Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Gallia-]

the only thing TSR-2 was good at

[Rich and Corporations]

Ok... but I want my nation to seem real, that includes the things we bought.
oh, btw, how many aircraft get constructed in an low scale aircraft factory per. year, and how much money would that cost?
I'm trying to have all the facts worked out

The longer and larger a production line, the cheaper production costs are.
http://fas.org/news/reference/calc/learn.htm
http://fas.org/news/reference/calc/airframe.htm

[Crookfur]

Ok... but I want my nation to seem real, that includes the things we bought.
oh, btw, how many aircraft get constructed in an low scale aircraft factory per. year, and how much money would that cost?
I'm trying to have all the facts worked out

If you want to be realistic then the only drakons you will find in a flyable condition will be carefully maintained exhibition pieces that can just about handle half a dozen airshows a year. Seriously nothing of that vintage is in operational condition anymore.

How many and how much does it cost will vary hugely.

One example might be British harrier production which hovered between about 10 and 15 a year on average. Generally speaking production starts off slow then as the tooling and work force get sorted it speeds up.until near the end of order when things slow down as the plant starts laying off or reassigning workers and tries to keep the line going as long as possible in the hope of further orders.

You will pretty much need to work things out for yourself by finding a roughly comparable aircraft and having a look at how it's production progressed.

[Barisea]

Ok... but I want my nation to seem real, that includes the things we bought.
oh, btw, how many aircraft get constructed in an low scale aircraft factory per. year, and how much money would that cost?
I'm trying to have all the facts worked out

The longer and larger a production line, the cheaper production costs are.
http://fas.org/news/reference/calc/learn.htm
http://fas.org/news/reference/calc/airframe.htm

Okay thx. 1.3 billion total cost for the production of all 60 drakens

[Crookfur]

Or, someone could just decide to offer a deal, and make money for their nation
win win.. Besides, I like trading

Then take it to the Global Economics and Trade sub-forum. The military realism advisory threads are almost entirely OOC, they're not the proper place to negotiate trade deals for your nation.

edit: GE&T also has a lot of threads where people sell aircraft they designed themselves, but some absurd percentage of them are unrealistic

IIRC he tried that but the original requirements were such that he only attracted the usual "I haven't bothered reading requirements but here is a RL product anyway" response.

I suppose I could offer a light fighter version of my totally not a mako CFT-14 matrix...

[EsToVnIa]

Perhaps this is the wrong place to put this, but I have a question. I already know it's immoral and inhumane to do it but would it be plausible to remove the lower legs of all pilots to make it easier for them to fly? As in, there is less blood in their body, so while they are doing tricks less blood would flow to their head, right? Is this an idea that could work if put into practice?

The problem is not so much immoral as wouldn't do anything at all.

Blood is going from the heart to the brain, not from the legs. You black out because the force pulling the blood out of your head exceeds the force pushing new blood in. The heart does not start pumping harder because you lose your legs.

then explain why fox mccloud has no legs

[Barisea]

No thx.. all I need now is for some one to sell me the blueprints to the draken.

[Purpelia]

That calculator gives me a total of 13'745'000 for my Skeletor program.

By the way, for a nation of medium size does 600 fighters total sound good enough?

[Crookfur]

No thx.. all I need now is for some one to sell me the blueprints to the draken.

Just claim you have them, that would be as realistic as anyone else claiming to have them since from a pure realism point of veiw they were never produced any where but at Saab.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

No thx.. all I need now is for some one to sell me the blueprints to the draken.

As an ex-importer of it, we traded them for Viggens (well tried, then we got P1216/F-14/Tornado) at the first opportunity, because J35's are a no go vs Fulcrums and Flankers, both of which we expected to face in the ultimate Przemysl/Battle of Galicia <.<. Who are you expecting to defend your airspace from?

[Purpelia]

Tempted to just say screw it and offer up the Skeletor.

It's my take on what would happen if there was an euro equivalent to the F-15 and Su-27. Two big engines, two tails, big radar and loads and loads of kill.

[Barisea]

No thx.. all I need now is for some one to sell me the blueprints to the draken.

As an ex-importer of it, we traded them for Viggens (well tried, then we got P1216/F-14/Tornado) at the first opportunity, because J35's are a no go vs Fulcrums and Flankers, both of which we expected to face in the ultimate Przemysl/Battle of Galicia <.<. Who are you expecting to defend your airspace from?

On the continent Ayora, the one where I live, to the south, so do hostile people. we do not know their technological advancement levels yet, so being prepared is necessary.

[Theodosiya]

-what's the strongest fighter jet engine?
-Is it possible to fit stronger turboprop or piston engine for EMB 314 ST?

[Crookfur]

-what's the strongest fighter jet engine?
-Is it possible to fit stronger turboprop or piston engine for EMB 314 ST?

I assume you mean most powerful/highest thrust rating which off the top of my head goes to the F135.

As to the super tucano no not really it already has what is IIRC the most powerful version of the pt-6 family and there won't be any real.competition for the larger high end pt-6 versions until GE bring out thier super duper new turbo prop design in 2018

[The Army Republic of Prussia]

How reasonable would it be to turn the SR-71 Black Bird into a tactical bomber? I know that it is one of the fastest recon planes built, What changes would have to be done to turn it into a bomber? How much speed would it lose with the addition of a small bomb bay?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

How reasonable would it be to turn the SR-71 Black Bird into a tactical bomber? I know that it is one of the fastest recon planes built, What changes would have to be done to turn it into a bomber? How much speed would it lose with the addition of a small bomb bay?

Well... your bombs would take half an hour to land 10 km's apart (or break up in mid air because they're not gonna go mach 3). It's much more advisable to just toss cruise missiles with it.

[The Kievan People]

How reasonable would it be to turn the SR-71 Black Bird into a tactical bomber? I know that it is one of the fastest recon planes built, What changes would have to be done to turn it into a bomber? How much speed would it lose with the addition of a small bomb bay?

1. It would not lose speed since a bomb bay is internal. It's range might if some fuel is removed to make room for ordnance.
2. The concept was studied at length by the USAF, it was by all indications possible.
3. The SR-71 already had a number of equipment bays which could carry a moderate amount of ordnance. Four SRAM missiles was a likely payload.
4. Given the aircraft's size, the length of the airstrips needed for takeoff and landing and the impossibility of rapid turn around (on landing an SR-71 was far too hot to touch, let alone refuel and re-arm, it typically took hours to cool down) there would be absolutely nothing "tactical" about it. It would be a smaller strategic bomber, not unlike the B58 Hustler.

The main problem was that the SR-71's equipment bays were originally designed for carrying reconnaissance equipment and were not placed or sized optimally for carrying weaponry, so it's payload would be a bit small relative to what was possible in principle.

[The Kievan People]

Well... your bombs would take half an hour to land 10 km's apart (or break up in mid air because they're not gonna go mach 3). It's much more advisable to just toss cruise missiles with it.

Gravity bombing tests from the Mig-25 at extreme speed/altitude were actually quite successful in the USSR. Though special heat-resistant bombs were needed...

[Gallan Systems]

How reasonable would it be to turn the SR-71 Black Bird into a tactical bomber? I know that it is one of the fastest recon planes built, What changes would have to be done to turn it into a bomber? How much speed would it lose with the addition of a small bomb bay?

Well... your bombs would take half an hour to land 10 km's apart (or break up in mid air because they're not gonna go mach 3). It's much more advisable to just toss cruise missiles with it.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/653 ... sePg15.jpg

no bombs here

Well... your bombs would take half an hour to land 10 km's apart (or break up in mid air because they're not gonna go mach 3). It's much more advisable to just toss cruise missiles with it.

Gravity bombing tests from the Mig-25 at extreme speed/altitude were actually quite successful in the USSR. Though special heat-resistant bombs were needed...

xb-70 ccip carpet bombing irl

move over b-52d

but how special is special

like a nickel sheet or something more exotic?

[The Kievan People]

Practically speaking you'd want guided bombs.

The sheer amount of energy available for the bomb is really begging for some kind of glide weapon. Though no existing glide bomb is really suitable, as they are all designed for relatively low speed release.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Practically speaking you'd want guided bombs.

The sheer amount of energy available for the bomb is really begging for some kind of glide weapon. Though no existing glide bomb is really suitable, as they are all designed for relatively low speed release.

If a modified SR-71 could carry four SRAMS it could easily carry four JDAMS with BLU-109s or BLU-116 warheads. The thick steel casing of either bomb should easily survive brief mach 3 heating and even without glide fins the lift generated by the JDAM kit's aerodynamic strakes should be sufficient to give you at least 100+ km standoff range assuming a mach 3 release at 80,000 feet. Add some glide fins and you could easily achieve several hundred kilometers. Higher impact speed of the bomb from a high altitude, high speed increase would also increase the bomb's penetration capability several times over.

Still, you're paying quite a bit to drop four 2,000 pound bombs which an F-15E could do at a fraction the cost and could do probably a bit faster considered the SR-71s extremely low sortie rate and maintenance requirements. A sortie per SR-71 per day would probably be realistic which severely limits its tactical utility.

[The Army Republic of Prussia]

1. It would not lose speed since a bomb bay is internal. It's range might if some fuel is removed to make room for ordnance.
2. The concept was studied at length by the USAF, it was by all indications possible.
3. The SR-71 already had a number of equipment bays which could carry a moderate amount of ordnance. Four SRAM missiles was a likely payload.
4. Given the aircraft's size, the length of the airstrips needed for takeoff and landing and the impossibility of rapid turn around (on landing an SR-71 was far too hot to touch, let alone refuel and re-arm, it typically took hours to cool down) there would be absolutely nothing "tactical" about it. It would be a smaller strategic bomber, not unlike the B58 Hustler.

The main problem was that the SR-71's equipment bays were originally designed for carrying reconnaissance equipment and were not placed or sized optimally for carrying weaponry, so it's payload would be a bit small relative to what was possible in principle.

Well it's nice that its famous speed wouldn't be affected, I thought the weight of ordnance might slow it down.

Four SPAMs, according to Wikipedia each one weighs about 2,200 pounds so that's about 9,000 pounds of ordnance, assuming that is near the maximum of what the bays can hold. That's a problem. That's a few times smaller than any other bomber and only one or two sorties a day. I was expecting a small payload, but not quite that small. Is this with the base equipment bays or modified? If base, if it had a complete bay redesign for weapons, any idea how much ordnance it could carry?

Practically speaking you'd want guided bombs.

The sheer amount of energy available for the bomb is really begging for some kind of glide weapon. Though no existing glide bomb is really suitable, as they are all designed for relatively low speed release.

If a modified SR-71 could carry four SRAMS it could easily carry four JDAMS with BLU-109s or BLU-116 warheads. The thick steel casing of either bomb should easily survive brief mach 3 heating and even without glide fins the lift generated by the JDAM kit's aerodynamic strakes should be sufficient to give you at least 100+ km standoff range assuming a mach 3 release at 80,000 feet. Add some glide fins and you could easily achieve several hundred kilometers. Higher impact speed of the bomb from a high altitude, high speed increase would also increase the bomb's penetration capability several times over.

Still, you're paying quite a bit to drop four 2,000 pound bombs which an F-15E could do at a fraction the cost and could do probably a bit faster considered the SR-71s extremely low sortie rate and maintenance requirements. A sortie per SR-71 per day would probably be realistic which severely limits its tactical utility.

So it would be a high survivability bomber with high penetration bombs, but little payload per sortie and limited in number of times to fly per day.

Its biggest advantage seems to be survivability, anyone have an idea on how it would match up against other bombers in that department?

[The Akasha Colony]

Its biggest advantage seems to be survivability, anyone have an idea on how it would match up against other bombers in that department?

It would likely be inferior to B-1B and definitely inferior to B-2. B-1B has 1/4th the RCS of SR-71 and is much larger with more space for ECM equipment and munitions. It is also capable of low level flight if required. B-2 of course benefits heavily from its all-aspect stealth design. The stealth benefits accrued from reducing B-1A's speed during the redesign into B-1B were considered more valuable than the lost speed, and the current trend is toward stealthier designs over faster designs.

It might even be worse than B-52, which also has space for a robust ECM suite and is also compatible with a range of externally-carried cruise missiles which can be launched beyond the range of enemy air defenses, keeping the B-52 itself safely out of harm's way. This survivability gap would probably further widen if total ordnance delivered were considered, as B-52 could deliver many times the ordnance as SR-71 in a single sortie, resulting in fewer sorties and fewer chances for interception and engagement.

[Spirit of Hope]

The SR-71's survival method was to fly really fast over smaller nations without the most advanced air or missile defense systems. It it had tried to overfly the USSR they probably would have been able to intercept it. Aircraft and missiles have only gotten faster, and gotten better sensors.

Admittedly you don't have to fly over a nation to drop modern munitions on it, you can use missiles or glide weapons to attack from range. But that begs the question of why not use something dedicated to carrying a lot of sch weapons, to both save costs and reduce the number of times it can be intercepted.

Plus with the high speeds of the SR-71, it can't exactly make a sharp turn after it releases it's payload. It would have to continue flying towards the enemy position when everyone else turns around.

[Paragania]

why use primitive sr-71, when you can buy the brand new coming soon hypersonic sr-72?



this offer is not available in stores