Close coupled canards and Levcons aren't so much for control authority... they're for increasing lift at high alpha / low speeds. You can see unstable deltas (e.g. Mirage 2000) with plenty of control authority despite not having any canards.
You’re mixing 2 different things. Control authority and lift generation. The close coupled canards are there to increase lift and enable lower approach speeds than a conventional YF-23 wing.
Agree it’s not different for F/A-XX. They both need high lift devices, just like every other carrier aircraft out there. There are lots of ways to do this… wing blowing, canards, levcons, big LERXs etc.
3D TVC doesn't hurt.
The original non-canard NATF-23 did not have sufficient control authority hence the the canards and thrust vectoring. USN did not like the canards due to visibility concerns but they could have gotten used to them.
In addition, the canards and vectoring were required for approach and landing.
Nozzles vector down and canard lifts for slower approach.
To be fair, it so weird they would choose to limit the weapon length like that, especially for a supposed hypersonic missile. How hard it is to put the weapon on a slanted holder or just put it in aircraft elevator?
Remember for carrier approach and landing, high-drag and high power setting.
Like any elevator, the carrier deck-edge elevators have a maximum weight limit. Size wise, I think a hypersonic missile will fit and you may only have a single aircraft on the elevator with it's complete weapons load-out transferring from the hangar deck to the flight deck, again keeping within weight limitations. They have to make sure that the hypersonic missile will also fit the dimensions of the weapons transfer elevators as well.
Okay F-35B, I don't know about all of that. IMO thrust vectoring would be used to increase the angle of attack limit. Same with canards but they would increase trimmed lift as well.
?? What does the F-35B have to do with anything? We're talking about TVC in the context of landing. Why would you want to increase the AOA limit on landing?
The F-35B nozzle swivels to aid in lift. I don’t think you’d want to do that in this context, as the pitching moment would be horrendous. Anyways, When you increase the AOA limit, you increase the angle of attack at which you can land, meaning you can land at a slower speed for fixed weight.
Ye Gods. No, I'm not talking about an F-35B style nozzle. More like those on the F-22 and the angle would be much more subtle than that. You want to keep your nose down not pull it way up for more AOA.
That would not work in this application. The pitching moment would be far to excessive with lift thrust vector. Moreover, the lift vector would drag the neutral point aft thusly requiring an increase in the canard Cl. What you propose was once studied at Lockheed. To make it work the canard would be so large that you would think the aircraft had a tandem wing. On the surface it may look feasible, but it isn't.
Big canards have advantages in stealth. They're closer to the required large multiple of wavelength for RAM/RAS and large canards means small deflections for most flight situations.
My understanding (based on NASA's F/A-18 HARV research) is that a small amount of thrust vectoring can help increase lift and reduce approach speeds. This is because fighter designs are unstable, therefore they have a pitch-up moment that needs to be compensated by trimming down using control surfaces. With thrust vectoring, a side benefit is that the required pitch-down force is automatically taken care of without using control surfaces.
In the above this benefit of enhanced lift is from having an additional control effector rather than it specifically being thrust vectoring. Just something else to provide more control power to deload other surfaces and delay saturation.
This article amuses me. We are calling an investment of $500 million an acceleration of F/A-XX while conveniently forgetting the money that Congress and the USN themselves removed from the program...
Imo one of his weaker videos, it was a bit all over the place and I'd argue it's rather safe to say that the J-36 won't be on any carriers. CAC never did naval aircraft, the J-20 was already considered to large and unwieldy for carrier ops, the J-36 is comparable if not worse in that regard. I'm betting on SACs J-XD/J-50/ being at least the basis for PLANAFs next gen naval fighter. Something I even commented lol.
Well that is rather grim for the future of this program. Not sure how they can deter China in the 2030's without having next-gen aircraft of similar capability available to launch from an aircraft carrier.
