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

[Iltica]

OK, fine take it out and add a tiny bit more fuel. Geez.

[Gallia-]

You would either reduce the plane by that much volume or use it to fit useful things like electronics.

[The Akasha Colony]

Because most of the weight is from the ammo, and this still leaves the option if you change your mind.

The ammo load in Typhoon weighs less than BK-27 + feed system.

Another option is to not fit one, but design the plane to have a place where it could be installed.

This is actually rather complicated and expensive, since it requires modifying the flight control software to take the new gun into account once it is added, or to create two different flight profiles during initial development. Both of which are time consuming to test and verify to military standards.

The British almost cut the BK-27 from their Typhoons until they discovered that the cheapest way to get a properly weight-balanced stand-in of the same dimensions as BK-27 was to just buy and install the gun itself.

There is very little distinguishing a removable gun from a conformal gun pod.

There's one big distinction: an empty internal gun mount is wasted space, while an unused gun pod is not.

It depends on where it is too, there might not be anything inside a LERX or wingroot anyway, depending on the plane.

Empty volume can just be designed out. Especially if the volume is large enough to house an aircraft cannon + ammo.

This is a pretty reasonable amount of space to either design out or repurpose for additional electronics/cooling systems:

[Zhouran]

While everyone discusses about onboard cannons, are conformal fuel tanks better than drop tanks or what? Since CFTs are aerodynamically smoother than drop tanks while not taking up any of the ordnance hardpoints, I was thinking of having CFTs for my NotFlanker heavy fighter series. I know the Su-27 itself already has a large internal fuel load and long range, but since my nation is a large archipelago similar in size to Greenland, my air force generally conducts routine long-range air patrols. My NotFlanker heavy fighters already have aerial refuelling probes and the ability to carry drop tanks, but I was thinking of also having conformal fuel tanks for my NotFlankers. The only disadvantage for CFTs is that a)they can't be discarded in flight like drop tanks, and b)even when empty the CFTs will still impose drag penalty, dead weight, and even slight g-load limits.

The idea of CFTs on an Su-27 isn't new, and apparently Sukhoi did do wind tunnel test involving an Su-27 with a disposable hunchback tank, only difference is that it was a single tank that was placed directly on top of the spine and could be ejected while what I'm trying to go for is a twin-CFT placed on the top-side of the fuselage between each side of the spine, similar to the twin-CFT of the F-16.

[Kanugues Wed]

Here's the drawing of my Ultra Tigershark (Since this is supposed to be the G model, I'd say somewhere around the D or E it entered "super" territory). Bottom airplane is the orginal F-20, top is the M-14G. You can see the new wings stuffed to the brim with fuel, new tail, super lightweight gun in the wing root, it's 13.2% longer, and that's only what you can see top down (This took too long for me to do a front-on and side view). Not visible are taller, stronger gear, taller intakes, AESA radar, and most importantly, using the chad 100kn F414-EDE or 120kn EPE, rather than the shitty old virgin 76kn F404.

One of these fuckers with a F414-EPE (which I plan to use for a few specialised home defense interceptors) would be an amazing hot rod (TWR of 1.24!), even if you would need to be weighed down by three 380 gallon sgt. fletcher drop tanks just to get in the air.

[Purpelia]

The idea of CFTs on an Su-27 isn't new, and apparently Sukhoi did do wind tunnel test involving an Su-27 with a disposable hunchback tank, only difference is that it was a single tank that was placed directly on top of the spine and could be ejected while what I'm trying to go for is a twin-CFT placed on the top-side of the fuselage between each side of the spine, similar to the twin-CFT of the F-16.

The Su-27 has two tails. Therefore the tank is in between so that it flies out and in between and does not hit them.
The F-16 has one tail. Therefore the tanks are around it so that they fly out and around and don't hit it.

[Zhouran]

The idea of CFTs on an Su-27 isn't new, and apparently Sukhoi did do wind tunnel test involving an Su-27 with a disposable hunchback tank, only difference is that it was a single tank that was placed directly on top of the spine and could be ejected while what I'm trying to go for is a twin-CFT placed on the top-side of the fuselage between each side of the spine, similar to the twin-CFT of the F-16.

The Su-27 has two tails. Therefore the tank is in between so that it flies out and in between and does not hit them.
The F-16 has one tail. Therefore the tanks are around it so that they fly out and around and don't hit it.

Mmmhhh, rather than two seperate CFTs like the F-16, maybe I can go with a single CFT instead, but I don't wanna go with the hunchback tank from the wind tunnel test since it blocks the airbrakes.

This CFT for my NotFlankers would flush around the front sides of the aircraft spine near the LERX of the aircraft, since the rear section of the spine small and located behind the airbrake, the rear section of the CFT would then go over it. Basically the CFT is kinda like a tuning fork in shape; it is two-pronged with the prongs flushing around the frontal section of the spine behind the cockpit and LERX, the area where the base of the two prongs meet would be behind the airbrake at the flatter, smaller rear section of the spine, that's where the rear section of the CFT goes on top of that smaller section of the spine. The CFT will not extend to the rear boom and would stop in front of where the engines are located. Here's a pic of an Su-30MKI, you can see the outlines of the airbrake, right? The two prongs of the CFT will each start at the side of the front section of the spine, pretty much at the LERX, specifically in the area between the mechanism of the airbrake and the gap left between by the canards and wings. The area where the two prongs meet would be the area behind the airbrake, which is marked by a dark mark behind the airbrake; this is also where the rear section of the CFT surrounds the smaller, rear section of the spine. The rear of the CFT would probably at the area relative to where the engines start appearing visibly.

[Dostanuot Loj]

(Image)

Here's the drawing of my Ultra Tigershark (Since this is supposed to be the G model, I'd say somewhere around the D or E it entered "super" territory). Bottom airplane is the orginal F-20, top is the M-14G. You can see the new wings stuffed to the brim with fuel, new tail, super lightweight gun in the wing root, it's 13.2% longer, and that's only what you can see top down (This took too long for me to do a front-on and side view). Not visible are taller, stronger gear, taller intakes, AESA radar, and most importantly, using the chad 100kn F414-EDE or 120kn EPE, rather than the shitty old virgin 76kn F404.

One of these fuckers with a F414-EPE (which I plan to use for a few specialised home defense interceptors) would be an amazing hot rod (TWR of 1.24!), even if you would need to be weighed down by three 380 gallon sgt. fletcher drop tanks just to get in the air.

Just FYI, Tigershark's super thin wings were essential to its design, replacing them with fuel-filled wings would cause problems.
In the end all the changes needed to make F-20 into a great little modern hotrod with good radar and such, changed so much of it that it was a different aircraft anyway. Which is why Taiwan has T-50 and not F-20.

[The Akasha Colony]

While everyone discusses about onboard cannons, are conformal fuel tanks better than drop tanks or what? Since CFTs are aerodynamically smoother than drop tanks while not taking up any of the ordnance hardpoints, I was thinking of having CFTs for my NotFlanker heavy fighter series. I know the Su-27 itself already has a large internal fuel load and long range, but since my nation is a large archipelago similar in size to Greenland, my air force generally conducts routine long-range air patrols. My NotFlanker heavy fighters already have aerial refuelling probes and the ability to carry drop tanks, but I was thinking of also having conformal fuel tanks for my NotFlankers. The only disadvantage for CFTs is that a)they can't be discarded in flight like drop tanks, and b)even when empty the CFTs will still impose drag penalty, dead weight, and even slight g-load limits.

The idea of CFTs on an Su-27 isn't new, and apparently Sukhoi did do wind tunnel test involving an Su-27 with a disposable hunchback tank, only difference is that it was a single tank that was placed directly on top of the spine and could be ejected while what I'm trying to go for is a twin-CFT placed on the top-side of the fuselage between each side of the spine, similar to the twin-CFT of the F-16.

They are not an either-or proposition. In fact, most aircraft with CFTs still fly with drop tanks.





Sukhoi's jettisonable CFT was not a particularly good idea. A better option would have simply been to develop a properly optimized CFT like those in US fighters, which do not impose g-limits on their aircraft.

The Su-27 has two tails. Therefore the tank is in between so that it flies out and in between and does not hit them.
The F-16 has one tail. Therefore the tanks are around it so that they fly out and around and don't hit it.

The Sukhoi tank's jettison feature was unique to it. Other CFTs do not have this feature, including those on F-16. They can only be removed by ground crews with specialized equipment. Indeed, the CFTs demonstrated on Advanced Super Hornet are also mounted on either side of the spine as in F-16, despite the fact that F/A-18 is a twin-tail aircraft.

[Purpelia]

In that case, I stand corrected.

[Zhouran]

Indeed, the CFTs demonstrated on Advanced Super Hornet are also mounted on either side of the spine as in F-16, despite the fact that F/A-18 is a twin-tail aircraft.

The CFTs on the Advanced Super Hornet look really nice since they flush really well with the aircraft's spine and LERX.

Anyway, considering how the Su-27 has 10 hardpoints while later Flanker derivatives have 12, there are different places to put drop tanks. The two hardpoints under the engine nacalles are good place to put a drop tank, the two (Su-27)/four (later derivatives) underwing hardpoints close to the fuselage are also good places to put a drop tank each while the centerline two underfuselage hardpoints could probably fit an extra-long drop tank. Having CFTs for my NotFlankers would be suited for something like travelling far (expeditionary operations), deep air-to-ground interdiction, or conducting long-range combat air patrols.

[The Akasha Colony]

Indeed, the CFTs demonstrated on Advanced Super Hornet are also mounted on either side of the spine as in F-16, despite the fact that F/A-18 is a twin-tail aircraft.

The CFTs on the Advanced Super Hornet look really nice since they flush really well with the aircraft's spine and LERX.

Anyway, considering how the Su-27 has 10 hardpoints while later Flanker derivatives have 12, there are different places to put drop tanks. The two hardpoints under the engine nacalles are good place to put a drop tank, the two (Su-27)/four (later derivatives) underwing hardpoints close to the fuselage are also good places to put a drop tank each while the centerline two underfuselage hardpoints could probably fit an extra-long drop tank. Having CFTs for my NotFlankers would be suited for something like travelling far (expeditionary operations), deep air-to-ground interdiction, or conducting long-range combat air patrols.

The under-nacelle pylons are likely too close to the ground to comfortably use large drop tanks.

Due to plumbing requirements, usually only a small handful (2-3) of pylons are ever set up for drop tank use. Running a full plumbing setup to each pylon adds weight, complexity, and reduces available internal volume.

[Laritaia]

-snip-

i don't quite get why you want to preserve the airbrake, as the newer Su-27 derivatives have deleted it anyway.

[Kanugues Wed]

(Image)

Here's the drawing of my Ultra Tigershark (Since this is supposed to be the G model, I'd say somewhere around the D or E it entered "super" territory). Bottom airplane is the orginal F-20, top is the M-14G. You can see the new wings stuffed to the brim with fuel, new tail, super lightweight gun in the wing root, it's 13.2% longer, and that's only what you can see top down (This took too long for me to do a front-on and side view). Not visible are taller, stronger gear, taller intakes, AESA radar, and most importantly, using the chad 100kn F414-EDE or 120kn EPE, rather than the shitty old virgin 76kn F404.

One of these fuckers with a F414-EPE (which I plan to use for a few specialised home defense interceptors) would be an amazing hot rod (TWR of 1.24!), even if you would need to be weighed down by three 380 gallon sgt. fletcher drop tanks just to get in the air.

Just FYI, Tigershark's super thin wings were essential to its design, replacing them with fuel-filled wings would cause problems.
In the end all the changes needed to make F-20 into a great little modern hotrod with good radar and such, changed so much of it that it was a different aircraft anyway. Which is why Taiwan has T-50 and not F-20.

Why was the thin wing essential? How much redesigning would be needed?

And this airplane is probably less related to the F-20 than the super hornet is to the hornet, but not by much.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Why was the thin wing essential?

Light weight, high speed. Especially the latter.

How much redesigning would be needed?

New wing would result in changes in aerodynamic balance, especially a thicker (draggier) wing.
Might as well also change the nose to fit a larger radome, which will cause the same issues and also need changes made. Going to do one, do them all.

And this airplane is probably less related to the F-20 than the super hornet is to the hornet, but not by much.

Then is non-issue.

[Kanugues Wed]

Why was the thin wing essential?

Light weight, high speed. Especially the latter.

How much redesigning would be needed?

New wing would result in changes in aerodynamic balance, especially a thicker (draggier) wing.
Might as well also change the nose to fit a larger radome, which will cause the same issues and also need changes made. Going to do one, do them all.

And this airplane is probably less related to the F-20 than the super hornet is to the hornet, but not by much.

Then is non-issue.

I don’t think I’ll need a larger nosecone because moving the guns would make enough room, and electronics are expensive enough that anything beyond a modified existing radar that already fits sounds a bit expensive for a fighter that won’t be able to leverage it well.

Honestly, I think the development would be similar to the Sabre series. F-86/F-5 ——> early model F-100/M-14a-c ——> Late model F-100/M-14c-e ——> M-14f-g/YF-107 ultra Sabre

[The Manticoran Empire]

Is it best to divide strategic air assets and tactical air assets into different branches like the Soviets did or maintain them under a single branch like the US Air Force does?

[The Akasha Colony]

Is it best to divide strategic air assets and tactical air assets into different branches like the Soviets did or maintain them under a single branch like the US Air Force does?

It is not a binary question. Largely because the politics involved will vary in each nation and in each circumstance.

There is no question that there needs to be some level of independence between the tactical and strategic forces. Otherwise you will end up with one dominating the other to the detriment of the force as a whole.

But whether it needs to be a separate "branch" depends on the internal state of affairs.

Soviet branches tended to be very top-down, with branch chiefs basically like dictators ruling over their own fiefs. Which meant that if a fighter advocate became branch chief, the bomber force might be in trouble. Outright killing something huge like the bomber force would have been out of the question since such a bold move would inevitably be noticed by the Politburo, but a quiet campaign of starvation was possible. Thus, it made political sense to separate the strategic and tactical forces such that the chief of one could not interfere with the other's funding and operations.

This is not the case in the USAF, where the Air Force chief of staff is basically just the head clerk and while he might have some influence on programs through his testimony and advice to Congress and the defense secretaries, the ability to cancel or promote programs is largely out of his control.

[Theodosiya]

What's the purpose of Su-34, when there is Su-25 and Su-30?

[The Manticoran Empire]

Is it best to divide strategic air assets and tactical air assets into different branches like the Soviets did or maintain them under a single branch like the US Air Force does?

It is not a binary question. Largely because the politics involved will vary in each nation and in each circumstance.

There is no question that there needs to be some level of independence between the tactical and strategic forces. Otherwise you will end up with one dominating the other to the detriment of the force as a whole.

But whether it needs to be a separate "branch" depends on the internal state of affairs.

Soviet branches tended to be very top-down, with branch chiefs basically like dictators ruling over their own fiefs. Which meant that if a fighter advocate became branch chief, the bomber force might be in trouble. Outright killing something huge like the bomber force would have been out of the question since such a bold move would inevitably be noticed by the Politburo, but a quiet campaign of starvation was possible. Thus, it made political sense to separate the strategic and tactical forces such that the chief of one could not interfere with the other's funding and operations.

This is not the case in the USAF, where the Air Force chief of staff is basically just the head clerk and while he might have some influence on programs through his testimony and advice to Congress and the defense secretaries, the ability to cancel or promote programs is largely out of his control.

OK. What about placing airlift and ground attack aircraft under the control of the Army?

[Gallia-]

Is it best to divide strategic air assets and tactical air assets into different branches like the Soviets did or maintain them under a single branch like the US Air Force does?

Yes.

What's the purpose of Su-34, when there is Su-25 and Su-30?

Su-34 is F-15E
Su-25 is A-10
Su-30 is F-15XYZ 2020++++

[Theodosiya]

So, would having SU-25, SU-34, SU-30(variant), SU-27 (variant), F-16 50/52-72 and FA-50 constitute a good fighter/trainer arm? Bombers in separate arm and only have TU-95 and TU-22M.

[Gallia-]

Do you really need "F/A-50" when you have F-16 and Su-25? One does the "smol jet" part and the other does the "trainer" part.

[Kanugues Wed]

How easy and cheap would it be for my south pacific nation to get a few Tupolev Tu-142 for naval patrol in the late 70's and keep them running beyond 2020?

[Zhouran]

-snip-

i don't quite get why you want to preserve the airbrake, as the newer Su-27 derivatives have deleted it anyway.

Only the Su-35S deleted it, plus I prefer the Irkut Su-30s (MKI, SM, etc.), Su-27M/35, and Su-37 airframe 'cos aesthetics.

The under-nacelle pylons are likely too close to the ground to comfortably use large drop tanks.

Due to plumbing requirements, usually only a small handful (2-3) of pylons are ever set up for drop tank use. Running a full plumbing setup to each pylon adds weight, complexity, and reduces available internal volume.

With the under-nacalle drop tanks, they're smaller and have a similar size dimension to the Kh-31 missile, I'd say the same with the under-wing drop tanks as well.

As for maximum number of drop tanks carried by my NotFlankers, indeed only a total of up to two or three drops tanks would be carried.

Su-34 is F-15E
Su-25 is A-10
Su-30 is F-15XYZ 2020++++

I thought Su-30 would be equivalent to the F-15E, at least with KnAAPO's while Irkut's Su-30s would no doubt be comparable to something like the F-15 Advanced 2020. The Su-34 is a big girl, she carries up to 12,000 kg of ordnance while the closest American equivalent is the F-111 with an ordnance load of 14,300 kg (RIP F-111).

What's the purpose of Su-34, when there is Su-25 and Su-30?

Su-25 is close air support, Su-30 is general multirole, and Su-34 is deep interdiction.

So, would having SU-25, SU-34, SU-30(variant), SU-27 (variant), F-16 50/52-72 and FA-50 constitute a good fighter/trainer arm?

You can do what the Indians did and go straight for the Su-30 rather than acquiring the Su-27. I don't know what variant of the Su-30 you're going with, but you could probably go for Irkut's design rather than KnAAPO's, Only advantage I could think of for KnAAPO's Su-30s would be that by using an older radar and not needing a canard, you have increased payload, while Irkut's Su-30s not only has increased maneuverability (not really that important), but also carries a more-powerful but also heavier PESA radar. KnAAPO's design is cheaper, with the Su-30MK2 costing around US$37.5 million while Irkut's design is no doubt more expensive, with the Su-30MKI costing up to US$55 million.