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

[Pavelania]

Yea true. Maybe a purchase of some EH101s for dedicated ASW and some another EH101s for dedicated transport/SAR/CSAR.

Anyways What do you think of my Low-Cost Nex-Gen Tactical Strike Fighter design?

(Image)

As it stands, there seems to be no planform alignment and the high aspect ratio will give poor maneuverability and roll rate, although better aerodynamic efficiency and range. It also doesn't look like there are any serious impediments to radar detection of the engine; the DSI alone will not do much.

Where do the weapons go? The very small fuselage does not seem to have much room to carry them internally, with the inlet taking up almost the entire ventral surface.

A more conventional arrangement would be better. It's boring, but it works. And that's a valuable advantage, especially for a low-cost fighter. A low-cost design would usually emphasize the reuse of existing, known designs and technologies in order to minimize risk.

Well yea thats why the FA-01 Viper variant (Super Fisker variant with reduced RCS) is being developed until a new clean sheet design will come out and replace the F-01s.

[Pavelania]

This is a mere concept where I just wanted some feed back on how well this wing/body layout would work. With the final concept I'm still keeping the DSI inlet. Also the winglets/fins are adjustable. I don't know how much that would help in flight, but just thought of adding that, plus the fins could be folded if a carrier variant were to be made.

[Pavelania]

Here is another concept of mine, a SF-X concept.

[Pavelania]

Here is my Low-Cost Nex-Gen Tactical Strike Fighter Revision 1 with a standard tail layout and the wings changed. Also 2-D thrust vectoring added.

[Taihei Tengoku]

stop quadruple posting

[The Akasha Colony]

Well yea thats why the FA-01 Viper variant (Super Fisker variant with reduced RCS) is being developed until a new clean sheet design will come out and replace the F-01s.

If you want a low cost fighter, you are going to want to hew close to what already exists. Designs that stray far from relatively common, proven technologies generally require extensive testing and analysis to ensure they perform as expected. The many ongoing experiments with forward-swept wings are a good example of the amount of R&D that needs to be done just to investigate the planform, nevermind refining the aerodynamics to a level comparable to the existing knowledge base for conventional wings.

Thus it doesn't matter what you do in the interim, it's totally irrelevant to the actual design itself and the work needed to make it happen.

This is a mere concept where I just wanted some feed back on how well this wing/body layout would work. With the final concept I'm still keeping the DSI inlet. Also the winglets/fins are adjustable. I don't know how much that would help in flight, but just thought of adding that, plus the fins could be folded if a carrier variant were to be made.

It doesn't change anything, except perhaps making its stealth even worse since operating any control surfaces dramatically increases RCS. This is one of the primary reasons TVC is common on stealth fighters.

Here is my Low-Cost Nex-Gen Tactical Strike Fighter Revision 1 with a standard tail layout and the wings changed. Also 2-D thrust vectoring added.

(Image)

The forward fuselage below the cockpit needs to be thickened. Otherwise the pilot has nowhere to sit and the landing gear nowhere to retract. And it minimizes for nose space available for the radar.

The weapons bay still needs to go... somewhere.

But it's a step in the right direction.

[Pavelania]

Well yea thats why the FA-01 Viper variant (Super Fisker variant with reduced RCS) is being developed until a new clean sheet design will come out and replace the F-01s.

If you want a low cost fighter, you are going to want to hew close to what already exists. Designs that stray far from relatively common, proven technologies generally require extensive testing and analysis to ensure they perform as expected. The many ongoing experiments with forward-swept wings are a good example of the amount of R&D that needs to be done just to investigate the planform, nevermind refining the aerodynamics to a level comparable to the existing knowledge base for conventional wings.

Thus it doesn't matter what you do in the interim, it's totally irrelevant to the actual design itself and the work needed to make it happen.

This is a mere concept where I just wanted some feed back on how well this wing/body layout would work. With the final concept I'm still keeping the DSI inlet. Also the winglets/fins are adjustable. I don't know how much that would help in flight, but just thought of adding that, plus the fins could be folded if a carrier variant were to be made.

It doesn't change anything, except perhaps making its stealth even worse since operating any control surfaces dramatically increases RCS. This is one of the primary reasons TVC is common on stealth fighters.

Here is my Low-Cost Nex-Gen Tactical Strike Fighter Revision 1 with a standard tail layout and the wings changed. Also 2-D thrust vectoring added.

(Image)

The forward fuselage below the cockpit needs to be thickened. Otherwise the pilot has nowhere to sit and the landing gear nowhere to retract. And it minimizes for nose space available for the radar.

The weapons bay still needs to go... somewhere.

But it's a step in the right direction.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm keeping the DSI intake and will thicken below the cockpit and will include where I was gonna put the weapons bays.

Before I do anymore revisions, should I stick with this conventional design, or go for a delta wing, delta wing with canards, or a standard wing with V-tails (ruddervators like the YF-23)?

[Pavelania]

stop quadruple posting

Sorry I'm just asking for some feedback on some of my designs.

[Pavelania]

I might also lengthen the DSI intake underneath the cockpit as well, which could leave more room for weapons bays. Pretty soon this if gonna start looking like an X-32/F-32 concept lol. One note though, is that this will be in possibly 3 variants: A single seat variant, possible twin seat variant, and a carrier variant. Unlike the JSF, there will be no VTOL variant.

It doesn't change anything, except perhaps making its stealth even worse since operating any control surfaces dramatically increases RCS. This is one of the primary reasons TVC is common on stealth fighters.

Yea thats what I thought on the variable wingtips. Well scrap those out of the concept.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Don't double post, edit your first post when you want to add more to it.

[The Akasha Colony]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm keeping the DSI intake and will thicken below the cockpit and will include where I was gonna put the weapons bays.

Before I do anymore revisions, should I stick with this conventional design, or go for a delta wing, delta wing with canards, or a standard wing with V-tails (ruddervators like the YF-23)?

There is no right answer. Each design has particular performance strengths and weaknesses and whether these are worthwhile depends on the design criteria and priorities.

Sorry I'm just asking for some feedback on some of my designs.

That's not a valid excuse. There's no reason to multi-post so long as the edit button exists. And you post so frequently in sequence you could even use the delete function.

[Rich and Corporations]

what is the maximum sea state that the soviet maritime patrol flying boats could handle?

i'm thinking of including a radio isotope generator on military subsonic long-range aircraft in the event of engine problems.

[Laritaia]

what is the maximum sea state that the soviet maritime patrol flying boats could handle?

i'm thinking of including a radio isotope generator on military subsonic long-range aircraft in the event of engine problems.

or you could just do what they do IRL and fit a ram air generator or a smaller generator turbine.

[Pavelania]

Don't double post, edit your first post when you want to add more to it.

Ok sorry.

There is no right answer. Each design has particular performance strengths and weaknesses and whether these are worthwhile depends on the design criteria and priorities.

Ok requirements for a nex-gen replacement fighter design mainly to replace the FA-01 series in the future include: Low purchase price, maintenance and operating costs as low as possible, single engine, carrier variant must be included, weapons loud out to be as high as the FA-01 if possible, HMD can be developed for it, but it's not required, and weapons bays must be included (2-4 possibly). Unlike the JSF (F-35), no VTOL is required and this new design is supposed to be a cheap 5th gen fighter for our air force, well as for our allies, and can be exported.

[Purpelia]

Cheap or 5th gen. Pick one.

[Pavelania]

Here is a revision of the standard tail layout and I included where I think the weapons bay should go.



I also just finished the delta layout for the concept. Looks almost like an X-32 to me. I think the delta layout might have a higher payload and range, and possibly easier maintenance. But it looks like maneuverability might be lower since the large stabilators were removed.



Here is the delta+canards layout. I think this layout will have a slight increase in maneuverability but might increase the RCS a little.



And lastly, here is the V-tail ruddervator layout (like the YF-23's tails).



Just finished the weapons bays for the concept.

[Iltica]

I find your use of the ought's X repugnant.
But more importantly you probably don't want to use the canards if you care about stealth. It is possible to control the position of them to minimize the reflections they create such as on the J-20 but then you have to choose between an angle to prevent reflections and an angle for desired pitch control, it can't have maximum maneuverability and stealth at the same time.

Another issue is the lack of planform alignment, take a look at how most 5th generation fighters, including the F-22, F-35, and T-50 and T50, shape their horizontal control surfaces the same as their main wings. This limits the possible radar reflections to a narrow set of angles instead of diffusing them in many directions. You can also do this on other areas of the aircraft by minimizing the number of different angles on the intakes, nose, tail, etc

Finally the fuselage looks very skinny for being able to carry weapons internally, it's doubtful you could fit more than 2 missiles unless I'm drastically underestimating the overall scale and it's actually a 25 meter long plane with a single gigantic engine, wouldn't be the first time.

[Pavelania]

I find your use of the ought's X repugnant.
But more importantly you probably don't want to use the canards if you care about stealth. It is possible to control the position of them to minimize the reflections they create such as on the J-20 but then you have to choose between an angle to prevent reflections and an angle for desired pitch control, it can't have maximum maneuverability and stealth at the same time.

Another issue is the lack of planform alignment, take a look at how most 5th generation fighters, including the F-22, F-35, and T-50 and T50, shape their horizontal control surfaces the same as their main wings. This limits the possible radar reflections to a narrow set of angles instead of diffusing them in many directions. You can also do this on other areas of the aircraft by minimizing the number of different angles on the intakes, nose, tail, etc

Finally the fuselage looks very skinny for being able to carry weapons internally, it's doubtful you could fit more than 2 missiles unless I'm drastically underestimating the overall scale and it's actually a 25 meter long plane with a single gigantic engine, wouldn't be the first time.

It's about the size of the F-35. I'm kinda sold on the pure delta layout and the standard tail layout. The Pelikan Tail and the delta+canards layouts aren't my favorite for this design. And I used as much planform alignment possible. May be able to fit more, but this is what I had so far. This concept is close to the size of an F-35/Super Hornet.

Currently deciding on engine options. I kinda want to go with the GE F414-EDE/EPE because of the ease of maintenance and reliability of the F414 but it seems kinda under powered for my strike fighter concept. Other engines I could use are the GE F110 or the P&W F100.

[Pavelania]

Can anyone give me some advice for a mach 3+ or hypersonic bomber/interceptor type aircraft?

[Rich and Corporations]

Can anyone give me some advice for a mach 3+ or hypersonic bomber/interceptor type aircraft?

apparently it is nearly impossible to calculate supersonic drag

although it is approximately a square formula.

so you need very powerful engines

[Pavelania]

Can anyone give me some advice for a mach 3+ or hypersonic bomber/interceptor type aircraft?

apparently it is nearly impossible to calculate supersonic drag

although it is approximately a square formula.

so you need very powerful engines

Maybe a Variable Cycle engine like the YF120, but for going mach 3+ speeds, maybe a pulse detonation engine or ramjet, scramjet, etc.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Can anyone give me some advice for a mach 3+ or hypersonic bomber/interceptor type aircraft?

Mach 3 isn't hypersonic. Hypersonic is usually defined as mach 5+. You don't anything hugely exotic to go mach 3+, a low pressure-ratio afterburning turbojet should get the job done. The design of the inlets is much more important as you need a way to decelerate the mach 3+ flow to subsonic speeds without causing excessive spillage drag in the compressor.

If you want a mach 3 bomber/interceptor I would recommend looking at the Lockheed A-12/SR-71 family and the North American XB-70. After all those are the only aircraft ever built with sustained mach 3+ cruise ability. You could also look into the Convair Kingfish, the design that lost to the A-12 in the CIA's "Oxcart" program, and the North American F-108 Rapier, a proposed Mach 3+ interceptor that would have used the same engines as the XB-70.

[Gallia-]

Can anyone give me some advice for a mach 3+ or hypersonic bomber/interceptor type aircraft?

Aerodynamic skin heating is the biggest obstacle.

SR-71 required several hours to cool before it could be worked on by the ground crews.

A solution to the problem of cooling would be a substantial breakthrough in aircraft engineering.

[Allanea]

I see that some countries maintain fleets of 'civilian' airliners to use in airlifting troops, military advisors, etc.

Is there something wrong with this idea?

[The Akasha Colony]

I see that some countries maintain fleets of 'civilian' airliners to use in airlifting troops, military advisors, etc.

Is there something wrong with this idea?

No. Not for moving personnel around.

Nations that need to move lots of heavy equipment will generally invest in dedicated airlifters though since civilian airliners aren't generally designed to accept outsize cargo. Since these airlifters can be converted to passenger use via palletized seats, they can be used to substitute for airliners, and once purchased nations generally have an incentive to use them over buying a separate fleet of airliners or chartering civilian aircraft unless their airlifters are already fully tasked or unless there are certain airliner capabilities, like more luxurious and comfortable interiors, are required.

This is why the US military has a small fleet of civilian airliners to shuttle VIPs and small quantities of personnel around, while the bulk cargo and large troop movements go via airlifter.