The "flying wing" scheme may turn out to be a dead-end branch of the development of military aviation

It is thought that aviation the scheme, known as the "flying wing", may turn out to be a dead-end branch in the development of combat aviation. The so-called "completely tailless" version of the airframe, which today in several countries, including Russia, is used as the basis for unmanned aerial vehicles, reveals a considerable number, if not shortcomings, then, if I may say so, problematic points.

One of the main problematic aspects of the "flying wing" scheme is associated with the fact that when improving the engines of the same unmanned aircraft, problems with maneuverability may arise. Here you need to take into account the fact that the aircraft will eventually have to be oversaturated with electronics responsible for its stable flight. We are also talking about the FbW or EDSU system (fly-by-wire control system), which allows you to resist the so-called yaw of the aircraft - angular movements relative to the vertical and lateral course changes.

The decline in maneuverability may be exacerbated by the trend towards low-signature technology in different ranges (stealth technology). In particular, one of the directions is the implementation of a flat nozzle, to promote the maneuverability of which completely different judgments are expressed. The fact is, the maneuverability with a flat nozzle is directly dependent on the design of the aircraft.

But here it is worth paying attention to the fact that often modern designers (especially foreign ones) consider the bet on maneuverability to be wrong. The logic is this: modern missiles are capable of maneuvering under such overloads that are unfeasible for aircraft. In this case, it is worth considering the dubiousness of betting on stealth technology. After all, by and large, on any "stealth" there is an effective radar capable of even by indirect signs to determine the presence of an aircraft or drone at a certain point. And if the detection took place, then without high indicators of maneuverability, the aircraft (drone) will definitely not get away from the rocket.

In this case, there is actually one option - the use of electronic warfare systems. But here, too, there are some nuances. For example, for an attack drone, the use of modern electronic warfare means is an energy-consuming activity when performing a combat mission. This means that the radius of its combat use, the missile and bomb load will decrease.

That is why experts believe that in the future, even for unmanned aerial vehicles, even unmanned aerial vehicles cannot do without the development of the direction of maneuverability (super-maneuverability), no matter how much they say that this is the "past century" and "the future is exclusively for stealth technologies."

The problems that were voiced in relation to the perspective of the "flying wing" scheme would help to solve new materials and technologies to counter the same yaw without oversaturation of the aircraft with blocks and EDSU units.

Comments

[The leader of the Redskins]

Clever. Too cleverly written. It's hard for a non-professional to understand. But, one can argue.
For example, in the 40s of the last century, something similar was expressed in relation to biplanes, and our An 2 is still not replaceable in some branches of aviation)))

[Mavrikiy]

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

our An 2 and still cannot be replaced in some branches of aviation

There are narrow niches everywhere. For An 2 and other biplanes - unpaved airfields.

[Shurik70]

Each type of aircraft has a rather narrow niche of specialization.
For a reconnaissance UAV, it is to fly up unnoticed, report data and, if possible, fly away unnoticed. And maneuverability is not needed here NAFIG.
For an attack UAV, it is possible to fly up unnoticed, strike and quickly escape. Again, there is no need for maneuverability. If it is detected by AA defenses within its radius of action, then no amount of maneuverability will save it. But the low visibility provided by the "flying wing" scheme can even save

[NIKN]

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

Too cleverly written.

The meaning is simple, the message of the author, this scheme is like a dead end. At the moment, it has a number of advantages, in particular, it is easier to implement stealth, as a subsonic scheme has advantages in range (economy) and carrying capacity, and, accordingly, there is a downside (the same An-2 in the absence of infrastructure is irreplaceable, but the delivery speed range and much more, alas, not his strong point). To say that such a scheme will not be needed is not smart, just there is a niche for everything, and where supersonic, super-maneuverability, etc. is needed. it certainly doesn't fit. Again, to declare that the dead-end scheme is also not correct, tomorrow will give new understanding. This scheme was implemented in YB-49 at one time and then it was also considered a dead-end branch, and the same thing because of the complexity of production and the lack of technology, but technology and design thought do not stand still.

Many aviation experts in the early fifties considered the YB-49 to be a dead-end development branch with no future. This point of view became generally accepted, and it seemed to be the only correct one. But life put everything in its place. When, shortly before his death, Northrop was shown the B-2 model, he said: "Now I know why God gave me the last quarter of a century of life." The takeoff of the B-2 showed all the foresight and genius of the aircraft designer.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: NIKNN

there is a niche for everything

I support this opinion. Nobody suggests making fighters according to the "flying wing" scheme. A similar scheme has taken root only in bomber aircraft and among drones performing reconnaissance or bomber functions. In general, where stealth is put in the first place.
The opinion was expressed in the article:

.... modern missiles are capable of maneuvering under such overloads that are impracticable for an aircraft.

They forget about what would be the first to shoot, one must, among other things, be able to quickly aim a weapon at the enemy, and at the same time maneuverability is important. Ours, for example, can do this even at zero speeds.

[NIKN]

Quote: Bad_gr

while maneuverability is important. Ours, for example, can do this even at zero speeds.

Certainly. And the argument

.... modern missiles are capable of maneuvering under such overloads that are impracticable for an aircraft.

from a series of the originally well-known theory of projectile and armor opposition.
Firstly, long and medium-range missiles, which are equipped with engines operating throughout the entire trajectory, are still very few. Secondly, research and development work on countering these weapons is in full swing. Thirdly, modern air combat at long, medium distances is fundamentally different even from the methods of conducting such 20-30 years ago, if the collision is not accidental in secondary conflicts (I will not go into it, but it begins even before the participants take off). Well, close air combat remains as maneuverable as a hundred years ago.
Well, like that.

[dauria]

, in particular, it is easier to realize stealth, as a subsonic scheme has advantages in range (economy) and carrying capacity

Add one more plus - the jet fighter-bomber Go.229
in the 45th were unique take-off and landing characteristics. 150 km per hour and takeoff run of 500 m. With a maximum of 800 km per hour. Excellent speed range over 5. But with the same 2 Me-262 engines, our Su-9 had to run-run-run to take off ... Or use rackets.

[shinobi]

Just a very successful design with a price / quality ratio. The problem of unpaved runways was solved a long time ago and is being incorporated into all military transport aircraft without exception. Recently, in fighters. We have.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: shinobi

Just a very successful design with a price / quality ratio. The problem of unpaved runways was solved a long time ago and is being incorporated into all military transport aircraft without exception. Recently, in fighters. We have.

What nonsense are you writing again ...
The use of unpaved runways was completely removed from the technical assignment for the design and use of fighter aircraft a long time ago (70 years ago).
With the Military Transport - everything is the same.
Ruslan you chtoli will land on unpaved runways? or a new Elephant?

Unpaved runways are the destiny of small-sized aircraft VTA. And no more...

[shinobi]

Scheme, high-wing + a large wheel with a wide tread at the chassis on military aircraft, what do you think? This is now considered a classic line-up, what the hell else do you need a special task? Heavy class transports have been dragged here for some rudeness. by nickname, they have already banned you for your demeanor.

[abrakadabre]

Ruslan you chtoli will land on unpaved runways? or a new Elephant?

Heavy transports were dragged here on some.

What is the problem with heavy transporters? Video of landing and take-off on unpaved runways of heavy transport workers wagon and trolley.
Fighters (ours) land on a prepared unpaved runway without any problems. You can say normally. Takeoff is really problematic. Because the jet exhaust makes the GDP disposable - it digs straight ditches in the place where the plane takes off when it goes up with a candle. Therefore, metal flooring is used.

[shinobi]

Exactly. Comrade argued the opposite.

[abrakadabre]

Exactly. Comrade argued the opposite.

A friend offended Google and YouTube with his outlook, and they won't let him go anywhere. Pichalka.

[Viktor Sergeev]

An2 is not a military aircraft. For him, the main thing is: landing at any airfield, even not equipped and for this a low landing speed is important, this is a biplane. They sacrificed speed and fuel consumption, but got a cheap and simple plane.

[PilotS37]

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

Clever. Too cleverly written. It's hard for a non-professional to understand.

Not abstruse, but illiterate! - A person does not understand what he is writing about, does not know the specific domestic terminology ...
And in fact there is only one "water". I had to check in - so I did.
Wasted time!

[_Ugene_]

Clever. Too cleverly written. It's hard for a non-professional to understand.

what's abstruse? nonsense written

The logic is as follows: modern missiles are capable of maneuvering under such overloads that are impracticable for an aircraft. In this case, it is worth considering the doubtfulness of betting on stealth technology. After all, by and large, for any "stealth" there is an effective radar capable of even indirectly determining the presence of an aircraft or drone at a certain point.

yes, there is an effective radar for any stealth, but the whole point is at what distance this effective radar will be able to detect a target, if the radar detects a target from a distance half as much as the stealth missile, then it will never detect it because it will be destroyed much earlier

[vVvAD]

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

Clever. Too cleverly written.

Never abstruse for a person interested in this topic.

[Mavrikiy]

One of the main problematic aspects of the “flying wing” scheme is associated with the fact that when improving the engines of the same unmanned aircraft, problems with maneuverability may arise.

But this is obvious. It will work for a bomber, but not for a fighter. What's the question?

[Vita vko]

Quote: Mavrikiy

Will do for a bomber, not for a fighter

In the presence of a thrust vectoring engine, the only difference is in structural strength and the pilot's ability to withstand overloads. The trend of the next 6th generation of combat aviation will be precisely the unification of the capabilities of bomber and fighter aircraft, which will complement the stealth, high maneuverability and supersonic of the 5th generation.

[Mavrikiy]

Quote: Vita VKO

In the presence of a thrust vectoring engine, the only difference is in structural strength and the pilot's ability to withstand overloads.

And did you realize that you had made it? In the presence of a keel or keels, the same structural overloads.

The trend of the next 6th generation of combat aviation will be precisely the combination of bomber and fighter aviation capabilities, which will complement stealth,

And not everyone will succeed. Whoever uses the classics will get a Fighter-bomber, but without stealth, and whoever has a flying wing will get a bomber with stealth.

[DED_peer_DED]

Quote: Vita VKO

In the presence of an engine with thrust vector control

What does a thrust vectoring engine have to do with stealth?

[Tooks]

From an aerodynamic point of view, this is an excellent circuit. Very suitable for scouts and bombers. EDSU solves stability problems.

[Sergey Valov]

A keel can also solve stability problems, a flying wing is not necessarily a tailless.

[dsaf]

The statically unstable scheme is just invented to increase maneuverability.

[Tooks]

The flying wing has problems with directional stability. This is a feature of the scheme due to the lack of a keel. It is attractive, first of all, because of its high aerodynamic quality, which is beneficial for bombers (range) and reconnaissance aircraft (time spent in the air).

ps The diploma project was just on this topic.

[Baloo]

Only one question: an airplane without a tail and a stabilizer according to the flying wing scheme will be able to land with an inoperative engine, or will it fall into a spin? Then what are the benefits?

[Flamberg]

I think that modern tail-fueled airplanes will not be able to crank such a maneuver either, since the wing loading is too high.

[vadimtt]

If the power supply is not lost, then why not?

[Grazdanin]

Quote: Balu

an airplane without a tail and a stabilizer, according to the flying wing scheme, will it be able to land with an inoperative engine, or will it fall into a spin?

Yes, he can plan calmly. RQ-170, after being out of order, calmly planned and sat down.

[Svetlana]

dead-end branch of the development of combat aviation
Imagine a tree. It grows both upward and in breadth. It grows up. The trunk diverges in branches that give their branches to those of their own .. and so on endlessly
...
In general, it is not dead-end branch, but one of the usual.

[Avior]

The tailless scheme was actively used on bombers and some types of UAVs, for which maneuverability is deliberately limited and there is no question of evading missiles due to maneuverability in any case, according to any scheme, even though a flying wing is not.

[Nikolaevich I]

The "flying wing" scheme can be used for all kinds of "air platforms" ...: 1. AWACS, 2. repeaters, 3. Electronic warfare, 4. anti-submarine patrol platform, "flying air defense / missile defense complex ...

[Grazdanin]

As the practice of the United States has shown, flying wings are only for long-range reconnaissance and bomber. The flying wing lost all other competitions.

[Maks1995]

Maybe it can't, why are these short empty arguments ???
The stump is clear, where necessary - other approaches

[Errr]

The more I read about "flying wings", the more I am convinced of the wisdom of the designers of the Su-57 glider.

A pair of small keels does not particularly unmask it, and the "firebrand" to control its flight removes a lot.

[voyaka uh]

Su-57 is a fighter. It could not be otherwise.

[Errr]

The V-shaped tail also works well on the UAV. I won't even squeeze a photo, because there are a lot of similar ones already.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: Herrr

The more I read about "flying wings", the more I am convinced of the wisdom of the designers of the Su-57 glider.

A pair of small keels does not particularly unmask it, and the "firebrand" to control its flight removes a lot.

And what does the designer of the Su-57 have to do with it, if in 1997 the aviation industry of the world learned about an aircraft with such a collapse of the rotary keels - like a V-shaped one ... The designer of the Su-57 repeated the decisions of others.

[Errr]

Well, they learned about the V-shaped tail not in 1997, but much earlier. And if I had to choose between YF-22 and YF-23, then I would most likely choose the latter. Personally, he is more interesting to me. But I'm not really talking about that here. Taking into account the all-aspect deviation of the AL-41F1 thrust vector, and the general interest in the mutual arrangement of the horizontal rudders, it was quite possible to build an extremely bobtail machine from the 57th without any vertical aerodynamic rudders. Only this would not be very good from the point of view of not even super-maneuverability, but simply the controllability of this fighter. I think so.
PS It seems that the "flying wings" is really a dead-end branch of evolution.

[vVvAD]

And what do you have LK and keels?
The author mixed in a bunch of LC, tailless and stealth, without mentioning a word about the lack of keels - apparently he himself is poorly versed in what he is writing about, or he was in such a hurry that the output turned out to be a complete muddle.
Why follow his example?

[Errr]

And keels despite the fact that it is better with them than without them.

[dgonni]

The article is about nothing. Opinions are expressed. Who and where?
May have problems. And who doesn't have them?

[Jurkovs]

Aliens generally use a disc-shaped wing, and nothing, fly.

[DED_peer_DED]

Quote: Jurkovs

Aliens generally use a disc-shaped wing, and nothing, fly.

There is no aerodynamics, there is magic and magic.

[DED_peer_DED]

In ancient times, UFOs were in the form of rowing boats. In the Middle Ages, sailing ships flew across the sky. Steam locomotives and steamers were seen in the 19th and 20th centuries.
And ...?
This is all a show. Symbols understandable for every time.

[dsaf]

Not obvious.
Why does the "flying wing" have the worst maneuverability?

[Ros 56]

He wrote an eccentric who saw planes from afar, and judging by such formulations "which allows to resist the so-called yaw of the aircraft - angular movements relative to the vertical and lateral course changes.", Even having no idea about aviation terminology.

[Magog]

From the film: "Commander, how does a fly land on the ceiling, with a half roll or half loop?" What do you think?

[vVvAD]

I agree: I stuck the yaw to the tong.

[Sergey39]

It has long been known that the ideal shape of an aircraft is a disk. All others are dead ends.

[Livonetc]

Remember ball lightning. :)
Any change in the direction of the trajectory.
Plasma nature.
If that explosive mode of self-destruction.
We vote for the ball.

[Sergey39]

Quote: Livonetc

We vote for the ball.

I agree. After the disks, let's move on to the ball :)

[Zaurbek]

Not all vehicles need maneuverability ... a fighter does not need such a scheme ...

[Metlik]

Nature has already answered this question: for a million years of evolution, birds of prey have not developed vertical plumage, and yet they successfully catch their victims in the air.

[DED_peer_DED]

Quote: Metlik

birds of prey did not have vertical plumage, and yet they successfully catch their prey in the air.

In birds, each feather works for flight. Managed separately. Modern flight technologies and computers are far from God's creation.

[voyaka uh]

There are already drones - bird simulators. And the plumage is also beginning to imitate.
Each artificial feather can be individually controlled with
the central computer of the drone. The software is doing quite well.

[DED_peer_DED]

Speed, controllability, efficiency, reliability, durability, conscious self-management?
Did you achieve the same results as a simple live bird?

[voyaka uh]

Not all at once, take your time. But there are already drones in the form of birds.
And how feathers work in birds is modeled on a computer.
Although the flight of insects is even more interesting. Insects a thousand times
older than birds. And mimicking insect patterns is the future.
While there was a three thousand year era of metals, this was not possible.
Metals are too heavy for materials of construction
in "insect-airplanes-helicopters".
But everything changed with nano-materials. Carbon tubes and the like.
We saw the May beetle: heavy body and tiny wings. And it flies!
Natural nano materials.

[DED_peer_DED]

Quote: voyaka uh

Although the flight of insects is even more interesting. Insects a thousand times
older than birds. And mimicking insect patterns is the future.

For extremely small flying objects, like insects themselves.
The flight pattern of insects does not apply to birds. Can you guess why?

We saw the May beetle: heavy body and tiny wings. And it flies!

Not far, not long, rare and difficult.

[voyaka uh]

In fossil dragonflies, wingspan reached 65 centimeters.
There was an era of giants when there was more oxygen in the atmosphere than it is now.

[DED_peer_DED]

Quote: voyaka uh

There was such an era of giants

Was ...
Perhaps it wasn't just oxygen at the time. Maybe with gravity, something is there, then messed up.

[3danimal]

With gravity, you can muddy it by changing the mass of the Earth, point. School physics, what are you talking about?

[voyaka uh]

"Not far, not long" ///
-----
This is not the point. And the fact that its wings and joints do not break
from these flights. Materials, unique in strength and flexibility.
Aluminum or carbon in comparison with them - sucks, cave age.
And these natural organic materials begin to explore and
try to synthesize.

[DED_peer_DED]

Quote: voyaka uh

And these natural organic materials begin to explore and
try to synthesize.

Materials are not everything. Energy is different for technology and the living world.

[voyaka uh]

The energy of insects is also being studied.
This is bio-chemistry. In the joints of insects there is a continuous sequence
"hormonal bio-explosions". Hormone injected, mixed
with other substances and a mini-bio-explosion occurs. Like gunpowder.
And the flea jumps half a meter up.
Or a dragonfly makes a helicopter dash.
The most interesting science has now gone into the micro- and nano-world.
From there, there will be technological breakthroughs.

[DED_peer_DED]

Quote: voyaka uh

And the flea jumps half a meter up.

From there, there will be technological breakthroughs.

Until then, the cockroaches are on the run

[dauria]

And the flea jumps half a meter up. fellow
Or a dragonfly makes a helicopter dash.

And the fly on the glass does not break at full speed. Do not be wise, warrior. The wingspan is proportional to scale, area to square, volume to cube, mass somewhere between square and cube. Continue?
Structural stresses, Reynolds number, wing loading, engine power by type .... Etc.
Each size has its own optimal design. Taking into account winnings, losses, flight goals and technological advances.
The bird Yes tail. Moreover, folding, swivel in 2 planes. And in some modes, she uses it. Although it would seem that she should have enough wings for her eyes, twist it as you like. See how a seagull flies by the garbage - you will see how it deftly uses its tail in stall modes and parachuting.
The flying wing can also be made with folding keels. If it is profitable.

[Operator]

Birds do not have a UHT jet engine.

[voyaka uh]

I wrote about the "construction materials" of insects,
and not about the theory of flight.
The same applies to birds.
To make a super-maneuverable and fast plane in
the shape of a swallow bird, new materials are needed, old
or heavy, or break quickly. Nano - nowhere from this
there is no escape from the area.

[dauria]

need new materials

There is no arguing. They are always needed. Everyone. Aerodynamics, strength specialists, armed forces and others. And then an accountant with a technologist will come and say, "Ofonareli? Hold your hobbyists. Here's a crowbar and no jackhammer. You dig a hole, but you don't need more."

[vVvAD]

And mimicking insect patterns is the future.

And then it suddenly turns out that the top of perfection is a stretching wing, that for pterosaurs and bats - everyone should do it like a mouse!

[niksfromru]

It has long been proven that birds of flapping flight are inferior to airplanes in terms of aerodynamic quality, and that of flying ones - to gliders. Their "feather" aerodynamics in "take-off and landing" modes works well only in a relatively narrow range of Reynolds numbers and specific wing loads.

[voyaka uh]

It's right. Vertical take-off and landing are critically important for them.
But it is also important for people. Kilometer runways of civilian aerodromes are not the best solution.
And for the military it is generally disastrous.
The future belongs to verticals.
Therefore, it is necessary to look closely at birds and insects.

[Fedorovich]

This idea has been expressed for eighty years - from the first experiments on this topic. So what?

[Operator]

Everything is exactly the opposite: the static instability of a tailless is its advantage from the point of view of super-maneuverability - provided that an engine with an UHT and a computerized EDSU is used, of course.

Another thing is that UHT increases fuel consumption at speeds over 500 km / h, therefore the F-22, SU-35 and SU-57 are made according to the classical scheme with a tail unit.

[Cympak]

After all, by and large, for any "stealth" there is an effective radar capable of even indirectly determining the presence of an aircraft or a drone at a certain point. And if the detection took place, then without high indicators of maneuverability, the aircraft (drone) will definitely not get away from the rocket.

And who is the "author" of this "opus"? He does not know that it is one thing to find a target, and quite another to seize. Do not launch a missile without target acquisition. And with the capture distance "stealth" just the main problems.
As the experience of using the F-117 has shown, stealth provides shock the aircraft has sufficient protection so as not to think about maneuverability to evade missiles. And .... the B-52, made according to the classic layout, is an extremely little maneuverable aircraft, but this does not prevent it from remaining in service for more than 70 years.

[iouris]

Any development inevitably comes to a standstill.

[shinobi]

And what has to do with the flying wing. A well-known set of problems and questions. Somewhere in the wrong place the author suffered. Take away the tail from our serial crackers and they as one will be flat in the style of a flying wing. It's just not necessary. Drones, no matter what scheme are made, are kamikaze .All. An enemy with a developed air defense system will see them and remove them. The solution here is only one, to overwhelm them with a mass. In the hope that one or two will break through and slam the air defense system radar. , Air Force and Navy.

[Serpet]

Who is right, only time will tell.

[niksfromru]

There are no "dead-end" aerodynamic schemes - there is only their incorrect application.
What kind of maneuverability problems can engine improvements cause? This is "inextensible to the mind"!
All modern aircraft are "oversaturated with electronics", many have EDSU, and such as the F-16 or the Su-27 family are generally "aircraft with electronic stability", despite the fact that they have a classical scheme. Reducing the stability margin is the classic way to increase agility and reduce balance resistance, not the other way around. The shape of the nozzle affects maneuverability much less, if we do not consider the option with OVT.
As for the effectiveness of the use of electronic warfare means, it practically does not depend on the aircraft layout.
The flying wing has only two fundamental disadvantages:
1) A narrower range of flight balance, leading to the need to ensure that the center of mass of the consumable payload remains unchanged.
2) The inability to use flaps to increase Cy leads to the need to increase the wing area to ensure the required takeoff and landing characteristics.

[3danimal]

After all, by and large, for any "stealth" there is an effective radar capable of even indirectly determining the presence of an aircraft or a drone at a certain point.

"Effective" meter radar can only point to the area in which the stealth is located. To strike which, with such antediluvian means of detection, it will be possible only with the use of nuclear warheads.

[su25]

Not at all. It is enough to bring an anti-aircraft missile with an active radar or infrared seeker into this area. And if you "hit" from the upper hemisphere, for example, from the MiG-31, then its radar, designed to detect cruise missiles with a very low RCS, will all the more cope.

[3danimal]

Radar will have the same problem: accurate centimeter range.
Thermal, as an option, or even with a camera. It will be a highly specialized missile like the R-27T. But they are gone now.

And if you "beat" from the upper hemisphere, for example, from the MiG-31, then its radar, designed to detect cruise missiles with a very low RCS

Tales. Its radar is inferior to that installed on the Su-35S (by the way) and detects CD (without stealth technologies) against the background of the earth no further than 30 km.

[Afotin]

The article is nothing. An aircraft constructed according to the flying wing scheme is statically unstable. Without the help of a rather complex autopilot, a person simply will not have enough reaction speed to control such a machine, but for a UAV this is not a problem. So there is nothing dead-end here.