Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Tattland]

Interceptor and escort: Sukhoi SU-50 PAK FA (50)
Dogfighters: Sukhoi SU-47 Burkut (long range) and Mig-35 OVT Fulcrum (Short Range) (50 of each)
CAS and Anti Tank: A-10C Thunderbolt II (50)
Multi-Role: Su-34 Fulback (35)
Navel Fighter: Mig-29k Fulcrum and Su-33 Flanker (75 of each)
High Altitude interceptor: Mig-35 Foxhound (20)
Tanker Aircraft: KC-130 (10)
AWACS: E3G Sentry (8)
Navel AWACS: E2C Hawkeye (5)
Transport (Long Range - High capacity): C-17 Globmaster III (20)
Transport (Long Range - STOL): C130J30 Hercules (30)
Long ranged strategic bomber: B-52H (10)
Deep penetration bomber: B-1R lancer (10)
Stealth bomber: B2 Spirit (3)
Transport Helicopter: CH-47 Chinook (75
Attack Helicopter: KA-52 Black Shark and AH-1Z viper (navel) (75 of each)
High/Low Interdiction Helicopter: SH-70 Battlehawk (50)
Trainer: PC-8 Pilatus and A BAC Hawk (30 of each)
Light attack aircraft: BAC Hawk (hence 30)
Anti ICBM: AL-1 (747 conversion) (25)
Extremely heavy transport: AN-225 (1)
Light transport: Boeing 777-200lr (10)
Reconnaissance: SR-71 Blackbird (2)

So, yeah my fleet is pretty huge

[Gallia-]

Navel fighter pilot sounds like a terrible job.

[Finorskia]

Interceptor and escort: Sukhoi SU-50 PAK FA (50)
Dogfighters: Sukhoi SU-47 Burkut (long range) and Mig-35 OVT Fulcrum (Short Range) (50 of each)
CAS and Anti Tank: A-10C Thunderbolt II (50)
Multi-Role: Su-34 Fulback (35)
Navel Fighter: Mig-29k Fulcrum and Su-33 Flanker (75 of each)
High Altitude interceptor: Mig-35 Foxhound (20)
Tanker Aircraft: KC-130 (10)
AWACS: E3G Sentry (8)
Navel AWACS: E2C Hawkeye (5)
Transport (Long Range - High capacity): C-17 Globmaster III (20)
Transport (Long Range - STOL): C130J30 Hercules (30)
Long ranged strategic bomber: B-52H (10)
Deep penetration bomber: B-1R lancer (10)
Stealth bomber: B2 Spirit (3)
Transport Helicopter: CH-47 Chinook (75
Attack Helicopter: KA-52 Black Shark and AH-1Z viper (navel) (75 of each)
High/Low Interdiction Helicopter: SH-70 Battlehawk (50)
Trainer: PC-8 Pilatus and A BAC Hawk (30 of each)
Light attack aircraft: BAC Hawk (hence 30)
Anti ICBM: AL-1 (747 conversion) (25)
Extremely heavy transport: AN-225 (1)
Light transport: Boeing 777-200lr (10)
Reconnaissance: SR-71 Blackbird (2)

So, yeah my fleet is pretty huge

Hate to burst your bubble, but the SU-47 isn't actually a fighter and the SU-34 Fullback isn't a multi role, its a dedicated bomber. Also the Reconnaissance Aircraft, especially ones like the SR-71, are useless on a modern battlefield.

[Vitaphone Racing]

It's summer alright.

[Kusthet]

After taking the criticism and suggestions, Enlarged the control surfaces, including a tailplane between both booms, lowered the engine exaust and re-shaped the underside and rear. Fucked up partway through, and had to re-draw the side view of the wings, and the top view needs to be re-aligned. And no, no you've never seen that tailplane anywhere ever.

[Triplebaconation]

After increasingly involved attempts to increase image quality, I've decided just to go up in scale.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Suddenly 1940s!
Can I get some feedback on this before I start working on stats and stuff? It's supposed to be a light, cheap jet fighter/dogfighter to act as a counter to other early jet aircraft and faster propeller-driven fighters. Just need to make sure the proportions and stance all check out for the layout and design. Tentatively armed (at inception) with twin 7.7mm machine guns and provisions and weight allotment for the addition of unguided rockets or up-gunning as required. Should be somewhat on par weight and performance wise with early single-engine jet fighters, but probably more reliable.

Needs a longer horizontal stabilizer to brace the twin booms, imho.

.30 cal is pretty much a joke for anything but as a spotting-rifle/hose for bombs and rockets against ground-targets. And for that you only need one MG.

For anti-fighter, a fast-firing .50 cal was often enough, 20mm was always a bit overkill, and the Russians loved their ShKAS 7.62x54R revolver-cannon.

[Kusthet]

Suddenly 1940s!
Can I get some feedback on this before I start working on stats and stuff? It's supposed to be a light, cheap jet fighter/dogfighter to act as a counter to other early jet aircraft and faster propeller-driven fighters. Just need to make sure the proportions and stance all check out for the layout and design. Tentatively armed (at inception) with twin 7.7mm machine guns and provisions and weight allotment for the addition of unguided rockets or up-gunning as required. Should be somewhat on par weight and performance wise with early single-engine jet fighters, but probably more reliable.

Needs a longer horizontal stabilizer to brace the twin booms, imho.

.30 cal is pretty much a joke for anything but as a spotting-rifle/hose for bombs and rockets against ground-targets. And for that you only need one MG.

For anti-fighter, a fast-firing .50 cal was often enough, 20mm was always a bit overkill, and the Russians loved their ShKAS 7.62x54R revolver-cannon.

All of which has already been commented on, and updated, the image at the top of this page is the updated design, have agreed to twin 20mm cannon. But, as always, thankyou for the feedback.

[Triplebaconation]

(Image)

After taking the criticism and suggestions, Enlarged the control surfaces, including a tailplane between both booms, lowered the engine exaust and re-shaped the underside and rear. Fucked up partway through, and had to re-draw the side view of the wings, and the top view needs to be re-aligned. And no, no you've never seen that tailplane anywhere ever.

The bow frame is very oddly placed and the booms seem like they're about twice as thick as they should be - put together they're about the width of the fuselage.

The basic problem is that twin booms and a podded engine is solving the same problem twice.

[Kusthet]

(Image)

After taking the criticism and suggestions, Enlarged the control surfaces, including a tailplane between both booms, lowered the engine exaust and re-shaped the underside and rear. Fucked up partway through, and had to re-draw the side view of the wings, and the top view needs to be re-aligned. And no, no you've never seen that tailplane anywhere ever.

The bow frame is very oddly placed and the booms seem like they're about twice as thick as they should be - put together they're about the width of the fuselage.

The basic problem is that twin booms and a podded engine is solving the same problem twice.

I could always pull those booms inwards, shrink them down and line them up closer to the wing root as a much smaller tail assembly. Something closer to the Yak 141. Alternativelyalternatively, I could also stretch out the wings into more of a delta shape and add vertical stabilisers near the wingtip or on top of the engine pods. Decisions decisions.

[New Vihenia]

pilot has a clear view behind and down making unguided bombing easier.

Clear view behind and down ? What it has to do with unguided bombing or bombing in general ? Today's plane have multimode radar with blind bombing mode in mind.

[Voltrovia]

OK so before I get to my nations primary fighter I just want to point out that your whole reason behind why FSW being bad is false. First you stated that the aircraft are unstable at high speed. This is true, but most aircraft these days are built unstable on purpose so that's not really a flaw. Plus fly-by-optic doesn't really make this an issue. Third you mentioned that increased stress and the need for a heavier wing. From what I've read most of the stress is isolated to the wing root as the wings tend to twist off at high speeds when poor materials are used. However both of these things can be lessened, not made to vanish, nut fixed enough to make viable. The Russians when they were designing the SU-47 had developed composites that were resistant to the twisting effect. This was in the late 90's early 2000's, technology has advanced much farther. Finally you stated that because of heavier wings you have less payload. This is also not true as payload size is dictated by the PtW ratio, which is a combination of weight and engine. If your engine can handle it you can have any payload you want on a fuselage of any weight. I would also like to address why the X-29 and SU-47 never became combat aircraft. Both these programs never went anywhere, because neither were ever meant to go anywhere. Both were technology test aircraft for things such as fly-by-wire and advanced composites. The truth is FSW has never been used because no nation really has a desire for it, but this doesn't mean its discredit it. Besides FSW provides more than simple maneuverability advantages. Aircraft with FSW also have lower stall speeds, better fuel efficiency, higher RoC, and since the wing root is at the back of the aircraft the pilot has a clear view behind and down making unguided bombing easier.

Now since that is out of the way I give you the:

(Image)

Type: Multirole
Length: 22.6m
Wingspan: 15.16m
Height: 6.7m
Propulsion:
Total Net Thrust: 32,630kgf
Empty Weight: 16,380kgf
Maximum Take-Off Weight: 40,950kg
Minimum Fuel Weight: 10,237kg
Maximum Fuel Weight: 14,332kg
Normal Payload: 2,718kg
Maximum Payload: 6,344kg
Normal Combat Weight: 33,430kg
Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: .97/1
Combat Range: 1,300km
Ferry Range: 4,750km
Operational Ceiling/Altitude: 17,000m
Maximum Altitude: 20,000m
Cruising Speed: Mach 0.8
Supercruising Speed: Mach 1.4
Maximum Speed: Mach 2
Rate of Climb: 275ms
Limit per/number of pylon(s): 2 internal 4 missile revolver bays rated at 453kg per launch rack. 2 wing pylons rated at 453kg, under-wing pylons rated at 907kg.
Crew: 1
Price: $160 million
Avionics:
APG-77v1
AN/AAQ-37
AN/ASQ-239
Mira AI

This is the primary fighter of the Finorskian Air Force. The Air Force along with the Navy and Marines also use theUNADS F-29 Warrior, and certain squadrons of the Air Force use theLyran LY910 Shadowhawk.

Note: I actually have a full write up for F-54 and the aircraft was approved by the NS Draftroom and Viranna (maker of the F-29). However do to some complications I have to work something new for the Propulsion.

It's an interesting design but IMO those forward swept-wings will rip off before you get to Mach 2 no matter what the alloys are used in wing root construction. For this kind of design you usually have to choose between speed and agility. An aircraft utilising forward swept-wing geometry simply cannot have both.

Edit: Forward swept wings work by increasing the point (in terms of Mach number) at which drag divergence, the phenomenon of drag increasing dramatically during transonic flight and then decreasing to lower levels once more, occurs, greatly improving the subsonic, transonic and even low supersonic performance of an airframe. This however rules out movement to higher speeds due to the excessive drag generated in attempting to do so (and, IIRC, the formation of a Mach cone at the wing root, but I'd have to check that).

[Finorskia]

It's an interesting design but IMO those forward swept-wings will rip off before you get to Mach 2 no matter what the alloys are used in wing root construction. For this kind of design you usually have to choose between speed and agility. An aircraft utilising forward swept-wing geometry simply cannot have both.

Edit: Forward swept wings work by increasing the point (in terms of Mach number) at which drag divergence, the phenomenon of drag increasing dramatically during transonic flight and then decreasing to lower levels once more, occurs, greatly improving the subsonic, transonic and even low supersonic performance of an airframe. This however rules out movement to higher speeds due to the excessive drag generated in attempting to do so (and, IIRC, the formation of a Mach cone at the wing root, but I'd have to check that).

Well all the research I did on FSW pointed to Mach 2 being pretty much the fastest a fighter like this could go. I perfectly understood the speed limitations in designing it, but IMO the pros out weighed the cons.

[San-Silvacian]

If this was a light fighter I'd be acceptable for Mach 2> however when its light fighter contempories are going faster than it?

FSW doesn't seem much of an option for modern fighter aircraft that wish to carry any wing mounted munitions, wish to maneuver at it's max speeds.

"Gee I wish I could catch that MiG-29, but the Ace Combat fan of the aircraft designer opted for me not to be able to."

[Finorskia]

If this was a light fighter I'd be acceptable for Mach 2> however when its light fighter contempories are going faster than it?

FSW doesn't seem much of an option for modern fighter aircraft that wish to carry any wing mounted munitions, wish to maneuver at it's max speeds.

"Gee I wish I could catch that MiG-29, but the Ace Combat fan of the aircraft designer opted for me not to be able to."

Well first off vary modern aircraft use external munitions regularly so not a big deal. Second the speed is fine. This is a fighter designed for specifically for defense. The only time an F-54 pilot would need to catch an enemy would be if they were in retreat, at which point they don't need to be caught. Finally the modern missiles go faster than most fighters, so they don't really need to be able to catch them anyway.

[Vitaphone Racing]

It's an interesting design but IMO those forward swept-wings will rip off before you get to Mach 2 no matter what the alloys are used in wing root construction. For this kind of design you usually have to choose between speed and agility. An aircraft utilising forward swept-wing geometry simply cannot have both.

Edit: Forward swept wings work by increasing the point (in terms of Mach number) at which drag divergence, the phenomenon of drag increasing dramatically during transonic flight and then decreasing to lower levels once more, occurs, greatly improving the subsonic, transonic and even low supersonic performance of an airframe. This however rules out movement to higher speeds due to the excessive drag generated in attempting to do so (and, IIRC, the formation of a Mach cone at the wing root, but I'd have to check that).

Well all the research I did on FSW pointed to Mach 2 being pretty much the fastest a fighter like this could go. I perfectly understood the speed limitations in designing it, but IMO the pros out weighed the cons.

Did you read into the structural limitations in your research? FSW isn't being overlooked IRL because aircraft won't be able to go Mach 2 (although more accurately, they'll struggle to remain stable in supersonic speeds even under computer control), it's because of the stress the configuration places on the airframe. Thrust vectoring brings all the benefits, none of the drawbacks. Invest in that instead.

[New Vihenia]

Finally the modern missiles go faster than most fighters, so they don't really need to be able to catch them anyway.

No. They will go faster but they're also lose energy faster than the fighter, speed is still essential to get within the effective range of your missiles.

Especially if you're in pursuit, rear quarter shot can only be done in much shorter range than forward quarter.

[Finorskia]

Finally the modern missiles go faster than most fighters, so they don't really need to be able to catch them anyway.

No. They will go faster but they're also lose energy faster than the fighter, speed is still essential to get within the effective range of your missiles.

Especially if you're in pursuit, rear quarter shot can only be done in much shorter range than forward quarter.

Again the F-54 is not built as an interceptor or a pursuit fighter. It's an air defense/ multirole fighter. It's designed to stop enemy bombers and fighters that are threatening ground forces as well as provide CAS. We have other fighters for interception, pursuit, and deep penetration.

[Vitaphone Racing]

No. They will go faster but they're also lose energy faster than the fighter, speed is still essential to get within the effective range of your missiles.

Especially if you're in pursuit, rear quarter shot can only be done in much shorter range than forward quarter.

Again the F-54 is not built as an interceptor or a pursuit fighter. It's an air defense/ multirole fighter. It's designed to stop enemy bombers and fighters that are threatening ground forces as well as provide CAS. We have other fighters for interception, pursuit, and deep penetration.

This doesn't change New Vihenia's point though.

[Gvozdevsk]

Interceptor and escort: Sukhoi SU-50 PAK FA (50)
Dogfighters: Sukhoi SU-47 Burkut (long range) and Mig-35 OVT Fulcrum (Short Range) (50 of each)
CAS and Anti Tank: A-10C Thunderbolt II (50)
Multi-Role: Su-34 Fulback (35)
Navel Fighter: Mig-29k Fulcrum and Su-33 Flanker (75 of each)
High Altitude interceptor: Mig-35 Foxhound (20)
Tanker Aircraft: KC-130 (10)
AWACS: E3G Sentry (8)
Navel AWACS: E2C Hawkeye (5)
Transport (Long Range - High capacity): C-17 Globmaster III (20)
Transport (Long Range - STOL): C130J30 Hercules (30)
Long ranged strategic bomber: B-52H (10)
Deep penetration bomber: B-1R lancer (10)
Stealth bomber: B2 Spirit (3)
Transport Helicopter: CH-47 Chinook (75
Attack Helicopter: KA-52 Black Shark and AH-1Z viper (navel) (75 of each)
High/Low Interdiction Helicopter: SH-70 Battlehawk (50)
Trainer: PC-8 Pilatus and A BAC Hawk (30 of each)
Light attack aircraft: BAC Hawk (hence 30)
Anti ICBM: AL-1 (747 conversion) (25)
Extremely heavy transport: AN-225 (1)
Light transport: Boeing 777-200lr (10)
Reconnaissance: SR-71 Blackbird (2)

So, yeah my fleet is pretty huge

Mixing Russian and American aircraft is bad. They can't share weapons with each other.

[Finorskia]

Again the F-54 is not built as an interceptor or a pursuit fighter. It's an air defense/ multirole fighter. It's designed to stop enemy bombers and fighters that are threatening ground forces as well as provide CAS. We have other fighters for interception, pursuit, and deep penetration.

This doesn't change New Vihenia's point though.

No, but the fighter does what it is designed to do is my point. His points don't apply because they don't matter to the mission of the aircraft.

[Imperializt Russia]

This doesn't change New Vihenia's point though.

No, but the fighter does what it is designed to do is my point. His points don't apply because they don't matter to the mission of the aircraft.

And if your aircraft are heavily outmatched by superior conventionally-laid out aircraft, that mission will not be achieved.

[Finorskia]

No, but the fighter does what it is designed to do is my point. His points don't apply because they don't matter to the mission of the aircraft.

And if your aircraft are heavily outmatched by superior conventionally-laid out aircraft, that mission will not be achieved.

Except they won't. The FSW allow it to achieve its mission statement at greater success than a conventional design.

Edit: I should also note that a top speed of Mach 2 gives the F-54 a speed advantage over the F-16, and F-35, as well as the UNADS F-29 (NS fighter). So your point is kinda moot.

[Vitaphone Racing]

This doesn't change New Vihenia's point though.

No, but the fighter does what it is designed to do is my point. His points don't apply because they don't matter to the mission of the aircraft.

Yes, they do still apply. A tactical air defense role does not mean every air-to-air encounter you have will be head-on and at lowish speeds.

And if your aircraft are heavily outmatched by superior conventionally-laid out aircraft, that mission will not be achieved.

Except they won't. The FSW allow it to achieve its mission statement at greater success than a conventional design.

Arguable. Seeing how the Su-37 actually outmaneuvers the Su-47, it's difficult to quantify FSW as a quantum leap in terms of maneuverability which you'd demand from a wing layout that has considerable drawbacks.

[Imperializt Russia]

And if your aircraft are heavily outmatched by superior conventionally-laid out aircraft, that mission will not be achieved.

Except they won't. The FSW allow it to achieve its mission statement at greater success than a conventional design.

Edit: I should also note that a top speed of Mach 2 gives the F-54 a speed advantage over the F-16, and F-35, as well as the UNADS F-29 (NS fighter). So your point is kinda moot.

Doubtful and likely untrue.
You've just been told that with computer aids, FSW have poor transonic and supersonic stability. You want to take them up to Mach 2 and higher.