Your Nation's Air Force Mark III: Best Korea Edition

[Purpelia]

I don’t see a fundamental obstacle to putting three MGs in a tube and firing them all through the propellor spinner. What stops it?

Space issues, heating issues, ammo feed and ejection issues. Just not worth it overall. That's why I'd be going for an ordinary synchronized setup where it's just exactly the same as the MG's people used to mount on the front of an aircraft, just beefier.

[The Akasha Colony]

If they want a stealth aircraft that comes with a payload penalty from the internal weapon bays anyway right?

Not necessarily.

In literal terms, a carrier aircraft limited solely to internal stowage will in all likelihood have a more restricted payload capacity than one that is loaded with external wing and fuselage pylons. But in practical terms, an aircraft with internal storage will be able to carry its payload much farther than one relying on external stowage because it suffers no drag penalty. Which means that in terms of carrying a given payload over a given distance, an aircraft with internal stowage is likely to be superior to an external-stowage aircraft beyond short and maybe medium range where fuel is not a concern.

And of course there is nothing that inherently takes the option for external stowage off the table for stealth aircraft that are willing to compromise stealth on specific missions, like how F-22 and F-35 both have provisions for wing pylons to supplement their weapons bays if they deem it necessary.

I don’t see a fundamental obstacle to putting three MGs in a tube and firing them all through the propellor spinner. What stops it?

Size. Such an arrangement would be larger than the propeller hub itself.

Well at least CATOBAR is better than STOBAR, especially with payload. But anyway, with a hypothetical notF-117N carrier-borne stealth attacker, wouldn't the internal payload be pretty small? The F-117 only carried two weapons, plus the airframe of the F-117 wouldn't be big enough to expand the internal bays. The McDonnell Douglas A-12 is said to have been designed to carry 2,300 kg worth of payload including two AIM-120 AMRAAMs and two AGM-88 HARMs.

The problem is just size more than anything else. A land-based air force can choose to put speed, range, and payload in the same aircraft by just building something huge like B-1, but carrier aircraft can't really do this. CATOBAR is indeed better than STOBAR but only in a relative sense.

~2,000-2,500 kg is plenty of ordnance for a medium attack mission.

Also, what's the payload limit for CATOBAR planes? STOBAR planes would definitely have it worse with planes like the Su-33/J-15 having no chance of taking off from a STOBAR carrier with full payload and maximum fuel.

It depends on the plane, obviously.

[Zhouran]

It depends on the plane, obviously.

Since the F-14 itself was a heavy fighter, would an Su-33 be suitable to take-off CATOBAR-style with its full-payload and fuel capacity? STOBAR is pretty restrictive due to limitations on aircraft weight and thrust-to-weight ratio. Plus, I heard that the F-14 didn't often carry up to six AIM-54 missiles due to weight penalty (although I'm not sure if this was because of airframe limitations or take-off limitations).

[The Akasha Colony]

Since the F-14 itself was a heavy fighter, would an Su-33 be suitable to take-off CATOBAR-style with its full-payload and fuel capacity? STOBAR is pretty restrictive due to limitations on aircraft weight and thrust-to-weight ratio.

I don't know if CATOBAR capability was retained in Su-33 since the Soviets cancelled their catapult development programs early in its development. Ulyanovsk's catapults were primarily intended to launch heavy AEW&C aircraft like Yak-44 rather than fighters like USN carriers; the Soviets expected their fighters to still be operating as STOBAR aircraft.

Plus, I heard that the F-14 didn't often carry up to six AIM-54 missiles due to weight penalty (although I'm not sure if this was because of airframe limitations or take-off limitations).

It was a landing restriction. F-14 wasn't rated to land with six AIM-54s, which meant that if it sortied with all six and didn't fire any, it would have to dump some into the sea before landing or risk damage to the aircraft.

[Gallia-]

It could land with all six just fine.

I heard that the F-14 didn't often carry up to six AIM-54 missiles due to weight penalty (although I'm not sure if this was because of airframe limitations or take-off limitations).

They did it all the time. How else are you going to train to fight a Badger regiment?

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

CATOBAR planes for carrier use basically have to choose between payload, range, and speed. They can only get two of those. For an attack plane, the first two are generally more important than the last.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A ... _Vigilante

The disrespecc

[Kanugues Wed]

Can anyone spot anything horribly wrong with my LERX-ified !not F-16?

]

Specs:

Performance:

Type: Lightweight Advanced Multirole Fighter
Length: 15.5m
Wingspan: 13.0m
Height: 3.9m
Propulsion: x1 General Electric F110-GE-132 afterburning turbofan
Total Net Thrust: 144.6kN/14,745.2kgf
Empty Weight: 7,600kg
Maximum Take-Off Weight: 19,000kg
Minimum Fuel Weight: 4,750kg
Maximum Fuel Weight: 6,650kg
Limit Per/Number of Pylons: x8 external pylons (2x fuselage hardpoints (max 2,000kg), x4 wing pylons (max 1,750kg), x2 wingtip rails (max 300kg))
Maximum Payload: 6000kg
Normal Combat Weight: 16,086.6kg (x2 AIM-9 sidewinder (170.6kg), x2 AIM-120 AMRAAM (304kg), x6 MK82 bombs (1,362kg))
Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: 0.92 (Normal combat weight), 1.03 (unarmed, including full fuel tanks)
Combat Range: 600km
Ferry Range: 1,620km
Operational Ceiling/Altitude: 14,500m
Maximum Altitude: 15,750m
Cruising Speed: .9 mach/600 knots
Maximum Speed: 1.1 mach (At sea level), 1.9 mach (At altitude)
Crew (List): 1 (Pilot)

Armament:

Pylons: 2x fuselage hardpoints (max 2,000kg), x4 underwing pylons (max 1,750kg), x2 wingtip rails (max 300kg)
Guns: x1 BK-27 Revolver cannon (400 27x145mm rounds)
Air-to-Air Missiles: AIM-9 Sidewinder/IRIS-T, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132 ASRAAM, Vympel R-27
Air-to-Ground Missiles: Brimstone, ALARM, Kh-29, Kh-31
Anti-Ship missiles: Exocet, Kh-31, Penguin
Rockets: S-5, S-8, CRV7/Hydra-70, SURA-D
Bombs: FAB-100/250/500/750, Mark 80 series, GBU-53/B SDB, JDAM, Paveway III/IV

[The Akasha Colony]

Can anyone spot anything horribly wrong with my LERX-ified !not F-16?

(Image)]

Specs:

Performance:

Type: Lightweight Advanced Multirole Fighter
Length: 15.5m
Wingspan: 13.0m
Height: 3.9m
Propulsion: x1 General Electric F110-GE-132 afterburning turbofan
Total Net Thrust: 144.6kN/14,745.2kgf
Empty Weight: 7,600kg
Maximum Take-Off Weight: 19,000kg
Minimum Fuel Weight: 4,750kg
Maximum Fuel Weight: 6,650kg
Limit Per/Number of Pylons: x8 external pylons (2x fuselage hardpoints (max 2,000kg), x4 wing pylons (max 1,750kg), x2 wingtip rails (max 300kg))
Maximum Payload: 6000kg
Normal Combat Weight: 16,086.6kg (x2 AIM-9 sidewinder (170.6kg), x2 AIM-120 AMRAAM (304kg), x6 MK82 bombs (1,362kg))
Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: 0.92 (Normal combat weight), 1.03 (unarmed, including full fuel tanks)
Combat Range: 600km
Ferry Range: 1,620km
Operational Ceiling/Altitude: 14,500m
Maximum Altitude: 15,750m
Cruising Speed: .9 mach/600 knots
Maximum Speed: 1.1 mach (At sea level), 1.9 mach (At altitude)
Crew (List): 1 (Pilot)

Armament:

Pylons: 2x fuselage hardpoints (max 2,000kg), x4 underwing pylons (max 1,750kg), x2 wingtip rails (max 300kg)
Guns: x1 BK-27 Revolver cannon (400 27x145mm rounds)
Air-to-Air Missiles: AIM-9 Sidewinder/IRIS-T, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132 ASRAAM, Vympel R-27
Air-to-Ground Missiles: Brimstone, ALARM, Kh-29, Kh-31
Anti-Ship missiles: Exocet, Kh-31, Penguin
Rockets: S-5, S-8, CRV7/Hydra-70, SURA-D
Bombs: FAB-100/250/500/750, Mark 80 series, GBU-53/B SDB, JDAM, Paveway III/IV

The horizontal stabilizers are rather smol and should probably be turned into stabilators for various reasons.

[Kanugues Wed]

Thanks for the advice. Them stabilators gonna be coming as soon as I get out of bed tomorrow. Anything else?

[Zhouran]

Can anyone spot anything horribly wrong with my LERX-ified !not F-16?

(Image)]

Specs:

Performance:

Type: Lightweight Advanced Multirole Fighter
Length: 15.5m
Wingspan: 13.0m
Height: 3.9m
Propulsion: x1 General Electric F110-GE-132 afterburning turbofan
Total Net Thrust: 144.6kN/14,745.2kgf
Empty Weight: 7,600kg
Maximum Take-Off Weight: 19,000kg
Minimum Fuel Weight: 4,750kg
Maximum Fuel Weight: 6,650kg
Limit Per/Number of Pylons: x8 external pylons (2x fuselage hardpoints (max 2,000kg), x4 wing pylons (max 1,750kg), x2 wingtip rails (max 300kg))
Maximum Payload: 6000kg
Normal Combat Weight: 16,086.6kg (x2 AIM-9 sidewinder (170.6kg), x2 AIM-120 AMRAAM (304kg), x6 MK82 bombs (1,362kg))
Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: 0.92 (Normal combat weight), 1.03 (unarmed, including full fuel tanks)
Combat Range: 600km
Ferry Range: 1,620km
Operational Ceiling/Altitude: 14,500m
Maximum Altitude: 15,750m
Cruising Speed: .9 mach/600 knots
Maximum Speed: 1.1 mach (At sea level), 1.9 mach (At altitude)
Crew (List): 1 (Pilot)

Armament:

Pylons: 2x fuselage hardpoints (max 2,000kg), x4 underwing pylons (max 1,750kg), x2 wingtip rails (max 300kg)
Guns: x1 BK-27 Revolver cannon (400 27x145mm rounds)
Air-to-Air Missiles: AIM-9 Sidewinder/IRIS-T, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132 ASRAAM, Vympel R-27
Air-to-Ground Missiles: Brimstone, ALARM, Kh-29, Kh-31
Anti-Ship missiles: Exocet, Kh-31, Penguin
Rockets: S-5, S-8, CRV7/Hydra-70, SURA-D
Bombs: FAB-100/250/500/750, Mark 80 series, GBU-53/B SDB, JDAM, Paveway III/IV

Well, the specs says the plane has one engine, but the plane has two air intakes rather than a single intake like an F-16. If you want, you can replace the two air intakes with a diverterless supersonic inlet instead.

Other than that and the horizontal stabilators, the design is good.

[Gallia-]

XB-70 had one air intake and like 6 engines.

[The Akasha Colony]

Can anyone spot anything horribly wrong with my LERX-ified !not F-16?

(Image)]

Specs:

Performance:

Type: Lightweight Advanced Multirole Fighter
Length: 15.5m
Wingspan: 13.0m
Height: 3.9m
Propulsion: x1 General Electric F110-GE-132 afterburning turbofan
Total Net Thrust: 144.6kN/14,745.2kgf
Empty Weight: 7,600kg
Maximum Take-Off Weight: 19,000kg
Minimum Fuel Weight: 4,750kg
Maximum Fuel Weight: 6,650kg
Limit Per/Number of Pylons: x8 external pylons (2x fuselage hardpoints (max 2,000kg), x4 wing pylons (max 1,750kg), x2 wingtip rails (max 300kg))
Maximum Payload: 6000kg
Normal Combat Weight: 16,086.6kg (x2 AIM-9 sidewinder (170.6kg), x2 AIM-120 AMRAAM (304kg), x6 MK82 bombs (1,362kg))
Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: 0.92 (Normal combat weight), 1.03 (unarmed, including full fuel tanks)
Combat Range: 600km
Ferry Range: 1,620km
Operational Ceiling/Altitude: 14,500m
Maximum Altitude: 15,750m
Cruising Speed: .9 mach/600 knots
Maximum Speed: 1.1 mach (At sea level), 1.9 mach (At altitude)
Crew (List): 1 (Pilot)

Armament:

Pylons: 2x fuselage hardpoints (max 2,000kg), x4 underwing pylons (max 1,750kg), x2 wingtip rails (max 300kg)
Guns: x1 BK-27 Revolver cannon (400 27x145mm rounds)
Air-to-Air Missiles: AIM-9 Sidewinder/IRIS-T, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132 ASRAAM, Vympel R-27
Air-to-Ground Missiles: Brimstone, ALARM, Kh-29, Kh-31
Anti-Ship missiles: Exocet, Kh-31, Penguin
Rockets: S-5, S-8, CRV7/Hydra-70, SURA-D
Bombs: FAB-100/250/500/750, Mark 80 series, GBU-53/B SDB, JDAM, Paveway III/IV

Well, the specs says the plane has one engine, but the plane has two air intakes rather than a single intake like an F-16. If you want, you can replace the two air intakes with a diverterless supersonic inlet instead.

Other than that and the horizontal stabilators, the design is good.

Two intakes for a single engine are fine. F-35 has two intakes for a single engine. There's no particular reason to split the intakes, but it's not really an outright problem, either.

A DSI would be out of place if this fighter is actually from the 1970s like F-16, since DSIs had not been developed and tested for operational fighter use yet.

[Zhouran]

A DSI would be out of place if this fighter is actually from the 1970s like F-16, since DSIs had not been developed and tested for operational fighter use yet.

If Kanugues' light fighter is indeed a 1970s plane, then yeah, no DSI. The DSI would have been made somewhere around the mid or late 90s and has become a bit more common since probably the mid 2000s.

Other than that, splitting the intake into two to feed a single engine would seem to make more sense with planes like F-35 and Mirage 2000 where each intake is on the side separately rather than together. I agree that splitting the intake for a single-engined plane isn't really a problem, but with Kanugues' design, two intakes being together just seems odd.

[Gallia-]

Absolutely abominable.

[Kanugues Wed]

A DSI would be out of place if this fighter is actually from the 1970s like F-16, since DSIs had not been developed and tested for operational fighter use yet.

If Kanugues' light fighter is indeed a 1970s plane, then yeah, no DSI. The DSI would have been made somewhere around the mid or late 90s and has become a bit more common since probably the mid 2000s.

Other than that, splitting the intake into two to feed a single engine would seem to make more sense with planes like F-35 and Mirage 2000 where each intake is on the side separately rather than together. I agree that splitting the intake for a single-engined plane isn't really a problem, but with Kanugues' design, two intakes being together just seems odd.

Here's the version with stabilators:

It's not an 1970s plane, in the 70's our frontline airforce was mostly MiG-21's and other shitty soviet deathtraps. This is more of a late 80s/early 90's plane, after our drift away from the USSR. I just drew a quick one-part intake and it's honestly one of the ugliest things I've seen today. I'm going to keep that bar in the middle, but justify it as a way to reinforce the intake itself. Basically the intake would be shaped sort like this:

[Prosorusiya]

Twin intakes for a single engine would be par for the course, presuming your nation flew the MiG-23 in the 70s and 80s. Not an aeronautical expert, but a cross between more modern fighters and a Flogger would look cool IMHO. The suggested Ye-8 with newer wings and sans canards might be a good astetic starting point. Though it does in someways beg the question: why not just fly an MiG-29?

[Zhouran]

Not an aeronautical expert, but a cross between more modern fighters and a Flogger would look cool IMHO.

Kinda disagree. The MiG-23 is a flawed plane, there are air forces out there that operate modernized MiG-21s while there doesn't seem to be any operators of modernized MiG-23s despite Mikoyan making upgrade packages for the fighter. Plus the MiG-23 has maintenance issues and swing-wings is kinda old.

The suggested Ye-8 with newer wings and sans canards might be a good astetic starting point.

A modernized Ye-8 with a large cranked-delta wings, redesigned intake, additional hardpoints for increased ordnance payload, and all-moving canards would be nice.

Though it does in someways beg the question: why not just fly an MiG-29?

Don't know with Kanugues, but personally I find issues with the MiG-29 (especially the earlier variants). One, it only has 7 hardpoints for a total of 4,000 kg (the F-16 has 9 weapons hardpoints for a total of 7,700 kg while the MiG-35 at least rectified the issue by having nine hardpoints for 7,000 kg), another is that with earlier variants the plane had subpar avionics, lack of aerial refuelling capability, and a primitive cockpit that lacked ergonomics and forced pilots to take a "heads-down" approach regarding controls.

[Purpelia]

To be fair, the 21 has been modernized so much by some people that I am not sure we can call it a modernization as opposed to a redesign.
Case in point: China

[Zhouran]

To be fair, the 21 has been modernized so much by some people that I am not sure we can call it a modernization as opposed to a redesign.
Case in point: China
(Image)

The early Chengdu J-7 variants were simply reverse-engineered MiG-21F-13s, although later variants like the J-7E are indeed a redesign of the MiG-21. The JL-9 itself is a redesign of the J-7, making it a distant relative of the MiG-21.

Anyway, I was surprised when I found out how popular the MiG-21 was compared to the MiG-23. Ironic that the MiG-23 is technically more superior than the MiG-21, especially in terms of avionics, yet the MiG-21 gets modernized and even redesigned.

[Kanugues Wed]

Twin intakes for a single engine would be par for the course, presuming your nation flew the MiG-23 in the 70s and 80s. Not an aeronautical expert, but a cross between more modern fighters and a Flogger would look cool IMHO. The suggested Ye-8 with newer wings and sans canards might be a good astetic starting point. Though it does in someways beg the question: why not just fly an MiG-29?

International relations and very pro-indigenous military procurement policy.

[Iltica]

Does anyone know how pitch authority is supposed to be distributed on tailless CCC planes? Is it mostly the canards, half & half, or do the elevons still have to do most of the work?

[Kanugues Wed]

Not an aeronautical expert, but a cross between more modern fighters and a Flogger would look cool IMHO.

Kinda disagree. The MiG-23 is a flawed plane, there are air forces out there that operate modernized MiG-21s while there doesn't seem to be any operators of modernized MiG-23s despite Mikoyan making upgrade packages for the fighter. Plus the MiG-23 has maintenance issues and swing-wings is kinda old.

The suggested Ye-8 with newer wings and sans canards might be a good astetic starting point.

A modernized Ye-8 with a large cranked-delta wings, redesigned intake, additional hardpoints for increased ordnance payload, and all-moving canards would be nice.

Though it does in someways beg the question: why not just fly an MiG-29?

Don't know with Kanugues, but personally I find issues with the MiG-29 (especially the earlier variants). One, it only has 7 hardpoints for a total of 4,000 kg (the F-16 has 9 weapons hardpoints for a total of 7,700 kg while the MiG-35 at least rectified the issue by having nine hardpoints for 7,000 kg), another is that with earlier variants the plane had subpar avionics, lack of aerial refuelling capability, and a primitive cockpit that lacked ergonomics and forced pilots to take a "heads-down" approach regarding controls.

According to Wikipedia, the Korean people’s Air Force flies MiG-23s.

[Zhouran]

Kinda disagree. The MiG-23 is a flawed plane, there are air forces out there that operate modernized MiG-21s while there doesn't seem to be any operators of modernized MiG-23s despite Mikoyan making upgrade packages for the fighter. Plus the MiG-23 has maintenance issues and swing-wings is kinda old.


A modernized Ye-8 with a large cranked-delta wings, redesigned intake, additional hardpoints for increased ordnance payload, and all-moving canards would be nice.


Don't know with Kanugues, but personally I find issues with the MiG-29 (especially the earlier variants). One, it only has 7 hardpoints for a total of 4,000 kg (the F-16 has 9 weapons hardpoints for a total of 7,700 kg while the MiG-35 at least rectified the issue by having nine hardpoints for 7,000 kg), another is that with earlier variants the plane had subpar avionics, lack of aerial refuelling capability, and a primitive cockpit that lacked ergonomics and forced pilots to take a "heads-down" approach regarding controls.

According to Wikipedia, the Korean people’s Air Force flies MiG-23s.

The variants the North Koreans use would be the MiG-23ML/UB. Mikoyan created the upgrade packages MiG-23-98 and MiG-23-98-2. but it seems that no air force ordered any upgrade. Probably only Angola for the MiG-23-98-2, but that's about it.

[Njoku]

Not mine at all but would it be combat viable?

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Does anyone know how pitch authority is supposed to be distributed on tailless CCC planes? Is it mostly the canards, half & half, or do the elevons still have to do most of the work?

If it's CCC with a delta wing then the elevons are used for normal pitch control while the canards are used for pitch trim and for pitch control at high AoA when the flow over the wing is fully separated.