NationStates Jolt Archive

AF-100 Rapier CV (Carrier/Catapult launched Fighter)

Class: Carrier-based Heavy Multi-Role Fighter

Contractor: Attican Aerospace

Revision: D

Propulsion: 1 Thrust-Vector modified Freedom Country X-1000 Superjet w/ backup engine restarter.

Internal Fuel: 25,000lbs

Max Payload: 22,000lbs

Max Take-Off Weight: 60,000lbs

Ceiling: 70,000ft

Max Speed: Wings Closed: Mach 3.5 Wings Open: Mach 2

Combat Radius: 1000 Nautical Miles

Crew: 1 (Pilot)

Armament: 1 20mm Vulcan gun, 4 missile/bomb pylons mounted on fuselage (each holds two missiles/bombs)

Other: Radar Absorbing Material applied, design is somewhat stealthy, has 2 Radar Scatterers (easily fools radar-based missiles), 2 internal chaff pods, and 2 flare pods (40 flares). Mid-Air Refueler. Full screen cockpit HUD, Phased Array Radar, and Intelligent AI (software for carrier comes with). Automatic Take-Off, Flying, and Landing. Combat is pilot ONLY.

Cost: $70,000,000 (USD)

AF-100 Rapier CTOL (Conventional Take-Off and Landing Fighter)

Class: Heavy Multi-Role Fighter

Contractor: Attican Aerospace

Revision: C

Propulsion: 1 Thrust-Vector modified Freedom Country X-1000 Superjet w/ backup engine restarter.

Internal Fuel: 32,000lbs

Max Payload: 30,000lbs

Max Take-Off Weight: 80,000lbs

Ceiling: 72,000ft

Max Speed: Wings Closed: Mach 3.6 Wings Open: Mach 2

Combat Radius: 1500 Nautical Miles

Crew: 1 (Pilot)

Armament: 1 20mm Vulcan gun, 6 missile/bomb pylons mounted on fuselage (each holds two missiles/bombs)

Other: Radar Absorbing Material applied, design is somewhat stealthy, has 2 Radar Scatterers (easily fools radar-based missiles), 2 internal chaff pods, and 2 flare pod (40 flares). Mid-Air Refueler. Full screen cockpit HUD, Phased Array Radar, and Intelligent AI (software for airbase comes with). Automatic Take-Off, Flying, and Landing. Combat is pilot ONLY.

Cost: $90,000,000 (USD)

The AF-100 is the most advanced fighter currently for standard and carrier operations.

All AF-100s come with a targeting IFF chip that denies firing controls if an Attican or Freedom Countrian vehicle or other is targeted.

Average Maintenence Cost for both fighters is ~$1,000,000/year

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

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

We, who donated 500 mil to this project, get the prod rights for these, we persume?

THese should cost 150 mil.....

OMZ- Variant Production rights (you can produce variants we design.)

Dark we are planning on raising the price.

(Bump)

LOL @ only 5 flares
LOL @ only 1 engine
LOL @ only "somewhat" stealthy
LOL @ 2 20mm vulcan guns
LOL @ price

Where do u fit 8 missile pylons? on the fuselage?

:lol:

* Opinion of ambassador, not offical position of Islamisbad Governemt.

It only has 5 flares for various reasons.

The one engine is quite powerful. Our prototype with two engines ripped itself apart (the X-1000 is a VERY powerful jet.)

We have also had no issues with flameouts, as the jet itself has backup systems inside it.

Somewhat stealthy means standard jet radar and SAMs will have trouble hitting it. Advanced radar can detect it.

it has 2 because we prefer synchronity.

The price is high because its a high quality fighter. We are working on a cheaper fighter for low-income nations.

Also, it depends on the variant.

The carrier variant, all of the pylons are on the fuselage (which is quite large).

On the CTOL, the same, but there are two retractable pylons on the wingtips (hard to explain, I might make a 3d model.)

It only has 5 flares for various reasons.

And those are?

We have also had no issues with flameouts, as the jet itself has backup systems inside it.

And those backup systems to prevent engine flameouts are?

Somewhat stealthy means standard jet radar and SAMs will have trouble hitting it. Advanced radar can detect it.

What about infrared signature? If you have poor infrared stealth, you're going to need more of those flares.

it has 2 because we prefer synchronity.

Despite the fact that it adds weight and takes up more space for little real gain?

On the CTOL, the same, but there are two retractable pylons on the wingtips (hard to explain, I might make a 3d model.)

I already explained why retractable wing pylons just aren't a good idea.

hehehe you do know you usualy need to use more then 1 flare to fool each missile don't you?

Also only reason I would put 2 vulcans on a plane would be for ground attack purposes doesnt really make too much sense if its a air-supieroity fighter.

all my fighters carry at least 2 packs of 60 flares. 2 Vulcans would be useful for dealing with B-2's. And complete stealth is an utter waste of time, money, and research.

It isnt Air Superiority. Read the description.

Class: Heavy Multi-Role Fighter

*Defense Ministry talks to technicians, realizes typo, "fixes" technicians.*

It has an active scanning infrared blinder for IR missiles.

The systems to prevent flameouts include an automatic restarter that attempts 10 times. If it cannot succeed, it automatically sets the vehicle into speed mode (less drag) and attempts to pilot to the nearest friendly base.

1 Vulcan meant ripping a hole in the center of the craft, which we did not want to do, as it would disrupt the airframe much more than 2 synchronously placed on two sides.

Onle 2 pylons are retractable, and, as i said, i cannot explain it with words.

um... why not mount one cannon on the left or right, like it is done with the f-14 f-15 etc..

If you don't mind Attica, I think the variant I will produce will take some of the above concerns into consideration.

You can only build developed variants. ONly if you have full production rights can you make your own.

Because, Phoenix, that would be silly.

Okay then I want my money back.

How much did you donate?

Over 1 Billion, you get full production rights.
Under 1 Billion, you get variant production rights.

The systems to prevent flameouts include an automatic restarter that attempts 10 times. If it cannot succeed, it automatically sets the vehicle into speed mode (less drag) and attempts to pilot to the nearest friendly base.

Actually, you would want the wings to revert to low-speed flight setting... you want more control, not less as the plane loses velocity. Yes, you'll get more drag... but you'll also have more lift and improved flight control in that setting.

1 Vulcan meant ripping a hole in the center of the craft, which we did not want to do, as it would disrupt the airframe much more than 2 synchronously placed on two sides.

As was mentioned before, one cannon has been more than enough for the F-15... the single most successful fighter in history. It has never been shot down in air-to-air combat. Never. You could have put an aerial refueling system in the other side where the second cannon is now. That would be much more useful.

Onle 2 pylons are retractable, and, as i said, i cannot explain it with words.

If you can't explain it in even a rudimentary fashion with words, it's probably not a good idea.

ok, lets try pictures.


-----(^)-----

Thats a jet.


*-=====(^)=====-*

Outer pylons extended

*=====(^)=====*

Outer pylons retracted.

ok, lets try pictures.


-----(^)-----

Thats a jet.


*-=====(^)=====-*

Outer pylons extended

*=====(^)=====*

Outer pylons retracted.

Okay, that makes even less sense than what I thought you were describing in the first place... you don't mount hardpoints on the wingtips of swing-wing fighters, especially not fighters whose wingtips fold forward in high-speed flight. I'm not sure why you'd extend and retract the wingtips like that anyways, even if it wasn't swing-wing. I don't see any real gain for that kind of mechanism.

Im assuming i should begin work on Revison D/C?

I would recommend it. The only way you're going to get weapons mounted on those wings would be by using pivoting hardpoints mounted on the underside of the wing... and those are notoriously difficult to maintain and build. Your best bet is to go with fuselage-mounted ordinance.

hey hey hey

STOP SLAGGIN THE PLANE

It is a very good airframe.

And IT ONLY NEEDS ONE ENGINE!!!!

2 Mach 4 capable Engines ripped it apart, doesnt need 2.

And most countries use long range Radar guided missiles, so radar confusing pods are useful, more so that Chaffs and Flares.

8 Pylons is a bit godmod tho, so I am sayin 6.

hey hey hey

STOP SLAGGIN THE PLANE

It is a very good airframe.

And IT ONLY NEEDS ONE ENGINE!!!!

2 Mach 4 capable Engines ripped it apart, doesnt need 2.

And most countries use long range Radar guided missiles, so radar confusing pods are useful, more so that Chaffs and Flares.

8 Pylons is a bit godmod tho, so I am sayin 6.

Hey hey hey... I'm an aerospace engineer. I'm trying to help him make it better and more realistic.

I'm just going to totally avoid the engine debate because, historically, engines are underpowered... not overpowered. Also, I would be more worried about aerodynamic forces tearing the plane apart... not excess engine thrust.

Most countries also still use IR missiles for short-range combat, though... you just can't leave an Achilles heel like that open to exploit. If the enemy knows he can beat you in-close, he will conduct his tactics in such a way to close the distance and attack you where you are weak.

Yeh, but we are talking engine thrust into vector thrusters here....

He could easily dodge the missile.

And I fly Tornado's for a living sonny jim.

Yeh, but we are talking engine thrust into vector thrusters here....

He could easily dodge the missile.

And I fly Tornado's for a living sonny jim.
OOC: You can actually dodge a radar homing or IR missile without firing those flares and chaffs?

And flares and chaffs are not too effective...

I know

9G's turning quickly left right can easily fool a missile.

A IR stills goes for the biggest heat signature.

So which is it, the chaff or the plane?

And most countries use long range Radar guided missiles, so radar confusing pods are useful, more so that Chaffs and Flares.
Ever heard of what "cost" means?

I know

But in most NS countries, people have plenty of money, or just ignore what Missiles cost and just say they made 'em, and use them anyway.

Bit like USA in the Gulf, loads of Tomahawks cos money was no object.

cost = evil

I know

But in most NS countries, people have plenty of money, or just ignore what Missiles cost and just say they made 'em, and use them anyway.

Bit like USA in the Gulf, loads of Tomahawks cos money was no object.
I wouldn't want to use TSSAMs every time on my F-16s instead of JDAMs, which can waste me $900,000 bucks...

But, the choice is yours. Also, AMRAAM are heavier, obviously.

Ok... i updated the specs, how are they.

OOC: Question, would it be possible for the weapons systems to lock a missile, lock the warhead (so it cant detonate), and trigger the warheads rocket, as a system of backup propulsion?

Yeh, but if you are firing from 35 Miles away, you dont need maneuverability.

Yeh, but we are talking engine thrust into vector thrusters here....

He could easily dodge the missile.

And I fly Tornado's for a living sonny jim.

Then you should know that combat vehicle engineers consider all threat aspects... we don't assume that you can always dodge or maneuver. All it takes is one missile to get through to screw your day.

I know

9G's turning quickly left right can easily fool a missile.

A IR stills goes for the biggest heat signature.

So which is it, the chaff or the plane?

A plane would have a larger IR signature than chaff... unless you meant to say flares. Chaff is for defeating radar-guided missiles. That's why planes carry both chaff and flares... but you already knew that, being a Tornado pilot and all.

Yeh, but we are talking engine thrust into vector thrusters here....

He could easily dodge the missile.

And I fly Tornado's for a living sonny jim.

Then you should know that combat vehicle engineers consider all threat aspects... we don't assume that you can always dodge or maneuver. All it takes is one missile to get through to screw your day.

Yeh, but us pilots are trigger happy, cocky oafs who think they are invincible :lol:

Anyways, it doesnt mater how many chaffs u got, u aint gonna use 'em all (and if you do, you must be in deep shit and are fucked anyway)

Sorry, quadruple post (WTF!!!!)

Ok... i updated the specs, how are they.

OOC: Question, would it be possible for the weapons systems to lock a missile, lock the warhead (so it cant detonate), and trigger the warheads rocket, as a system of backup propulsion?

You would have to add a lot of structural strengthening to an already complicated structure and find a way of synchronizing the ignition of all those rockets... and you'd have to have the missiles mounted far enough away from the fuselage so that the exhaust doesn't start burning holes. It's possible... but not a very practical idea.

I would like to keep the airfram the way it is......

I have olaced an order to my factories for over 200 of them, for my carriers.