Your Nation's Air Force [MKI]

[The Corparation]

Killed by micrometeroites as most old-time biplanes have fabric wings. And internal combustian engines don't work in space. And Spit-fires in space has already been done and has won the category of old-time fighter in space.

I didn't say the same technology, I just said Space-Biplanes. Being that Space-Fighters are entirely academic to begin with and deployed because in FT we don't care about the things that MT cares about? But yeah, Bi-Planes in Space, or maybe the single-plane Junker, haven't decided yet.

No they arent acedemic. They're unrealistic bits of nonsense meant to bring the glory of dogfighting into scifi productions.

[Licana]

Killed by micrometeroites as most old-time biplanes have fabric wings. And internal combustian engines don't work in space. And Spit-fires in space has already been done and has won the category of old-time fighter in space.

I didn't say the same technology, I just said Space-Biplanes. Being that Space-Fighters are entirely academic to begin with and deployed because in FT we don't care about the things that MT cares about? But yeah, Bi-Planes in Space, or maybe the single-plane Junker, haven't decided yet.

There is not a single benefit to such a design...whatsoever.

[Xin Ming]

I didn't say the same technology, I just said Space-Biplanes. Being that Space-Fighters are entirely academic to begin with and deployed because in FT we don't care about the things that MT cares about? But yeah, Bi-Planes in Space, or maybe the single-plane Junker, haven't decided yet.

No they arent acedemic. They're unrealistic bits of nonsense meant to bring the glory of dogfighting into scifi productions.

Figure. Of. Speech.

[Xin Ming]

I didn't say the same technology, I just said Space-Biplanes. Being that Space-Fighters are entirely academic to begin with and deployed because in FT we don't care about the things that MT cares about? But yeah, Bi-Planes in Space, or maybe the single-plane Junker, haven't decided yet.

There is not a single benefit to such a design...whatsoever.

Flavour and theme mostly what I'm going for. Screw benefits it's the realm of wank.

[Licana]

There is not a single benefit to such a design...whatsoever.

Flavour and theme mostly what I'm going for. Screw benefits it's the realm of wank.

Not arguing that point at all...

[Xin Ming]

Flavour and theme mostly what I'm going for. Screw benefits it's the realm of wank.

Not arguing that point at all...

Because it's the truth bro and we both know it. >_>

[Licana]

On, the subject of wank, I've made a draft for a new multirole aircraft. Looking for constructive criticism or information that I am missing/could add.

CFA-38: The CFA-38 is the next generation of Licanan Aircraft, designed to replace the various models of F-35 in service with the Licanan Navy and Air Force. The F-35, although a very good airframe, has a high level of observability for a stealth aircraft. This is also combined with a pitiful payload carrying capability. If one wants to equip the F-35 with a greater amount or range of weapons, they must put them on wing-mounted pylons, further compromising the stealth features of the aircraft.

Due to the shortcomings of the F-35 airframe, The Licanan Armed Forces, especially the Navy, tasked LDI's aeronautical engineering sector to build a more suitable airframe. This airframe would have to be carrier capable, while being able to carry a larger payload than the F-35, and have a comparable or lower RADAR Cross Section. The basic design of the CFA-38 is a blended delta wing-fuselage aircraft, a rarity on most aircraft carriers. This allowed for a substantial increase in the amount of space for internal weapons bays, allowing for a much higher carrying capacity compared to the F-35.

Like most Licanan aircraft, the CFA-38 was designed to have high levels of maneuverability. As such, it was decided very early on that it would have some form of Thrust Vector Control. Most Licanan aircraft have some form of TVC, and no dedicated fighter in the Licanan arsenal lacks this very feature. However, TVC negatively impacts RCS, something that this design can not afford. The negative impact on RCS tends to be from the method of changing the angle at which the thrust is directed in conventional TVC, the engine nozzles moving on the aircraft. However, this problem can be overcome through the use of a Conformal Fluidic Nozzle.

The Conformal Fluidic Nozzle is a system of TVC that uses fluid dynamics and logic to change the angling of thrust though a fixed engine nozzle. This type of TVC has less mass, drag, complexity, and lower production/maintenance costs. This is mainly due to a simpler engine with less moving parts. This form of TVC operates by redirecting air-flow over the airframe and into high-compression slots, which then inject them into the engine to divert thrust. These "slots" are evenly spaced around the inside of the nozzle and, when working in conjunction, can angle the engine's thrust up to 20 degrees in any direction. CFN, as previously stated, does not compromise stealth features with moving engine nozzles, but allows for full multiaxial thrust vectoring. Generally, it also has faster and stronger control response compared to conventional TVC methods.

The airframe itself is made mostly out of high-strength, lightweight composites. These composites, though expensive, allow for lower natural RADAR returns without compromising the performance of the airframe. Some areas of the airframe that are more prone to high levels of stress, or higher RADAR returns, are made of the same nanocarbon composites that make up a large portion of the TCF-01 stealth fighter. This, in conjunction with a stealthy profile and a light RAM coating, leads to a lower RCS across most RADAR bands when compared to the F-35.

Specifications:

Crew: 1

Length: 19.2 meters (63 ft.)
Wingspan: 12.25 meters (40.19 ft.)
Height: 4.5 meters (14.76 ft.)
Empty Weight: 12,588 kg (27,752 lbs.)
Loaded Weight: 22,354 kg (49,270 lbs.)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 30,245 kg. (66,679 lbs.)
Powerplant: 2x LDI TF-38s Afterburning Turbofans
- Dry Thrust: 78.8 kN (17,715 lbf)
- Thrust with AB: 121.6 kN (27,345 lbf)

Maximum Speed: 2,730 km/h (1,696 mph)
Supercruise Speed: 1,909 km/h (1,186 mph)
Cruise Speed: 1,053 km/h (654.1 mph)
Ferry Range: 3,848 km (2,391 mi.)
Combat Radius: 1,578 km (980.5 mi.)
Service Ceiling: 17,000 meters (55,770 ft.)
Rate of Climb: 281 m/s (922 ft/s)
Thrust/Weight: 1.11

[The Corparation]

al Fluidic Nozzle.

The Conformal Fluidic Nozzle is a system of TVC that uses fluid dynamics and logic to change the angling of thrust though a fixed engine nozzle. This type of TVC has less mass, drag, complexity, and lower production/maintenance costs. This is mainly due to a simpler engine with less moving parts. This form of TVC operates by redirecting air-flow over the airframe and into high-compression slots, which then inject them into the engine to divert thrust. These "slots" are evenly spaced around the inside of the nozzle and, when working in conjunction, can angle the engine's thrust up to 20 degrees in any direction. CFN, as previously stated, does not compromise stealth features with moving engine nozzles, but allows for full multiaxial thrust vectoring. Generally, it also has faster and stronger control response compared to conventional TVC methods.

I want more info on this part. I don't see anything wrong with the basic premise, I just wish to see if there's any RL work in that direction.

[Licana]

al Fluidic Nozzle.

The Conformal Fluidic Nozzle is a system of TVC that uses fluid dynamics and logic to change the angling of thrust though a fixed engine nozzle. This type of TVC has less mass, drag, complexity, and lower production/maintenance costs. This is mainly due to a simpler engine with less moving parts. This form of TVC operates by redirecting air-flow over the airframe and into high-compression slots, which then inject them into the engine to divert thrust. These "slots" are evenly spaced around the inside of the nozzle and, when working in conjunction, can angle the engine's thrust up to 20 degrees in any direction. CFN, as previously stated, does not compromise stealth features with moving engine nozzles, but allows for full multiaxial thrust vectoring. Generally, it also has faster and stronger control response compared to conventional TVC methods.

I want more info on this part. I don't see anything wrong with the basic premise, I just wish to see if there's any RL work in that direction.

That, I can do. Also, I'll try to make a re-write to add more information to that particular passage.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JETPEZ000123000003000502000001&ref=no.

Slideshow for the FATE program, which uses this type of TVC.

Wiki article on fluidics, which also makes mention to CFN technology.

[The Corparation]

I want more info on this part. I don't see anything wrong with the basic premise, I just wish to see if there's any RL work in that direction.

That, I can do. Also, I'll try to make a re-write to add more information to that particular passage.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JETPEZ000123000003000502000001&ref=no.

Slideshow for the FATE program, which uses this type of TVC.

Wiki article on fluidics, which also makes mention to CFN technology.

Wow, this is something I may incorporate into future designs. And is far cooler then conventional thrust vectoring

[Licana]

That, I can do. Also, I'll try to make a re-write to add more information to that particular passage.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JETPEZ000123000003000502000001&ref=no.

Slideshow for the FATE program, which uses this type of TVC.

Wiki article on fluidics, which also makes mention to CFN technology.

Wow, this is something I may incorporate into future designs. And is far cooler then conventional thrust vectoring

I figured this would be one of the things that would catch people by suprise, and as far as I know, no other NS aircraft incorporates this system.

[The Corparation]

Wow, this is something I may incorporate into future designs. And is far cooler then conventional thrust vectoring

I figured this would be one of the things that would catch people by suprise, and as far as I know, no other NS aircraft incorporates this system.

Definitely a unique concept, and one which I predict will soon be copied by others.

[Licana]

I figured this would be one of the things that would catch people by suprise, and as far as I know, no other NS aircraft incorporates this system.

Definitely a unique concept, and one which I predict will soon be copied by others.

Well, at least I'll be able to claim "first" on something trendy in NS...I doubt that will happen, though.

[No endorse]

Wow, this is something I may incorporate into future designs. And is far cooler then conventional thrust vectoring

I figured this would be one of the things that would catch people by suprise, and as far as I know, no other NS aircraft incorporates this system.

Nukefighter's had it for a long time. Coanda effect has been known/used for a lot of applications for decades, fluidic thrust vectoring was only a matter of time.

http://wikistates.outwardhosting.com/wiki/Project_352
(I'd forgotten how incomplete this wiki article can be.... the fluidic TV section is laaaaame, though it hasn't been touched in forever. Really ought to finish it.... but that'll have to wait until I'm done writing lab reports....)

Unfortunately, I can't find a whole lot of open research in academia about it. Being an Aero student myself, I may start in that direction when it comes time to start futzing with a design project. Down side is that you need to be a ninja with those control gains, as the dynamics of attaching flows are sort of mental.

[Licana]

I figured this would be one of the things that would catch people by suprise, and as far as I know, no other NS aircraft incorporates this system.

Nukefighter's had it for a long time. Coanda effect has been known/used for a lot of applications for decades, fluidic thrust vectoring was only a matter of time.

http://wikistates.outwardhosting.com/wiki/Project_352
(I'd forgotten how incomplete this wiki article can be.... the fluidic TV section is laaaaame, though it hasn't been touched in forever.)

Unfortunately, I can't find a whole lot of open research in academia about it. Being an Aero student myself, I may start in that direction when it comes time to start futzing with a design project. Down side is that you need to be a ninja with those control gains, as the dynamics of attaching flows are sort of mental.

Point taken.

Same here, I love the concept behind it (and I would really love to get into an Aeronautical engineering field). However, the sources I've provided are the only remotely informative sources I can find. Also, I figured that this would be very interesting to implement successfully.

[No endorse]

I saw a good source that actually had a decent diagram of a 2D thrust vectoring nozzle. I can't find it anymore, but here's what I can remember (sharpie pen on mini-marble memo form) Apologies for the handwriting.

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2922/scan0001pl.jpg

(and I would really love to get into an Aeronautical engineering field)

I can't recommend it enough! It's a ton of fun, if you're interested in this stuff you'll love it! It's a tremendous amount of work (hence why Nukefighter lies unfinished....) but it's so much fun. Well, let me qualify that, structures is boring as hell. Thermo- and Fluid- are crazy awesome, and controls (presented well) are really interesting. Structures is painful.

[Licana]

If you don't mind, I'd like to bookmark that for future reference and possible use, with proper citations of course.

I do happen to have an interest on this, and I've always had a particular fondness for aircraft, especially military aircraft. I figure it will be tough, and some things might be less interesting compared to others (hell, both of my NS aircraft are works in progress, and they probably won't be completely finished any time soon).

Anyway, I'm sure you've looked over my short write up/statblock, any thing particularly wrong with it?

[Rusikstan]

I saw a good source that actually had a decent diagram of a 2D thrust vectoring nozzle. I can't find it anymore, but here's what I can remember (sharpie pen on mini-marble memo form) Apologies for the handwriting.

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2922/scan0001pl.jpg

(and I would really love to get into an Aeronautical engineering field)

I can't recommend it enough! It's a ton of fun, if you're interested in this stuff you'll love it! It's a tremendous amount of work (hence why Nukefighter lies unfinished....) but it's so much fun. Well, let me qualify that, structures is boring as hell. Thermo- and Fluid- are crazy awesome, and controls (presented well) are really interesting. Structures is painful.

Organic Chem says waaat?

(Not that you can really compare apples and oranges)

I think my new job in life is to troll you NE...

[Crazy girl]

If you don't mind, I'd like to bookmark that for future reference and possible use, with proper citations of course.

Sure, insofar as it's my recollection of someone else's research project....

I do happen to have an interest on this, and I've always had a particular fondness for aircraft, especially military aircraft. I figure it will be tough, and some things might be less interesting compared to others (hell, both of my NS aircraft are works in progress, and they probably won't be completely finished any time soon).

If you can slog through the gruntwork every engineer has to deal with, it's tremendous fun. I wouldn't trade it for any other course of study.

Anyway, I'm sure you've looked over my short write up/statblock, any thing particularly wrong with it?

err.... *flips back a page* now I have!

The F-35, although a very good airframe, has a high level of observability for a stealth aircraft. This is also combined with a pitiful payload carrying capability. If one wants to equip the F-35 with a greater amount or range of weapons, they must put them on wing-mounted pylons, further compromising the stealth features of the aircraft.

While not the best analogy, F-35 is to F-22 as F-16 is to F-15. So, it depends heavily on the role you're pressing it into.... but that's mostly background fluff. Anyway, moving on (nothing to see here!)

The basic design of the CFA-38 is a blended delta wing-fuselage aircraft, a rarity on most aircraft carriers. This allowed for a substantial increase in the amount of space for internal weapons bays, allowing for a much higher carrying capacity compared to the F-35.

If you mean something like a blended A-12 Avenger II, it's an interesting concept. Your landing speeds may be rather high, however, with the Delta. It depends. Be prepared to throw it off the deck HARD, especially with those cruise, supercruise, and max speed figures suggesting a hot bird.

I like the fluidic TVC. At present, they're trying to sort out the whole control gains and nozzle design thing, but I'm a fan. I'm a little wary of fluidic TVC on a naval design (navalized nukefighter uses conventional TV) but that's just a highly conservative way to do things.



All in all, I can't argue too much with anything there. Nothing looks so far out of line as to scream extremely loudly except the combat radius and ferry range. You're looking at a really hot (fast/powerful) aircraft with over a 2:1 T:W (on afterburner) empty and you don't weigh a hilarious amount loaded a la F-22 or F-111. Dunno about those ranges.

NS Draftroom is a great place to post that, you can get more (extremely pedantic) help there. However, offhand it doesn't look unbuildable.



EDIT:

Organic Chem says waaat?

(Not that you can really compare apples and oranges)

I think my new job in life is to troll you NE...

First thing I did when choosing my major: cross every major off the list that required Orgo.

Profit.

[Rusikstan]

Organic Chem says waaat?

(Not that you can really compare apples and oranges)

I think my new job in life is to troll you NE...

First thing I did when choosing my major: cross every major off the list that required Orgo.

Profit.

Sadly Neuroscience just happens to be one of those, but I'm good with memorization so here's to an interesting year.

So lets see after *does math* oh a decade or so...PROFIT....

though for me its not really not about the money, it really is about helping people. No joke.

[Crazy girl]

The F-35, although a very good airframe, has a high level of observability for a stealth aircraft. This is also combined with a pitiful payload carrying capability. If one wants to equip the F-35 with a greater amount or range of weapons, they must put them on wing-mounted pylons, further compromising the stealth features of the aircraft.

While not the best analogy, F-35 is to F-22 as F-16 is to F-15. So, it depends heavily on the role you're pressing it into.... but that's mostly background fluff. Anyway, moving on (nothing to see here!)

I know that the F-35 isn't exactly the best comparative analogy in most cases, I use it because this was intended to replace it.

The basic design of the CFA-38 is a blended delta wing-fuselage aircraft, a rarity on most aircraft carriers. This allowed for a substantial increase in the amount of space for internal weapons bays, allowing for a much higher carrying capacity compared to the F-35.

If you mean something like a blended A-12 Avenger II, it's an interesting concept. Your landing speeds may be rather high, however, with the Delta. It depends. Be prepared to throw it off the deck HARD, especially with those cruise, supercruise, and max speed figures suggesting a hot bird.

Something similar in theory to the A-12 Avenger, but I was thinking more along the lines of some of the early art for the Suhkoi PAK FA (in fact, this was the image I was going to use to give a basic outline of what my aircraft looks like, because I can't lineart to save my life). I've been a bit split on the carrier basis myself, as I was worried from the moment I started the write up that this thing would be impractical on a carrier. I could probably knock the speed and thrust down on my engines a notch.

I like the fluidic TVC. At present, they're trying to sort out the whole control gains and nozzle design thing, but I'm a fan. I'm a little wary of fluidic TVC on a naval design (navalized nukefighter uses conventional TV) but that's just a highly conservative way to do things.

Would fluidic TVC have a noticeable negative impact on naval aircraft?

All in all, I can't argue too much with anything there. Nothing looks so far out of line as to scream extremely loudly except the combat radius and ferry range. You're looking at a really hot (fast/powerful) aircraft with over a 2:1 T:W (on afterburner) empty and you don't weigh a hilarious amount loaded a la F-22 or F-111. Dunno about those ranges.

Most of my aircraft tend to have highly powerful engines. I was thinking that the range should probably be shorter, but I'm not quite as knowledgeable in the mathematics and calculations behind it (I have no formal education on aeronautics, as of yet). Would around 1,000 km be more reasonable? However, it's good to see that other than that, I haven't made any glaring mistakes.

NS Draftroom is a great place to post that; the people are moderately nice when you do your research.
h?

I was thinking about putting this into the draftroom, but I've never really been a fan of it. I guess that comes down to my lack of education and understanding in some of the more technical aspects of this, and that I've seen that those kinds of people don't tend to present well on the draftroom.

EDIT: Not to mention my lack of information on RADAR and other more essential aspects about the aircraft that will severely impact it's combat performance, which I intend to right sometime tomorrow.

[No endorse]

Would fluidic TVC have a noticeable negative impact on naval aircraft?

Well, you're in an environment where you're at a low speed with a high angle of attack and some moderately low thrust setting. I honestly don't know enough about it to know how much control authority you can get out of it, though your conventional wing surfaces will certainly far outstrip Nukefighter's maneuvering capabilities at very low speed just from greater possible deflections.

I was thinking about putting this into the draftroom, but I've never really been a fan of it.

Some of the folks there are rough around the edges, but most of 'em know their stuff. If you give off the newb vibe and not the n00b vibe, you'll get by a lot easier. We're mostly hard on people who don't learn, or only post to get an "approved" stamp or so they can rant about how biased we are against their novel interpretation of the world.

The biggest piece of advice I can give you is research research research! An hour of googling and wiki-diving can turn up more than you can imagine, and give you a starting point that folks can help you from.

[Scotianovaland]

Having gone into a technology sharing agreement with China, the Royal Scotianovaland Air Force (RScAF) currently has a fleet of 60 F/A-10's. A 4th generation swing role fighter roughly similar in capabilities to the F/A-18 E/F. These were all assembled in Scotianovaland from knocked down kits. The 60 aircraft are divided in three operational Squadrons of 15 aircraft each and 1 OTU (Operational Training Unit) with 15 aircraft.

10 Squadron - Screaming Cats
11 Squadron - Angry Bats
12 Squadron - Flying Wolverines

15 OTU - Momma's Boys



Our Fleet Air Arm currently operated the Indian LCA(N) Tejas. We currently have 20 in service and have options for 10 more.

[Licana]

Would fluidic TVC have a noticeable negative impact on naval aircraft?

Well, you're in an environment where you're at a low speed with a high angle of attack and some moderately low thrust setting. I honestly don't know enough about it to know how much control authority you can get out of it, though your conventional wing surfaces will certainly far outstrip Nukefighter's maneuvering capabilities at very low speed just from greater possible deflections.

Alright, So for now I'll keep it navalized, and maybe change it in the future if it proves to be impractical.

I was thinking about putting this into the draftroom, but I've never really been a fan of it.

Some of the folks there are rough around the edges, but most of 'em know their stuff. If you give off the newb vibe and not the n00b vibe, you'll get by a lot easier. We're mostly hard on people who don't learn, or only post to get an "approved" stamp or so they can rant about how biased we are against their novel interpretation of the world.

The biggest piece of advice I can give you is research research research! An hour of googling and wiki-diving can turn up more than you can imagine, and give you a starting point that folks can help you from.

I try to research anything that I don't fully understand, so I'll hopefully be alright in that regard. I (at least, I hope) don't try to come off as condescending or a "know it all", so once I finish revising my write up and finish the article on the avionics and whatnot, I'll probably submit it.

[Minnysota]

(From different thread)

F/A-XX?

Either it is to be started in 2025, or it will be finished by 2025 (I would say it is the former). Only known sixth generation aircraft to be proposed.

Fighter Thread That Way >...well, more like that way V, but you get the jist of things.

If there are people who disagree with the technical definition of a 5th gen fighter, how will they decide what makes a 6th gen?

The sixth generation fighter page used to have a definition, but it got changed. It will have more advanced electronics, sensors, stealth, weaponry (supposedly direct-energy weapons), and man other advanced objects that are upgrades from 5th generation fighters. Without a doubt, this is PMT.

(I wish that the 6th gen. fighter definition was still up! >.<)