flashlight) at it. Everything you can see is a radar return. the round heads of every rivet, the corner of every panel-joint, everywhere a curved surface is closest to you, everywhere a you can see a refection in the reflection ....
on an old aircraft, you will see a cloud of reflections of the thousands of rivets, a bright spot on every curved surface of the aircraft or its engines ... and so on.
Very well put, thanks.
L.
When Police in the USA first began using Speed RADAR, production Chevy Corvette Stingrays were at the time, Curvy Fiberglass Bodies over an engine far, far smaller than the F-35 engine. Were THEY invisible to RADAR? NOPE.
Small point, but visible light wavelengths don’t behave identically to radio waves (edge diffraction and other effects as a result of wave mechanics). A better comparison would be a scaled down, microscopic stealth aircraft made of mirrors in a dark hangar with a flashlight shining at it. The wavelength difference is around 1 million, so that would be how much you scale down the aircraft. Basically the size of a dustmite or even smaller.
Edit: this is why stealth design is not perfectly intuitive. You make something angular and it might not work because of radio waves having 1 million times the wavelength of visible light.
@@arcanondrum6543 The fiberglass body is transparent to radar radiation. The radar radiation is let through to the engine which has plenty of flat surfaces and corner reflectors. Furthermore the distance from speed radar to car is very short compared to military conditions. The short distance gives a powerfull reflection thus no problem detecting a speeding Corvette Stingray.
@@perm.jensen7722 Weather RADAR can detect intensity AND the difference between Rain and Snow literally miles away but one aircraft; equivalent in size to THREE Trucks pulling cargo is "invisible"? The skin of the F -35 is only effectively "Stealth" in a VERY narrow bandwidth - which was my point from the start. The skin of the F-35 is otherwise, dense material moving alone in the sky at unique speeds, glowing with friction and kerosene farts against a much colder atmospheric background at altitude as a missile approaches it.
Every Tom, Dick and Idiot fan of Lockheed Martin wants to pretend that Aircraft design is changing but RADAR is the same as it ever was. No, RADAR is now faster, can discern better and operates across most of the RF Spectrum according to role.
I can assure you that the Military's RADAR is far more sophisticated than Police RADAR. The example I gave was important because the public does little research and choose to believe Lockheed Martin, the same pukes who lied about replacing the Helicopters used to transport the President. They never delivered but they kept raising the price. All the engineering talent has left Lockheed Martin and what is left are the money changers and the people who may as well have been recruited out of prison: They're not very smart but they don't ask questions.
Su-27, the last samurai of the Super Fighters. Goodnight sweet prince. May your ride into the sunset be glorious.
If I remember correctly, the Su-27 was the first aircraft I memorized at the age of 13. From its payload, aerodynamics up to the number of countries using it, it was Russia's best counter for the F18s produced by the Americans
I even made a model replica of it as a symbol of my love for the Sukhoi jet fighters
@@mohammadsyazwigeoffrey7325 Soviet made Su 27 in objective to kill F15 and Sukhoi made it success with all dynamic parameters win over F15.
@@alexlo7708 still effective against F18s though
Looking at the only time the Su 27 met its main rival i think it ended it something close to ball of fire and combat ejection..if i remember the last time the hornet saw it..or any time the Israeli F 15 saw it...or navy tomcats flying of the coast of libia
@@SJstackinbodys You must have access to some top secret shit that details 'sikret' Flanker and Murican' encounter then, cause non of those aforementioned US fighter (F15, F14, F18) ever encountered Flanker under hostile condition.
For those curious (and doesn't consume false info), only hostile encounter of Flanker with 'modern' contemporary is Eritrean Ethiopian War (against Mig-29) and 2019 India-Pakistan (against JF-17 and possibly F-16); the former is a curb stomp and the later is rather murky in detail.
Yeah fighter aircraft are slowly turning into stealthy flying sams/missile trucks rather than actual fighters.
The F-16 series, SU-27 series, and MIG-29 series looks forward at the future with fear and uncertainty that they may be the last of their kind (low drag, high lift, dogfighting airframes.)
low drag / high lift is only useful as a ratio against the thrust of the engine. So so long as PnW and GE can keep churning out higher and higher thrust engines, we're all good
@@anthonyb5279 wat
I hope one day, the IRST will become so powerful that it will render Radar obsolete. By then we may return to the beautiful aerodynamic shapes.
I mean with a search range of 100km under optimal conditions, it’s already a small radar.
@@thomaszhang3101 much less under adverse weather, that’s a huge limitation. Also there is infrared “stealth” in the designs of most fifth gen along with the standard radio wave stealth
@@quinndenver4075 long wavelength infrared penetrates cloud and dust well, and thus is used on modern IRST. Yes there are stealth features on 5th gen and even most 4th gen fighters, but any propulsion cannot be 100% efficient and the waste are emitted as heat. Human propulsion are extremely inefficient and the heat emitted is impossible to hide, at least compared to radar wave.
su 57 and YF-23 are the only unique designs
true
The YF-23 is actually the best mix between stealth and aerodynamics the world has ever seen. The YF-23s frame is low drag and area ruled, it also features incredibly large lifting surfaces that give the YF-23 an incredibly low wing loading of 280kg/m^2. For reference, the F-22 has a wing loading of 377kg/m^2. Basically the YF-23 was more maneuverable than the F-22 in terms of aerodynamics. But it doesn’t end there. The YF-23 also had a thrust to weight ratio of 1.36 at 50% fuel while the F-22 had a thrust to weight ratio of 1.25 at 50% fuel. Basically, the YF-23 was almost more maneuverable than the F-22 in all metrics except maybe instantaneous turn rates because the F-22 had thrust vectoring and also be more stealthy than the F-22. YF-23 was GOATED! Too bad Northrop didn’t have time to work out some of the YF-23s issues(bad canopy durability at supersonic speeds) and was on the governments shit list for their B-2 cost overruns and delays. Had the F-23 beat the F-22 in the ATF competition, the Russian Sukhois and Mikoyans would’ve had to run from a monster fighter that was prepared to tear their ass to pieces while they couldn’t even see it coming.
Oh yeah and the fucking Gripen which is a LIGHT FIGHTER still manages to have a slightly higher wing loading than the YF-23 with a wing loading of 283kg/m^2.
Su 57? not really
2:49 To put this equation simply, it's a double inverse-square law (every time you get twice away from the light source, you receive 4 times less light), with some absorption coefficients multiplied onto. It's double because radio wave is emitted twice, once from the source, and another from the reflection.
Correct
Your radar can't detect my aircraft, if I have no aircraft.
* Roll Safe smarts
Being able to strike first due to stealth is an advantage which can not be ignored.
Not to mention modern missiles are super deadly. Good luck evading a missile that is flying at Mach 4 or can do 60 G turns. Dog fights are the thing of the past, it's the age of beyond visual range air combat (where stealth is more important than maneuverability).
@@almaza4331 The missile sled is back in fashion and I am fully ok with this
The reason all modern jet fighters look alike is because stealth apparently has proven to be more desirable and persuasive in terms of mission capability and survivability. Designing for stealth is neither cheap nor fast, and by implication a major investment. Looking cool and sexy is a collateral quality - I'm sure a burning jet falling from the sky is a pretty sight, too. You want aerodynamics #1, then you design a sport jet - not a working military machine.
Homeboy is picking up subs like a freight train.... damn right. Channel is pure gold boys & girls.
Fully agree about the Flanker aerodynamics, as well as the mig-29 and it's newer siblings. From the blended wing-body LEX, to the positional placement of the engines and fuselage relative to the center mass & wings, it's a superb design (in terms of airflow). And lets not forget that the shape of the LEX (and the way it attaches to the fuselage) lends itself to pulling air from under the fuselage over the top of the LEX, gives it great high AoA performance. But the 29 is largely a copy of the Flanker, aerodynamically speaking.
However, I would point out 2 details when comparing it to something like the F-22:
1) The largest source of aerodynamic inefficiency in a stealth plane like the F-22 is actually inside the plane. The need to divert the air flow after entering the air intakes, such that the fan blades of the engine are not visible from outside the plane (looking into the intakes) presents a large amount of extra drag which returns no value whatsoever in terms of lift or internal capacity of the structure. Drag-wise, moving the engine airflow far enough to eclipse the engine hiding behind it is like having large drop tanks on a plane, but without adding any fuel capacity. In it fact actually consumes internal space and displaces internal fuel capacity instead. And if you do not allow for a fuel capacity loss, it affects the overall external fuselage drag in ways which are somewhat harder to accurately calculate, since you need to create more internal space. You can lessen the distance you have to divert the airflow by adding an airflow splitter (as in the B-1B), but that comes with it's own drag, as well as some concerns regarding the air mass dispersion reaching the initial fan blades of the engine. Actually even without a splitter, the diverted airflow will tend not to engage the engine as cleanly as a more direct path. This can eat into engine efficiency (and lifespan) as well. Overall this is a bigger problem than external aerodynamics (apart from aerodynamically absurd designs like the F-117).
2) The optimal and max speed numbers on the F-22 are limited more by the stealth coatings' sensitivity to heat than by the aircraft itself. I think in many ways the coatings on stealth aircraft are more limiting than the aerodynamics. In this though, the limitations may be exceeded, if the situation is dire enough to be willing to damage the stealth coatings.
There is a counterpoint though. Internal weapons payload effectively refunds a portion of the drag cost of a stealthy design. External ordinance has more drag, even with less overall frontal area than an internal bay has, due to the complexity and interactions of the surfaces in an external ordinance configuration. This tends to make stealth planes look worse "on paper" when comparing them to non-stealthy planes which aren't carrying any ordinance typically when deriving their raw flight characteristic numbers. Similarly, in the case of the F-35, the internal fuel capacity is very large, to preclude the need for drop tanks in many sorties, which makes the plane "appear" to have more weight in a thrust:weight ratio, or wing loading comparison. An F-35 with 4-6 amraam's and a fully internal fuel load compares more favorably when you stack it up against a comparable 4 or 4.5 gen fighter with 2-3 drop tanks and 4-6 externally mounted missiles, with assorted pylons, etc. The thrust to weight ratio, wing loading, drag coefficient, and general performance of the externally loaded plane will be pushed into much more comparable territory than what you see in clean, unloaded planes in books or at an airshow.
1) is a good point and I should have mentioned it.
2) it is an F-22 problem only, actually.
While the whole "internal" vs "external" is correct, my point in the video was to show how stealth turned different aerodynamic options into a single one.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech I agree, that the form following function for stealth planes is breeding an awful lot of similarity.
I think that things will diverge more in time though. There's plenty of room for a delta stealth plane, for example. And at least "some" of the issue of so many planes looking similar goes to espionage and/or copying. One could argue that the increased opportunities to steal ideas in the information age are partly to blame. Also, if everything becomes very similar, it will eventually breed reasons to do things differently, as the endless cycle of counter moves drives engineering.
The poster child of aerodynamic inefficiency imposed by stealth is the F-35. Having the same overall length, it has over twice the frontal area and 50% more weight. No wonder it was limited to only Mach 1.6 with the most powerful fighter engine ever built, while the nimble F-16 can do Mach 2 using only the F-35 dry thrust.
It's not about the weight, it's more about the inlet design that imposed a limitation on its speed, otherwise, Cold War supersonic bombers won't be insanely fast. And by the way, there's one misconception of the maximum speed of a jet fighter, it's mostly theoretical. Even a clean F-16 have difficulty reaching Mach 2, and pilots reported that the F-16 starts becoming unstable at Mach 1.6. Not to mention the most important factor of all - fuel. A clean F-16 can only sustain a supersonic speed for 5-10 minutes, making its combat radius pretty much useless. And a combat configured F-16, with drop tanks and missiles would be lucky to get to Mach 1.2. That's why modern jet fighters tend to have lower maximum speed than the mid-Cold War fighters, because supersonic dash is a waste of fuel (leading to significantly lower combat radius) and it reduce the lifetime of the airframe. That's why an average jet fighter spent less than 10% of its lifespan at supersonic speed, and most of that only for a functional check flight. Perhaps coincidentally, Mach 1.6 is also a recommended speed for minimum time intercept because any faster is not realistic to achieve.
The F-16 can do mach 2 while clean, if you load it up with Max fuel and weapons it is slower than the F-35 with Max internal weapons and fuel.
@@superskullmaster
That's my point, and even when it's clean, F-16 can't achieve a published maximum speed of Mach 2.05 under most circumstance. Justin Lee, a former F-16 pilot said that during the functional check flight, Mach 1.9 is the most he can push his clean F-16, because the drag at Mach 1.9 (and he's almost out of fuel at this point) prevents his plane from going any faster. And the cockpit is getting too hot to bear due to the air resistance. Not to mention that he needs to dive from a high altitude to achieve that speed, if his flight is leveled, it's questionable he could even exceed Mach 1.6. The only circumstance where it could reach a maximum of Mach 2.05 might be with a new airframe diving from high altitude in the Arctic (yes, atmospheric temperature and pressure do affect the speed).
@@mickeyg7219 You are correct, but it doesn't change the fact that the F-35 is aerodynamically handicapped because of stealth. I'm not trashing it, just stating a fact.
@@magoid
Yeah, I didn't exactly said you're wrong, I'm just saying that if you're making a comparison, there's a caveat that you need to know. And the extent of how much the F-35 is handicapped by its stealthy design is unclear as we don't have a wind tunnel data, however, the F-35's aerodynamic performance is often said to be very similar to the Super Hornet, so modern CAD did pretty well in minimizing the negative tradeoffs. After all, it has demonstrated to be capable of performing flat spin maneuver, something not even the SU-27 could do, let alone the F-15 or F-16.
Another terrific video. We need more intelligent channels like this one on UA-cam!
Hey great addition with the mic! Sound is much better!
As usual, remarkably clear and well documented. Many aditionnal things have to be stacked on this video like gold in thin sprayed layer on polycarbonatic windshields, see-sawed local near-wall devices which serve as local reflectors / dampers....Internal multi-layered coatings with EM impedance gradients also......
The counter-measures with russian metric band radars Nebo-SVU and Protivnik-GE are also interesting to cover and unveil.........We unpatiently wait for more CAPTIVATING VIDEOS.......BRAVISSIMO !!!!!
Great as always, interesting and easy to follow!
Thank you for this upload 🔥🔥
Everything is a compromise. And stealth requires some expensive compromises. The F-22 is the top dog of the sky, but at a huge financial cost and (as you point out) the need for some hefty brute force.
SR-71 was an aerodynamic masterpiece and also VLO. The exhaust plume shock diamonds had more RCS than the airframe.
B-2 is also an aerodynamic masterpiece when you consider its range and payload.
Raptor and JSF are also aerodynamic masterpieces with superior performance to 4th Gen.
@@CaptainDangeax The Rafale could never perform like the F-22 in cruise speed, max speed, ceiling, turning performance in the transonic region, climb rate, or turning performance in any regime of the envelope. I don’t think you know what you’re looking at when watching HUD footage. There are good analyses of that.
JSF flies better than Rafale when Rafale is combat-configured.
@@CaptainDangeax are you seriously trying to cite a DCS dogfight as evidence? they're mods, they don't even have a properly modeled airfoil or avionics
There's a third method that's rarely discussed - making most of the aircraft radar transparent, and using lensing effects to bend the radar waves around it's opaque metallic parts.
There's also another issue with stealth when using a combination of radar-absorbing materials and shaping - for shaping to be effective the material needs to reflect incoming rays in the same direction, using RAM to use destructive interference might reduce the total energy reflected - but might increase it in the direction of the transmitter.
Is that 3rd method used on anything flying currently, or is that something that might be used in future planes?
@@lordsqueak I have no idea. But I think that was the idea behind the proposed Russian plasma stealth. Probably they used it to form a diverging lens in front of the aircraft out of plasma, but that's just a wild speculation.
@@torginus Plasma stealth would actually have an absorbing effect. The idea behind it is that you ionize the boundary layer around the aircraft. A plasma is a state of matter where atoms basically lost all their electrons, so the electrons form a kind of cloud in the ionized area. It's possible to cause this with high electric currents there are also other ways to create it, but that's the most common one. For instance an electric arc is nothing else than an area where the air has been ionized, so it turned into a plasma.
If an electromagnetic wave hits plasma, it get simply absorbed and you have no return at all.
Also radar transparent materials are used in aircrafts for a long time. For instance the nose in nearly every jet is radar transparent because otherwise the radar dish behind it wouldn't get any signal at all. Generally glas- and carbon fibre composite materials are pretty hard to see for radars. The problem is though, you can't build everything in an aircraft out of such materials.
@@shi01 What about IR sensors? Can they detect plasma?
@@myusername3689 Actually doesn't matter for modern IRST systems. They will detect you no matter what. Some parts of the airframe will heat up if an aircraft travels with transsonic speeds through the air and that's often already enough that an IRST will detect it.
Thank you again!
Excellent like always
Don't worry about the way you pronounce words, it's a big part of your appeal, to me at least. Love it.
1:38 The way you said "punch card computer" with such distain was hilarious
All dislikes are from offended F-22 fans 😂 Great video as always!
has to e a joke aout f35 lift fan
only 5 f22 fans as of now hahahaha
F-22 & F-35A exceed the acceleration of slick big mouth Vipers through the Mach, so aerodynamics evolved with VLO technologies.
Why offended? This video did not say anything bad about the F-22.
@@CaptainDangeax There is no such thing as the "hyperspace" barrier. If you meant hypersonic then there are no jets that reach hypersonic speeds, the SR-71 is still the fastest jet to ever be flow and it had to fly at high altitudes due to the shear friction of the air against the shell caused it to heat up so much it was untouchable for 30 minutes after landing.
Great video,
F-22 is area-ruled, which is more evident when you look at the side profile. It's like a tear drop. There is extensive aerodynamic finesse incorporated into the Raptor.
Cross-sectionally, it's like a chined diamond that transitions to the fuselage.
It wouldn't be able to supercruise at Mach 1.6 if it was inherently draggy.
They demonstrated the desired supercruise values on the YF-22 with less powerful motors, and a draggier fuselage, but higher leading edge sweep angle on the wings.
The original fuselage had to house thrust reversers in the engine nacelle profiles, which really fought against area-ruling there.
On the F-22A, they reduced the profile of the rear to taper drastically as a way of following the Sears-Haack body.
Same with the YF-23s. They had obese engine nacelles for the thrust-reverser provision. The F-23A was supposed to have reduced volume engine nacelles like the F-15, and increased fineness ratio/overall length.
ATF was supposed to be a STOL-capable fighter in the European theater after strikes on airfields. The STOL thrust-reverser feature, AIRST sensor, supersonic ejection system, side-looking AESAs, and other features were dropped due to cost risks recognized by USAF.
@@anthonyb5279 Several members of my family were AeroEs and I studied the NATO AeroE program coursework (that my dad did concurrently while working with the West Germans/Brits on early ECA/EFA development) for 3 years on my own. We spent most of our time at ED, including B-1B CTF, F-16C Block 30 A2A capes expansion, F-15 CTF, then Global Hawk. I went active duty mil, then private sector.
Been talking with some guys back-channel who had interesting run-ins with SECDEF Gates who said it seemed like he was working for the Russians in all their dealings with him.
I have a theory that he was tasked with killing Raptor before we could go into Full-Rate Production because both China and Russia didn't have a way of dealing with hundreds of them in PACOM and EUCOM as planned.
Remember when he said, "We don't need F-22s to bomb the Taliban.".
I've never given much thought to this topic before but this video was fascinating. Also out of all the jets from the 'pre stealth' era I have to say that the Mig series of jets is probably my favourite from an aesthetic point of view.
What in gods name took UA-cam that long to guide me to this awsome channel ??!
Stealth also killed beauty.
I think the SU 57 is gorgeous
I think they look pretty cool actually.
I thought the YF-23 was beautiful. Good Area-Rule numbers too. I keep waiting for that video. Bet Valen RN is too.
Not completely. Stealth planes are still beautiful in their own way, the B2 spirit is the most beautiful stealth aircraft in my opinion
I think most modern fighters look purposeful and aggressive. They are still beautiful in there own way, just not in the sleek sexy way, older jets have been.
K.I.S.S. excellent commentary thank you for your efforts. 😎
Very interesting content. However, the long segment with a synthetic voice was i little bit tedious to listen to.
maybe this is the reason to use this voice
Thank you, very informative. What's your opinion on a land bases IRST "radar" that would/could render stealth obsolete?
Only 32000 subs? This channel is underrated
Okay, This was very informative AND entertaining. Otis is a keeper.
Love your "new" companion :)
I understand crosection now this was well done and explained thanx alot
Great video, I feel well informed.
Yes I dislike the trend of riding a big engine instead of flying a plane with nice aerodynamics too.
This channel is so underrated
sir can u discuss about external stealthy weapon pods and how useful they are,what are the downsides and upsides of deploying them on kfx like plane to make it more stealthy
Video is short but nice.
I believe hearing the YF-23 was much faster than any other gen 3 aircraft and also much stealthier- shame we went with the F-22, however, both were very expensive.
Could you consider touching the subject of detecting stealthy aircraft under different angles to the radar
and using AWACS planes for those purposes
Whatever became of area ruled fuselages, they're never mentioned nowadays except with reference to old aircraft like the Buccaneer, which was apparently a very good plane in its day.
YF-23 has a perfect area rule conforming shape.
@@anthonyb5279 I don't write about things I have no clue about. But your question clearly points out that you don't have full comprehension. So go look at the pictures and solve the mystery.
The YF-23 is actually the best mix between stealth and aerodynamics the world has ever seen. The YF-23s frame is low drag and area ruled, it also features incredibly large lifting surfaces that give the YF-23 an incredibly low wing loading of 280kg/m^2. For reference, the F-22 has a wing loading of 377kg/m^2. Basically the YF-23 was more maneuverable than the F-22 in terms of aerodynamics. But it doesn’t end there. The YF-23 also had a thrust to weight ratio of 1.36 at 50% fuel while the F-22 had a thrust to weight ratio of 1.25 at 50% fuel. Basically, the YF-23 was almost more maneuverable than the F-22 in all metrics except maybe instantaneous turn rates because the F-22 had thrust vectoring and also be more stealthy than the F-22. YF-23 was GOATED! Too bad Northrop didn’t have time to work out some of the YF-23s issues(bad canopy durability at supersonic speeds), was on the governments shit list for their B-2 cost overruns and delays, and didn’t show off its capabilities as much as the YF-22 to gain public support. Had the F-23 beat the F-22 in the ATF competition, the Russian Sukhois and Mikoyans would’ve had to run from a monster fighter that was prepared to tear their ass to pieces while they couldn’t even see it coming.
Oh yeah and the fucking Gripen which is a LIGHT FIGHTER still manages to have a slightly higher wing loading than the YF-23 with a wing loading of 283kg/m^2.
Oh yeah and the YF-23 also used chines, a lifting fuselage, and massive V tails which are almost as long as F/A-18 wings but are wider to further lower the wing loading.
The YF-23 had lower drag than the F-22 because its fuselage was more blended into the wings and the air intake narrows together to be area ruled.
Top notch
This is awesome.
Like my teacher once told me..."If it looks good, it will fly good".
@@illusions4559 lol, that is a plane only the mother can love.
A10 looks nice. But it doesn't look like a fighter jet.
@@nattygsbord The A10 is a beautiful cannon with a plane around it xD
your teacher is a moron
@@riskinhos Nice way to talk about dead people...but you might not have realized this. If you are but hurt about the name i use, i suggest you check out the jewish sharia...i will make Islam look the ideal daughter in law. Sanhedrin 54 and 55 is something that should be made illegal globally.
“Everybody is using the Ghost perk but not the Stopping Power perk, pussies” - Cod player
This channel is on another level. It's so much fun to watch these videos.
Love to know you have “another jarvis” hahaha
Lol, the tipsy joke was great
The Australian sugar glider a marsupial is probably the most stealth shape currently known to man. Aussie Jeff
Yep. Stealth is not pretty. Eventually they moved away from the SR-71 when they realized that part of the path to a low observable was to make something that no one wants to see. The Blackbird was beautiful, you wanted to see it but it was too fast and too far away to see. How to get closer while flying slower is obvious in hindsight. In fact, all of the radar stuff about finite element analysis and the rest of it is stuff that they made up for a TV documentary. What really happened was that they kept making ugly planes and then seeing how they did with radar. And it almost worked too well. They had to bribe the radar test operators to try to find them because they didn't want to see them either.
I'm not making any of that up. I gave Otis some AC and he confirmed it. Honest.
Either way, the Su-27 is still one of the best looking planes ever. Maybe not the best plane ever but really, it's a looker.
The F-22 has smooth surfaces with lifting surfaces that generate very small and very few vortices which decreases lift in instantaneous turn rates in comparison to the SU-35, but the lack of vortices also mean less downwash which means lower induced drag. The F-22 without thrust vectoring is definitely more aerodynamically suited to higher speed sustained turns because of the lower induced drag with the tapered trapezoidal wings and low wing loading. The thrust vectoring was probably added to compensate for the lack of vortex lift in the airframe.
Right On
I've always liked this channel but when did it turn into a comedy channel? Laugh while you learn! this is great.
Can you do a small video about planes stealth planes going up againts fighter ( planes that are not so stealthy)
Question: I thought that fixed inlets for stealth can limit the speed to under Mach 2 (?) The F-15 has a variable geometry inlet duct to deal with this problem? I have seen a graph showing F-22 max speed is under Mach 2 reading "airframe temperature limit" Is this limit actually really an inlet temperature limit?
They are two different problems. Great blog btw
we will probably reach a point in time where jets would become invisible, but by that point we probably be building fighter planes for space flight
Small is less visible, isn't it? I would like a stealty F-20/F-5
Nice video, Otis is a good signing.
I don't think it is sad the brute force used in the F-22 since it is much more stealthy than the Su-27.
Now what I woukd like to see is an F-15 with the engines of the F-22... or even better, a Su-27 with those P&W F119 engines...
For F-22, there's a low wing loading target and there's a higher empty weight, hence a large wing design.
For a specific acceleration target, a large wing has a higher lift drag, hence requires higher engine thrust. Fighter design has to balance multiple factors.
F-22's stealth goes below the skin and beyond stealth shaping.
If you think f22 is brute force please have a look at the rear of a mig 25 with ground staff for scale.
@@brucebaxter6923 MiG 25P has two 22,500 lbf engines while MiG 31 has two 34,000 lbf engines.
@@valenrn8657
And?
Did you miss the point?
@@brucebaxter6923 there was no point to begin with. you can't finesse your way to mach 3+ with A/A missiles on board.
I think some nuance regarding the last point needs to be mentioned. The Su-27 family is generally efficient the speed range you mentioned but with the caveat that it is in clean configuration i.e. not stowing anything on the hardpoints and that goes for every aircraft. The F-22 and other comparable designs, on the other hand, are optimized for cruising for extended periods at supersonic speeds even without afterburners, hence, why the engines produce a lot of thrust couple that with the much more clean profile. In the case of the F-22, however, its maximum speed has been downrated not for aerodynamic reasons but for structural reasons. The spar between the engine nozzles is prone to overheating. If engineering limitations aren't a concern and we just want raw aerodynamic performance then the YF-23 paired with the YF120 engines are extremely impressive. Too impressive that it was deemed too risky. RAM also tend to be intolerant of high airspeeds. Any more and maintenance costs would skyrocket as these tend to be notorious hangar queens. Of course, the low wetted area concept for stealth planes didn't die as we still have the PAK-FA that would be equipped with variable cycle engine that's a more modern and mature analog of the older YF120.
So they look the same simply because that design is the most efficient shape for compromising stealth and flight efficiency
Pretty sure a big factor is "we need a fighter that looks like the F-22 so we look like a near-peer"
The constraints on passenger airliners mean that all of them look similar. Early (jet and otherwise) fighters all had some significant similarities (biplanes of WWI to the warplanes of WWII and the Mig-15, F-86 Sabre, and the Hawker Hunter). Aircraft designs are dictated by purpose and the technology of the time and seem to go through phases of "everything looks the same" and "everybody is experimenting and trying to find out the best solution". Right now we are in a time period where fighters all have similar angles and design schemes.
Stealth didn't kill aerodynamics, it's just that being stealthy is more important than optimal aerodynamics right now.
I would LOVE to see a "stealthy" ground attack aircraft with some A-10 heritage though 8D
That said, the YF-23 has a different approach to stealth than the F-22/F-35/Su-57/J-20/J-31/Tempest, etc. More blended and smooth in addition to straight aligned edged rather than straight aligned edges alone.
I think Su-57 has more similarity on stealth with YF-13. Blended wing airframe, radar blocker in front of the engine, podded engine layout. J-20 also unique in a way because its the only one that use canard, but the layout principle follow F-22 than YF-23.
As every engineer knows, kinetics energy is transformed to heat. So if the aero drag is so much higher on a stealth plane, the heat radiation must be critical. Is this not considered as a problem?
An are there done any action facing this problem?
-No wonder why the IRST scanner on a Eurofighter Typhoon can spot a F-22 on 100km distance.
well a IRST scanner on Eeurofight Typhoon can spot a f-22 on 100km distance under perfect conditions only. any clouds and you are out of luck
l that heat is almost insignificant to the massive heat produced by turbofans.
@@fenrir834 Yes. But because of the high drag number on stealth aircraft, they need a lot of thrust. And as we all know, energy equals heat, so the engines of F-22 and F-35 produce a lot of heat.
@@henrikerdland578 now you are right.
Is there something like a DOS attack in the stealthy aircraft war game?
It would be like some caracter in manga fights: you see many enemies but you cannot identify which one is the right one.
Yes, common ECM practice
My thinking exactly, an F-104 or a Mig-21 were about the same speed as an F-35 but they have less than 1/3rd the power. Aerodynamics peaked in the 50's, other greats are the Saab Draken, Mirage 3 and the F-106.
Thank you for making video's! What loadout could make the Sukhoi that you mentioned less aerodynamic then a F-35 that carries the same loadout internally? Greek interception of a Turkish F-16 learned us that even small loadouts make the plane heavy!
What interception?
So an su35 is a lowspeed low alt fighter that closes with missiles and whistles, andn the f22 is a bvr monster
But I think historically it's more norm then exception. I mean a lot of post-war 1st gen fighters looked like barrels with wings. There are abundance of "two-engines, two rudders" in 4th generation. Hell, the only generations where was wide (and WILD) variety of shapes and forms were 2nd and 3rd generations of fighters (the generations from all the cool planes came from) and it was mostly because aircraft designers didn't have a consensus about what traits will be most useful in next air battles and tried to find the "next big thing" all over the place.
0:55 that's one hell of a cool shot. What's the source?
DoD media site www.dvidshub.net/
That almost flat belly on many stealth aircraft can't be that stealthy. You might want to a do a video on the issues of look-up radars, particularly those that turn on briefly, unloose a missile and go silent again.
I have long suspected that optimal aerodynamic shapes and optimal stealth shapes are not the same. This is part of the reason why the F-35 has an engine with 43,000 pounds of thrust. It must be brute forcing performance when the aerodynamic shapes are of compromised efficiency due to the need for stealth.
"I know I will be unpopular for [stating an objective fact]".
Great video! Quite enjoyed the content!
Interesting topic. I was pondering how much compromise the B2 has because it is designed purely for stealth. In fact, I am very sure the design requirements placed stealth as number one priority, and anything else a distant second. And this leads into the wings and the impact on the structure itself. Optimal stealth is achieved by carefully controlling the angles of reflection. But wing flex has to get in the way, which leads me to assume that the B2 wings are as stiff as they could build them.
The ride for the crew must be brutal in anything but calm conditions. And the life expectancy of those wings must be very low.
You should change the intro to this stuff CANT be found anywhere else on UA-cam! Hands down my favorite channel out there!
The F-22's shape is highly documented and available (visually) for study........the YF-23 on the other hand was a very well aerodynamically tailored and area ruled. Low and behold, it's not the design everyone tried to copy, but it was certainly more akin to the kind of fighter needed for these days. It had more fuel capacity, range, and better kinematics. It's aerodynamically tailoring may have doomed it though, as the box style structure on the F-22 is stronger and more robust, notably in how it's weapons bays are placed and configured. YF-23 and it's prospective production version had the weapons bays in a very structurally weak place on the fuselage where it joined the wing.
not just this, but the missile bays were far more complex and thus prone to jamming - since all weapons were stacked on top of each other, if one missile jammed, the ones in the same bay would be unusable.
There is also plasma stealth shielding, atmospheric clutter, and electronic warfare.
Why isn’t the tech that is used in the propulsion of the sr71 used anymore?
Too big, heavy, and another point of failure, plus fighters are less about speed and there isn't a need for mach 4 capable aircraft and turbofan engines can still operate at high mach 2
The SR-71 had stealth features and a much smaller radar cross section then a plane of its size should have had. However it was a massive radar target because of it's super hot exhaust which reflected radar. Its speed would also melt modern RAM coatings because of friction.
Why not make air intakes on top of the aircraft? Wouldnt it even further reduce radar signature?
No, because at high alpha they will be in aerodynamic shadow, good for the B2 but not for a fighter.
Rip the ATF program's YF-21
Some speculate It had a smaller radar profile than it's YF-22 competitor that became the F-22.
While it hurts as a F-22 lover, I do know and understand the aerodynamic limitations the plane has. Good vid!
Why does it hurt? Every benefit comes at a cost. The question is does the benefit outweigh the cost. The answer is easily determined as yes as all countries are seeking to develop stealth aircraft. And people mistakenly believe even if a stealth aircraft can be seen on radar stealth becomes irrelevant. That is very far from the truth. Seeing an aircraft and getting a weapons quality track is two different things. Additionally the small radars in guided missiles will have difficulty tracking stealth aircraft as well. So even if stealth aircraft can be tracked and weapons fired upon it those weapons will have much more trouble actually hitting the aircraft and countermeasures much more effective the non-stealth aircraft.
Can we have a video on active stealth and how efficient it is in a stand alone mode
You mean jamming
Can't help but feel the lack of mention of the sr71, tacit blue and b2.
Well, for years before they even were in service I already said it would be a horrible idea for many reasons. This was one of the reasons.
I really liked how you broke down the evolution of stealth and how it made aircraft look less visually distinct and more alike in the process. Nice work!
Why do all large airliners all have low wing, tricycle undercarriage and a t-tail.
It’s a design that works based around a certain role or function.
What's ur opinion of the Su 57?
In thrust we trust.
I guess you could say stealth killed the aero star
I wonder what would be a good way to defeat stealth. Would acoustic detection by ground stations be a possibility? As you noted, the trend is that the less then perfect aerodynamics are beeing offset by very performant engines. But could this be an Achilles heel? Many people have noted that both the F-22 and F-35 seem to make much more noise compared to previous generation of planes.
Hmm, never mind. Supercruise would probably defeat this option since the plane travels faster than it can be detected. Maybe that's the reason why so much focus is beeing laid on supercruise.
@@g412bb the F-35 has the same level of sound in AB as the Super Hornet. Same with the F-22. The frequency of sound is a little different but not louder.
@@g412bb
That doesn't work since the late 50s, that's why the XB-70 was cancelled because it's no longer possible to "fly faster than it can be detected."
Back to the old listening post from early WW2
I thought Otis was an elevator. It is the same voice---have you kidnapped him?
Make video about modern radars.
One of the few channels that actually has intelligent content. So with the SU27 being more aerodynamically efficient than the F22, how would the SU compare to a fighter with canards like a Rafale or Eurofighter?
9.27 boyo - that's your answer
The Flanker family is not "more aerodynamically efficient" than the F-22.
That is just a claim of the author of this video.
@@turnnburn6892 you're simply in complete denial... hehe
@@benfekete1744 wdym?
Actually you can look at the SU-33 or the SU-30, an SU-27 family aircraft with canards. In general it probably have the same effect as leading edge slats which enhances lift and maneuverability at low speeds.
While I agree that the Su-27's TsAGI-developed layout is amazingly efficient, and more so than any stealth aircraft, I think that the way you did the comparison to the F-22 is a bit "off".
While the F-22's maximum speed is the same as the Su-27 and its thrust is higher, that doesn't really tell us anything about efficiency because the F-22 isn't thrust-limited. It can reportedly cruise at its top, heat-limited speed in a very low afterburner setting. It can also cruise at M1.8 in dry military power. These suggest that the F-22's design is reasonably efficient in that M1.8-2.2 regime.
On a related note, the area rule is only relevant in the transonic regime, from M0.95-M1.3 or so. Once you get over the transonic "hump" it no longer determines drag to a significant degree. It was therefore critical to aircraft like the F-102 that could barely break the speed of sound, but at this point lack of area ruling is mostly relevant to transonic acceleration rather than to top speed. Coincidentally, the F-35 is known to have "less than great" transonic acceleration. IIRC it has to fly a dive-climb profile to meet its "level" transonic acceleration specification, i.e. it initially dives to gain energy to "power through" the transonic hump, and then climbs back up to the starting altitude once it's in a more favorable supersonic regime where it has excess power for climb.
The F-22 gets through the transonic regime very quickly using brute thrust, despite having a very unfavorable area profile. I have no doubt that the Su-27 is vastly more efficient in that regime in "clean" configuration (external stores add area in basically the worst possible place from an area-rule PoV, so I expect the F-22 would pull ahead when carrying equivalent ordnance internally).
Su-57 and YF-23 are missing here.