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

[Gallia-]

hello my name is "fish gel" and im flying m25 in a sub orbital trajectory dodging all your rokkkits

And then some utter monster straps a Patriot missile to a fighter jet and just ruins your day.

:60s ecm:

i warned you about the necessity of accurate direction finding bro
i told you dog

should have done a deep modernization of the radio-electronic combat gear

just a fluke

the Hive has learned from its mistakes and corrective action will be taken

or maybe putting more money towards maintaining the fire extinguishers and less money towards recording audio that is played on every conceivable pilot action, such as sealing hatches or ejecting from the aircraft

[Pavelania]

Well... There was a thing back in the 1960's called project Isinglass or Rheinberry for a spying spaceplane that sounds really close to what Aurora's supposed to be.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Isinglass It never got built but give it 30 years somebody might try again idk.
*whoops Rheinberry and Isinglass are not the same thing sorry,*

Not really.

Isinglass was a glider. Aurora has always been associated with some kind of exotic air-breathing engine. When information on Isinglass came out it actually made Aurora seem kind of lame and that actually took a lot of wind out of the "black aircraft" crowd's sails imho. Aurora Nazi UFO antigravity space magic was just no match for space age ingenuity.

The Aurora I'm talking about isn't some gravity defying craft. It's a sharp delta winged aircraft powered by PDEs. And PDE tech isn't new. The Nazi's used PDE engines on their flying V-1 Bombs. US must have taken their PDE tech and continued research on it. Also PDE is actually used by some R/C hobby enthusiasts on their R/C aircraft.

My theory on the Aurora is that it was a PDE recon aircraft technology demonstrator to prove the usefulness of such an aircraft. Now the research they learned from the Aurora is now being applied to the SR-72 "Blackbird II" (aka "Son of Blackbird), which is gonna be a hyper sonic unmanned strike/recon aircraft. The Aurora, TR-3A Black Manta, and the TR-3B ASTRA are all totally different aircraft. Aurora is a hyper sonic recon aircraft, or a tech demonstrator, the TR-3A Black Manta may be a prototype strike aircraft or a damage assessment aircraft, and the TR-3B ASTRA is a rumored anti-gravity triangular craft. The TR-3A Black Manta, or something like it, more than likely exists, the Aurora as well may exist, but the TR-3B ASTRA seems a bit far fetched but could possibly exist.

Thats my theory on those aircraft, which are just rumored Black Project aircraft.

[The Akasha Colony]

The Aurora I'm talking about isn't some gravity defying craft. It's a sharp delta winged aircraft powered by PDEs. And PDE tech isn't new. The Nazi's used PDE engines on their flying V-1 Bombs. US must have taken their PDE tech and continued research on it. Also PDE is actually used by some R/C hobby enthusiasts on their R/C aircraft.

My theory on the Aurora is that it was a PDE recon aircraft technology demonstrator to prove the usefulness of such an aircraft. Now the research they learned from the Aurora is now being applied to the SR-72 "Blackbird II" (aka "Son of Blackbird), which is gonna be a hyper sonic unmanned strike/recon aircraft. The Aurora, TR-3A Black Manta, and the TR-3B ASTRA are all totally different aircraft. Aurora is a hyper sonic recon aircraft, or a tech demonstrator, the TR-3A Black Manta may be a prototype strike aircraft or a damage assessment aircraft, and the TR-3B ASTRA is a rumored anti-gravity triangular craft. The TR-3A Black Manta, or something like it, more than likely exists, the Aurora as well may exist, but the TR-3B ASTRA seems a bit far fetched but could possibly exist.

Thats my theory on those aircraft, which are just rumored Black Project aircraft.

"SR-72" is just Lockheed concept art and the USAF has no serious interest in it nor has Lockheed done any serious engineering work on it. The USAF has more than enough on its development and procurement plate between F-35 and B-21, plus its ongoing drone programs. It has no interest in a one-off hypersonic reconnaissance plane given the inevitably huge expense and protracted development phase. They have more pressing budget priorities at the moment.

There is no evidence that Aurora ever existed, it's just been passed around rumor circles like Roswell and the moon landing conspiracy. The rumors have taken a life of their own which is why everyone has their own little pet theory about it, but none of it is backed up by any evidence and all of the existing technological evidence points to the contrary, whatever its claimed specs happen to be. Despite constant talk to the contrary, "black projects" tend to be fairly boring and sedate which is why they can be made black projects in the first place. A hypersonic aircraft would be rather difficult to hide or conceal no matter where it was tested and the sheer cost would be even harder to hide in the budget.

[Gallia-]

Not really.

Isinglass was a glider. Aurora has always been associated with some kind of exotic air-breathing engine. When information on Isinglass came out it actually made Aurora seem kind of lame and that actually took a lot of wind out of the "black aircraft" crowd's sails imho. Aurora Nazi UFO antigravity space magic was just no match for space age ingenuity.

The Aurora I'm talking about isn't some gravity defying craft. It's a sharp delta winged aircraft powered by PDEs. And PDE tech isn't new. The Nazi's used PDE engines on their flying V-1 Bombs. US must have taken their PDE tech and continued research on it. Also PDE is actually used by some R/C hobby enthusiasts on their R/C aircraft.

My theory on the Aurora is that it was a PDE recon aircraft technology demonstrator to prove the usefulness of such an aircraft. Now the research they learned from the Aurora is now being applied to the SR-72 "Blackbird II" (aka "Son of Blackbird), which is gonna be a hyper sonic unmanned strike/recon aircraft. The Aurora, TR-3A Black Manta, and the TR-3B ASTRA are all totally different aircraft. Aurora is a hyper sonic recon aircraft, or a tech demonstrator, the TR-3A Black Manta may be a prototype strike aircraft or a damage assessment aircraft, and the TR-3B ASTRA is a rumored anti-gravity triangular craft. The TR-3A Black Manta, or something like it, more than likely exists, the Aurora as well may exist, but the TR-3B ASTRA seems a bit far fetched but could possibly exist.

Thats my theory on those aircraft, which are just rumored Black Project aircraft.

PDEs won the War:

[Austrasien]

The Aurora I'm talking about isn't some gravity defying craft. It's a sharp delta winged aircraft powered by PDEs. And PDE tech isn't new. The Nazi's used PDE engines on their flying V-1 Bombs. US must have taken their PDE tech and continued research on it. Also PDE is actually used by some R/C hobby enthusiasts on their R/C aircraft.

My theory on the Aurora is that it was a PDE recon aircraft technology demonstrator to prove the usefulness of such an aircraft. Now the research they learned from the Aurora is now being applied to the SR-72 "Blackbird II" (aka "Son of Blackbird), which is gonna be a hyper sonic unmanned strike/recon aircraft. The Aurora, TR-3A Black Manta, and the TR-3B ASTRA are all totally different aircraft. Aurora is a hyper sonic recon aircraft, or a tech demonstrator, the TR-3A Black Manta may be a prototype strike aircraft or a damage assessment aircraft, and the TR-3B ASTRA is a rumored anti-gravity triangular craft. The TR-3A Black Manta, or something like it, more than likely exists, the Aurora as well may exist, but the TR-3B ASTRA seems a bit far fetched but could possibly exist.

Thats my theory on those aircraft, which are just rumored Black Project aircraft.

Let's start by clarifying that a pulsejet is completely different from a pulse detonation engine.

• There is no credible evidence the Aurora exists in any form
• There is no credible evidence a hypersonic pulse detonation engine exists in any form
• There is no credible evidence the two would be connected in any way even if they both existed, which they don't

The connection between the Aurora and PDEs is pure fantasy. Even if we accept Bill Sweetman's very sketchy argument for the existence of the Aurora as a project there is still not a shred of evidence connecting it to PDE. The PDE claim is straight out of Nazi UFO space magic land.

[Austrasien]

The only really credible "Aurora" evidence is the possible sonic booms recorded by seismographs in California.

But there is nothing to associate those with the Aurora, a spy plane, an aircraft as opposed to a missile or re-entry vehicle, pulse detonation engines or any kind of air breathing engine.

[The Corparation]

The only really credible "Aurora" evidence is the possible sonic booms recorded by seismographs in California.

But there is nothing to associate those with the Aurora, a spy plane, an aircraft as opposed to a missile or re-entry vehicle, pulse detonation engines or any kind of air breathing engine.

If I recall correctly the trajectory they plotted was more in line with what you would expect an aircraft to be flying rather than a reentry vehicle or missile. Another possible bit of evidence for something that flies high and fast having been built was the long runway extensions they did at Groom lake. Personally my money is on some sort of rocket-boosted hyper-sonic glider rather than anything exotic like a PDE.

[Austrasien]

If I recall correctly the trajectory they plotted was more in line with what you would expect an aircraft to be flying rather than a reentry vehicle or missile. Another possible bit of evidence for something that flies high and fast having been built was the long runway extensions they did at Groom lake. Personally my money is on some sort of rocket-boosted hyper-sonic glider rather than anything exotic like a PDE.

The analyst claimed to rule out the space shuttle or something at LAX (I am not sure why LAX is relevant but I can only find the paraphrased description), but the space shuttle is a very specific vehicle. Nothing was mentioned about a missile. The claim it was characteristic of a small vehicle certainly doesn't rule out a missile: The claimed speed and altitude are, amusingly, almost in reach of the ancient RIM-50 Typhon and would not be unimaginable for some kind of very high speed ramjet test vehicle. The ASALM was able to reach Mach 5.5 after all well before that.

It could easily have been a classified predecessor to the X-43. Or a predecessor to the X-37. Or related to the development of MARVs. Or a missile defense target. Or any number of other things.

A boost glide vehicle is a re-entry vehicle though.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

The air force is certainly interested in air-breathing hypersonic propulsion which would make a mach 5-6+ reusable aircraft a possibility, the technology just doesn't have the maturity to where it would be a smart investment right now from a risk analysis perspective. The first step is HSSW/HAWC which is envisioned as a hydrocarbon DMSJ powered , mach 5-6 , ~500nmi range missile that would be carried externally by F-35 and F-15E and internally by the B-2. The X-51 program was the predecessor to this and had the goal of showing that a hydrocarbon DMSJ vehicle could fly under its own power for an extended period of time, something it demonstrated successfully in its last test back in 2013.

The next step after proving hydrocarbon DMSJ to be viable would be proving that hydrocarbon TBCC can work, something that HTV-3X was supposed to do before it was cancelled. The SR-72, or some SR-72 subscale demonstrator vehicle, would fall under this umbrella. This also requires successful development of a turbine engine capable of mach 4+ speeds, something equally challenging and time consuming to develop.

It's certainly feasible, but probably not smart to pursue in today's fiscal environment with programs like the F-35, B-21, KC-46, GBSD, and LRSO competing for funds.

[Gallia-]

It's interested in hypersonic missiles for attacking TELs and bunkers.

It's not interested in slow as fuck M6 air breathers when it has maneuverable orbital spaceplanes that do the same thing.

[Pavelania]

Btw I did some reading on tilt rotors for SAR and the AW609 is a better SAR aircraft than the V-22, because the V-22 has a powerful rotor wash that can drown people in the water, while the AW609 doesn't have a rotor wash as powerful as the V-22's rotor wash.

So if we were to choose a tilt rotor for our Coast Guard it would be the AW609.

I also just finished my PAC F-01A Fisker, Pavelania's first jet aircraft.


NOTE: We do not fly the original Fisker anymore, but newer, more modern Fiskers remain in production and in service with our Air Force and Navy. The original Fisker model was retired all together in 2001, with EAF being the last F-01A/B operator.

[Gwrachbyd]

the gwrachbyd aero-space force is currently developing a new series of endo-exo atmospheric attack jets.
the current prototype under development (XBF-1 mod 0 "hammerhead") has so far exceeded all expectations during it's maiden flight this week

(yes it's a forward swept wing design let the hate begin lol)

the current prototype (mod 0) has so far exceeded all expectations designed only as a test of airframe within an atmosphere it lacks the duel feed fuelling system for orbital flight and orbital manoeuvring thrusters and is scaled down from it's intended full size production model


here's the data from it's maiden flight and technical specifications
crew 1
length 10.8m
wingspan 14.4m
height 3.9m
weight 13.1 tons

powerplant 2x J-404 vectoring afterburning turbo fans (with 10 degree independent vector thrust)
dry thrust 85KN each
afterburner thrust 130KN each

performance
max speed ASL 306.2m/s (mach 0.9) dry thrust
845m/s (mach 2.45) afterburner
max speed at altitude 835m/s (mach 2.45)
stall speed 80m/s (228kph)
service ceiling 23,000m
climb rate 600m/s (aproximate with afterburner)
combat range 676.07km (internal tanks estimated based on fuel consumption)

thrust/weight 1.323 (dry) 2.023 (afterburner)
max G-load sustained 7.5

[Alazonti]

Well, I have airships...

Does that count?

[Pavelania]

Nice design. Wish I had KSP.

Btw what do you guys think is a better overall helicopter: AW101 Merlin or S-92 SuperHawk?

[Iltica]

Depends on what you consider important

[Pavelania]

Depends on what you consider important

I think our navy is getting the AW101. the H-92 is a civilian helicopter first, so if you want it military, you have to retrofit the helicopter with military equipment which can add weight. Just seeing the nightmare Canada is dealing with on their CH-148 Cyclone (S-92), I think we'll avoid it, and it was the main reason why we dropped the H-92 from our SH-3 Replacement competition. The AW101 was directly developed and designed to replace the SH-3 Seaking, AND it has 3 engines, which can use the GE T700, which is what our current AH-1Zs and UH-1Ys use. So there is some commonality between the helos. Well I think that would be official. I think we are gonna choose the AW101 as the winner of the SH-3 Replacement competition. However the H-92 may be considered for the air force, but that may be highly unlikely as I don't want 2 helos that do the exact same thing. The AW101 for our Navy will perform SAR/CSAR, and ASW, as well as medium transport.

[Iltica]

Suppose you had a light fighter or attacker that was designed with a heavy emphasis on short field performance and there is also a naval version of it. If the land based version was to have a wing as big as the naval version, would it be a bad idea to just make the naval one only and use it for both? You'd remove unnecessary parts like the arrestor hook of course.

[Crookfur]

Suppose you had a light fighter or attacker that was designed with a heavy emphasis on short field performance and there is also a naval version of it. If the land based version was to have a wing as big as the naval version, would it be a bad idea to just make the naval one only and use it for both? You'd remove unnecessary parts like the arrestor hook of course.

Not at all. It's not uncommon for carrier aircraft to end up being used primarily on land.

If there is a joint design and the carrier compatibility is a big design driver then it would make sense just to go with the one version, particularly if fleet sizes would be limited.

[The Corparation]

Suppose you had a light fighter or attacker that was designed with a heavy emphasis on short field performance and there is also a naval version of it. If the land based version was to have a wing as big as the naval version, would it be a bad idea to just make the naval one only and use it for both? You'd remove unnecessary parts like the arrestor hook of course.

You wouldn't have a reason to remove the tail hook. Land based fighters often have arrestor hooks. They just aren't as strong as naval aircraft's hooks.

[Corindia]

The Scrub Cardinal, my nation's first military drone (that I bothered to draw).

[Taihei Tengoku]

Suppose you had a light fighter or attacker that was designed with a heavy emphasis on short field performance and there is also a naval version of it. If the land based version was to have a wing as big as the naval version, would it be a bad idea to just make the naval one only and use it for both? You'd remove unnecessary parts like the arrestor hook of course.

This is pretty much what happened to F-4. Non-USN F-18s are largely identical to USN F-18s but fly from land bases.

[Pavelania]

Suppose you had a light fighter or attacker that was designed with a heavy emphasis on short field performance and there is also a naval version of it. If the land based version was to have a wing as big as the naval version, would it be a bad idea to just make the naval one only and use it for both? You'd remove unnecessary parts like the arrestor hook of course.

This is pretty much what happened to F-4. Non-USN F-18s are largely identical to USN F-18s but fly from land bases.

Our F-01 Fiskers and F-01 Flying Fish fighters are the same way. Only difference is the FIsker has the Tail hook removed and wing folding mechanisms removed.

[Iltica]

Oh crap, forgot about the folding wings. One that deletes that could conceivably have more fuel/heavier weapons loadout/higher G-limit etc.
The first two aren't a big deal at this size but are there any real world planes with folding wings that are rated for the full 9 G's?

[The Corparation]

This is pretty much what happened to F-4. Non-USN F-18s are largely identical to USN F-18s but fly from land bases.

Our F-01 Fiskers and F-01 Flying Fish fighters are the same way. Only difference is the FIsker has the Tail hook removed and wing folding mechanisms removed.

There's no reason why you need to take off the tail hook. A lot of land based fighters have tail hooks just in case they need help slowing down. (Although
they aren't as strong as a carrier rated hook since land based arresting gears don't give as big a shock)

[Pavelania]

Our F-01 Fiskers and F-01 Flying Fish fighters are the same way. Only difference is the FIsker has the Tail hook removed and wing folding mechanisms removed.

There's no reason why you need to take off the tail hook. A lot of land based fighters have tail hooks just in case they need help slowing down. (Although
they aren't as strong as a carrier rated hook since land based arresting gears don't give as big a shock)

All Fiskers and Flying Fishes after the E/F model had the tail-strike tailwheel removed.