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

[Kanugues Wed]

(Image)

Not mine at all but would it be combat viable?

We don't know the wingspan, but I feel like the props could get in the way of having enough pylons to carry a really quality payload. Also, the tail looks kinda like it would be a cargo ramp, but it's visibly not (landing gear would penetrate it). I feel like a better shaped tail would be nice.

[The Akasha Colony]

(Image)

Not mine at all but would it be combat viable?

Tiltrotors do not make particularly good combat aircraft.

[Gallia-]

(Image)

Not mine at all but would it be combat viable?

It's perfectly fine.

[Zhouran]

Tiltrotors do not make particularly good combat aircraft.

Really? I thought they would be more advantageous due to better speed and maneuverability? I like the idea of combat tiltrotors though.

[The Akasha Colony]

Tiltrotors do not make particularly good combat aircraft.

Really? I thought they would be more advantageous due to better speed and maneuverability? I like the idea of combat tiltrotors though.

They have much larger frontal profiles than either an attack helicopter or a turbofan-powered CAS aircraft and combat damage to either of their rotors will immediately cause a loss of control and crash because of the tremendous thrust asymmetry. The combined effect of these two issues is particularly troubling: a larger frontal profile means the tiltrotor is more likely to be hit in the first place, and hits are more likely to be fatal than they are to a helicopter or a CAS aircraft. A minimized frontal profile is one of the most important design features of an attack helicopter, because it minimizes the chance of being hit and the frontal area that needs to be armored.

Tiltrotors are also slower and less maneuverable than a fixed-wing CAS aircraft like A-10 and much more expensive than a conventional attack helicopter like AH-64. Maneuverability is a bit of a moot point though because it isn't enough to protect any relatively slow aircraft against ground fire or MANPADS.

[Taihei Tengoku]

A tiltrotor is good at one thing: being a high-speed transport.

[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?

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.

That's what I was afraid of. Do you think the elevons could still work properly this far forward? That's as far back as it can go without a positive stability margin or a wing redesign.

[Vyzhva]

Who else finds the Saab 35 sexy? Because I'm sure I can't be the only one.

[The Corparation]

Who else finds the Saab 35 sexy? Because I'm sure I can't be the only one.

Everyone. Saab may not have made the best jets but they do make some of the best looking.

[Kanugues Wed]

Who else finds the Saab 35 sexy? Because I'm sure I can't be the only one.

To me the intakes look like they stuck a pair of super Sabre intakes on either side of the fuselage.

[Gallia-]

A tiltrotor is good at one thing: being a high-speed transport.

*OV-10 replacement. :^)

A modern/futuristic BAT or OV-10 would probably be something like a jumbo-ized Bell Eagle Eye or something, or an "OPA", with rockets and missile rails.

[Kanugues Wed]

Really? I thought they would be more advantageous due to better speed and maneuverability? I like the idea of combat tiltrotors though.

They have much larger frontal profiles than either an attack helicopter or a turbofan-powered CAS aircraft and combat damage to either of their rotors will immediately cause a loss of control and crash because of the tremendous thrust asymmetry. The combined effect of these two issues is particularly troubling: a larger frontal profile means the tiltrotor is more likely to be hit in the first place, and hits are more likely to be fatal than they are to a helicopter or a CAS aircraft. A minimized frontal profile is one of the most important design features of an attack helicopter, because it minimizes the chance of being hit and the frontal area that needs to be armored.

Tiltrotors are also slower and less maneuverable than a fixed-wing CAS aircraft like A-10 and much more expensive than a conventional attack helicopter like AH-64. Maneuverability is a bit of a moot point though because it isn't enough to protect any relatively slow aircraft against ground fire or MANPADS.

That’s not true at all. The V-22 and the V-280 have the engines coupled through the wingroot by a driveshaft to prevent that exact scenario from happening.

[Gallia-]

"Rotors". Although I don't see how that situation is any different from an ordinary helicopter which will also fall out of the sky if its wings decide to take a vacation.

[Kanugues Wed]

Does anyone know the aircraft that the USSR commonly exported? Also, how late did the USSR give WW2 surplus aircraft as aid?

[The Akasha Colony]

That’s not true at all. The V-22 and the V-280 have the engines coupled through the wingroot by a driveshaft to prevent that exact scenario from happening.

The driveshaft is just to deal with engine-out situations, such as if the engine fails due to mechanical problems or a problem with the fuel system. It cannot deal with any actual damage to the rotor or damage to the engine that damages or destroys the rotor's connection to the driveshaft. Such as, say, the damage from a missile warhead or gunfire.

[Zhouran]

Who else finds the Saab 35 sexy? Because I'm sure I can't be the only one.

Good taste. The Draken is one of my favorite 3rd gen. fighter jet along with F-4, Kfir and Viggen.

*OV-10 replacement. :^)

A modern/futuristic BAT or OV-10 would probably be something like a jumbo-ized Bell Eagle Eye or something, or an "OPA", with rockets and missile rails.

The only advantage I can think of for an attack-oriented jumbo-sized Bell Eagle Eye would be not having to take off from a runway. Other than that, a large tiltrotor drone armed with rockets and missiles would be kinda intimidating in appearance.

[Zhouran]

It cannot deal with any actual damage to the rotor or damage to the engine that damages or destroys the rotor's connection to the driveshaft. Such as, say, the damage from a missile warhead or gunfire.

Aren't the engines of a tiltrotor more exposed than the turboshaft of a helicopter? At least with helicopters their engines are generally located above.

[The Akasha Colony]

It cannot deal with any actual damage to the rotor or damage to the engine that damages or destroys the rotor's connection to the driveshaft. Such as, say, the damage from a missile warhead or gunfire.

Aren't the engines of a tiltrotor more exposed than the turboshaft of a helicopter? At least with helicopters their engines are generally located above.

It depends on the helicopter. Sometimes they are located directly above the main fuselage, but in many cases they are located on pods on either side of the fuselage. This is mostly because it keeps the helicopter's height down which allows it to fit into airlifters for deployment. Putting the engines directly above the fuselage usually means putting the gearbox above it, which means a taller helicopter. Putting the engines on either side of the gearbox results in a wider but shorter arrangement, which is considered an acceptable trade off in many cases. But some helicopters like Comanche faired their engines directly into the fuselage, at the cost of eating up internal volume. Comanche though used that arrangement in part because it also reduced its radar and thermal signatures.

The engines of a tiltrotor are more exposed primarily because in hovering flight they are vertically oriented, which means that rather than showing their small frontal area to oncoming enemy fire, their much larger ventral side is exposed. V-280 partially avoids this because its engines do not rotate with the rotor, but the gearbox still does and a hit to the gearbox is just as bad as a hit to the engine.

[Vyzhva]

Who else finds the Saab 35 sexy? Because I'm sure I can't be the only one.

Good taste. The Draken is one of my favorite 3rd gen. fighter jet along with F-4, Kfir and Viggen.

The Draken has a unique shape I have to say. As it name suggests, it does look like a kite.

[United Earthlings]

I'm interested to know how people structure their air force's combat aircraft fleet.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the Royal Commonwealth Air Force mostly maintained a balanced tactical air force with 2nd and 3rd generation aircraft making up a large percentage [Approx. 82-85% at the start of the 1980s and slowly decreasing to around 1 to 3% by 1988] of the frontline force until the mid-late 1980s. By the 1990s, the majority of 3rd generation and remaining 2nd generation fighters/fighter-bombers had been replaced by similar 4th generation types minus the F/B-111 variants which would remain in active service until 2007. The Royal Commonwealth Air Force would maintain this balanced multirole force until the mid 2000s when the force structure began to shift towards a heavier fighter/fighter-bomber concentration with five/six different types of heavy multirole fighters compared to three lightweight/medium multirole fighter types in service by 2020.

For those wanting a complete breakdown of what and when various types of the {Royal} Commonwealth Air Force aircraft entered service.

[Theodosiya]

A crazy and useless question here...

Is it possible to reengine MiG 21 & 23 with F110, giving it TVC, upgrading & adding the hardpoints, NATO compatibility, M197 and AN/APG 83/80?

[Reorganized Soviet Union]

I don't know about re-engine, but modernizations such as the MiG-23-98/98-2 that modify the MiG-23 a fair amount exist. As for the MiG-21 the J-7 started as a MiG-21 local production but ended up later in it's life as essentially a whole new plane.

[Zhouran]

A crazy and useless question here...

Is it possible to reengine MiG 21 & 23 with F110, giving it TVC, upgrading & adding the hardpoints, NATO compatibility, M197 and AN/APG 83/80?

When re-engining a fighter jet, you have to be mindful with the size of the specific engine you want. Not only that, depending on what engine you pick, you might have to make airframe modifications too. For example, with the IAI Kfir, the original French Atar 09 was replaced by the more-superior GE J79, which led to various changes in the Mirage-style airframe such as shortening and widening of the rear fuselage, and enlarged air intakes.

Now, with the MiG-23 and MiG-21, it is possible to fit the F110 into the airframe of the two fighters, but the question is why? A better and cheaper alternative would just simply fit a Klimov RD-33 instead, especially considering the fact the F110 is heavier and larger than the Klimov RD-33. Plus, why add TVC capability, seems pretty redundant especially considering the fact that modern air wars are fought from BVR, not WVR (in before "but the Vietnam War" even though the Americans placed strict rules of engagement on their pilots that negated any BVR combat).

Moving to avionics. AN/APG-80/83 are AESA radars and would require a large amount of power. Since both MiG-21 and MiG-23 are cheap disposable 3rd gen. fighters, they aren't likely gonna have enough power to fully operate something like the APG-80/83. Plus, with the MiG-21, are you aware that due to the design of the inlet cone nose, the size of the radar antenna has to be reduced in order to fit inside? It's the reason why the MiG-21 and J-7 have crappy avionics capability, and even with the latest J-7 variants fitted with modern radars, their true avionics effectiveness is reduced due to the inlet cone design and reduction of antenna size. It's why with the Chinese J-8, the original J-8I used the inlet cone while the J-8II switched to a larger MiG-23/Su-15 like nose.

And as for adding more hardpoints, both the MiG-21 and MiG-23 are pretty tiny. The MiG-21's stubby little wings can only have two hardpoints each while the skinny fuselage can fit a single hardpoint. At best you have to change the wings and maybe go for an enlarged cranked-delta design similar to the J-7E but larger. As for the MiG-23, you have two wing-glove pylons and two/four under-fuselage pylons, any additional hardpoints would have to be mounted on the wings.

Anyway, why modernize the MiG-21/23 when you could go for something more effective like the JF-17, SAAB Gripen and FA-50? All three planes are lightweight, cost-effective fighters that play a similar role to older light fighters like the MiG-21 or F-5 Freedom Fighter.

As for the MiG-21 the J-7 started as a MiG-21 local production but ended up later in it's life as essentially a whole new plane.

Not really. The only major airframe changes in the J-7 would be the cranked-delta wings, but the series still utilize the airframe spine and inlet cone of the MiG-21F-13.

[Reorganized Soviet Union]

I got mixed up with the JF-17 oops.

[Zhouran]

I got mixed up with the JF-17 oops.

JF-17 could be considered as a spiritual successor the J-7, which would actually make the JF-17 a descendant of the MiG-21. You could say the JF-17 is simply put: a MiG-21/J-7 in a new, fit body.