Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Versail]

I have hit a dilemma.

Type (*Optional): Interceptor.
Length:20 m
Wingspan:16 m
Height:7 m
Propulsion:9,050 ibf
Empty Weight:11,000 kg
Normal Weight:17,000 kg.
Maximum Take-Off Weight:21,000 kg
Normal Payload:
Maximum Payload:
Combat Range:1,400 km
Ferry Range:1,800 km
Operational Ceiling/Altitude:
Maximum Altitude:18,200
Cruising Speed:1,800 km/h
Maximum Speed:2,150 km/h
Rate of Climb:230 m/s
Crew (List):2
Price: 95 million.
What should the Payload be?

[Versail]

I have hit a dilemma.

Type (*Optional): Interceptor.
Length:20 m
Wingspan:16 m
Height:7 m
Propulsion:9,050 ibf
Empty Weight:11,000 kg
Normal Weight:17,000 kg.
Maximum Take-Off Weight:21,000 kg
Normal Payload:
Maximum Payload:
Combat Range:1,400 km
Ferry Range:1,800 km
Operational Ceiling/Altitude:
Maximum Altitude:18,200
Cruising Speed:1,800 km/h
Maximum Speed:2,150 km/h
Rate of Climb:230 m/s
Crew (List):2
Price: 95 million.
What should the Payload be?

[Versail]

I have hit a dilemma.

Type (*Optional): Interceptor.
Length:20 m
Wingspan:16 m
Height:7 m
Propulsion:9,050 ibf
Empty Weight:11,000 kg
Normal Weight:17,000 kg.
Maximum Take-Off Weight:21,000 kg
Normal Payload:
Maximum Payload:
Combat Range:1,400 km
Ferry Range:1,800 km
Operational Ceiling/Altitude:
Maximum Altitude:18,200
Cruising Speed:1,800 km/h
Maximum Speed:2,150 km/h
Rate of Climb:230 m/s
Crew (List):2
Price: 95 million.
What should the Payload be?

[Versail]

Type (*Optional): Interceptor.
Length:20 m
Width (Optional):
Wingspan:16 m
Height:7 m
Propulsion:26,000 ibf
Empty Weight:24,420 lb
Normal Weight:35 520 lb
Maximum Take-Off Weight:37,890 lb
Fuel Weight (Optional):1,110 lb
Normal Payload:10,000 lb
Maximum Payload:12,000 lb
Combat Range:1,400 km
Ferry Range:1,800 km
Operational Ceiling/Altitude: 4,657 m
Maximum Altitude:5,890 m
Cruising Speed:1,203 km/h
Supercruising Speed (Optional):18,940 km/h
Maximum Speed:2,150 km/h
Stall Speed (Optional):400 km/h
Rate of Climb:230 m/s
Limit per/number of pylon(s) (Optional):2,000 lb/5 ,2 on each wing and one in center.
Crew (List):2
Price: 35 million per unit.
Thoughts?

[Versail]

Type (*Optional): Interceptor.
Length:20 m
Width (Optional):
Wingspan:16 m
Height:7 m
Propulsion:26,000 ibf
Empty Weight:24,420 lb
Normal Weight:35 520 lb
Maximum Take-Off Weight:37,890 lb
Fuel Weight (Optional):1,110 lb
Normal Payload:10,000 lb
Maximum Payload:12,000 lb
Combat Range:1,400 km
Ferry Range:1,800 km
Operational Ceiling/Altitude: 4,657 m
Maximum Altitude:5,890 m
Cruising Speed:1,203 km/h
Supercruising Speed (Optional):18,940 km/h
Maximum Speed:2,150 km/h
Stall Speed (Optional):400 km/h
Rate of Climb:230 m/s
Limit per/number of pylon(s) (Optional):2,000 lb/5 ,2 on each wing and one in center.
Crew (List):2
Price: 35 million per unit.
Thoughts?

What kind of interceptor fight is it

What kind of interceptor?
The kind that while lesser in quality it is far cheaper to assemble then others.
Did that anwser the question?

[Versail]

Type (*Optional): Interceptor.
Length:20 m
Width (Optional):
Wingspan:16 m
Height:7 m
Propulsion:26,000 ibf
Empty Weight:24,420 lb
Normal Weight:35 520 lb
Maximum Take-Off Weight:37,890 lb
Fuel Weight (Optional):1,110 lb
Normal Payload:10,000 lb
Maximum Payload:12,000 lb
Combat Range:1,400 km
Ferry Range:1,800 km
Operational Ceiling/Altitude: 4,657 m
Maximum Altitude:5,890 m
Cruising Speed:1,203 km/h
Supercruising Speed (Optional):18,940 km/h
Maximum Speed:2,150 km/h
Stall Speed (Optional):400 km/h
Rate of Climb:230 m/sm
Limit per/number of pylon(s) (Optional):2,000 lb/5 ,2 on each wing and one in center.
Crew (List):2
Price: 35 million per unit.
Thoughts?

MT?

If so, why produce an interceptor?

Yes although slowly passing into PMT.
Surrounded by enemys with bomber borne nuclear weapons.

[Versail]

Yes although slowly passing into PMT.
Surrounded by enemys with bomber borne nuclear weapons.

Hmm.

A dedicated interceptor in my opinion, might not be the best. An Air Dominance fighter like the F-22 or the Typhoon is a better choice in my opinion, just so you have the option of defending your own aircraft as well should you feel the need to return with your own nuclear-bombers. This is of course, if you have a nuclear stockpile.

How about this?

Name:Groenwahn.
Type: Air-dominance fighter.
Length: 21 meter’s.
Wingspan:16 meters.
Height:7 meters.
Propulsion: 2 PV-321 18,000 kgf engine.
Total Net Thrust:36,000 kgf
Empty Weight:24,210 kg
Maximum Take-Off Weight:45,000 kg.
Minimum Fuel Weight (0.25):11,250
Maximum Fuel Weight (0.35):15750.
Limit Per/Number of Pylon(s):1,500 kg/8
Normal Payload:16,000 kg
Maximum Payload:21,000 kg
Normal Combat Weight:35,460 kg
Thrust-to-Weight Ratio:1:1.15
Combat Range:2,100 km
Ferry Range:4,600
Operational Ceiling/Altitude: 40,000 m
Maximum Altitude:62,000 m
Cruising Speed:mach 1.15
Supercruising Speed:mach 1.25
Maximum Speed:1,450 km/h
Crew (List):1 pilot, 1 co-pilot.
Price: 120 million per unit.

[Versail]

How about this?

Name:Groenwahn.
Type: Air-dominance fighter.
Length: 21 meter’s.
Wingspan:16 meters.
Height:7 meters.
Propulsion: 2 PV-321 18,000 kgf engine.
Total Net Thrust:36,000 kgf
Empty Weight:24,210 kg
Maximum Take-Off Weight:45,000 kg.
Minimum Fuel Weight (0.25):11,250
Maximum Fuel Weight (0.35):15750.
Limit Per/Number of Pylon(s):1,500 kg/8
Normal Payload:16,000 kg
Maximum Payload:21,000 kg
Normal Combat Weight:35,460 kg
Thrust-to-Weight Ratio:1:1.15
Combat Range:2,100 km
Ferry Range:4,600
Operational Ceiling/Altitude: 40,000 m
Maximum Altitude:62,000 m
Cruising Speed:mach 1.15
Supercruising Speed:mach 1.25
Maximum Speed:1,450 km/h
Crew (List):1 pilot, 1 co-pilot.
Price: 120 million per unit.

Service ceiling is way too high, and entirely unnecessary.

You probably won't get the performance you want out of those engines. You have a rated thrust that is lower than that of the F-22 (about the same as the F-15E) but a combat weight and payload that are significantly higher, in an aircraft that is also larger. Fuel weight is extreme too.

Ceiling of 30,000 m and max of 46,000 m?
How about twin engines each with 22,000 ibf?

[Versail]

Ceiling of 30,000 m and max of 46,000 m?

Why does it have to be so high? Raptor maxes out at ~20,000 meters and F-15E at 18,200. Flight at such high altitudes requires changes that make aircraft less optimal at lower altitudes, namely larger wings to generate more lift in the thinner air, but this makes it difficult to achieve high speed at lower altitudes due to drag.

How about twin engines each with 22,000 ibf?

If that's the dry thrust then it's better, but you'll still fall short relative to the sheer amount of ordnance and fuel you're trying to carry. 15,750 kg of fuel is nearly twice what an F-22 can carry internally and significantly more than it can carry even with external tanks, and it accounts for a full third of your MTOW, unlike the F-22 where a full internal fuel load is closer to 1/4 of its weight. 21,000 kg or even 16,000 kg is unnecessary for an air superiority fighter. Missiles weigh in the range of ~80 kg (Sidewinder) to 500 kg (Phoenix), so you don't need that kind of capacity. In comparison, the F-15E, which was designed for ground attack (which requires carrying heavy ordnance like gravity bombs), carries only 10,400 kg max.

No need for a second crewman either. Ground attack aircraft have them so that the pilot can fly the plane while the weapon systems officer targets the air-to-ground weapons, but dedicated air-to-air fighters are usually single-seat since a second seat eats up fuel storage and doesn't provide nearly as many benefits in air-to-air combat.

Didnt think of that.
Yes I do mean dry thrust.

[Versail]

Where could I find a way to make sketches of a custom air-craft?
And what would some differences be between a land based craft and a navel version?

[Vindex Nation]

Vindex nation refuses to have an "air force" why??? Because the airforce Is considered useless. If every other branch (navy, army, marines) has there own airplanes then what is the point of creating a whole new branch just for more airplanes??? The Vindex Marine core is our airforce.

[Virana]

F-20, if it was put into production and continually modernised, as the F-16 has been, is it a sensible fighter? Assuming that by 2010-ish it will have been relegated to supporting UCAVs anyway. Also naval variant possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

Maybe. Keep in mind it was created as a cheaper, reduced capability F-16 due to Carter's export restrictions. When that died out the plane was overshadowed in the market by the F-16. If continued it might make a decent lightweight, low-cost fighter. JF-17 rings some bells there for comparison.

[Virana]

Maybe. Keep in mind it was created as a cheaper, reduced capability F-16 due to Carter's export restrictions. When that died out the plane was overshadowed in the market by the F-16. If continued it might make a decent lightweight, low-cost fighter. JF-17 rings some bells there for comparison.

The concept today lives on as the FA-50
The F-20 would just be a better version of that, with a slightly smaller payload, so I think it'd be "sensible."

That works for me. I have no need for a super-duper stealth fighter that can do everything. I just need a little something to say I have an combat ready air force.

Yeah, as said above, you should get a full sized fighter—something around the size of an F-16, Gripen, or even Eurofighter or Rafale. If you're cash-strapped, use a combination of a few of those with larger numbers of F-20s.

[Virana]

Oh jeez! Neighborhood just got buzzed by two F/A-22's I think, either that or they were JSF's, came in low enough that I could almost see the USAF roundel on the underside! I love Cali. :3

Live on an Air Force base with F-15Es.

Really nothing better than watching afterburner at midnight.

i intern next to an air reserve base and all i see are C-130s and occasionally some black hawks...

[Virana]

So, what's the minimum amount of Tu-22M backfires needed to wipe out a Carrier Strike Group?

As you can probably see from what San Silvacian said, the number and strength of the bombers' escorts is way more important than the number of Backfires. A proper carrier strike group will have a lot of fighters intercepting your aerial assault, so you will need to have a significant anti-air component; just a squadron of Tu-22Ms, no matter how large, will get slaughtered without escorts by the task force's air defense.

[Virana]

As you can probably see from what San Silvacian said, the number and strength of the bombers' escorts is way more important than the number of Backfires. A proper carrier strike group will have a lot of fighters intercepting your aerial assault, so you will need to have a significant anti-air component; just a squadron of Tu-22Ms, no matter how large, will get slaughtered without escorts by the task force's air defense.

So, two or three fighter escorts for every single Backfire?

Well, that'd rely on how many Backfires you send. The number of escorts is going to have to be something capable of fighting the task force's air defense; that includes both fighters and shipborne defense systems (anti-air missiles, mostly). It also depends on the size and composition of your adversary's carrier air wing. US carrier air wings typically have four whole strike fighter squadrons, a squadron of electronic warfare support craft, and some other support planes, totaling around 100 or so aircraft. France's Charles de Gaulle is way smaller than US carriers, and only holds around 40 or so aircraft of different types.

It goes back to the size and composition of your adversary's air defenses. Keep in mind that the strength of your escorts is not merely dependent on air-to-air capability and the number of planes. Modern aerial warfare is very focused around electronic warfare, and that aspect of the conflict will be just as important (if not more). Also, because you're likely dealing with anti-air missiles launched from ships, you may end up bringing along multirole fighters armed with weapons that can take on SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) roles as well.

Overall, this won't be just a Tu-22M strike on a carrier group. In order to have any chance at success, it's a complex, multifaceted, all-encompassing aerial assault. And depending on the strength of your enemy's task force, you may be required to send support in the form of ships. It's unlikely that air power alone can defeat a carrier task force.

[Virana]

I like the F-14 and I don't want to get rid if them. Yet I know I need newer aircraft. I do have one squadron of F/A-18C Hornets.

All that you need

Considering that the aircraft he mentioned (F-14 and F/A-18C) are both naval fighters, I seriously doubt Su-35 fits his bill very well... at all.

[Virana]

Oh I know, but his is NS!

Struggling nations can be made into stronk nations with the addition of modern MiGs!

I like western style planes better than soviet planes but I'll uses soviet aircraft.

If you want western planes, there are plenty of options. In terms of naval aircraft you could easily buy more Hornets or go with F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, which are a very good option. You could also upgrade your F-14s to more modern standards. The equation would change completely if naval fighters aren't what you're looking for, though; that's merely an assumption I made based on your previous selections.

[Virana]

Anyone know the advantages between the Scorpion and the JHMCS? I'm trying to decide which one to put on my fighter fleet (excluding my F-35s).

However, I might end up using a version of the F-35's helmet.

Shameless bump.

Both JHMCS and Scorpion work and are essentially used for the same role, iirc. The only problem is that it's sort of difficult to find detailed information about either system, but they're both addons for existing helmets that allow cueing for high off-boresight missiles; I probably wouldn't say there are any significant advantages or disadvantages of going either way.

[Virla]

This is the frontline fighter of the Empire of Virla. (I RP in 1954)

---

Bundersa S-17 Eagle

Role: Interceptor, Reconnaissance, Night Fighter
Manufacturer: Bundersa
First flight: 22 March 1946
Introduction: 15 June 1948
Status: Still in active use
Primary users: Imperial Virlan Air Force

History
The origins of the Bundersa S-17 go back to World War II. During World War II The Republic of Virla captured 6 flyable examples of the Me 262. After the war the government told Bundersa to study and reproduce the Me 262. After months of flying tests, Bundersa striped down two of the Me 262's and upgraded the avionics and replaced the engines with a locally built Vundser XB-003 jet engine. The first flying test of the XS-17 happened on March 22, 1946. The early tests proved dangerous as the Vundser XB-003a-01a engine was prone to burst into flames. After a couple of months the Vundser Engine Corp. came out with a more reliable variant, the XB-003a-17b. The new engines were fitted on the XS-17 frame and tested on November 28, 1946. These tests were a success and the engines preformed well. The first weapons test with the new locally built weapons happened on January 13, 1947. The first firing of the new XMA-1 advanced rocket ended in a disaster. The XS-17 carrying the XMA-1 shot the rocket, but the rocket didn't leave the railing. The rocket blew the wing off the XS-17 and the pilot ejected. The plane was lost. After months of testing a new rocket was added, the XMA-3. The S-17A entered service on June 15, 1948. The S-17B night fighter variant was first tested on November 27, 1948. After many tests, the S-17B entered service on March 5, 1950.

Specifications (Bundersa S-17A)
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 10.60 m (34 ft 9 in)
Wingspan: 12.60 m (41 ft 6 in)
Height: 3.50 m (11 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 21.7 m² (234 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,795 kg (8,366 lb)
Loaded weight: 6,473 kg (14,272 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 7,130 kg (15,720 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × XB-003a-17b 2,500 lbf each
Aspect ratio: 7.32

Performance
Maximum speed: 981 km/h (610 mph)
Range: 1,050 km (652 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,565 ft)
Rate of climb: 1,200 m/min (At max weight of 7,130 kg) (3,900 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.28

Armament
Guns: 4 × 30 mm B-2 cannon
Rockets: 12 × XMA-3
Bombs: 2 × 250 kg (550 lb) bombs or 2 × 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs

Gallery


The XS-17 that had the XB-003a-01a engine that caught on fire


S-17A Eagle


S-17B Night Eagle

[Vitaphone Racing]

Needs more Kfir

[Vitaphone Racing]

^ That and airframe commonality, etc.

Also, F-15A/C werent multi-role either. Yet we have F-15E/SE.

Little bit different scenario there, as the F-15s could already carry a fairly significant A2G payload before the multirole/strike variation was made. The F-22 does not really possess a similar capabilities due to the relatively small internal bay. You could probably mount additional ordinance on external underwing pylons, but at that point why not just use an F-15E anyway?

Air frame commonality.

The payload capabilities of the F-22 and F-15E are practically lineball, configurations for accommodating different ordnance is no more complex than rearranging the pylons. The weapons bay itself is not small. Whatever replaces the F-15E will almost certainly be based on the F-22, if not the F-35

[Vitaphone Racing]

Can a turboshaft be de-rated like a reciprocating engine can? I'm assuming not because a reciprocating engine is usually de-rated by limiting the revs which is hard to do with turbines, but there's also flat rating which involves a slight de-rate, so I figured I'd double check.

Reduce the amount of fuel and air that is allowed into the turbine which can be done via restricting the air flow through the intake and a re-programmed engine control unit.

[Vitaphone Racing]

How far could one reasonably upgrade (totally redesign) a Phantom to compete with MT multiroles?

F-4E 2020.

It's worth noting that totally redesigning an aircraft defeats the purpose of using an older aircraft to begin with. Uncomplex and relatively inexpensive upgrades make the most sense.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Where or not it's done is a different story to whether or not something is messy. Which it will be, most particularly if you're blending several different types of aircraft for use in the one role.