Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Auroya]

Where's the line between a strike fighter and a small bomber?

[Vitaphone Racing]

Where's the line between a strike fighter and a small bomber?

Wherever you see fit to put it.

[The Akasha Colony]

Where's the line between a strike fighter and a small bomber?

There is no firm line, it's wherever you choose to put it. But IMO, some of the qualifying factors might be the extent to which air-to-air combat capability is included in the design and whether the design originated as a fighter.

[Miklania]

Where's the line between a strike fighter and a small bomber?

As stated above, there is no real line, but the major criteria for me is whether or not it can dogfight. An F35 is a strike fighter. It can strike targets, but it is also a fighter. It can defend itself, and even challenge other fighters. An F-111 is a small bomber. It is not adequately armed or equipped to fight with a modern opponent. Therefor it looses the title of fighter as far as I am concerned.

[Auroya]

Ah, thanks. I'll classify my WIP thing as a bomber then. I'm sure it can carry AAMs but that's not its primary role; I'll probably see about an EW variant also.

[Virla]

This is the frontline fighter of the Empire of Virla. (I RP in 1954)

---

Bundersa S-17 Eagle

Role: Interceptor, Reconnaissance, Night Fighter
Manufacturer: Bundersa
First flight: 22 March 1946
Introduction: 15 June 1948
Status: Still in active use
Primary users: Imperial Virlan Air Force

History
The origins of the Bundersa S-17 go back to World War II. During World War II The Republic of Virla captured 6 flyable examples of the Me 262. After the war the government told Bundersa to study and reproduce the Me 262. After months of flying tests, Bundersa striped down two of the Me 262's and upgraded the avionics and replaced the engines with a locally built Vundser XB-003 jet engine. The first flying test of the XS-17 happened on March 22, 1946. The early tests proved dangerous as the Vundser XB-003a-01a engine was prone to burst into flames. After a couple of months the Vundser Engine Corp. came out with a more reliable variant, the XB-003a-17b. The new engines were fitted on the XS-17 frame and tested on November 28, 1946. These tests were a success and the engines preformed well. The first weapons test with the new locally built weapons happened on January 13, 1947. The first firing of the new XMA-1 advanced rocket ended in a disaster. The XS-17 carrying the XMA-1 shot the rocket, but the rocket didn't leave the railing. The rocket blew the wing off the XS-17 and the pilot ejected. The plane was lost. After months of testing a new rocket was added, the XMA-3. The S-17A entered service on June 15, 1948. The S-17B night fighter variant was first tested on November 27, 1948. After many tests, the S-17B entered service on March 5, 1950.

Specifications (Bundersa S-17A)
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 10.60 m (34 ft 9 in)
Wingspan: 12.60 m (41 ft 6 in)
Height: 3.50 m (11 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 21.7 m² (234 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,795 kg (8,366 lb)
Loaded weight: 6,473 kg (14,272 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 7,130 kg (15,720 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × XB-003a-17b 2,500 lbf each
Aspect ratio: 7.32

Performance
Maximum speed: 981 km/h (610 mph)
Range: 1,050 km (652 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,565 ft)
Rate of climb: 1,200 m/min (At max weight of 7,130 kg) (3,900 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.28

Armament
Guns: 4 × 30 mm B-2 cannon
Rockets: 12 × XMA-3
Bombs: 2 × 250 kg (550 lb) bombs or 2 × 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs

Gallery


The XS-17 that had the XB-003a-01a engine that caught on fire


S-17A Eagle


S-17B Night Eagle

[Iltica]

Drag and weight won't be as much if a problem since you're creating a larger lift surface. With this, your weight gets not nullified, but counteracted, and you become both more manoeuvrable and your plane handles much better.

Drag might still be a bitch, but it'll not be that bad.

But is it a good idea to have lifting canards on a fighter?
I thought the all-moving canards on the Rafale, Sukhois, Typhoon, Gripen, etc weren't lifting surfaces?

[Monemvasia]

How practical would it be to modify the Saab Gripen slightly by adding a dual mode air intake system, like is on the MiG-29? The thought being to improve the Gripen's ability to operate on rough/poorly maintained air strips.

[Ictia]

Since my nation is FT, I decided to use hypersonic planes in my air force. I know there isn't any hypersonic plane in use now, but i read something about different projects and prototypes so there may be some works about its posible uses.

Despite some experimental planes, the rest of them were designed as strategic bombers or surveillance aricraft. Does is make any sense making an hypersonic fighter or close air support?????

[Purpelia]

Despite some experimental planes, the rest of them were designed as strategic bombers or surveillance aricraft. Does is make any sense making an hypersonic fighter or close air support?????

The reason why people only wanted those is that as far as any vehicle goes the rule is that you have velocity or maneuverability but not both. Hypersonic aircraft consume huge amounts of fuel and by nature of the laws of physics have turning radii equivalent to the size of respectable countries. This makes them completely useless for any role that can not be described as "fly in a very strait line really fast and do stuff along the way".

As far as your question goes can it be a fighter? Maybe. Just maybe. It's basically going to be a missile bus with zero maneuverability but it is probably a good way of catching up to enemy hypersonic bombers.
Can it be a CAS aircraft? ABSOLUTELY NOT. A CAS aircraft needs to be able to fly around an area supporting troops. A hypersonic aircraft can't do that.

[Vancon]

Drag and weight won't be as much if a problem since you're creating a larger lift surface. With this, your weight gets not nullified, but counteracted, and you become both more manoeuvrable and your plane handles much better.

Drag might still be a bitch, but it'll not be that bad.

But is it a good idea to have lifting canards on a fighter?
I thought the all-moving canards on the Rafale, Sukhois, Typhoon, Gripen, etc weren't lifting surfaces?

I think it depends on your own design philosophy, but in my books more maneuverability is always good. Especially in a fighter. As for the lifting surfaces, well, I'm pretty sure they are. They're thin and would cause life just by their design. Air would flow over them well, and in turn they'd lift I think.

[Ictia]

Despite some experimental planes, the rest of them were designed as strategic bombers or surveillance aricraft. Does is make any sense making an hypersonic fighter or close air support?????

The reason why people only wanted those is that as far as any vehicle goes the rule is that you have velocity or maneuverability but not both. Hypersonic aircraft consume huge amounts of fuel and by nature of the laws of physics have turning radii equivalent to the size of respectable countries. This makes them completely useless for any role that can not be described as "fly in a very strait line really fast and do stuff along the way".

As far as your question goes can it be a fighter? Maybe. Just maybe. It's basically going to be a missile bus with zero maneuverability but it is probably a good way of catching up to enemy hypersonic bombers.
Can it be a CAS aircraft? ABSOLUTELY NOT. A CAS aircraft needs to be able to fly around an area supporting troops. A hypersonic aircraft can't do that.

Ok, so i probably need some "slower" aircrafts for completing my air force. But has an hypersonic bomber any advantage compared to an ICBM????

[Kolintha]

The reason why people only wanted those is that as far as any vehicle goes the rule is that you have velocity or maneuverability but not both. Hypersonic aircraft consume huge amounts of fuel and by nature of the laws of physics have turning radii equivalent to the size of respectable countries. This makes them completely useless for any role that can not be described as "fly in a very strait line really fast and do stuff along the way".

As far as your question goes can it be a fighter? Maybe. Just maybe. It's basically going to be a missile bus with zero maneuverability but it is probably a good way of catching up to enemy hypersonic bombers.
Can it be a CAS aircraft? ABSOLUTELY NOT. A CAS aircraft needs to be able to fly around an area supporting troops. A hypersonic aircraft can't do that.

Ok, so i probably need some "slower" aircrafts for completing my air force. But has an hypersonic bomber any advantage compared to an ICBM????

It doesn't go boom when it hits the target for one? Hence it can be reused.

But if you can afford both bombers and ICBMs, why not both? They're for different roles after all.

[Vancon]

The reason why people only wanted those is that as far as any vehicle goes the rule is that you have velocity or maneuverability but not both. Hypersonic aircraft consume huge amounts of fuel and by nature of the laws of physics have turning radii equivalent to the size of respectable countries. This makes them completely useless for any role that can not be described as "fly in a very strait line really fast and do stuff along the way".

As far as your question goes can it be a fighter? Maybe. Just maybe. It's basically going to be a missile bus with zero maneuverability but it is probably a good way of catching up to enemy hypersonic bombers.
Can it be a CAS aircraft? ABSOLUTELY NOT. A CAS aircraft needs to be able to fly around an area supporting troops. A hypersonic aircraft can't do that.

Ok, so i probably need some "slower" aircrafts for completing my air force. But has an hypersonic bomber any advantage compared to an ICBM????

An ICBM is a lot safer for its owners, however it's pasyload is also much more dangerous. If you want to take over wherever your fireing, I'd suggest a bomber.

[Iltica]

But is it a good idea to have lifting canards on a fighter?
I thought the all-moving canards on the Rafale, Sukhois, Typhoon, Gripen, etc weren't lifting surfaces?

I think it depends on your own design philosophy, but in my books more maneuverability is always good. Especially in a fighter. As for the lifting surfaces, well, I'm pretty sure they are. They're thin and would cause life just by their design. Air would flow over them well, and in turn they'd lift I think.

Really? Wikipedia calls them 'control canards' and describes them as having little or no loading.

Control

In a control-canard design, most of the weight of the aircraft is carried by the wing and the canard is used primarily for pitch control during maneuvering. A pure control-canard operates only as a control surface and is nominally at zero angle of attack and carrying no load in normal flight. Modern combat aircraft of canard configuration typically have a control-canard driven by a computerized flight control system.[13]
Canards with little or no loading (i.e. control-canards) may be used to intentionally destabilize some combat aircraft in order to make them more manoeuvrable. The electronic flight control system uses the pitch control function of the canard foreplane to create artificial static and dynamic stability.[10][15]
A benefit obtainable from a control-canard is the correction of pitch-up during a wingtip stall. An all-moving canard capable of a significant nose-down deflection can be used to counteract the pitch-up due to the tip stall. As a result, the aspect ratio and sweep of the wing can be optimized without having to guard against pitch-up.[13] A highly loaded lifting canard does not have sufficient spare lift capacity to provide this protection.

If it could somehow cheat and make them lifting surfaces that also work as control canards, that could be very useful at high angles of attack since it lets you have a larger wing area but since the canards can be turned into the direction of travel they wouldn't cause too much energy loss.
But I think they're mutually exclusive?

[Gallia-]

Where's the line between a strike fighter and a small bomber?

As stated above, there is no real line, but the major criteria for me is whether or not it can dogfight. An F35 is a strike fighter. It can strike targets, but it is also a fighter. It can defend itself, and even challenge other fighters. An F-111 is a small bomber. It is not adequately armed or equipped to fight with a modern opponent. Therefor it looses the title of fighter as far as I am concerned.

Is Tornado also not a fighter?

[Vancon]

I think it depends on your own design philosophy, but in my books more maneuverability is always good. Especially in a fighter. As for the lifting surfaces, well, I'm pretty sure they are. They're thin and would cause life just by their design. Air would flow over them well, and in turn they'd lift I think.

Really? Wikipedia calls them 'control canards' and describes them as having little or no loading.

Control

In a control-canard design, most of the weight of the aircraft is carried by the wing and the canard is used primarily for pitch control during maneuvering. A pure control-canard operates only as a control surface and is nominally at zero angle of attack and carrying no load in normal flight. Modern combat aircraft of canard configuration typically have a control-canard driven by a computerized flight control system.[13]
Canards with little or no loading (i.e. control-canards) may be used to intentionally destabilize some combat aircraft in order to make them more manoeuvrable. The electronic flight control system uses the pitch control function of the canard foreplane to create artificial static and dynamic stability.[10][15]
A benefit obtainable from a control-canard is the correction of pitch-up during a wingtip stall. An all-moving canard capable of a significant nose-down deflection can be used to counteract the pitch-up due to the tip stall. As a result, the aspect ratio and sweep of the wing can be optimized without having to guard against pitch-up.[13] A highly loaded lifting canard does not have sufficient spare lift capacity to provide this protection.

If it could somehow cheat and make them lifting surfaces that also work as control canards, that could be very useful at high angles of attack since it lets you have a larger wing area but since the canards can be turned into the direction of travel they wouldn't cause too much energy loss.
But I think they're mutually exclusive?

My point stands. If you wanted to have frontal lifting surfaces, you could make them bigger. Yes, they do not produce a lot, but it's better then nothing.

[Miklania]

How practical would it be to modify the Saab Gripen slightly by adding a dual mode air intake system, like is on the MiG-29? The thought being to improve the Gripen's ability to operate on rough/poorly maintained air strips.

Unnecessary. It is already good at that. The Migs replaced that system with screens anyway, because they work just as well and are lighter and cheaper. The Gripen does not need the extra weight, nor does it have the space, it is a very compact aircraft.

[Iltica]

My point stands. If you wanted to have frontal lifting surfaces, you could make them bigger. Yes, they do not produce a lot, but it's better then nothing.

Of course, they would only supplement the main wing if they were lifting canards.
I was just under the impression that the ones on recent fighters were for control only?

[Yukonastan]

My point stands. If you wanted to have frontal lifting surfaces, you could make them bigger. Yes, they do not produce a lot, but it's better then nothing.

Of course, they would only supplement the main wing if they were lifting canards.
I was just under the impression that the ones on recent fighters were for control only?

Give a flat plane a positive angle of attack and it'll provide lift. Not as efficiently as a proper lifting airfoil, but it'll still provide lift. That's a given.

[Monemvasia]

How practical would it be to modify the Saab Gripen slightly by adding a dual mode air intake system, like is on the MiG-29? The thought being to improve the Gripen's ability to operate on rough/poorly maintained air strips.

Unnecessary. It is already good at that. The Migs replaced that system with screens anyway, because they work just as well and are lighter and cheaper. The Gripen does not need the extra weight, nor does it have the space, it is a very compact aircraft.

Hmm okay, upon further research I found a couple pictures of the wire mesh screen inside Russian fighter air intakes. Does the Gripen have something like these already? I did know the Gripen's rep for being able to handle rough field conditions, at this point I'm trying to come up with minor ways to tweek the design to make it slightly more capable with all the super fighters people are flying in Nationstates these days.

The long term goal is to create something similar to what Anemos Major had with the MS 82 Illusion (he no longer maintains his store front), but slightly cheaper (the tradeoff being that it won't be quite as capable) so as to market it to poorer nations. I figured the Gripen would be a decent starting point.

[Iltica]

Of course, they would only supplement the main wing if they were lifting canards.
I was just under the impression that the ones on recent fighters were for control only?

Give a flat plane a positive angle of attack and it'll provide lift. Not as efficiently as a proper lifting airfoil, but it'll still provide lift. That's a given.

Right, but you don't really want to keep it that way for most of the flight.
The reduced surface area benefit probably isn't happening for a fighter.
The F-15S/MTD's are lift neutral when level right? Maybe it won't be so bad, with the V-tail it only has 1 more surface than an F-16... It will probably be slower but hopefully only a little.

So what about close-coupling? Is that just for delta wings or can it work for other types as well?
Do you think it's better to have the canards be off to the sides of the LERXs or ahead of them? Or to drop the LERXs entirely?

[New Chilokver]

For a ground-attack gunship, what would the minimum caliber be for an autocannon for tank armor penetration?

[Velkanika]

For a ground-attack gunship, what would the minimum caliber be for an autocannon for tank armor penetration?

When?

[Iltica]

Most attack helicopters have 30mm cannons.