NationStates Jolt Archive

F-76 Liberator

Purpose: I would like to ask if expert nations could help me validate if the avionics I'm employing on my aircraft would be considered not godmodding. From all the research I've done in this topic, I'm pretty sure that it is feasible. I'm ready to back up my facts with websites and some examples (if I can locate them). Please don't hesitate to ask questions. Thank You.

Overview:

The F-76 Liberator is the first of the 2nd Generation of aircrafts being produced by Tylon Aerospace Industries. It is intended to be the next-generation air superiority fighter that will dominate the battlefield no matter what the adversary. It will give any of its users an advantage of its adversary. The F-76 combines stunning technology with the pilot to get unprecedent capabilities. It is intended to replace the F-314 in the Space Union Air Force, though it is much more costly than the origional. In the end it is highly stealthy, manuverable, and low maintaince compared to any other aircraft on the battlefield and will ensure air superiority for a very good chunk of time.

Airframe:

The F-76 Liberator moves much away from the origional doctrine of TAI, by being totally redesigned. Unlike former aircrafts that use mainly Inconel, the F-76 Liberator uses all composite material on its airframe except for the engines. This has been done because of the need for stealth in this highly dangerous world, yet still maintain the manuverability of its predecessor, the F-314. The use of composite material for the body has also made it light-weight compared to its predecessor. This gives it the distinct advantage of better manuverability than heavy-weight aircrafts.

The aircraft is designed with a cropped delta-wing similar to the one featured on the F-16 Falcon but enlarged to the size of the delta-wing on the F/A-22 Raptor. This allows it to have considerable less coverage area that will allow for radar to bounce off. Unlike the F-22 or F-16, the F-76 features canards on the front of its nose. These have been added to provide considerable more lift compared to the F-314. But with this comes the problem of applying flaps to the wings. Deploying flaps causes a large nose-down pitching moment, but in a conventional aeroplane this effect is considerably reduced by the increased downwash on the tailplane which produces a restoring nose-up pitching moment. With a canard design there is no tailplane to alleviate this effect. To overcome this problem, the canards have been swept. This allows for flaps to be applied to the design without compromising the safety of the aircraft and its crew.

Another change to create a more stealthy aircraft, was the dropping of the vertical tail. This was done to further lower the RCS and make the F-76 stealthy. Not only that, but it greatly improves the manuverability of the aircraft. But because of the loss of the vertical tail, the aircraft is less stable. To solve this problem, the flight is assisted by computers similar to used in the B-2 Spirit and the F-117 Nighthawk.

To ensure that the F-76 is stealthy, all the weapons are carried in the two bomb bays of the aircraft. Both bays are on the underside, belly of the aircraft. The aircraft houses 6 missiles in the first bay and 3 GPU-24 smart bombs in the second bay. This ensure that the weapons don't interfere with the RCS of the aircraft and give it away too easily to radar or other tracking devices. But if needed, 4 (2 on each wing) hardpoints each capable of carrying 2 missiles or bombs can be added on the outside of the aircraft which will allow the aircraft to carry a total of 12 missiles and 6 bombs. But the use of the hardpoints will increase the RCS, so beware.

To add more stealth to the airframe, it is coated all-over with an RAM coating.

Propulsion and Engines:

The F-76 uses brand-new Union-172-2005 pulse-detonation engines, developed purposely for the F-76 Liberator. Each Union-172-2005 puts out an outstanding 61,000 lbs of thrust for a net thrust of 122,000 lbs of thrust. The pulse-detonation engine works by creating a detonation instead of the normal deflagration that occurs in normal jet engines. Instead the air rushing inside of the engine, comes at supersonic speeds instead of subsonic, which causes a detonation upon igniting of the air instead of deflagration. To make sure that the air exits to the back, the engine uses shockwaves generated by the ignition to act as shudders/valves. When the shock wave reaches the rear of the engine and exits the combustion products are ejected in "one go", the pressure inside the engine suddenly drops, and air is pulled in the front of the engine to start the next cycle.

The use of the Pulse-Detonation engine instead of a regular engine has increased the efficiency of the entire aircraft. Normal engines have an efficiency of 30% while the Union-172-2005 has a fuel efficiency of 45%. This means that the aircraft will be considerably less fuel hungry and have much bigger range and higher speed. In fact the pulse-detonation engine allows the aircraft to go to speeds of Mach 3.4 although it cruises at Mach 2.7 to avoid the structural problem associated at Mach 3+.

One problem in the design has been the loud noise caused by the pulse-detonation. To solve this the engine has been surrounded by open-celled foam. The open-celled foam dampens the sound while still being light-weight and not adding much weight to the engine. Another mechanism used is the fan in the front of the engine. The fan sucks in much air, sending most of it as bypass air. This bypass air helps dampen the sound too, the same effect used in turbofan engines. But to really quiet the engine down, QuietCraft has been applied to the outside of the engine. It has decreased the sound by 75%.

Both engines also feature thrust vectoring in an entirely new way. Engineers at Tylon Aerospace Industries have perfected the new technology called fluid thrust vectoring. Tests have shown that air forced into the exhaust stream can effect deflected thrust. Fluidic nozzles are desirable for their lower weight, mechanical simplicity (no moving surfaces) and lower radar cross section compared to older mechanical thrust vectoring. The fluid thrust vectoring method allows for the same benefits of the old thrust vectoring method, yet is much cheaper, much more maintaince-friendly, and overall more stealthy to fit with the new image for the F-76 Liberator.

The thrust vectoring capability also adds the capability of the aircraft to take-off and land vertically. This greatly improves its mobility without adding costly secondary engines.

To make sure the engines fit in the stealth profile of the aircraft, the

Avionics/Electronics:

In order to make sure that the F-76 Liberator controls the sky it has to have the best technology in electronics to date. But even that wasn't enough for the designers. Instead the goal of the electronic suite for the F-76 was to merge the pilot and aircraft, creating the ultimate fighting weapon ever to take to the sky. Meet the IAIVS Interface. IAIVS stands for Integrated Avionics Incorporated Virtual Systems. It is the successor to the BAP Suite, previously used on older aircrafts designed by Tylon Aerospace Industries.

The IAIVS Interface allows for unprecedent vision for the pilot. Instead of using glass window and HUD for the pilot and helmet is used. Built-into the helmet is also an advanced virtual reality environment that projects the environment outside of the aircraft. Using over 50 cameras (5 main and 45 small), a supercomputer, devoted to the job, can create a stunningly realistic environment that goes down to every detail. It literally allows the pilot to see around the aircraft 360 degrees in every direction. This gives the pilot an unprecedent vision that can't be matched by any other current aircraft to date. To help the pilot better see his environment, the virtual reality has two views, one as if the pilot were actually the plane and the other behind, in-front of, or on the side of the aircraft. This better enables the pilot to fly the aircraft in his/her preference and flying style. To help the pilot understand all about his environment, when messages come up concerning maintaince, tracking, guidance or other matters, it is displayed right in-front of him/her so that the pilot knows what is happening. When targetting, a green box will appear around the enemy(s) that the pilot wishes to engage, when it turns red, that means the missile(s) are locked on. Then it is up to the pilot to fire the missile(s).

To help the pilot in his flying style, an advanced voice command system complements the controllers and joystick. It allows the pilot to speak the commands instead of having to click buttons. In the export version, this feature isn't given away. For that reason only the domestic version (available only to me and allies and a select few) will have both voice command system.

Other systems employed by the aircraft are the use of advanced radar and LIDAR/LADAR systems. The computer uses a AN/AQ-76 Active Electronically Scanned Array and LIDAR/LADAR System to provide guidance for the aircraft and targetting. This system is capable of tracking up to 50 targets at the same time, though in the real-world that power won't be needed.

To make sure that the pilots fully understand how to fly the aircraft, customer will be given a manual for each aircraft detailed with flight operations and a flight trainer for every 100 F-76s bought. Allies only.

Electronic Countermeasures (ECM):

To defend itself against possible threats, the F-76 Liberator is designed with a couple of ECMs to stop threats. The most advanced of these is its Active Radar Cancelling System. It works by having multiple sensors on the skin that pick up incoming radar signals. The computer then studies the signals and outputs a signal that makes the receiving computer misjudge the location of the aircraft. This is mostly used against missiles although this is being deployed against aircrafts during dogfights.

The simpler ECMs that the F-76 has are a set of 10 flares in the side of the aircraft. They can be shot out of the side-panels automatically by the computer, if the pilot has the feature on, or manually by the pilot.

Weapons - Armenant:

The F-76 Liberator is outfitted with a deadly array of weapons that will ensure that it will be ready for any situation. All of the aircrafts standard weapons are housed inside of the aircraft. The aircraft has two bomb bays: the Missile Bay (MB) and the Smart Bay (SB).

The Missile Bay houses the dogfighting missiles that will be used by the F-76 when it engages the enemy. It is capable of holding 6 missiles. The 6 missiles can be either AIM-9X or AIM-120. Depending on the mission, the array can be customized so that you can choose what the ratio of AIM-9X will be to the AIM-120. You can even have all 6 missiles be of the same type.

The Smart Bay houses the smart bombs. It is capable of holding 3 GPU-24 smart weapons. This bay only supports GPU-24 2,000 lbs bombs and no other missile or bomb can be put into it.

Although on standard model there is no hardpoints to allow for a smaller radar-cross section, but the aircraft can be modified to support hardpoints at the customers own will if he desires. The aircraft can support 4 hardpoints, 2 on each side. Each hardpoint can hold 2 bombs or missiles (AIM-9X, AIM-120, or GPU-24). But the RCS suffers if the hardpoints are added. So it would be possible to have 3 AIM-9X, 3 AIM-120, and 2 GPU-24 2,000 lbs Smart Bombs on the hardpoints.

Specifications:

Type: Advanced Air Superiority Fighter
Length: 22 m
Height: 5 m
Wingspan: 15 m
Powerplant: 2 Union-172-2005 Pulse-Detonation Engines rated at 54,000 lbs of thrust each
Empty Weight: 16,000 kg
Full Weight: 40,800 kg
Maximum Payload: 11,000 kg
Cruising Speed: Mach 1.7
Maximum Speed: Mach 3.6
Operational Altitude: 65,000 ft
Maximum Altitude: 78,000 ft
Armenant w/Hardpoints: 1x GAU-12 25mm Equaliser Gun, 6x AIM-9X Sidewinder, 6x AIM-120 AMRAAM , 5x GBU-24 2,000 lbs Smart Bombs
Range: 1,000 km
Crew: 2
Price: $340 million

Export Version: The export version doesn't contain the highly sensitive technology in the domestic version. Here are the list of changes in the export version:

-Advanced Voice Command System (AVCS) has been removed. If the customer wishes, the entire virtual reality can be scrapped and the conventional controls can be put into to replace them.
-The cost is $350 million for the export version.
-The export version has slightly weaker engines called the Union-171-2005 PDE rated at 52,000 lbs of thrust

Allies do not receive any discount because of their access to the domestic version instead.

Interesting. Although the BH interface seems a little... Difficult to use.

Interesting. Although the BH interface seems a little... Difficult to use.

Not really. Its just hard to explain it on paper. Its one of those things tha fit in your brain but difficult to explain on paper. But in simple terms it would be easier to use as this gives the pilot direct control and faster reaction because when you have to do something, you first think about it then move. So a pilot has to think about a move before actually doing it. This allows for the action to occur directly.

OOC: Pretty good, looks like a slighty down-graded version of my* F-133, wouldn't want to fight these, though I could fly over them...




*It's a friend's, he said I could use it

OOC: I am definitely buying a huge number of these aircraft, or maybe even production rights, if you'll sell those. This is one hell of a fighter, Space Union. I have a question for you, though: say a clever enemy decides to counter your fighters by, say, modifying an EC-130 EW aircraft to tight-beam computer viruses to all unfriendlies in the theater in an attempt to down them. Say a virus infects the avionics of the fighter. Wouldn't the pilot be reasonably screwed if he's got a virus in his VR system?

OOC: Pretty good, looks like a slighty down-graded version of my* F-133, wouldn't want to fight these, though I could fly over them...




*It's a friend's, he said I could use it

Unless it employs brainwave technology, I'm pretty sure this could fly circles around that aircraft as this makes the pilot literally the aircraft. No conventional layout could match that :)

Could I see specs for the F-133? Thanks :)

The BH system is not a good idea. Not only is it impossible to pick up specific commands from the brain using MT, but even if you got it to work, the pilot would make the aircraft spin out of control. The pilot has to plan his move and to do so he thinks about what he is going to do, by my understanding of what your system does, it would pitch up as soon as the pilot thought to pitch up. Also, you augmented reality system would be extreamly difficult to due without distortion. I also have doubts on its stealth capabilities, at the speeds your talking of, the aircraft would give off a giant heat signature and wuold be extreamly loud. Stealth is hard to acheive above Mach 2.

All in all, this is a good plane, but not really MT.

OOC: Sure
http://modernwarstudies.net/worldatwar/viewtopic.php?t=808
Scroll down to find it.
I've installed more powerfully engines giving it a mach 2.45 cruise and a Mach 4 top speed at 76,000ft, top alttidute iss 86,000ft.

Eh, my F-133 has TARGETS/ANTARES, whick Kotterdam and I have fielded for nearly a RL year on several generations of fighters.

http://s6.invisionfree.com/Draka_Technology/index.php?showtopic=1&st=0
Scroll to bottom. That'd be the A version... I have the B (Trainer), C (upgrade 1 with new sensors), and D (upgrade with new engines and new thermal sensors) and E (strike/EW) floating around on one of the W@Ws.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342069&highlight=TARGETS+athena

TARGETS/ANTARES Direct Neural Interface.

EDIT: IT appears TSS got there first... Took too long digging up TARGETS. Old thread it is.

OOC: Hey New Empire, mind sharing TARGETS/ANTARES Direct Neural Interface?

The BH system is not a good idea. Not only is it impossible to pick up specific commands from the brain using MT, but even if you got it to work, the pilot would make the aircraft spin out of control. The pilot has to plan his move and to do so he thinks about what he is going to do, by my understanding of what your system does, it would pitch up as soon as the pilot thought to pitch up. Also, you augmented reality system would be extreamly difficult to due without distortion. I also have doubts on its stealth capabilities, at the speeds your talking of, the aircraft would give off a giant heat signature and wuold be extreamly loud. Stealth is hard to acheive above Mach 2.

All in all, this is a good plane, but not really MT.

I knew someone was going to put up that question. But I have an answer. Yes that was a problem in origional development. But in a video game created by a European Lab you can use brainwaves to play the video game. You can think and yet play the game. Here's the article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3485918.stm

Considering that the supercomputers can make over billions of calculations per second, and a home PC can give you a real-depth video experience, I'm pretty sure that the virtual reality can work out.

As for stealth, once again I forgot about that. I'll change it to Mach 1.7.

OOC: Sure, for a price. TG meh, I don't want to hijack this dudes thread anymore.

In any case, as I use such a thing, I'd say it would be possible within a 2010-2025 range and wouldnt mind people using it with me or against me.

And USSNA, the problem you speak of isn't hard to fix. When we think about doing something, we don't always do it... Different parts of your brain firing. You pick up on the parts of the brain that send signals to move, and you develop an algorithm based on that. That's one method, there are a few others, but in any case its do-able once you have the computing power.

It is more complex than that. Besides, everyone has different brain pattern for doing a certain thing. We also dont have enough knowledge of the brain to do that.

Also, what happens when the pilot is under extream stress? Brain patterns can change wildly when under stress. Direct Interface with any type of vehicle is just too dangerous to do in MT. (My Def of MT is up to 2020 but I ususaly play at around 2015.)

It is more complex than that. Besides, everyone has different brain pattern for doing a certain thing. We also dont have enough knowledge of the brain to do that.

Also, what happens when the pilot is under extream stress? Brain patterns can change wildly when under stress. Direct Interface with any type of vehicle is just too dangerous to do in MT. (My Def of MT is up to 2020 but I ususaly play at around 2015.)

I'm pretty sure that by 2020 we will have perfected this technology beyond what I have employed here.

OOC: Sure
http://modernwarstudies.net/worldatwar/viewtopic.php?t=808
Scroll down to find it.
I've installed more powerfully engines giving it a mach 2.45 cruise and a Mach 4 top speed at 76,000ft, top alttidute iss 86,000ft.

Whats the lbs per thrust of your engines TSS? :)

The problems with a direct 'brain-to-machine' interface, from what I see, is the over-reliance on machines to do the job, which has several problems on hand. First, it means that your pilot will concentrate too much on operating the individual systems of the aircraft, which means that cooperation with and the reliance on the crews of other friendly aircraft around you will be less frequent - a dangerous folly in any air combat situation. Further, you will also rely too much on your own sensors to do the job of getting the 'general perspective' of the area around you, instead of relying on your own mind to make tactical decisions and predictions, which is again, another dangerous prospect. Thirdly, it also deviates the training of individual pilots, which means that your pilots will be taught much more (than necessary) on actually operating the aircraft itself, as opposed to actually employing the aircraft as part of a 'team' and using it effectively and tactically in combat /with other aircraft/ as well. Fourth, as it relies greatly on machines, you'll also have the problem of over-engineering, thus prone to malfunctions and unreliability (the F/A-22 itself has enough problems with its computers right now). Bad.

Human mind 1. Machines 0.

I'm pretty sure that by 2020 we will have perfected this technology beyond what I have employed here.

I dont think so. We dont know a lot about our brains. Heck we dont even know why we need sleep. I dont really have the time to debate right now, so I'll just leave it alone. I dont expect to fight you anyway.

I dont think so. We dont know a lot about our brains. Heck we dont even know why we need sleep. I dont really have the time to debate right now, so I'll just leave it alone. I dont expect to fight you anyway.

Its not a fight but a informational discussion. Fighting would be if we were saying insults about each other. This discussion is meant to prove each other's points.

Its not a fight but a informational discussion. Fighting would be if we were saying insults about each other. This discussion is meant to prove each other's points.

Oh no no no, I dont mean to fight you as in not go to war with you.

The problems with a direct 'brain-to-machine' interface, from what I see, is the over-reliance on machines to do the job, which has several problems on hand. First, it means that your pilot will concentrate too much on operating the individual systems of the aircraft, which means that cooperation with and the reliance on the crews of other friendly aircraft around you will be less frequent - a dangerous folly in any air combat situation. Further, you will also rely too much on your own sensors to do the job of getting the 'general perspective' of the area around you, instead of relying on your own mind to make tactical decisions and predictions, which is again, another dangerous prospect. Thirdly, it also deviates the training of individual pilots, which means that your pilots will be taught much more (than necessary) on actually operating the aircraft itself, as opposed to actually employing the aircraft as part of a 'team' and using it effectively and tactically in combat /with other aircraft/ as well. Fourth, as it relies greatly on machines, you'll also have the problem of over-engineering, thus prone to malfunctions and unreliability (the F/A-22 itself has enough problems with its computers right now). Bad.

Human mind 1. Machines 0.


You don't give up your self to the computer. Getting information through sensors isn't like making you blind. It gives you a picture of the outside world. Then the pilot uses their brain to make decisions. The computer doesn't make the decision of when firing, looking around yourself, or even controlling the aircraft. So the pilot still has to use his own brain for everything just like a normal pilot does.

All the systems have been blended in one interface so the problem of having to operate many different systems at once isn't a problem. All the information is given to the pilot in a blended way to take off the stress. In fact this helps increase reliance on other friendly crew members.

Yes but that is a problem for all technologies. The more advanced something gets the more problems happen. Same applies for this. But that also applies for all other aircrafts.

Oh no no no, I dont mean to fight you as in not go to war with you.

Oh, now I understand. Okay, I hopefully don't expect to go to war with you either. :)

OOC: Hmm, seems the weight is missing too, Weight: About 48,000kg at maximum load, 14,000kg weapons load and a empty weight of 17,000kg, thrust is around 64,000lbs per engine with an engine similar to both your engine (Pulse Detonation), and the one in the write up(GE-129, variable bypass)
Plus the switchblade wings fold in at Mach 1 and the Ruddervators fold down flat at mach 1 also making the plane nearly flat and minimizing(sp?) air resistance.

The problem with such system, is that it does integrate the human pilot (along with his mind and strength) into the aircraft tiself, quoting a part of the description (which is also correct in its own way) of this 'brain-to-machine' system on the plane:

The pilot is no longer human, but is literally the aircraft, both unified into a war machine that will dominate everyone.

That is exactly the problem, since such interface effectively means that you are integrating yourself into the aircraft. It doesn't matter how well you can utilize your own radar as an individual unit, and it doesn't matter if somehow the system makes operations of the aircraft itself easier - it's that by integrating your pilot's mind into the machine, your pilot's mind will naturally be tied much more towards the operation of the aircraft itself. Yes, he will have time to do 'other things', but such system when used in operating with other aircraft as a part of a group, will be more of a distraction than a benefit. In cobmat, pilots must have the choice of selecting what he actually /wants/ to see and know so that he can make his own decisions - such a system such a direct link between the brain and the machine will only overwhelm the pilot's mind with information that he does not need as of that moment.

There are still problems with the facts that a) it would require more training on operating the aircraft itself, than what would be needed if you get rid of the 'brain-to-machine' system; and b) reliability problems, which will hurt the pilot more than other potential problems since the machine has a direct connection with the pilot's mind itself.

The aircraft tiself is a superb product witha nice balance, but the 'brain-to-machine' system, despite it's advanced nature and its ability to increase the pilot's efficiency in operating the aircraft itself, will invariably reduce the pilot's combat efficiency as a part of a group.

TSS: Thanks :)

TSS: Thanks :)
If I see any of you planes with anything close to those stats your in trouble, even if you're an allie, I'm not supposed to share those IC.

If I see any of you planes with anything close to those stats your in trouble, even if you're an allie, I'm not supposed to share those IC.

Don't worry. My plane has some advantages over your plane.

The problem with such system, is that it does integrate the human pilot (along with his mind and strength) into the aircraft tiself, quoting a part of the description (which is also correct in its own way) of this 'brain-to-machine' system on the plane:



That is exactly the problem, since such interface effectively means that you are integrating yourself into the aircraft. It doesn't matter how well you can utilize your own radar as an individual unit, and it doesn't matter if somehow the system makes operations of the aircraft itself easier - it's that by integrating your pilot's mind into the machine, your pilot's mind will naturally be tied much more towards the operation of the aircraft itself. Yes, he will have time to do 'other things', but such system when used in operating with other aircraft as a part of a group, will be more of a distraction than a benefit. In cobmat, pilots must have the choice of selecting what he actually /wants/ to see and know so that he can make his own decisions - such a system such a direct link between the brain and the machine will only overwhelm the pilot's mind with information that he does not need as of that moment.

There are still problems with the facts that a) it would require more training on operating the aircraft itself, than what would be needed if you get rid of the 'brain-to-machine' system; and b) reliability problems, which will hurt the pilot more than other potential problems since the machine has a direct connection with the pilot's mind itself.

The aircraft tiself is a superb product witha nice balance, but the 'brain-to-machine' system, despite it's advanced nature and its ability to increase the pilot's efficiency in operating the aircraft itself, will invariably reduce the pilot's combat efficiency as a part of a group.

I think I might just go back to traditional layout with the virtual reality. I can see that many people aren't going to accept this. Oh well :)

I know other people use them, but I dont know if pulse detonation plane engines are actually possible. I dont know of any RL planes that use them, and I havent seen them mentioned on anything I've read about aircraft engines. Perhaps someone who knows more about planes than me could say something on that.

DNI - From what I've read on the subject, you can get it to work to the extent that you can, say, drive a car using it with a massive computer mounted in the back. Now considering how much power it will suck up, and its rather dubious credentials as being MT with regards to using it to control an aircraft, I really wouldnt bother.

Actually, despite the fact that it is PMT-ish, it makes a great job of improving the pilot's ability to operate the aircraft //itself// without stress while improving his own /individual/ situational awareness - though there's the tradeoff as well. If you want to keep the system, I'd advise a modified version of the current system - allow the pilot to actually have the information (such as tracking information of the enemy target) or have the 360 degree view /if he needed it/ - like giving your pilot a number of choices instead of just overwhelming him with information that he doesn't really need at that current moment.

As far as Im aware, you cant "integrate someone into a vehicle". You cant feed radar data into someone's brain. A computer is actually better at processing radar data, and is actually better at flying planes than a person is. You only need a person to decide when to fire the missiles, to point the plane in the general direction of where it needs to go, and stop the computer from doing anything stupid. At which the human excels.

Actually, despite the fact that it is PMT-ish, it makes a great job of improving the pilot's ability to operate the aircraft //itself// without stress while improving his own /individual/ situational awareness - though there's the tradeoff as well. If you want to keep the system, I'd advise a modified version of the current system - allow the pilot to actually have the information (such as tracking information of the enemy target) or have the 360 degree view /if he needed it/ - like giving your pilot a number of choices instead of just overwhelming him with information that he doesn't really need at that current moment.

That is what the current system is. In fact, exactly what it is. I think I need to reword my paragraph. What I meant was that the pilot does have a 360 degree view. If he turns his head he will see around the aircraft, on top of the aircraft and below.

As far as Im aware, you cant "integrate someone into a vehicle". You cant feed radar data into someone's brain. A computer is actually better at processing radar data, and is actually better at flying planes than a person is. You only need a person to decide when to fire the missiles, to point the plane in the general direction of where it needs to go, and stop the computer from doing anything stupid. At which the human excels.

I don't mean that I mean that the radar information appears on the screen of the virtual reality.

I know other people use them, but I dont know if pulse detonation plane engines are actually possible. I dont know of any RL planes that use them, and I havent seen them mentioned on anything I've read about aircraft engines. Perhaps someone who knows more about planes than me could say something on that.

DNI - From what I've read on the subject, you can get it to work to the extent that you can, say, drive a car using it with a massive computer mounted in the back. Now considering how much power it will suck up, and its rather dubious credentials as being MT with regards to using it to control an aircraft, I really wouldnt bother.

PDE has been proven in labatory testing. It hasn't been applied, though, on any current aircrafts.

Everyone:

I'm scrapping the DNI. It PMT not MT and it brings way too many problems that outweigh its benefits. So I'll keep the virtual reality simulation but the controls will be conventional with joystick.

[OOC: Prae, I'm fairly certain that Aurora utilizes PDWEs. Or at least, that's what the majority of the people who speculate about Aurora think. The most conservative estimates of Aurora's maximum speed put it at Mach 5, and many people think it's more like Mach 7 or even higher. This website (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/aurora.html) and this one (http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm) have some decent information on Aurora, though you can find more by simply Googling "Aurora plane."]

[OOC: Prae, I'm fairly certain that Aurora utilizes PDEs. Or at least, that's what the majority of the people who speculate about Aurora think. The most conservative estimates of Aurora's maximum speed put it at Mach 5, and many people think it's more like Mach 7 or even higher. This website (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/aurora.html) has some decent information on Aurora, though you can find more by simply Googling "Aurora plane."]

Yes it does. But we don't know if the Aurora is a real aircraft ;)

Yes it does. But we don't know if the Aurora is a real aircraft ;)

OOC: All evidence and speculation points to "yes, it does." ;)

I dont generally go by speculation, unfortunately. I've heard of the Aurora plane, and according to the more reputable websites (ie ones not called www.abovetopsecret.com and the like) there is little evidence of its existance. The fas.org website did not actually show anything other than 3D models and about 5 different drawings. There may be an element of truth in the story, but I doubt that the plane is actually exactly as described by any of those sources, and may not even be an operational aircraft. For a while a whole bunch of people on the web thought the prop from the Stealth movie was evidence of a top secret US switchblade aircraft squadron :rolleyes:

I dont generally go by speculation, unfortunately. I've heard of the Aurora plane, and according to the more reputable websites (ie ones not called www.abovetopsecret.com and the like) there is little evidence of its existance. The fas.org website did not actually show anything other than 3D models and about 5 different drawings. There may be an element of truth in the story, but I doubt that the plane is actually exactly as described by any of those sources, and may not even be an operational aircraft. For a while a whole bunch of people on the web thought the prop from the Stealth movie was evidence of a top secret US switchblade aircraft squadron :rolleyes:

That is why I don't believe in rumored aircrafts of any kind until they are proven ;)

I've changed the design. Now you may start ordering. Thank You :)

OOC: Two questions: can I have the domestic fighter, but with the virtual reality system scrapped in favor of conventional controls, with the advanced voice-recognition system as a backup? Also, would you consider offering production rights to an SWC buddy? If so, I'd take them for the modified domestic version I've specified above.

OOC: Okay, looking at this, the main issues have been dealt with, at least to a degree. However, there's a glaring problem that hasn't been addressed yet.

This aircraft is slightly larger than an F/A-22, but has, somehow, over three times the internal weapons load. The smart bay would need to be about 4.4m long, 1m wide, and 1m high. The missile bays would probably have to be 0.7-1m wide, 0.7-1m high, and about 3.5m long. The result here is going to be a phenominal amount of internal space devoted to weapons, to the extent that you will absolutely have to be sacrificing a lot to do it. Engines and fuel will be the hardest hit, and even with pulse detonation engines, you will not be able to maintain that kind of speed or range. You just can't afford engines with enough thrust to pull it - not enough space.
In fact, now that I consider it, you would have to do a phenominal amount of wrangling just to fit those bays and the engines into the fuselage toether at all, and the plane would have to be either significantly longer, taller, or wider than the norm. Still have to fit the intakes and ducts for the engines after all. This issue will leave almost no capability to effectively mount some of the other things listed.

OOC: Okay, looking at this, the main issues have been dealt with, at least to a degree. However, there's a glaring problem that hasn't been addressed yet.

This aircraft is slightly larger than an F/A-22, but has, somehow, over three times the internal weapons load. The smart bay would need to be about 4.4m long, 1m wide, and 1m high. The missile bays would probably have to be 0.7-1m wide, 0.7-1m high, and about 3.5m long. The result here is going to be a phenominal amount of internal space devoted to weapons, to the extent that you will absolutely have to be sacrificing a lot to do it. Engines and fuel will be the hardest hit, and even with pulse detonation engines, you will not be able to maintain that kind of speed or range. You just can't afford engines with enough thrust to pull it - not enough space.
In fact, now that I consider it, you would have to do a phenominal amount of wrangling just to fit those bays and the engines into the fuselage toether at all, and the plane would have to be either significantly longer, taller, or wider than the norm. Still have to fit the intakes and ducts for the engines after all. This issue will leave almost no capability to effectively mount some of the other things listed.

Not exactly. The F-22 can carry 8 missiles inside of its weapons bay, while this carries only 6.

But the bomb bay is a problem I understand. I can change it that the 3 GPU-24 2,000 lbs are changed to 1,000 lbs bombs. I'll increase the size slightly to allow it to carry 3 1,000 lbs bombs. The 2,000 lbs bombs can be outfitted on the wing then.

Does this sound fine?

Not exactly. The F-22 can carry 8 missiles inside of its weapons bay, while this carries only 6.

But the bomb bay is a problem I understand. I can change it that the 3 GPU-24 2,000 lbs are changed to 1,000 lbs bombs. I'll increase the size slightly to allow it to carry 3 1,000 lbs bombs. The 2,000 lbs bombs can be outfitted on the wing then.

Does this sound fine?
Wait... I thought the F/A-22 could only carry 4 missiles in the main bay and 2 in th side bay, or 2 JDAMs and 2 missiles, that would only be 6 weapons...

Heres the site: Scroll down to armenant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22#Armament

Heres the site: Scroll down to armenant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22#Armament
Ah, you are correct.
My bad.
:D