Are Canards Stealthy?
They CAN be
>>65211680Northrop thought so in the 80s, since they called this their stealthiest design for ATF. They also featured on X-36. It depends a lot on how large they are vs what the wavelength of the radar is, where bigger can counterintuitively reflect a lot less, as well as how much they deflect in flight.
>>65211711The ATF has stealth jets?
>>65211721ATF will seize anything if you don’t have your papers right, the bastards. But in this case it refers to Advanced Tactical Fighter, the program which produced the F-22. This was their stealthiest design, which ran against an agility maximized design and a compromise design which became YF-23.
>>65211704Still ugly. I don't think there's a plane out there that they don't look ugly on.
>>65211680Only properly designed American canards.
>>65211838It generally helps to have them in the same plane as the wing, yes. That way you can at least mitigate the reflection with edge treatments, and if done well it should be a negligible increase over the rcs of wings edge itself when not maneuvering. If you do it like China did you create a new reflector, no matter if the canard is deflected or not. The second, lower set of vertical tails on the J-20 is another unnecessary reflector that could have been mitigated with a better design. Fewer surfaces are best, though it’s possible what we see in the thermal video isn’t a maneuvering canard at all, but an attempt to make a four spike fighter, and its main purpose is to manage the direction of radar reflections.
>>65211759Delete this!
I've even taught my three year old son to hate canards. If America puts canards on their aircraft then it will end their dominance in aerospace. It's so over.
>>65211680They can be, but not if they are actively being used as control surfaces. This is why the Eurocanards (and the J-20) RCS is harmed by them.
>>65211711This layout actually makes sense with how similar the shaping is to the rear of the aircaft, and stuff like the B-2/B-21
>>65212146It’s an attempt at making a four spike fighter, while the B-2/B-21 are four spike bombers. In the late 80s computer assisted flight control wasn’t at a point where it was considered workable, but if the footage is legitimate it’s very possible that’s changed. The maneuverability constraints inherent to the planform could also point to F-47 having dorsal inlets to further maximize stealth, as it wouldn’t really be hitting the AoA where feeding the inlets good air would become an issue.
>>65211711I hope this one turns out to be real.
>>65212174If you watch the video I just can’t believe the people who filmed it are smart enough to fake it this convincingly
>>65211711
Qaher 313 status?
>>65211680>>65211682Looks like a retarded catfish and gay.
>>65211680Fixed ones maybe, because no seams and the angles can be controlled for the least-worst option. The ones on the possible F-47 look big and fixed like the X-36 to me. It also looks like F-47 might have movable tip winglets like the J-50 seems to have? It has something very interesting going on and is more of a Christmas tree shape than the J-20. It doesn't look like J-20 IMO, its tail is pure serration and with the weird wings and no tail it must look quite fucking different actually minus the canards.
>>65212235My god. AI put the original alien text back in!
>>65211711Take this thing and take a bite out of the tail to make it look serrated like a B-2's and that looks very fucking much like what we see here, only with those wingtips inverted down.
