Well,if they can get them fast enough, it has definitely a go on from me.
Still I will vouch for a full 5gen engine like Al-51 over any increased thrust derivative of an already existing engine.
Well that is the rub... they have been working on these engines for quite some time, so the 11 ton engine has been mentioned recently as being available soon, but that might mean testing in 2-3 years time and perhaps getting on to a service aircraft in 5-6 years time... but building a brand new engine from scratch will take 10 years minimum and that assumes proper regular reliable funding... you can bet your ass half way through some pencil pusher will say... do we need another new engine... if there is no one sensible like you or I nearby to say yes there might be problems...
Mind to enlighten us more about such an evaluation?
The Soviets had plenty of experience with deltas and canards... their first canard aircraft was the MiG-8 built and tested during WWII as a stall proof design for training... the idea being the first surface to stall was the nose mounted canards which made the nose drop down which is the standard recovery manouver for a stall... they also built and tested lots of deltas... including the Analog... a modified MiG-21 used for testing the wing shape of the Tu-144.
Decades ago, even in W. Europe itself, they were considered a sort of extreme configuration, good for certain roles but in overall quite risky but now all the fighters produced here are canard deltas because in the meantime solutions were found to overcome the initial design limitations.
Aircraft design includes a component of fashion... after the Americans saw the MiG-25 they copied it with their F-15 too... the design requirements seemed to dictate that layout and form. In the case of the Space Shuttle the Americans spent 2 billion dollars in the 1970s (15 thousand dollars at that time would buy you a nice house)... The Soviets wanted something to do pretty much the same thing so they adopted the shape though the actual design was fundamentally different.
There were lots of canard designs through the 1980s and 1990s, but the Soviet/Russian ones never made it...
[qutoe]Certainly if they are for detection of stealth targets they are a must have for any future fighter plane.
What I meant is that even a small plane can carry them without experimenting the same loss of performance it would happen in case of a conventional nose mounted one (compared to the ones mounted on larger models, obviously.
Surely I never though of not putting a conventionally fitted radar also. [/quote]
Well I have been thinking about this too... with a flying wing design there might not be much in the way of a nose or fuselage for a large radar, yet most strategic bombers have decent nose mounted radars to find ground targets and watch out for aerial threats...
I was thinking for a large strategic bomber the wing profile is going to get really thick really quick because it will be subsonic so the issue of setting back from the leading edge should mean plenty of space for vertical and horizontal elements for an AESA array, but something smaller like the S-70 that is supersonic might struggle.
They have mentioned surface mounted antenna... so think of the wing made of lego blocks with the front line of blocks then the blocks above and below one notch back etc etc... so from front on you have a normal looking flat array but from side on you have a wedge.
You could go a step further by mounting the antenna deeper inside the wing so you might have the centre of the array 10 rows flat and level and then start dropping them back to the shape of the wing and have the wing stick out in front of the antenna array like the radome on a normal radar provides an aerodynamic shape for what is essentially a flat nosed radar antenna.
They might have fold down or retractable mounts or indeed side looking arrays... they might have arrays looking in every direction including up and down so it could enter a steep climb to scan the area ahead and then level off and be stealthy again... there are lots of solutions or ideas they could use...
Also there, it certainly would but a smaller yet faster UCAV i.e. a pilotless version of what i was talking above would be even better for the role.
S-70s are pilotless... and smaller would not be able to carry R-37M missiles to take out the AWACS and JSTARS aircraft from 300km... is the smaller UCAV faster than mach 6?
With USAF bound to buy a score of F-35 flying bricks in the next 15-20 years they have a great window of opportunity for a light A2A UCAV in my humble opinion.
Yeah, but if Russia invests in lots of A2A UCAVs then so will the Americans and that might cure their problems with the F-35... they might just buy 800 of them and use them to manage flights of 20 or more drones of different types each.
Better to let them buy 3,500 F-35s... even without drones it is a good move for Russia economically... and the drones they do make can be exported to countries like Cuba and Venezuela and Iran if they want them.
In a certain sense the original F-15 was even more extreme of the same F-16 as it sported very powerful engines but a light frame.
That was a very specific and conscious choice because when they were designing the F-15 they thought the MiG-25 was what the F-15 was... a super fighter...
Obviously we know now it was a super interceptor and was rather good for recon as well, but the Americans didn't know that so they took the MiG-25s shape... because that is what they assumed would be the best shape for the job, and then they made the most powerful engines they could make and used them and the most expensive avionics and gave it every capability they could think of to make it the best...