NationStates Jolt Archive

A coalition of research teams and money from the Attican Ministry of Defense, Freedom Country, Antarctica123, and Free Rumania announce that they are developing the AF-100, a next generation carrier-borne multi-role fighter. Here is one of the concept sketches:



http://pages.ripco.net/~antman87/AF-100.png



If you wish to donate to the project, you will receive production rights (limitations depending on donation size), among other rights.

Pretty sure ive seen that pic before.

You probably have.

We will donate a total of 200 millin USD to this project.

What do you require in terms of donations?

http://www.angelfire.com/ns2/toxicvalley/images/harringer.jpg
-Sam Harringer
Official Aid of the Führer

Money for the development project, and weapons, especially if you are the only nation that develops them. We are planning on using Freedom Country's revolutionary jet engine, as well as an Attican-designed Hydrogen-booster (extremely cheap) to help it get off of the carrier.

$200mil will give you production rights for variants of the fighter, IE Air-Force.

We expect to begin construction of a prototype model that will be able to fly (using standard equipment, we just want to test the performance of the shape) within 3 months (6 RL hours).

We will donate 400mil USD.

http://www.angelfire.com/ns2/toxicvalley/images/harringer.jpg
-Sam Harringer
Official Aid of the Führer

Pretty sure ive seen that pic before.

It is the "Switchblade" fighter concept that, according to Popular Science, is under development. Dale Brown also mentions a similar design near the end of his novel, "Day of the Cheetah."

400mil will give you the same production rights for Variants, and we might give you lock access to the targeting chip (people who donate money to the project will have their vehicles IFF codes added to a targeting chip to lock weapons that are aimed at those vehicles.

Possible Variants will include:

CTOL (Conventional Take-Off and Landing)
VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing)
ATOL (Aircraft Take-Off and Landing)
STOL (Submarine Take-Off and Landing)
Strike Fighter Variant
and more.

CTOL (Conventional Take-Off and Landing)
ATOL (Aircraft Take-Off and Landing)

What is the difference? Unless you're talking about developing airborne aircraft carriers...

Airborne Aircraft Carriers. We have not commenced research, but the idea has popped into our heads. THe problem becomes fuel, though. Zeppelins might work. (Idea is proposed to the Attican Ministry of Defense).

Airborne Aircraft Carriers. We have not commenced research, but the idea has popped into our heads. THe problem becomes fuel, though. Zeppelins might work. (Idea is proposed to the Attican Ministry of Defense).

Riiight... It's not just a problem of fuel. It's primarily a problem of weight and logistics.

Weight can be a problem of fuel. Logistics would also be a problem, yes. Zepellins might work though.

Then again, this thread is about the AF-100, not a proposed Airborne Aircraft Carrier.

We will donate 500 million dollars


- WWA

What rights, etc will i get ?

500mil will give you the same production rights for Variants, and we might give you lock access to the targeting chip (people who donate money to the project will have their vehicles IFF codes added to a targeting chip to lock weapons that are aimed at those vehicles.

How about 5 billion dollars ?

HEHE

- wwa

That would give you full production rights (BTW someone else pledged to pay for half the devel. costs.

We beat our time limit and flew a shell in 1 month. We build the frame for the aircraft from our blueprints, and, using spare maintenence parts for our current jets, were able to make it fly. It flew perfectly.

We still have a long ways to go to make its own subsystems, et cetera.

The Principality of Vanyc would like to donate 1.5 billion dollars to this project, assuming you're still accepting donations.

Yes we are. Thank you.

Yes we are. Thank you.

Bayorta finds it in its interests to donate money to this project. We are willing to donate 2 Billion USD to the effort. I hope this speeds up the project in one way or another. What rights may we have in reuturn?

For my own sanity as an aerospace engineer, I'd like to note that modern fighter aircraft take years... if not decades to develop. This design, given its highly reconfigurable swing-wing arrangement, would be a technical nightmare to develop and maintain. It is a highly complex piece of aerospace machinery... you rush it and you'll be doing expensive refits for years. Worse yet, you could overlook a critical design flaw and the planes will start falling out of the sky.

OOC: Meh, already been making it for RL months...btw, it's a CTOL strategic supersonic stealth bomber design...no other reason to have it with those features and design. As long as you don't call it the "switchblade" you're fine.

OOC: Just because im using the picture doesnt mean thats what it is.

ACS - we are looking into all options on the craft to optimize its safety, reliability, and minimize its maintenence costs. We are hoping for a $1,000,000 per aircraft per year maintenence cost. We are a long way from having the basic systems yet. In fact, we have not even received the engines from Freedom Country yet. We are still considering whether to use Hydrocarbon fuel or Hydrogen fuel.

OOC: Linkage: Design (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=356431#356431)

OOC: Just because im using the picture doesnt mean thats what it is.
OOC: Well, that's fine, but the physical design doesn't support those other claims.

EDIT:
Note: The air intakes are on top of the aircraft...a VTOL or, more accurately, an STOVL design is (to my understanding) fairly at odds with that. Through-wing air ducts won't work well without adding millions to the cost per plane so you'd be dependant on in-body vertical propusion...which requires either a redirecting of exhaust as it flows through the body (Harrier) or the use of a centerline, vertically oriented fan engine with the rear engine moving to create a second column of air...both methods involve a radically different engine design from what is currently present.

It is a wide-body plane without (in that formation) vertical stabilizers or even hybridized elevator/vertical stabilizers as featured on the YF-23. Those two features make it hard to use from a carrier, though is is not certainly impossible to do so.

Just for the sake of saying it. I understand your intention but it is silly to warp things that greatly. Sorry, but it's true. I won't hassle you any more about it.

OOC: I never claimed to be using existing designs. Just because it LOOKS like that doesnt mean its built like that. Jeez, have a sense of RP, dont assume that since it looks like a Bomber that its a bomber.

OOC: I never claimed to be using existing designs. Just because it LOOKS like that doesnt mean its built like that. Jeez, have a sense of RP, dont assume that since it looks like a Bomber that its a bomber.

OOC: Imagine that RP:

AE: "Here is a picture of our latest tank"
Someone else: "Isn't that a B-2 bomber?"
AE: "No it isn't a bomber. Just because it looks like a bomber, doesn't mean it can't be a tank"

lol... within limits.

"Here is our latest stealth bomber"

"Isnt that the space shuttle?"

"Umm... yah... it dives down from space... yah..."

OOC: Oh why not

IC: King James III, as a sign of good will, and to aid relations with your country, offers a donation of 4 billion USD to your project, and wishes you the best of luck in ironing out any problems that arise.

And you get full manufacturing rights.

And you get full manufacturing rights.

Hmm. Thanks. Don't really need them, but i'll take them

Is that for all versions?

Yes. Variant Production Rights are if you donate below $1,000,000,000. Full manufacturing rights means you can build variants and the actual vehicle itself (the AF-100).

Indra Prime is interested in helping you in your production. May have weapon systems you are interested in. Would also supply funds for a new fighter. In the range of 1 Billion Credits initially, more to come. We await your response.

What kind of weapons systems?

What kind of weapons systems?

We can modify the weapons and defense systems from one of our Tactical Bow Space Fighters to accomodate an Earth based plane. The weapons system is a Pulse Laser Cannon that has a rotating modulation so that in the extreme case of an attacker having a modulated shield then you would be able to defeat them. The range of this cannon in the atmosphere is approx. the range of a phantom missile (100 miles give or take).

our defense technology consists of a defense screen from one of the TBFs which can be modified by the pilot for increased lift if there is a need to carry more weight than is normally allowed.

Please note that Indra Prime has defenses for an attack by these weapons and is properly defended from an attack of it.

We shouldnt be using future/space tech weapons on modern-tech aircraft.

We shouldnt be using future/space tech weapons on modern-tech aircraft.

OOC: If this doesn't include ABLs, t-gram me. I have a very cool system you might want.

OOC: What are ABLs?

OOC: What are ABLs?

Air Borne Lasers (Low-powered lasers mounted on aircraft. RL equivalent is a modified 747.)

If you don't want the weapons systems we would be willing to donate the money to you for the production rights of this aircraft.

I am assuming you mean the small lasers that can be used as countermeasures against heatseeking missiles?

Indra - I would rather not have futuretech weapon systems. We will accept money for production rights though.

I am assuming you mean the small lasers that can be used as countermeasures against heatseeking missiles?


OOC: Scale up a bit. It is a system designed for ABM missions. I just upgraded it to the extent of being able to engage ABMs, aircraft, tanks, ground troops and EVEN air-to-air missiles over a phenominal range.

OOC: isnt that a *bit* futuretech?

OOC: isnt that a *bit* futuretech?

OOC: Theoretically, only around 4 to 5 years with the right ares of research, and a big enough budget. ABLS exist today, its just refining that technology. I would say it was less or equal tech than the aircraft you are building.

OOC: How much damage can it do. Also, it wouldnt be on the naval versions (it would use too much power and add too much weight)?

OOC: How much damage can it do. Also, it wouldnt be on the naval versions (it would use too much power and add too much weight)?

OOC: I feel i should explain. Its mounted on a modified B-52. Not a small aircraft at all. It needs all that room for chemicals/arrays/targetting gear. Damage, well its a 2 MW laser. I'd say a fair bit of damage. A little less over long range, but enough to down a fighter. 200 shots per flight, very expensive to operate and build. BUT, deadly accurate. Enough to be able to target individualy sections of an aircraft, i.e. wingroots/cockpits etc.

Yeesh. You went ahead and did the R&D all yourself, huh? :roll: I'll just go shelve that treaty then. HAND- Have A Nice Day.

OOC: Not for this aircraft. Maybe for future aircraft?

We'll see. For the moment, the treaty is withdrawn. Perhaps later we can do business and trade, but for now, I'll just be monitoring your acts.

OOC: That was for McLeod.

The sum of 2.5 Billion will be wired at the end of this msg for the production rights of this aircraft. When we get the first models we will upgrade them with our technology and we will send you a few to test against targets.

Here is some major equipment we will need:

Radar Systems
Radar Jamming Systems
ECM Systems
Power Systems
HUD System
Fuel Systems (Jet Fuel or Hydrogen)
Ejector System
Weapon Systems (Primary and Secondary)

Any equipment that is not offered will have to be developed in-house.

What kind of power plant are you looking for? We have access to a microfusion reactor that would replace any need for a long term battery. None of it is future tech. It is all modern stuff, with a few of our enhancements.

Is this future or modern tech?

If modern, we have some nice BIG engines we could let you use ( up to Mach 5 capable)

Is this future or modern tech?

If modern, we have some nice BIG engines we could let you use ( up to Mach 5 capable)

Theyre looking for modern tech.

I can provide:

BIG engines suitable for Mach 5 propulsion
Radar fooling gear.
Arnaments (AA-2 Missiles and AA-1 Missiles)

Would you want these services?

What kind of power plant are you looking for? We have access to a microfusion reactor that would replace any need for a long term battery. None of it is future tech. It is all modern stuff, with a few of our enhancements.

Considering that we don't even have large-scale fusion reactors working at present, I'm not sure how you qualify microfusion reactors as being "modern."

Our nation spent the first NS years (RL months) in existance solely in dveloping our Research and Development department of Indra Prime. Indeed, our ruling body is the directors of the Temporal Research Institute (our R&D department) but not only that, we have snared trade agreements with much more advanced nations than Indra Prime. From our own R&D and our trade agreements we have been able to perfect our reactor technology.

Are you still looking for donations?

Yes.


Freedom Country - Please send 6 of these engines to the Attican labs to be tested.

Indra - give me more info on it... the fact that the USA has poured money into hydrogen fusion research for decades to get nowhere...

We will contribute 5 billion units to your research funding.

Our nation spent the first NS years (RL months) in existance solely in dveloping our Research and Development department of Indra Prime. Indeed, our ruling body is the directors of the Temporal Research Institute (our R&D department) but not only that, we have snared trade agreements with much more advanced nations than Indra Prime. From our own R&D and our trade agreements we have been able to perfect our reactor technology.

Okay... that doesn't make microfusion technology "modern," though.

are units USD?

are units USD?

I was meaning it as in 5 billion of whatever currency your nation uses.

[EDIT:Double Post

Kaiserlichmark's are 1 for 1 USD.

And so are Pineapple Willy's, so $5billion dollars have been wired to you.

Thank you.

Once we receive the first of the engines from Freedom Coutnvry, we will modify them to our needs, and fly the first prototype of the vessel. It has nothing other than the necessary equipment to take off, fly, and land. Therefore it has no weapons capabilities, and its only advanced part really will be thrust vectoring as that is what we want to test. It will take off from an airfield, not a carrier, also.

Arnaments (AA-2 Missiles and AA-1 Missiles)


AA-1 is those 50-era air-to-air missiles fired by those MiG-17s

==============

We'll donate another $300 million dollars, making our total donation $500 million.

Thank you. Once we receive Freedom Countries jets, we will be prepared in about a month (we have to test, modify, and install the jets in the prepared air-frame, to test it, then modify it. It is basically a testflight of a prototype flight.)

Our reactor is about 1 cu. meter in size and generates 400 MW of power and requires no refueling for approx 5 years. There is no risk of residual radiation due to the unique design of these reactors and the materials used. There is a requirement for two small (12 cm dia) exhaustion ports at the rear of the plans so the reactor does not over heat. Or you could get the reactor with a special heat pile collector so there would be no heat exhaustion to track.

Indra: The problem is, it isn't Modern Tech.

OOC: D'oh. I did receive an engine from Freedom Country.

IC: Test Flight will occur in 20 RL minutes. Military spectators from all involved nations are welcome to come. Do not be suprised if it fails.

I can provide 150 mile ranged AAM's, this would be a nice carrier fighter.

The flight report will be posted shortly.

The first thing the military reviewers noticed was the fact that the engineers reduced the number of exhaust tubes from 2 to 1.

http://pages.ripco.net/~antman87/100.png

The reason is that there is only 1 jet inside the fuselage. It is believed two would rip the aircraft apart.

Performance:

Standard Yaw w/o banking: Optimal
Standard Yaw w/ banking: Optimal
Vectored Yaw w/o banking: Optimal
Vectored Yaw w/ banking: Nominal (see footnotes)
Standard Pitch: Optimal
Vectored Pitch: Nominal (see footnotes)
Maximum Angle of Attack: 80 degrees

This data will be used to improve upon its design until we have a fully functional and operational jet.



Footnotes: During take-off, the material used in the thrust-vectoring slides were not durable enough to handle the extreme temperatures exhausted by the Hyperjets made by Freedom Country. Therefore, the low performance of vectored thrust maneuvers is attributed to this damage, which was only detected upon landing. In the future, we will be using a higher quality Titanium/Carbon Fibre Polymer.

(Bump)

We will be doing a retest RL today sooner or later w/ the new composite materials.

Oh

Okay then AA-3

Missile Complements are unnecessary, as they will be determined by mission planners (it can use any standard type payload.)

FC: Can you tell me about your radar jammer?

The Attican Ministry of Defense has created a new ministry, the so called "Attican Aerospace Company". It is government owned. Any donations towards Aircraft research projects should be sent to it.

http://pages.ripco.net/~antman87/AtticanAerospace.png

Ok

It is carried in a pod, which is full of plastic composite strips with a shiny surface covering them.

When a radar tracks it or a missile radar does, the radar beams hit the composite strips and beam the radar in a millin different directions, making over a million targets for the missile to dive for, or for a missile to lock on to.

The pod is the size of a one gallon fuel pod, and holds ober 50,000 strips, which replicate 5 targets each.

Go figure.

And one of our early version engines has been sent, along with 10 radar pods, 5 AA-2 250 km range missiles and 10 AA-3 15km range missiles.#

Oh and hell, 5 units of our new super shock landing gear.

we will dontate lots of steel and raw materials
test pilots and our heat seeking system as weel as our patetened crsytal targateing matrix
and 56,000,000

we will dontate lots of steel and raw materials
test pilots and our heat seeking system as weel as our patetened crsytal targateing matrix
and 56,000,000

The only part of the airframe that is steel is the Steel/Carbon airframe reinforcement. Everything else is either Titanium/Carbon Fiber or Aluminum/Titanium/Carbon Fiber.

Are my goods accepted?

Yes. we are working on the AF-100-2 (second prototype.)

Ok

How did the first test go?

Read the first post on this page.

The first thing the military reviewers noticed was the fact that the engineers reduced the number of exhaust tubes from 2 to 1.

http://pages.ripco.net/~antman87/100.png

The reason is that there is only 1 jet inside the fuselage. It is believed two would rip the aircraft apart.

Performance:

Standard Yaw w/o banking: Optimal
Standard Yaw w/ banking: Optimal
Vectored Yaw w/o banking: Optimal
Vectored Yaw w/ banking: Nominal (see footnotes)
Standard Pitch: Optimal
Vectored Pitch: Nominal (see footnotes)
Maximum Angle of Attack: 80 degrees

This data will be used to improve upon its design until we have a fully functional and operational jet.



Footnotes: During take-off, the material used in the thrust-vectoring slides were not durable enough to handle the extreme temperatures exhausted by the Hyperjets made by Freedom Country. Therefore, the low performance of vectored thrust maneuvers is attributed to this damage, which was only detected upon landing. In the future, we will be using a higher quality Titanium/Carbon Fibre Polymer.


I did warn you about the thrust vectoring slides needing to be VERY resistant........

Anyways, I'm kinda proud that my engines melted 'em.....

As the second prototype for the AF-100 rolls onto the launching pad, which its new polymers for its armor and thrust vectoring slides, this one emits brilliance. It is an AF-100 totally, but without the weapons and radar systems.

http://pages.ripco.net/~antman87/AAAF100.png

One of the first things the people notice is the streamlined shape. Three smaller details are: The wings have been extended for various reasons, the Engine and the Vectoring Plates have been reinforced and are larger, and the intake is somewhat larger (less than 2cm).

Standard Yaw w/o banking: Optimal
Standard Yaw w/ banking: Optimal
Vectored Yaw w/o banking: Superb
Vectored Yaw w/ banking: Superb
Standard Pitch: Optimal
Vectored Pitch: Suberb
Maximum Angle of Attack: 85 degrees


This aircraft trully shows the possibilities of thrust vectoring.

Comments? Questions? Bleh?

(Bump)

Does anyone have any of the following:

Weapon SYSTEMS (IE Target Aquisition and Firing systems)
Ejector Systems
Communications Jammer (Radio Jammer)
HUD units for Fighters
Radar systems
Autopilot systems

Also, what would you consider to be the best primary weapon (a gun please.)

(bump)

Well, since we didn't get many replies to our equipment request, we are going to spend $5,000,000,000 more a year on research into the AF-100, to design its equipment. Expect results in a year or so.

Well, since we didn't get many replies to our equipment request, we are going to spend $5,000,000,000 more a year on research into the AF-100, to design its equipment. Expect results in a year or so.

How much would you need for the development of a version that
would operate underwater?

The AF-100 isnt designed to operate underwater.

I can make the HUD for the plane.

I have a booming aerorspace market, so feel free to ask.

I have radars, one with a 175 mile range and capabilities to detect tagets below 200 feet.


Its bulky but forw swept wings and thrist vectorig [assuming its part of it] make up for it.

FC: send some samples so we can test them

Pretty sure ive seen that pic before.

It is the "Switchblade" fighter concept that, according to Popular Science, is under development. Dale Brown also mentions a similar design near the end of his novel, "Day of the Cheetah."

(ooc notes: Actualy its not a real aircraft it was the concept drawing done based on observations made of this aircraft http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:H63oWtm_HFUC:www.aerofiles.com/boe-bird.jpg The switchblade aircraft was purley the imagination of the popsci writers and the artist. Even tho it is a purely fictional aircraft, i don't think its a bad design for a fighter and i will still support it. :)

ps: shoulda linked me to the thread before i happend to see it today)


IC: I would suggest we incorparate the M61 20mm 6 barreled Vulcan gun. And for the radar, to save on size I think we should go with a phased array radar, which gives the same affect as a large radar by using several smaller dishes spead out through the airframe.

Ok

I will send a fully digitalised HUD, designed by pilots and made for easy combat acess, or the extra detailed one for a nice watch over the plane.

All

We want one that fills the entire cockpits window, so ALL the information is readily available.

*Secret IC*
A military convoy carrying an AF-100 prototype heads towards the Bismarck Military Seaport.

*Secret IC*
A military convoy carrying an AF-100 prototype heads towards the Bismarck Military Seaport.

Easy

A fully digitalised hud that is projected from nano cameras onto the cockpit roofing. This would present all data, and be easy to see.

It would cost a lot though.

As you might have guessed, the next prototype flight will be off of the AFS Wilhelm I, which is a Nimitz class Carrier.

The catapult launch off of the Wilhelm I failed. The fighters rear end was ripped from the front. Therefore, the next prototype will be reinforced in that region.

Reinforcements complete, since the Wilhelm I has been sent out to duty, a false carrier deck is being built at the Attican Aerospace labs. It has a large fan to simulate the carrier moving, and a functional catapult. Test will commence shortly.

*gets popcorn, sits down to watch, fingers crossed*

The catapult launch was a success, with similar results to previous tests. We will begin preparing an AF-100 prototype with weapon and ECM complements, and begin tests (3 prototypes actually.) It will begin tests in a few NS months.

May I ask what pieces I have sent are on the plane?

I have sent:

Landing Gear
Missiles
Radar Confusing Pods
HUD
Autopilot program

Landing Gear
HUD
Autopilot

The Missiles arent in use as we will be testing with standard Sidewinders and AMRAAMs. The Radar Confusing Pods didnt work very well in tests (some of the more advanced radar systems ignored the scattering.)

Does anyone have any target drones? If so, We could use them (For weapon systems tests)

Ok.

The radar pods work very effective, easily defeating radars from SAM's. They are better than drones or chaffs, and larger, more deplicating scatterers, and create millions of B-52 SIZED replica's.

Who do you think the missile will dive for, teh Fighter or the nuke capable bomber with the huge bomber with the radar signature of a B-52?

I have target drones, modified MiG-29 scrap. A simple remote control system and one time use solid rocket engines have been put in place of the jets, and the hardpoints and electronics systems have been removed, but they have simmilar radar cross sections and armor characteristics
$950,000 a piece lowest price I can offer.

We will purchase 3. Can you equip one with a remote controllable weapons system (we want to test the ECM of our fighters w/ non-volatile missiles.)?

OK they will be set up as your request your purchase is confirmed.

AF-100 Combat Prototype Specs:

Class: Heavy Multi-Role Fighter (Carrier Capable)

Primary Contractor: Attican Aerospace

Variants: CTOL, ATOL, CV, RTOL

Unit Cost Current: 50,000,000 KaiserlichMarks (1 to 1 USD)

Propulsion: 1 Thrust-Vector modified Freedom Country X-1000 Jet

Internal Fuel: 25,000lbs

Max Payload: 20,000lbs

Max Take-Off Weight: 60,000lbs

Ceiling: 65,000 ft

Max Speed: Wings Closed: Mach 3.5 Wings Open: Mach 1.4

Combat Radius: 1000 Nautical Miles

Crew: 1 (Pilot)

Armanent: 2 20mm Vulcan guns, 6 retractable missile/bomb pylons

Other: RAM applied (radar absorbing material), design is somewhat stealthy, retractable missile/bomb pylons, has 2 radar scatterers and 2 internal chaff pods, and 1 flare pod (5 flares). It has a full-screen HUD and an intelligent autopilot program. It also has phased array radar.

Wings Closed:

http://pages.ripco.net/~antman87/AAAF1001.png

Wings Open:

http://pages.ripco.net/~antman87/AAAF100.png

OOC: not too bad but you should give it 2 engines (to match the original pic and justify the high speed) Also missile capacity seems a bit low, and the need for 2 M61 guns is debatable 1 should be enough if this is a fighter. Might I suggest a port for a Sidewinder or ASRAAM missile in place of the second m61??

OOC: It only has one engine, if you look, but two intakes. Two of Freedom Countries engines would rip it apart (1 did without special reinforcements). We have 2 guns because we want it to have as much punching power as possible. It has 6 retractable pylons that function has hardpoints for two missiles. Therefore it can hold 12 missiles and/or bombs, or fuel tanks.

My engines are kinda super engines, so 2 might be a bad Idea.

I will purchase 60 to replace my aging F-16's, and give 'em away.

Oh I see the edited pic now, (it wasnt loading before) I assume the hardpoints are not on the wings as of course... anyways i'd probly buy it.

2 of the pylons are under the wings. THe aircraft is not designed to fire when in speed flight (the missile would not go fast enough and would hit the fighter.) The other 4 are under the fuselage.

They are not ready yet FC... this is the prototypes specs.

Damn

I will pre-order 60 then?

And do i get a disount since I supplied:

The Landing Gear, HUD, engines, some missiles, Autopilot.

You get production rights...

The first 70 will go to our carrier group.

The rest will be sold (no discounts / preorders)

how much will these cost?

whatever the price for each, i'd like to buy 2 billion USD's worth.

Three tests:

We modified a flew our own MiGs instead of the drones. All of the fighters shot non-volatile missiles (they paint the target, but do not damage it.)

Test 1: Vulcan (Laser, not bullet, again to paint the target, not to damage it.)

AF-100 Flew 20mi, met MiG-29 10,000ft, MiG-29 'destroyed' w/ no counterfire.

Test 2: Sidewinder and AMRAAM

A: AF-100 Flew 40mi, met Su-39 20,000ft, 2 Sidewinders fired, both painted target.

B: AF-100 Flew 20 mi from A, met MiG-29 16,500ft, fired 2 AMRAAMs. Both painted target.

Test 3: ECM and Countermeasures

A: Su-39 meets AF-100 40,000ft. Su-39 launches 3 Sidewinders, AF-100 activates ECM (laser onto sensor, kills sensor for heatseeker), disables 2 sidewinders, drops flare, third sidewinder hits flare.

B: MiG-29 meets AF-100 30,000ft, MiG-29 fires 2 Sidewinders and 2 AMRAAMs. AF-100 activates ECM, lowers radar dispersion pod, and drops flares. All missiles are evaded.

C: Su-39 and MiG-29 meet AF-100 20,000ft. Su-39 fires machinegun at AF-100, while MiG-29 fires Sidewinders and AMRAAMs. AF-100 lowers radar dispersion pod, and drops 2 flares. Missiles are evaded. MiG-29 switches to cannon mode, AF-100, superior maneuverability, does figure 8 and fires and 'destroys' MiG-29. Second MiG-29 enters conflict, AF-100 enters closed wing mode and accelerates to Mach 3 in escape. AF-100 suffers two minor machine gun hits.

Test 4: Auto-Pilot test

A: Carrier Take-Off
Auto-Pilot take off w/ 4 other AF-100s, autopilot synchronized channel 5b. All fighters take off without manual assistance in order. Efficiency is 120% higher than manual take-off.

B: Carrier Landing
Auto-Pilot engages, 3 AF-100s in Carrier viscinity sending the Carrier_Land signal to each other. Priorities are set, and the AF-100s all land safely on the 'carrier', 430% efficiency increase.




'Carrier' = Simulated Carrier Bay at Attican Aerospace. Mimics Nimitz 99%.

With some of the money from donations, 4 aircraft production facilities have been built. They will be completed tomorrow RL. The first AF-100s will roll off the assembly line when they are completed (1000 will be done by the end of tomorrow.).

will we recieve the panes we provided money for by tomorrow? And if so IP needs to verify the # that are headed our way.

preorders will NOT be accepted.

While the facilities are being researched, the CTOL variant is being prepared (lighter, faster, smaller, and larger payload.)

I understand that you are not accepting preorders. part of the deal was that thosee nations wo provided you money for the project would get first dibs on the craft, right?

2 of the pylons are under the wings. THe aircraft is not designed to fire when in speed flight (the missile would not go fast enough and would hit the fighter.) The other 4 are under the fuselage.

They are not ready yet FC... this is the prototypes specs.

It's not that the missile wouldn't go fast enough... it's that the airflow around the wing and missile at such a speed would be so chaotic as to be dangerous.

No, that you would receive production rights, not first dibs.

preorders will NOT be accepted.

While the facilities are being researched, the CTOL variant is being prepared (lighter, faster, smaller, and larger payload.)

Lighter, faster, smaller... okay... you would need more structure to carry a larger payload, though. Thicker and more extensive structure means more weight. More weight means you go slower unless you upgrade the engines.

ah very well then.

ACS, actually, the structure has room for 8 pylons, we chose 6 because:

1. The added weight added too much stress to the fighter.
2. It required another hollow space which added to stress.

ACS, actually, the structure has room for 8 pylons, we chose 6 because:

1. The added weight added too much stress to the fighter.
2. It required another hollow space which added to stress.

It's not just a matter of having space for it... it's a matter of having the structure in place to support the weight.

The structure is in place. The pylons were removed because more structural stability is required to survive the catapult. Not as much is required for CTOL.

The structure is in place. The pylons were removed because more structural stability is required to survive the catapult. Not as much is required for CTOL.

That doesn't make any sense from an engineering perspective. Removing the hardpoints in the wings would not necessarily increase structural stability for catapult takeoffs. It just means you can't carry as much. The entire structure of the plane would have to be reinforced if it was having difficulties with carrier operations.

OK-

The retracting pylons require a space inside the wing or fuselage. On carrier-based operations, we remove the pylon and reinforce that spot where the pylons internal mechanisms were.

OK-

The retracting pylons require a space inside the wing or fuselage. On carrier-based operations, we remove the pylon and reinforce that spot where the pylons internal mechanisms were.

Your wing would have to be so thick as to be horribly unsuitable for supersonic flight to carry a missile inside the wing. The missile itself would also have to be very small... and the structural and aeroelastic effects would be a nightmare to deal with. If you're going to have internal weapons carriage at all, it'll have to be in the fuselage... and you're already adding on a bunch of weight and taking up a lot of space with the swing-wing mechanisms.

Also, like I said before, strengthening a spot on the wing doesn't make the fuselage mount for the tailhook or landing gear any hardier for carrier operations... that's where your main concern would be.

The missile doesnt mount inside the wing, the pylon does. The missile sits against the bottom of the wing.

The missile doesnt mount inside the wing, the pylon does. The missile sits against the bottom of the wing.

Why are you going to have the pylon retract into the wing? That adds an entirely unnecessary level of complexity to an already complicated fighter. You would be better off just mounting the missiles/bombs on the fuselage on a swing-wing jet.

Also, naval aviators tend to not be fond of single-engine jets. They are very wary of the JSF for that reason. They don't like having to ditch into the sea because of a flameout or critical engine failure.

Retractable because in high speed mode, exposed pylons would be ripped off.

Retractable because in high speed mode, exposed pylons would be ripped off.

Retractable pylons like that will have a higher chance of failure than normal, reinforced pylons because of the complex mechanisms required... not to mention that the airflow off a wing-mounted missile at the speeds you've described would be highly chaotic and turbulent. Pulling the missile in close to the wing would only further upset the flow because you'd essentially be changing the shape of the airfoil by having the missile semi-recessed. You're much better off and much safer just mounting your weapons on the fuselage.

Also, you're going to lose a lot of fuel capacity because of all the space in the wings that would be taken up by the retracting mechanism. In my opinion, you're not really gaining anything with that system and it will create more problems than it solves.

Im willing to dump 200 billion into the project simply because the fighter shares the same initials as my nation ;)


...I could use a new fighter too, been using those Grippens to long.

Ok, I will build a HELL of a lot of these babies....

First aircraft ever to use my engines...... we propelled a spy plane to Mach 5.2 using 2 of them, but god it was risky....

You need to wait for me to send you blueprints :)

I am just saying that I am going to build a lot of them....

And I plan to modify it to use our weapons, and our autopliot program

It is using your autopilot program... it has automatic landing, launching, and flying, but not fighting.

And it is designed to fire standard weapons... if your weapons arent standard launching types, there is something wrong.

They are standard launching types, which is good.

Man, this is a killing machine....

Manufacturing of the AF-100 standard variant and the CTOL variant has begun. We will have enough to begin selling in 2 RL hours.

(65 CV will be used by the Attican Kriegsmarine, 100 CTOL by the Attican Luftwaffe)