Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Yakzistan]

Thanks for the insight of a modernized MiG-23 MLD going against a export version of the MiG-29, New Vihenia.

Anyways, I plan to use the MiG-23s as second line of defense behind of the MiG-29M and Su-30M which are the front line of defense.

[Crookfur]

Thanks for the insight of a modernized MiG-23 MLD going against a export version of the MiG-29, New Vihenia.

Anyways, I plan to use the MiG-23s as second line of defense behind of the MiG-29M and Su-30M which are the front line of defense.

As said it really depends what you mean by an export MiG-29, they vary a lot.

Really it would come down to tactics, if you cna keep thigns at BVR or can succesfully stick to slashing attacks then a fully modernised MiG-23 should work as long as long as you avoid getting into a turning fight. Agaisn the most basic export MiG-29 things would rpetty much resemble the syrian claims to what happened in the air over Lebanon in the early 80s vs F-16s

[Felucian Planetary Republic]

The FPR has recently added the Dropship 77 Heavy-Troop Carrier/Infantry or "Pelican" into it's airforce.

[Antarticaria]

I found the new thread yay.

Ok, My nations equivalent to scout helicopters...

Scout Helicopters:
Name: ARW-52 (Name Is purely made up coincidence is coincidence)
Class: Scout Helicopter
Origin: Antarticaria
Cost: TBD

Size:
Length: 11.9 Meters
Rotor Dia: 10.2 Meters
Height: 2.7 Meters
Max Weight: 3,150 lbs
Unloaded Weight: 2,224 lbs

Engine: 1 × Allison 250-C20B turboshaft, 420 shp
Max Speed: 125 MPH
Use Range: 400 Miles

Armaments:
2x 20 mm Auto-Cannons (900 rounds each of API)

Crew:
One Pilot, 4 Extra

*Edit* Max weight is not weight carried on but weight the helicopter reaches when carrying max capacity.**

[Dat cua Tien]

I found the new thread yay.

Ok, My nations equivalent to scout helicopters...

Scout Helicopters:
Name: ARW-52 (Name Is purely made up coincidence is coincidence)
Class: Scout Helicopter
Origin: Antarticaria
Cost: TBD

Size:
Length: 11.9 Meters
Rotor Dia: 10.2 Meters
Height: 2.7 Meters
Max Weight: 3,150 lbs
Unloaded Weight: 2,224 lbs

Engine: 1 × Allison 250-C20B turboshaft, 420 shp
Max Speed: 125 MPH
Use Range: 400 Miles

Armaments:
2x 20 mm Auto-Cannons (900 rounds each of API)

Crew:
One Pilot, 4 Extra

*Edit* Max weight is not weight carried on but weight the helicopter reaches when carrying max capacity.**

Might I suggest sticking with one measurement system, for congruence's sake?

Your engine is quite small for the weights you're claiming.

Dimensionally, it's larger than it needs to be.

Range is optimistic as your engine is small for your unloaded weight, making your fuel capacity pretty low.

Is the speed arbitrarily limited because of the engine? It could be an extra 40mph, compared to other designs of the same size.

Your armament is quite limiting, and will be fairly heavy for what limited capability you have. You only need one cannon, especially for a helicopter this small. Two guns would be more along the line of a 7.62 or 12.7. 1800 rounds will be a heavy, and your bird will rarely, if ever, be able to shoot it all. Some of the modern helicopters for this class will use a large caliber but lightweight autocannon (such as a 30x113mm) as it's lightweight, multipurpose, and gives you a good HE capability. A standard loadout of API also would indicate it's supposed to be an anti-armor helicopter, at which point you should be using hardpoints and missiles instead. That also gives you a multipurpose capability, and it might even be worth it to make your autocannon options strictly with gunpods, removing the weight for the chin-turret and giving you more payload capacity for other missions.

Is there a specific IRL helicopter you were modeling it after?

[Crookfur]

I found the new thread yay.

Ok, My nations equivalent to scout helicopters...

Scout Helicopters:
Name: ARW-52 (Name Is purely made up coincidence is coincidence)
Class: Scout Helicopter
Origin: Antarticaria
Cost: TBD

Size:
Length: 11.9 Meters
Rotor Dia: 10.2 Meters
Height: 2.7 Meters
Max Weight: 3,150 lbs
Unloaded Weight: 2,224 lbs

Engine: 1 × Allison 250-C20B turboshaft, 420 shp
Max Speed: 125 MPH
Use Range: 400 Miles

Armaments:
2x 20 mm Auto-Cannons (900 rounds each of API)

Crew:
One Pilot, 4 Extra

*Edit* Max weight is not weight carried on but weight the helicopter reaches when carrying max capacity.**

The term you are looking for is Maximum Take off Weight (MTOW)


Does the empty/unllaiden weight incldue the cannons and ammo? If not to 550kg or there abouts of ammo you want will be a major issue.

Dat cua Tien is pretty much right about everythign esle but to go furether on the armament on this kind of aircraft you don't want anything fixed, pretty much everything should be mounted on modualr pylons/stub wings.

A pair of 20mm cannon (podded or feed froma fuselage box) is not unheard of on light utility helicopter but typically if you have the payload for two a 7 round 2.75"/71mm rocket pod would repalce one of them.

[Britinthia]

F-20, if it was put into production and continually modernised, as the F-16 has been, is it a sensible fighter? Assuming that by 2010-ish it will have been relegated to supporting UCAVs anyway. Also naval variant possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

[Virana]

F-20, if it was put into production and continually modernised, as the F-16 has been, is it a sensible fighter? Assuming that by 2010-ish it will have been relegated to supporting UCAVs anyway. Also naval variant possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

Maybe. Keep in mind it was created as a cheaper, reduced capability F-16 due to Carter's export restrictions. When that died out the plane was overshadowed in the market by the F-16. If continued it might make a decent lightweight, low-cost fighter. JF-17 rings some bells there for comparison.

[Dat cua Tien]

F-20, if it was put into production and continually modernised, as the F-16 has been, is it a sensible fighter? Assuming that by 2010-ish it will have been relegated to supporting UCAVs anyway. Also naval variant possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

The concept today lives on as the FA-50
The F-20 would just be a better version of that, with a slightly smaller payload, so I think it'd be "sensible."

[Britinthia]

Maybe. Keep in mind it was created as a cheaper, reduced capability F-16 due to Carter's export restrictions. When that died out the plane was overshadowed in the market by the F-16. If continued it might make a decent lightweight, low-cost fighter. JF-17 rings some bells there for comparison.

The concept today lives on as the FA-50
The F-20 would just be a better version of that, with a slightly smaller payload, so I think it'd be "sensible."

That works for me. I have no need for a super-duper stealth fighter that can do everything. I just need a little something to say I have an combat ready air force.

[Dat cua Tien]

Maybe. Keep in mind it was created as a cheaper, reduced capability F-16 due to Carter's export restrictions. When that died out the plane was overshadowed in the market by the F-16. If continued it might make a decent lightweight, low-cost fighter. JF-17 rings some bells there for comparison.

The concept today lives on as the FA-50
The F-20 would just be a better version of that, with a slightly smaller payload, so I think it'd be "sensible."

That works for me. I have no need for a super-duper stealth fighter that can do everything. I just need a little something to say I have an combat ready air force.

then you'd be better off with a full sized fighter
The F-20 and FA-50s are more of a lower-cost supplemental aircraft, and will have a hard time fitting a RADAR worth a darn, and as present, neither can even fit a medium ranged missile.

[Virana]

Maybe. Keep in mind it was created as a cheaper, reduced capability F-16 due to Carter's export restrictions. When that died out the plane was overshadowed in the market by the F-16. If continued it might make a decent lightweight, low-cost fighter. JF-17 rings some bells there for comparison.

The concept today lives on as the FA-50
The F-20 would just be a better version of that, with a slightly smaller payload, so I think it'd be "sensible."

That works for me. I have no need for a super-duper stealth fighter that can do everything. I just need a little something to say I have an combat ready air force.

Yeah, as said above, you should get a full sized fighter—something around the size of an F-16, Gripen, or even Eurofighter or Rafale. If you're cash-strapped, use a combination of a few of those with larger numbers of F-20s.

[Britinthia]

That works for me. I have no need for a super-duper stealth fighter that can do everything. I just need a little something to say I have an combat ready air force.

Yeah, as said above, you should get a full sized fighter—something around the size of an F-16, Gripen, or even Eurofighter or Rafale. If you're cash-strapped, use a combination of a few of those with larger numbers of F-20s.

Well I have UCAVs (non autonomous) to do the dirty work, which I reckon will have replaced a manned fighter in the 2005-2010 area. Probably a tornado or other obsolete European fighter. F-20s are just there to back them up and provide an up-close human presence to help pilots on the ground.

If you are wondering about UCAVs suitability in MT, I refer you to this study, which taking into account Britinthia is a fictional nation with different aims, interests and cultural values to the U.S. I don't see any reason it cannot be possible.
http://www.cosmicscribbler.com/erau/Res ... ityUAV.pdf

[Dat cua Tien]

Yeah, as said above, you should get a full sized fighter—something around the size of an F-16, Gripen, or even Eurofighter or Rafale. If you're cash-strapped, use a combination of a few of those with larger numbers of F-20s.

Well I have UCAVs (non autonomous) to do the dirty work, which I reckon will have replaced a manned fighter in the 2005-2010 area. Probably a tornado or other obsolete European fighter. F-20s are just there to back them up and provide an up-close human presence to help pilots on the ground.

If you are wondering about UCAVs suitability in MT, I refer you to this study, which taking into account Britinthia is a fictional nation with different aims, interests and cultural values to the U.S. I don't see any reason it cannot be possible.
http://www.cosmicscribbler.com/erau/Res ... ityUAV.pdf

I don't see anything in that report that said that it's feasible with current technology. It says: here are the pros of UAVs. In the future we get to enjoy this. With the future being post-2011...

[The Corparation]

Yeah, as said above, you should get a full sized fighter—something around the size of an F-16, Gripen, or even Eurofighter or Rafale. If you're cash-strapped, use a combination of a few of those with larger numbers of F-20s.

Well I have UCAVs (non autonomous) to do the dirty work, which I reckon will have replaced a manned fighter in the 2005-2010 area. Probably a tornado or other obsolete European fighter. F-20s are just there to back them up and provide an up-close human presence to help pilots on the ground.

If you are wondering about UCAVs suitability in MT, I refer you to this study, which taking into account Britinthia is a fictional nation with different aims, interests and cultural values to the U.S. I don't see any reason it cannot be possible.
http://www.cosmicscribbler.com/erau/Res ... ityUAV.pdf

You're trying to use a 2011 Study saying that in the future a non-autonomous Air Superiority drone is possible, but that they should only be used alongside and in support of manned fighters to justify replacing your manned fighters five years before the study was written. I mean I get not reading the whole study (Although as a short one you really don't have much of an excuse) but at least read the abstract and the conclusion, and its really not hard to check the date it was written.

[Britinthia]

Dates can be altered, 2015-2020, see I did it right there, but UCAVs have been in service long before that study was written. It states that only two things stand in the way of UCAVs;

"Situational Awareness will be able to meet the requirements in the near future with few advances in technology, but the ability will be expensive due to the number of sensors that are required and the amount of processing or bandwidth required (depending on the level of autonomous operation) will be high."

Situational awareness, which it even goes as far as to say can be overcome with enough investment in the appropriate technology,
Lack of real-time control, which can be overcome with enough R&D in appropriate fields and more likely, not using them on the other side of the globe without someone on the ground (or better still, a carrier) to operate them.


The jump from blowing up insurgents in the desert to enemy aircraft isn't that big if you are that way inclined. Logical, no. Possible, yes.

[Imperializt Russia]

I found the new thread yay.

Ok, My nations equivalent to scout helicopters...

Scout Helicopters:
Name: ARW-52 (Name Is purely made up coincidence is coincidence)
Class: Scout Helicopter
Origin: Antarticaria
Cost: TBD

Size:
Length: 11.9 Meters
Rotor Dia: 10.2 Meters
Height: 2.7 Meters
Max Weight: 3,150 lbs
Unloaded Weight: 2,224 lbs

Engine: 1 × Allison 250-C20B turboshaft, 420 shp
Max Speed: 125 MPH
Use Range: 400 Miles

Armaments:
2x 20 mm Auto-Cannons (900 rounds each of API)

Crew:
One Pilot, 4 Extra

*Edit* Max weight is not weight carried on but weight the helicopter reaches when carrying max capacity.**

That ~400kg difference between MTOW and unloaded is what you have for aircrew, passengers, fuel and any equipment of weapons carried. You don't want your operational mass to nudge too close to MTOW for obvious reasons.
Feels quite low.

For scale, the OH-58A had an empty weight of ~720kg and an MTOW of ~1360kg, about 50% more than yours. Wiki lists a gross weight for the D and F variants, which I assume is referring to useful load (crew, fuel, ammunition, equipment) of 750-900kg; worth noting the D and F Kiowas' empty weights went up to the A's MTOW.

[The Corparation]

Dates can be altered, 2015-2020, see I did it right there, but UCAVs have been in service long before that study was written. It states that only two things stand in the way of UCAVs;

"Situational Awareness will be able to meet the requirements in the near future with few advances in technology, but the ability will be expensive due to the number of sensors that are required and the amount of processing or bandwidth required (depending on the level of autonomous operation) will be high."

Situational awareness, which it even goes as far as to say can be overcome with enough investment in the appropriate technology,
Lack of real-time control, which can be overcome with enough R&D in appropriate fields and more likely, not using them on the other side of the globe without someone on the ground (or better still, a carrier) to operate them.


The jump from blowing up insurgents in the desert to enemy aircraft isn't that big if you are that way inclined. Logical, no. Possible, yes.

Its almost as if you didn't bother reading the study's abstract, conclusion and recomendations . A.K.A. the three parts of the study that tell you everything you need to know. You at least started to read the conclusion as you quoted the first sentence. Unfortunately that seems to have been where you stopped reading.

..autonomous operation of the whole aircraft is the only factor that poses a seemingly impassable problem.Air combat is too sophisticated for any foreseeable technology to be able to handle.
Computers are methodical and do the same thing every time. Any unforeseeable situation would be impossible for an autonomous system to overcome. A pilot controlling the plane is, at this stage, the more practical way although it does introduce control latency

This is literally two sentences after what you quoted.

And of course you completely missed the recommendations:

Recommendations
Based on the findings of this report, it is recommended that the United States Air Force continue development of unmanned vehicles for use as air-superiority craft.It is also concluded that unmanned air-superiority fighters alone will not be sufficient. Manned and unmanned fighters should be used together to
most efficiently achieve air-superiority. By this method, the decision-making skills needed from the human operators, the efficiency, and the safety of the unmanned systems can be utilized to effectively suppress enemy air activity.

[Britinthia]

Its almost as if you didn't bother reading the study's abstract, conclusion and recomendations . A.K.A. the three parts of the study that tell you everything you need to know. You at least started to read the conclusion as you quoted the first sentence. Unfortunately that seems to have been where you stopped reading.

..autonomous operation of the whole aircraft is the only factor that poses a seemingly impassable problem.Air combat is too sophisticated for any foreseeable technology to be able to handle.
Computers are methodical and do the same thing every time. Any unforeseeable situation would be impossible for an autonomous system to overcome. A pilot controlling the plane is, at this stage, the more practical way although it does introduce control latency

This is literally two sentences after what you quoted.

And of course you completely missed the recommendations:

Recommendations
Based on the findings of this report, it is recommended that the United States Air Force continue development of unmanned vehicles for use as air-superiority craft.It is also concluded that unmanned air-superiority fighters alone will not be sufficient. Manned and unmanned fighters should be used together to
most efficiently achieve air-superiority. By this method, the decision-making skills needed from the human operators, the efficiency, and the safety of the unmanned systems can be utilized to effectively suppress enemy air activity.

Yes. For autonomous function, it is impossible. I did not say at any point that I expected this, in fact I clearly stated that I intended to use pilots to control the aircraft from the ground, at comparatively short range, if possible from mobile stations like an aircraft carrier. This is an attempt to compensate for the control flaws mentioned in the study, which are brought on by operating at extreme ranges. However the study states that this delay is only about 2 seconds, and my own thoughts on this are that shorter ranges would negate this. I also clearly stated that I was aware of the financial burden this would put on any nation fielding a UCAV in this manner.

I fail to see my mistake, I have vaguely addressed the issues presented, although mot in detail as it is too late to start now, and I have ignored the impossible, i.e. autonomy because its not a requirement. Whats wrong with that?

[Antarticaria]

I found the new thread yay.

Ok, My nations equivalent to scout helicopters...

Scout Helicopters:
Name: ARW-52 (Name Is purely made up coincidence is coincidence)
Class: Scout Helicopter
Origin: Antarticaria
Cost: TBD

Size:
Length: 11.9 Meters
Rotor Dia: 10.2 Meters
Height: 2.7 Meters
Max Weight: 3,150 lbs
Unloaded Weight: 2,224 lbs

Engine: 1 × Allison 250-C20B turboshaft, 420 shp
Max Speed: 125 MPH
Use Range: 400 Miles

Armaments:
2x 20 mm Auto-Cannons (900 rounds each of API)

Crew:
One Pilot, 4 Extra

*Edit* Max weight is not weight carried on but weight the helicopter reaches when carrying max capacity.**

Might I suggest sticking with one measurement system, for congruence's sake?

Your engine is quite small for the weights you're claiming.

Dimensionally, it's larger than it needs to be.

Range is optimistic as your engine is small for your unloaded weight, making your fuel capacity pretty low.

Is the speed arbitrarily limited because of the engine? It could be an extra 40mph, compared to other designs of the same size.

Your armament is quite limiting, and will be fairly heavy for what limited capability you have. You only need one cannon, especially for a helicopter this small. Two guns would be more along the line of a 7.62 or 12.7. 1800 rounds will be a heavy, and your bird will rarely, if ever, be able to shoot it all. Some of the modern helicopters for this class will use a large caliber but lightweight autocannon (such as a 30x113mm) as it's lightweight, multipurpose, and gives you a good HE capability. A standard loadout of API also would indicate it's supposed to be an anti-armor helicopter, at which point you should be using hardpoints and missiles instead. That also gives you a multipurpose capability, and it might even be worth it to make your autocannon options strictly with gunpods, removing the weight for the chin-turret and giving you more payload capacity for other missions.

Is there a specific IRL helicopter you were modeling it after?

Yeah Im sorry about he measurement thing, I jump back and forth even in real life and in person, Its a awful habit, also yes i agree with you as far as the armaments, and for the life of me I cant remember where i got this helicopter design, I do remember its copied from some civilian helicopter pretty close to Vietnam war. But as far as the design and gas weight issue, the helicopter is pretty unarmored besides the fuel tank.

Almost going for a design like this:

[New Vihenia]

The Elegant Shelenia Blanchett. Light interceptor of our airforce, designed from the outset to win aerial combat swiftly and return safely. Very high maneuverability and T/W ratio padded with low wing loading make her nasty dogfighter. Equipped with 80cm diameter class Celia AESA Radar she's also formidable opponent in long range battle, able to detect typical fighter sized target (3 Sqm RCS) from over 182 Km and launch advanced Aera Iradia ramjet or Jihadist family air to air missiles.

Other sensors include the Elda electro optical suite with ability to detect beach ball sized target (0.36 sqm area) from 90-100 Km.

Better image version
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 0065_n.jpg

[Felucian Planetary Republic]

The FPR has two different types of technology for its military. It has Future tech for warfare, space exploration, and for government industrial operations, while there is post modern tech for the regular needs of everyday life. One of the most unused aircraft designs for the post modern tech are those of the F-15 Eagle. (The designs being for everyday life, as in non-warfare use, is the reason for it being least used. This is because it is still in its prototype stage )

[Mallaska]

Decided to screw around and make my rudimentary take on a COIN/training aircraft based on the A-1 Skyraider. Any thoughts?

[The Akasha Colony]

Just got back from a trip to Normandy, flying in an A380 for the first time. So for some reason, I really felt like making an airliner. So:

[Imperializt Russia]

Pretty.

Any military gubbins going to be stuffed in it?