Military Review

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

84

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 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. 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.
84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 7 August 2020 08: 01 New
    11
    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)))
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 7 August 2020 08: 05 New
      +9
      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.
      1. Shurik70
        Shurik70 7 August 2020 21: 06 New
        0
        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 air defense within its radius of action, then no amount of maneuverability will save. But the low visibility provided by the "flying wing" scheme can even save
    2. NIKN
      NIKN 7 August 2020 10: 47 New
      +8
      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.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 7 August 2020 12: 08 New
        +7
        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.
        1. NIKN
          NIKN 7 August 2020 12: 24 New
          +3
          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. hi
      2. dauria
        dauria 7 August 2020 14: 29 New
        +1
        , 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.
    3. shinobi
      shinobi 7 August 2020 13: 59 New
      0
      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.
      1. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 8 August 2020 07: 53 New
        0
        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...
        1. shinobi
          shinobi 9 August 2020 03: 28 New
          0
          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.
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 12 August 2020 07: 52 New
            0
            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.
            1. shinobi
              shinobi 14 August 2020 03: 29 New
              0
              Exactly. Comrade argued the opposite.
              1. abrakadabre
                abrakadabre 14 August 2020 08: 20 New
                0
                Exactly. Comrade argued the opposite.
                A friend offended Google and YouTube with his outlook, and they won't let him go anywhere. Pichalka.
    4. Viktor Sergeev
      Viktor Sergeev 7 August 2020 17: 10 New
      -1
      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.
    5. PilotS37
      PilotS37 7 August 2020 17: 37 New
      +5
      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!
    6. _Ugene_
      _Ugene_ 7 August 2020 21: 04 New
      +3
      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
    7. vVvAD
      vVvAD 8 August 2020 16: 50 New
      -1
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins

      Clever. Too cleverly written.

      Never abstruse for a person interested in this topic.
  2. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 7 August 2020 08: 02 New
    +9
    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? fool
    1. Vita vko
      Vita vko 7 August 2020 08: 20 New
      +2
      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.
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 7 August 2020 08: 24 New
        -1
        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. request
      2. DED_peer_DED
        DED_peer_DED 7 August 2020 11: 40 New
        0
        Quote: Vita VKO
        In the presence of an engine with thrust vector control

        What does a thrust vectoring engine have to do with stealth?
  3. Tooks
    Tooks 7 August 2020 08: 07 New
    12
    From an aerodynamic point of view, this is an excellent circuit. Very suitable for scouts and bombers. EDSU solves stability problems.
    1. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov 7 August 2020 09: 03 New
      +2
      A keel can also solve stability problems, a flying wing is not necessarily a tailless.
      1. dsaf
        dsaf 7 August 2020 09: 15 New
        +2
        The statically unstable scheme is just invented to increase maneuverability.
        1. Tooks
          Tooks 7 August 2020 10: 48 New
          10
          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.
  4. Baloo
    Baloo 7 August 2020 08: 09 New
    +1
    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?
    1. Flamberg
      Flamberg 7 August 2020 08: 35 New
      +3
      I think that modern tail-fueled airplanes will not be able to crank such a maneuver either, since the wing loading is too high.
    2. vadimtt
      vadimtt 7 August 2020 09: 45 New
      +1
      If the power supply is not lost, then why not?
    3. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 7 August 2020 09: 47 New
      +1
      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.
  5. Svetlana
    Svetlana 7 August 2020 08: 16 New
    +6
    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.
  6. Avior
    Avior 7 August 2020 08: 18 New
    +7
    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.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 7 August 2020 09: 05 New
      +7
      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 ...
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 7 August 2020 09: 41 New
        +4
        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.
  7. Maks1995
    Maks1995 7 August 2020 08: 45 New
    +1
    Maybe it can't, why are these short empty arguments ???
    The stump is clear, where necessary - other approaches
  8. Errr
    Errr 7 August 2020 08: 49 New
    +4
    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 at the same time removes the "smut" to control its flight.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 7 August 2020 11: 52 New
      +5
      Su-57 is a fighter. It could not be otherwise.
      1. Errr
        Errr 7 August 2020 13: 07 New
        0
        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. smile
    2. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 8 August 2020 08: 03 New
      +1
      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 at the same time removes the "smut" to control its flight.


      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.
      1. Errr
        Errr 8 August 2020 08: 51 New
        0
        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. smile
        PS It seems that the "flying wings" is really a dead-end branch of evolution.
    3. vVvAD
      vVvAD 8 August 2020 16: 58 New
      0
      And what do you have LK and keels? fool
      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?
      1. Errr
        Errr 8 August 2020 19: 21 New
        +1
        And keels despite the fact that it is better with them than without them.
  9. dgonni
    dgonni 7 August 2020 08: 54 New
    +6
    The article is about nothing. Opinions are expressed. Who and where?
    May have problems. And who doesn't have them?
  10. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 7 August 2020 09: 08 New
    13
    Aliens generally use a disc-shaped wing, and nothing, fly.
    1. DED_peer_DED
      DED_peer_DED 7 August 2020 11: 44 New
      0
      Quote: Jurkovs
      Aliens generally use a disc-shaped wing, and nothing, fly.

      There is no aerodynamics, there is magic and magic.
    2. DED_peer_DED
      DED_peer_DED 7 August 2020 12: 07 New
      0
      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.
  11. dsaf
    dsaf 7 August 2020 09: 14 New
    0
    Not obvious.
    Why does the "flying wing" have the worst maneuverability?
  12. Ros 56
    Ros 56 7 August 2020 09: 20 New
    +3
    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.
    1. Magog
      Magog 7 August 2020 18: 39 New
      +2
      From the film: "Commander, how does a fly land on the ceiling, with a half roll or half loop?" What do you think?
    2. vVvAD
      vVvAD 8 August 2020 17: 01 New
      0
      I agree: I stuck the yaw to the tong.
  13. Sergey39
    Sergey39 7 August 2020 09: 34 New
    +8
    It has long been known that the ideal shape of an aircraft is a disk. All others are dead ends.
    1. Livonetc
      Livonetc 7 August 2020 10: 45 New
      +5
      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.
      1. Sergey39
        Sergey39 7 August 2020 10: 56 New
        +1
        Quote: Livonetc
        We vote for the ball.

        I agree. After the disks, let's move on to the ball :)
  14. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 7 August 2020 10: 00 New
    0
    Not all vehicles need maneuverability ... a fighter does not need such a scheme ...
  15. Metlik
    Metlik 7 August 2020 10: 19 New
    +4
    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.
    1. DED_peer_DED
      DED_peer_DED 7 August 2020 11: 47 New
      +2
      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.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 7 August 2020 11: 57 New
        +2
        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.
        1. DED_peer_DED
          DED_peer_DED 7 August 2020 12: 04 New
          0
          Speed, controllability, efficiency, reliability, durability, conscious self-management?
          Did you achieve the same results as a simple live bird?
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 7 August 2020 12: 12 New
            +3
            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.
            1. DED_peer_DED
              DED_peer_DED 7 August 2020 12: 15 New
              0
              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.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 7 August 2020 12: 21 New
                +2
                In fossil dragonflies, wingspan reached 65 centimeters. smile
                There was an era of giants when there was more oxygen in the atmosphere than it is now.
                1. DED_peer_DED
                  DED_peer_DED 7 August 2020 12: 24 New
                  +2
                  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.
                  1. 3danimal
                    3danimal 7 August 2020 20: 30 New
                    0
                    With gravity, you can muddy it by changing the mass of the Earth, point. School physics, what are you talking about?
              2. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 7 August 2020 12: 26 New
                +2
                "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.
                1. DED_peer_DED
                  DED_peer_DED 7 August 2020 12: 29 New
                  0
                  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.
                  1. voyaka uh
                    voyaka uh 7 August 2020 12: 39 New
                    +2
                    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. fellow
                    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.
                    1. DED_peer_DED
                      DED_peer_DED 7 August 2020 12: 48 New
                      0
                      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 laughing
                    2. dauria
                      dauria 7 August 2020 13: 07 New
                      +4
                      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.
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 7 August 2020 13: 10 New
                        -2
                        Birds do not have a UHT jet engine.
                      2. voyaka uh
                        voyaka uh 7 August 2020 13: 14 New
                        +3
                        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. wink
                      3. dauria
                        dauria 7 August 2020 14: 01 New
                        +2
                        need new materials

                        There is no arguing. laughing They are always needed. Everyone. Aerodynamics, strength specialists, armed men and others. And then an accountant with a technologist will come and say, "Ofonareli? Hold your hobbyists. Here is a crowbar and no jackhammer. You dig a hole, but you don't need more."
          2. vVvAD
            vVvAD 8 August 2020 17: 05 New
            -1
            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!
      2. niksfromru
        niksfromru 10 August 2020 09: 30 New
        +1
        It has long been proven that birds of flapping flight are inferior in terms of aerodynamic quality to airplanes, and soaring ones - to gliders. Their "feather" aerodynamics in "takeoff and landing" modes works well only in a relatively narrow range of Reynolds numbers and specific wing loads.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 10 August 2020 12: 19 New
          0
          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
    Fedorovich 7 August 2020 11: 09 New
    0
    This idea has been expressed for eighty years - from the first experiments on this topic. So what?
  • Operator
    Operator 7 August 2020 11: 32 New
    -1
    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
    Cympak 7 August 2020 12: 51 New
    0
    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 distance of capture of "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
    iouris 7 August 2020 13: 42 New
    0
    Any development inevitably comes to a standstill.
  • shinobi
    shinobi 7 August 2020 14: 12 New
    0
    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
    Serpet 7 August 2020 19: 36 New
    +7
    Who is right, only time will tell.
  • niksfromru
    niksfromru 10 August 2020 09: 23 New
    0
    There are no "dead-end" aerodynamic schemes - there is only their incorrect application.
    What problems with maneuverability can improve engines 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
    3danimal 10 August 2020 10: 38 New
    -1
    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.
    1. su25
      su25 10 August 2020 22: 12 New
      0
      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.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 11 August 2020 04: 53 New
        -1
        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 "hit" 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
    Afotin 4 September 2020 02: 18 New
    0
    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.