Why do the Europeans employ so many delta wing jets wheras USA and Russia don't?

[S.h.r.i.k.e.]

I have been downloading a lot of jet videos and pictures on the web recently. Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with the most of the European jets. I began to notice that many modern Euro military jets are tail-less delta winged designs (Mirage, Rafale, Typhoon, Vulcan, ect.). I'm just wondering why the Europeans seem to favor this design over the conventional winged design. The USA and the Soviet Union were the two major superpowers during the 70's and 80's when many of todays fighters were designed. Thus, I'm assuming (I admit that I am fairly ignorant on this topic, so all you Europeans, please don't get angry at me) that the two major superpowers in the world would be using the "best" design for fighters and that the tail-less delta wing is, overall, an inferior design. Anyway, why do the Europeans seem to like their delta wings so much?

[SuperKungFu]

Correct me if I'm wrong but its just whatever that suits that country's needs and its aircraft to carry out that duty. For example a delta wing design has less drag at high speeds, more drag on maneuvering, and weighs less which = more fuel. A conventional wing design has less drag on maneuvering, more drag at high speeds, and it is heavier...bla bla bla. Somethng along those lines.

[Crusty]

I believe, both America and Russia started fast jet devevelopement off the back of German swept wing research, using many captured German engineers and prototypes, whereas the other countries relied to a greater extent on Indiginous design work, this is of course an over simplification, but definately it had an effect on the type of configurations produced, eg. fairy delta vs bell X2

[nscode]

How's this for a russian delta:

 

 

;)

[Dudikoff]

I think it also might be a cost and requirements issue. You'll notice that the primary task of European fighter aircraft is defence so these aircraft are mostly short range interceptors. A delta-wing design is simple and lowers development costs and allows the aircraft to be more compact which again leads to a cheaper product. The advances in FBW technology allowed the inherently unstable designs which are also pretty maneuverable.

[SuperKungFu]

While on the subject of wing design, i forgot what was wrong with the forward swept wing design that was on the X-29 and the Su-47 berkut. I remember reading it generated a lot of lift and very agile at high altitudes, so what was wrong with it?

[GGTharos]

Highly ... HIGHLY unstable and very difficult to control if you departed.

 

So, once more:

 

1. Departs easily

2. Difficult to recover from departure

 

Bad and bad

[HRZ]

What's that missile under the wings of that Mig posted on the picture?

[RvETito]

Oh this one? It's the R-177 with ARH and 200+km range:D:D:D

[Pilotasso]

Of course, why havent I figured that out before?!:rolleyes:

[GGTharos]

Just S-300 missiles being used to give it that incredible top speed :D

[F22FighterPilot]

Well for one thing the United States Air Force and the Russian air force have often been called the rich man's air force. Since some European countries don't have the massive amount of funding as the U.S. and Russia, they have to watch how much money they spend more closely. Therefore, they're going to go with the less expensive tailess delta wing over a conventional wing lay out. The number of drawbacks of delta wings has been greatly reduced with the use of canards with the delta. But some still exist such as the plane becoming a big speed brake in tight sustained turns.:pilotfly:

[D-Scythe]

While on the subject of wing design, i forgot what was wrong with the forward swept wing design that was on the X-29 and the Su-47 berkut. I remember reading it generated a lot of lift and very agile at high altitudes, so what was wrong with it?

 

Along with the points posted by GG, forward swept wings only really offered an advantage over conventional wing design in the transonic region (M0.8-1.2). Above, the conventional wing was superior and below they offered similar performance.

[Dudikoff]

Along with the points posted by GG, forward swept wings only really offered an advantage over conventional wing design in the transonic region (M0.8-1.2). Above, the conventional wing was superior and below they offered similar performance.

 

But the main advantage of FSW is at high alpha because the wing sort of guides the air towards the tail control surfaces making them usable at much higher alpha than possible with conventional wing.

[Pilotasso]

Well for one thing the United States Air Force and the Russian air force have often been called the rich man's air force. Since some European countries don't have the massive amount of funding as the U.S. and Russia, they have to watch how much money they spend more closely.

 

ha! you probably dont know russia are in alot more economic trouble than europe. ;)

Also Europe has already produced 3 4rth gen fighters and russia none. And the fact that Europe is the second largest military force on the planet and not russia...

[F l a n k e r]

I don't understand a thing: F-16, MiG-29 and Su-27 don't have a delta wing?

Well, not exactly a delta, but not a simple swept one.

[Pilotasso]

Actualy F-16 uses a diamond shape wing.

[104th_Crow]

Don't even get me started on this beauty......

[Pilotasso]

Yeah and it was scraped by small minded politicians. We still dont know exactly how good a fighter it would be, though we know it would be far ahead of its time.

[104th_Crow]

A friend of mine's father was at a scrap yard outside Toronto somewhere and came across one of the old Iriquois engines with a huge whole drilled through the side of it....... Made him cry to see such a piece of work so totally ruined.

[Weta43]

Is that an Avro Arrow? (that is what I meant Jester)

[Crusty]

Well for one thing the United States Air Force and the Russian air force have often been called the rich man's air force. Since some European countries don't have the massive amount of funding as the U.S. and Russia, they have to watch how much money they spend more closely. Therefore, they're going to go with the less expensive tailess delta wing over a conventional wing lay out. The number of drawbacks of delta wings has been greatly reduced with the use of canards with the delta. But some still exist such as the plane becoming a big speed brake in tight sustained turns.:pilotfly:

 

I dont understand, Could you perhaps explain how delta wings are cheaper than swept wings with a tailplane?

[Jester_159th]

Is that an Avril Arrow?

 

 

You mean Avro Arrow? Looks like it to me.

[104th_Crow]

It is indeed the Avro Arrow. When they canned it, it took all of Canada's Aeorspace potential with it.

[F l a n k e r]

Ah! I've understand now, without tailplane!