Your Nation's Air Force [MKI]

[Horizont]

Is the Aero L-159 Alca better as a trainer or a ground attack aircraft? Or can I ultimately use it for both?

[Imperializt Russia]

Is the Aero L-159 Alca better as a trainer or a ground attack aircraft? Or can I ultimately use it for both?

Quite a lot of trainers are widely used for light ground support.

[Horizont]

Is the Aero L-159 Alca better as a trainer or a ground attack aircraft? Or can I ultimately use it for both?

Quite a lot of trainers are widely used for light ground support.

Thought so.

I suppose I'll use it mainly as a trainer, but make sure that it can quickly be fitted with weapons and used in a combat role if necessary.

[Atlantica]

Is the Aero L-159 Alca better as a trainer or a ground attack aircraft? Or can I ultimately use it for both?

Quite a lot of trainers are widely used for light ground support.

Right. M346, the T-50 (FA-50 for light attack and limited fighter capabilities) and so on.

[Horizont]

Another question.

If you took the airframe of the MiG-23, overhauled it massively to make it suitable for its purpose, removed all weaponry, and fitted it with an engine similar to the SABRE engine, would it be possible to turn it into a suborbital craft capable of taking one pilot into space? It's not supposed to reach orbit.

I'm planning to introduce a few spaceplanes which will use that engine (probably based on the TSR-2 airframe), and this would ideally serve as a trainer for the pilots that would in the future fly those.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Another question.

If you took the airframe of the MiG-23, overhauled it massively to make it suitable for its purpose, removed all weaponry, and fitted it with an engine similar to the SABRE engine, would it be possible to turn it into a suborbital craft capable of taking one pilot into space? It's not supposed to reach orbit.

I'm planning to introduce a few spaceplanes which will use that engine (probably based on the TSR-2 airframe), and this would ideally serve as a trainer for the pilots that would in the future fly those.

You'd be much, much better off purpose-designing an airframe that can take 4 meganewtons up its behinds without disintergrating on takeoff. For I gurantee you that the Flogger will fall apart with SABRE even if it as much as tried to start the engine.

[Horizont]

Another question.

If you took the airframe of the MiG-23, overhauled it massively to make it suitable for its purpose, removed all weaponry, and fitted it with an engine similar to the SABRE engine, would it be possible to turn it into a suborbital craft capable of taking one pilot into space? It's not supposed to reach orbit.

I'm planning to introduce a few spaceplanes which will use that engine (probably based on the TSR-2 airframe), and this would ideally serve as a trainer for the pilots that would in the future fly those.

You'd be much, much better off purpose-designing an airframe that can take 4 meganewtons up its behinds without disintergrating on takeoff. For I gurantee you that the Flogger will fall apart with SABRE even if it as much as tried to start the engine.

Fair enough. The TSR-2 won't, will it? Or at least, can the airframe be strengthened enough so that it won't? It doesn't need to carry any weapons internally.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

You'd be much, much better off purpose-designing an airframe that can take 4 meganewtons up its behinds without disintergrating on takeoff. For I gurantee you that the Flogger will fall apart with SABRE even if it as much as tried to start the engine.

Fair enough. The TSR-2 won't, will it? Or at least, can the airframe be strengthened enough so that it won't? It doesn't need to carry any weapons internally.

Everything not designed for spaceplanening and 4 meganewtons up its arse will fall apart. Get a real spaceplane, there's no cheap way out of this.
For comparison the most powerful airline engines today scrape by with 0.3 meganewtons, you're proposing an engine that's ten times as powerful as that on airframes built to take 25% of it, imagine the consequences.

[Horizont]

Fair enough. The TSR-2 won't, will it? Or at least, can the airframe be strengthened enough so that it won't? It doesn't need to carry any weapons internally.

Everything not designed for spaceplanening and 4 meganewtons up its arse will fall apart. Get a real spaceplane, there's no cheap way out of this.

Alright; I suppose that I'll just say it looks like the TSR-2 because the main reason I chose that design is aesthetics.

[Ea90]

Is the Aero L-159 Alca better as a trainer or a ground attack aircraft? Or can I ultimately use it for both?

It's good as a trainer, and for a poor nation, it's a great choice for light attack.

[Neo Philippine Empire]

We currently are using T-50 PAK FA

[The Corparation]

For turning a regular aircraft into a spaceplane there's a good deal more than the engine you have to worry about. Reentry effects, cramming in an RCS system, reworking the fuel tanks to hold rocket fuels. You are not shoving LH2 and Lox (which SABRE uses) in the same kind of tank as jet fuel. To modify a regular plane into a spaceplane you'd need to redesign pretty much everything to the point you'd have a completely different and unrecognizable aircraft. Better to start from scratch.

[Morrdh]

I've heard of the A-4 Skyhawk doing that, but not the Brono. Could I get a source, I'm curious to read more.

I could easily be mixing up aircraft.
But supposedly, the Skyhawk achieved its kill with a 5" Zuni rocket, I'm sure the kill I'm thinking of was achieved with a podful of 2.75" rockets.

Heard of Douglas Skyraiders shooting down a few MiGs in Vietnam with their guns.

Also, there was that Russian biplane the Po-2 that saw service in Vietnam and proved to be effectively impossible for a jet to shoot it down.....ground fire was a different story.

[Kaledy]

Fighter aircraft

Vehicle:

Electrostatic Discharge 1



Number

62x

Origin

Kaledy

Type

Multi-role fighter

In service

01-01 2014

Notes

Replacement of the

Fighter aircraft

Vehicle:

Killer Bird II-2





Number

62x

Origin

Kaledy

Type

Multi-role fighter

In service

01-07 1983

Notes

Replacement of the Killer Bird I-1

Top speed of Mach 1.8 (1,190 mph or 1,915 km/h at 40,000 ft or 12,190 m). It can carry a wide variety of bombs and missiles, including air-to-air and air-to-ground, supplemented by a cannon.

Top speed of Mach 1.8 (1,190 mph or 1,915 km/h at 40,000 ft or 12,190 m). It can carry a wide variety of bombs and missiles, including air-to-air and air-to-ground, supplemented by a cannon.

[Pharthan]

Fighter aircraft

Vehicle:

Electrostatic Discharge 1

(Image)

Number

62x

Origin

Kaledy

Type

Multi-role fighter

In service

01-01 2014

Notes

Replacement of the

Fighter aircraft

Vehicle:

Killer Bird II-2

(Image)

(Image)

Number

62x

Origin

Kaledy

Type

Multi-role fighter

In service

01-07 1983

Notes

Replacement of the Killer Bird I-1

Top speed of Mach 1.8 (1,190 mph or 1,915 km/h at 40,000 ft or 12,190 m). It can carry a wide variety of bombs and missiles, including air-to-air and air-to-ground, supplemented by a cannon.

Top speed of Mach 1.8 (1,190 mph or 1,915 km/h at 40,000 ft or 12,190 m). It can carry a wide variety of bombs and missiles, including air-to-air and air-to-ground, supplemented by a cannon.

Much exterminate. So hate. Very bump. Wow.

Needs more eyestalk. It's too vulnerable to sonics and blue-box mounted SAMs.

Realistically more believable, save for the bumps and other aesthetic touches. Very F-18- like.

[Anacasppia]

Does this concept look sound? I'd guess with thrust vectoring the vertical stabilizers could be safely done away with in entirety to further reduce observability, considering it already is near-flying wing in terms of shaping.

[Pharthan]

(Image)

Does this concept look sound? I'd guess with thrust vectoring the vertical stabilizers could be safely done away with in entirety to further reduce observability, considering it already is near-flying wing in terms of shaping.

Sound enough, but with two engines instead of the usual one for designs like that I'd be unsure of how much you could fit in the internal bay.

[The Corparation]

(Image)

Does this concept look sound? I'd guess with thrust vectoring the vertical stabilizers could be safely done away with in entirety to further reduce observability, considering it already is near-flying wing in terms of shaping.

Sound enough, but with two engines instead of the usual one for designs like that I'd be unsure of how much you could fit in the internal bay.

It seems like there could be space between the engines for a decent sized weapons bay. That's the layout for one of my 5th Generation fighters. Which reminds me I need to finish that writeup.

[Atlantica]

Sound enough, but with two engines instead of the usual one for designs like that I'd be unsure of how much you could fit in the internal bay.

It seems like there could be space between the engines for a decent sized weapons bay. That's the layout for one of my 5th Generation fighters. Which reminds me I need to finish that writeup.

You mean something like the PAK-FA?

[Peoples Republic of Cesarland]

(Image)

Does this concept look sound? I'd guess with thrust vectoring the vertical stabilizers could be safely done away with in entirety to further reduce observability, considering it already is near-flying wing in terms of shaping.

The canopy looks oddly shaped, irregular edges and such, but I'll take that just as a modelling thing
I'd keep vertical stabilizers though. You can always expect your engines ending up damaged in the intense battle.
Keep both I'd suggest. Don't think they would make much difference in stealth, the hull already covers that and the fins are covered by the hull, making it unseen by ground radar.

[Virana]

(Image)

Does this concept look sound? I'd guess with thrust vectoring the vertical stabilizers could be safely done away with in entirety to further reduce observability, considering it already is near-flying wing in terms of shaping.

Sound enough, but with two engines instead of the usual one for designs like that I'd be unsure of how much you could fit in the internal bay.

There's plenty of room between the engines for internal bays, similar to the PAK FA's (as someone mentioned above). But it does have a glaring issue: the air duct seems to be straight from the intake to the engine nozzle (as opposed to s-shaped), which makes the engine compressor visible from the front. That gives off a massive radar return. This is an issue that design seems to share with the PAK FA as well.

Then again, it's just a rough model/concept.

(Image)

Does this concept look sound? I'd guess with thrust vectoring the vertical stabilizers could be safely done away with in entirety to further reduce observability, considering it already is near-flying wing in terms of shaping.

The canopy looks oddly shaped, irregular edges and such, but I'll take that just as a modelling thing
I'd keep vertical stabilizers though. You can always expect your engines ending up damaged in the intense battle.
Keep both I'd suggest. Don't think they would make much difference in stealth, the hull already covers that and the fins are covered by the hull, making it unseen by ground radar.

Umm, with most stealth designs, the frontal aspect is the most important. Ground radars aren't usually directly under the aircraft. The cant angle of the vertical stabilizers should be the same as the sides of the intakes (that is, the sides of the intakes should be parallel to the stabilizers), like this. That won't give quite a small RCS from any angle as a completely stabilizer-free design, but it'll keep the planes RCS low from the front.

[Crookfur]

(Image)

Does this concept look sound? I'd guess with thrust vectoring the vertical stabilizers could be safely done away with in entirety to further reduce observability, considering it already is near-flying wing in terms of shaping.

considering its a real life proposal from BAe for the Future offensive Air System project its a close to workable as anything else that never got a full scale model built.

Interesting part of that aircraft is the intakes which vary a lot from image to image with some of them being very much in the X-32 wide mouthed frog theme.

[Omniphasa]

Asmana 502
Manufacturer:	Vahrahan Yards ( Government owned )
Unit Cost:	Approximately 46.000 USD
Number Active:	4
Main Armament:	Chekesh Nahr Rocket 2x
Description:	The Asmana 502 was realized after a period of turmoil in the mountain ranges of Omniphasa. Small, agile, cheap, and lightweight, the Asmana 502 can be deployed very quickly. The Chekesh Nahr Rockets that are mounted under the wings, are launched towards a target in a diving maneuver.

[Atlantica]

Asmana 502	(Image)
Manufacturer:	Vahrahan Yards ( Government owned )
Unit Cost:	Approximately 46.000 USD
Number Active:	4
Main Armament:	Chekesh Nahr Rocket 2x
Description:	The Asmana 502 was realized after a period of turmoil in the mountain ranges of Omniphasa. Small, agile, cheap, and lightweight, the Asmana 502 can be deployed very quickly. The Chekesh Nahr Rockets that are mounted under the wings, are launched towards a target in a diving maneuver.

Personally, I would add some sort of machine gun instead of having just two rockets, for air-to-air combat if necessary (against choppers, it'll work fine). As for the rockets, why don't you change it into Hydra Rocket Pods, with 19 rockets each?

[Kaledy]

Asmana 502	(Image)
Manufacturer:	Vahrahan Yards ( Government owned )
Unit Cost:	Approximately 46.000 USD
Number Active:	4
Main Armament:	Chekesh Nahr Rocket 2x
Description:	The Asmana 502 was realized after a period of turmoil in the mountain ranges of Omniphasa. Small, agile, cheap, and lightweight, the Asmana 502 can be deployed very quickly. The Chekesh Nahr Rockets that are mounted under the wings, are launched towards a target in a diving maneuver.

Only 4 active?

And yes, it needs machine guns or cannon. But I like how you present your stuff.