NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the development thread for what is now dubbed the EA-220 tactical Bomber. If you are not one of the nations involved then please refrain from posting here.

http://www.collectaire.com/modelpages/a12a/a12a.jpg

How it works is that everyone submits here a paragraph of info on the particular parts their doing and then I will collate it together to form a sales thread. Once each nation has done a draft we will discuss the various ideas and suggestions to try and improve each part. this way it can be a true multi-national venture where each particpant gets their opinions listened to. If anybody lacks the technical knowledge to put together information then I can probably help.

The post will take the same form as the EA-160 Fighter (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=718860).

So far 2 versions are envisaged an Air FOrce model and a carrier variant, suggestions on others are welcomed.

Design Requirements: (more will probably be added.)

-Aircraft’s weapons and fuel payload must offer considerable advantages over more agile strike fighter aircraft such as the Su-35, F-15E Strike Eagle or FA-18E Super Hornet.

-Aircraft must be of a limited size and weight to enable landing on conventional aircraft carriers or semi-prepared runways. Wings must be able to fold for carrier storage.

-Must offer stealth capability better or equivalent to F-117 Night Hawk.

-Must offer the capability to launch/drop most types of air to air or air to surface missile.

-Must be able to fly at least Mach 0.95 at 30,000ft+.

-Must be able to conduct strike missions in all weather conditions day or night.

-Must have limited Electronic warfare capability.

Hopefully the ned result of this will be a superb aircraft with plenty of information written about it. Specs can be worked out after the dsign process is complete


United Elias: Final Assembly, Flight testing, Powerplants, project management: 35%

Dark Terror: Wing/Fueselage construction: 20%

Phoenix Militia: RAM coatings, Internal Weapons bays: 10%

Ferrussia: Ejection seats, fuel system, other R&D: 5%

Omz222: control surfaces, landing gear: 10%

Croockfur: Cockpit systems, flight control systems, weapons delivery systems and any other avionics not previously mentioned: 20%

Im not quite sure how twell this will work but if anybody can think of a bteer idea of doing this im interested.

Like I really know anything about wing consruction, lol. I can put it a bunch of nice systems like plasma stealth, but I hardly know wether I should use titanium or aluminum.

OOC: Just for clarifaction (sp.), what are control surfaces?

IC:

Looking at the size, we suppose that for the CTOL version, we could add landing gears in the 2 bottom corners of the aircraft. Also, for the carrier version, the 2 landing gears at the 2 corners will be smaller, and the end will have an arrestor hook. All the landing gears on the carrier version, including the side ones, will be reinforced as usual.

If this airplane's using STOVL or VTOL, the landing gears will have to be adjusted a little --- but we shall see.

Like I really know anything about wing consruction, lol. I can put it a bunch of nice systems like plasma stealth, but I hardly know wether I should use titanium or aluminum.
OOC: If UE is interested, I can sorta design the wings. I know a bit about various fuselage and wing designs.

OOC:
Lol, seriously, Id do better in Crookfur's position.


Oh well... Ill actually have to do reserach instead of copy and paste :lol:

aluminum/titanium id use composites, see by EA-160 post for some info, anway research is good!

Control Surfaces-Aierlons, Rudder (not in thi scase), Electaors, Flaps etc

CTOL layout.

aluminum/titanium id use composites, see by EA-160 post for some info, anway research is good!

Control Surfaces-Aierlons, Rudder (not in thi scase), Electaors, Flaps etc

CTOL layout.
Research is good- but so is copying and pasting. Ill do some reserach on the plane this really is, should help.

some neat pics:

showing control surface and landing gear/arrestor hook layout among other things

http://www.habu2.net/a12/a_art.htm
http://www.habu2.net/a12/a_3views.htm

pity we cant link to them, anybody have an image posting site so we could?

DAMN GOOD Stuff here:

http://www.habu2.net/a12/avenger2.htm

some RL dimensions:

Dimensions

Wing Span - Overall: 70 feet 3 inches
Wing Span - Folded: 36 feet 3.25 inches
Length: 37 feet 3 inches
Aspect Ratio: 3.75
Wheel Base: 19 feet 2.25 inches
Wheel Track 22 feet
Speed: 580 mph at sea level
Height (Overall): 11 feet 3.375 inches
Height (Folded): 12 feet 6.25 inches
Wing Area: 1,308 square feet
Design Load Factor: 9 Gs
Empty Weight: 39,000 pounds
Gross Weight: 80,000 pounds

we might bump these up a bit to make it more capable.

some neat pics:

showing control surface and landing gear/arrestor hook layout among other things

http://www.habu2.net/a12/a_art.htm
http://www.habu2.net/a12/a_3views.htm

pity we cant link to them, anybody have an image posting site so we could?

globalsecurity.org

Military --- Systems --- US Aircrafts --- A-12 Under "ATTACK"

wow, we seriously need to redo the weapons load the RL plane has a terrible payload.

Anyway thats manily Phoenix's department so lets see what he comes up with.

HHHmmm my few thoughts.

Cockpit: Wide angle HUD (wide screen type idea?), helmet mounted HUDs and sighting systems (perhaps with synthetic view mode? so that data from imaging senors (IR/EO) can be directly dispalyed inside the WO's helment and be slaved to his helmet/eye movements (i assume 2 crew?). Full synthetic views were considered at the beginning of the LHX project. Probably not nessicary for the pilot but useful for the WO). Look-shoot ability is of course a must with a rnage of AA weapons (i think we can assume with DT that AMRAAM isn't going to be the selfdefense choice).

Weapons delivery systems: well since a full passive navigation system will be a must then it will likely have to be integrated with the weapons system for the delivery of JDAM/paveway E type weapons (russian versions of these?) and other combination giuded weapons.

As image hosting i can do that on my webby if needed.

AMRAAm=useless, its so easy to jam.

Use AA-12 Adder.

for the rardar we need something with synthetic aperture mode and yes two crew.
Also perhaps VOTAS controls for pilot, see my EA-160 post for details.

VOTAS-assuming thats helmet mounted aiming system, use AA-14 Agile missiles! They have thrust vectoring and a range twice that of AIM-9X- and oh yeah the plane can launch them at a target off to the side while in a hard turn.

it needs to be able to fire russian and Western weapons really, but I agree modern Russian AAMs are better.

it needs to be able to fire russian and Western weapons really, but I agree modern Russian AAMs are better.
Duh....

AA-14=Helmet mounted targetted AA-11.

Or MICA RF/IR or meteor...

I had sort of forgotton about the voice part (stupid crookfur esspecialy with a propective typhoon pilot telling you how great it is).

As for the actual missile i would probably look at an open arcitecture system that can handle most aavailble systems and few others with installable modules (ie a set of hardware/software modules for US tech, one for soviet tech, one for european tech, one for DT soviet tech or one for Crookfur weapons etc etc, considering that these weapons likely need different luanching gear this shouldn't be a problem and lets face it no matter how convincing you make things Dark Terror there are some who still want thier comfortable western tech).

YEs a decent targetting radar is a must plus the similtainous targeting and devilery of independet weapons (if the B2 can drop 80 indpendently targeted JDAMS at once then say 6-10 shouldn't be an issue).

Powrplants:

I think we're gonna go for a pair of EPE-136M2 High bypass turbofan producing 18,230lb of thrust each. Basically its a non afterburning uprated version o fthe EPE-136M on the EA-160. we might end up needing a bit more power than that so we'lls see how it goes.

Yes I know, some people wont accept the fact that Russian tech owns US tech.

And then some of us use our own tech weapons based on other ideas (like our ACM-7knifefighter basically a combiantion of python 4, IRIS-T (the one the germans are developing to replace AA-11) and ASRAAM ).

Of course there are all those wonderful joint projects the US starts with people and then dumps for a dubiously "improved" version of thier current stuff.

Following a telegram from Ferrussia im swicting around a couple of things, Phoenix militia gets less and Ferrussia gets some. Check the first post for dtails

I know that others are not supposed to post but I was wondering if anyone needed a donation or if I could help financially at all.

Voloshinicoff, Head of State

And then some of us use our own tech weapons based on other ideas (like our ACM-7knifefighter basically a combiantion of python 4, IRIS-T (the one the germans are developing to replace AA-11) and ASRAAM ).

Of course there are all those wonderful joint projects the US starts with people and then dumps for a dubiously "improved" version of thier current stuff.

You might be interested in the Python 5. I have a write-up on it here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=880427#880427) but more info can be found here (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/air_missiles/python/Python5.html).

Hey, everyone...

Fuel systems: Given that this is a tactical bomber, I'm shooting for a roughly 750 mi. combat radius (1600 total); however, with weight restrictions and fuel consumption on the powerplants (what is that, btw?), we may be forced to cut the internal stores to 500 mi. combat radius (1050 total). There will be two main tanks, and one or two backup fuel tanks, depending on constrictions. I plan to make it air-refuelable, with the mount just above the cockpit. I'm also tossing around an idea for optional external fuel mounts for added range but decreased payload - a "pod" system on top as opposed to wiring a few hardpoints for additional fuel pods is being considered. (Basically, on top of the tanks, there would be an embedded mount for aerodynamic "pods" which could carry additional fuel.) This might neccesitate tweaking the airframe a bit, but could be worth it.

Ejector seats: Still working on these

Other stuff:

I'm thinking of developing a system that would borrow from the A-10's ability to constantly track the approximate landing point of dumb bombs; this would be shown on Crookfur's wide array HUD for the weapons officer, and optionally for the pilot (so he knows where to fly). The system may not be necessary if we go for an all guided bombs payload, but if it can carry dumb bombs and plans to often, it could make a good addition. I can turn the project over to Crookfur if necessary.

So what do you guys think?

there are many considerations in building a tactical/strategic bomber...

i supposed that primarily, it is for all purpose bomber(spec-ops and general purpose bombing)...

then i'll suggest we use the old warhorse which is the B-52 stratofortress(i love the plane because its BUFF and its payload is quite huge and ugly hehehe :lol: )

we just upgrade the skin(replacing its skin with radar absorbing tiles making it a bit lighter but under the skin should always be a basic armor in case of emergency)then we change its engine to GE or McDonell or Douglas or Pratt and Whitney whichever you prefer;(this somewhat RL base right?)for greater power output, then we improved its terrain mapping, low altitude capabilities system(i imagine it would be a low level-bombing, terrain-hugging bomber) also more refined offense and defensive capabilities(jammers -missile detection and radar, EMCON, heat control and visual interference)

we must also improve its nose cross radar section so that the emmisions it absorb can be evenly distributed in its body so that it will not bounced back to enemy radar installations

i think that 5 people must be needed to fly it...pilot, co-pilot, navigator, bomber/gunner and a spare pilot

its ordinance may consist from simple iron bombs to JDAMS to AIM- Sidewinders to nukes...

for this bomber to work, it needs superb computer assisting capability and human expertise, oh, and also concise intelligence report backing it up beforehand(primary opposition, corollation of forces, installations to be bombed, installations to avoid, ROE and insertion/escape route) :wink:

its range should be about 10,500 miles(improved fuel tanks and energy control system)

cost should be about $47 million(this is a joint project right?)

my nations contribution can be developing its offensive and defensive capabilities...if you agree... :wink:

This is the development thread for what is now dubbed the EA-220 tactical Bomber. If you are not one of the nations involved then please refrain from posting here.

The concept has already been hammered out, so while I'm sure UE is grateful for your suggestion, we're probably not interested.

can i join? :lol:

That's up to UE. He should be here tomorrow.

Darkstar: sorry we already have enough nations, hav to draw the line some where.

Our current design is looking at 3 large weapons bays and 2 smaller outer bays, plus 2 internal missile ports. The ports will hold 1 AIM-9X Sidewinder or 1 AIM-132 ASRAAM each. The outer bays would hold AMRAAMs only in certain circumstances, in its natural configuration they would hold a single JDAM or rockeye or a number of small diameter bombs. 2 of the 3 inner fuselage bays could hold 2 JDAMs each, or GBU-LGBs, several small diameter bombs, dundrals, cluster bombs or Mk82 bombs. The center bay could only hold one Mk82 or JDAM. If we incorparate the rotary missile launcher from our Nighthawks, 2 of the 3 fuselage bays couls hold 3 AMRAAMs in a rotary launcher. Although this many aams would seem to be too much so its use would probly be limited. ( 1 bay would have the 3 AMRAAMs the rest would be strictly bomb loads ) The outer bays and the center bay could hold AGM-65 maverick or simmilar and I would estimate we coult fit 2 mavericks into the large fuselage bays.

As for the control surfaces, in this circumstance, we do not need a fly-by-wire system to increase its manuveribility. The control surface will be electrics-controlled.

Our current design is looking at 3 large weapons bays and 2 smaller outer bays, plus 2 internal missile ports. The ports will hold 1 AIM-9X Sidewinder or 1 AIM-132 ASRAAM each. The outer bays would hold AMRAAMs only in certain circumstances, in its natural configuration they would hold a single JDAM or rockeye or a number of small diameter bombs. 2 of the 3 inner fuselage bays could hold 2 JDAMs each, or GBU-LGBs, several small diameter bombs, dundrals, cluster bombs or Mk82 bombs. The center bay could only hold one Mk82 or JDAM. If we incorparate the rotary missile launcher from our Nighthawks, 2 of the 3 fuselage bays couls hold 3 AMRAAMs in a rotary launcher. Although this many aams would seem to be too much so its use would probly be limited. ( 1 bay would have the 3 AMRAAMs the rest would be strictly bomb loads ) The outer bays and the center bay could hold AGM-65 maverick or simmilar and I would estimate we coult fit 2 mavericks into the large fuselage bays.

Sounds good but could we enlarge some of the bomb bays to carry larger weapons such as HARM, Harpoon or my EAW-12
ALCM (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=56000) if need be?

As for the control surfaces, in this circumstance, we do not need a fly-by-wire system to increase its manuveribility. The control surface will be electrics-controlled.

Actually you just make the control surfaces not the electronics that link them to the cockpit thats Crookfur's job.

I know it is late, but could I help with the production of the prototype, or other models.

We have a bulging aerospace capacity.

I know it is late, but could I help with the production of the prototype, or other models.

We have a bulging aerospace capacity.

too late im afraid. Unless of course you have something specific you want to contribute that isnt already mentioned, then I'll consider it.

I dont know, but I make pretty jazzy HUD's.

Designed by pilots, fully digitized, and built for 2.

Sorry Crokfur's alrady got something lined up for that. Any other suggestions?

I've just got a few questions:

What's the approx. fuel consumption on the powerplants?
What altitude will it usually be flying at?
Should I consider the dumb bomb point-of-impact finder, considering it will be carrying Mk 82 dumb bombs?
And finally, any comments on my proposition in my post?

Thanks.

Our current design is looking at 3 large weapons bays and 2 smaller outer bays, plus 2 internal missile ports. The ports will hold 1 AIM-9X Sidewinder or 1 AIM-132 ASRAAM each. The outer bays would hold AMRAAMs only in certain circumstances, in its natural configuration they would hold a single JDAM or rockeye or a number of small diameter bombs. 2 of the 3 inner fuselage bays could hold 2 JDAMs each, or GBU-LGBs, several small diameter bombs, dundrals, cluster bombs or Mk82 bombs. The center bay could only hold one Mk82 or JDAM. If we incorparate the rotary missile launcher from our Nighthawks, 2 of the 3 fuselage bays couls hold 3 AMRAAMs in a rotary launcher. Although this many aams would seem to be too much so its use would probly be limited. ( 1 bay would have the 3 AMRAAMs the rest would be strictly bomb loads ) The outer bays and the center bay could hold AGM-65 maverick or simmilar and I would estimate we coult fit 2 mavericks into the large fuselage bays.
Personally, we would suggest the new, effective, low-cost AGM-154A/B/C Joint StandOff Weapon (JSOW) instead. It is proven to be a much more effective of the lastest version of the Maverick.

cool plane

Ferrussia:

Normal altitude, well thats a problem because it has to be able to fly very low altitude penetration missions as well as high level strategic bombing profiles as well.

The fuel consumption is hard to work out, all I can tell you is the aforementioned thrust if each engine, the bypass ration: 5, the compression ratio: about 35, and the burning temeprature around 1300+ degrees celsius. This probably doesnt help but basicallly this enginris darn efficient and the plane'swings are large enough to accomodate a fair amount of fuel.
Okay stated ferry range of original design is 950 miles, however that was deisgned in the late 1980s when turbofans were less effecient and less composites were used increasing weight over modern standards. so I would expect a ferry range of about:2,500nm. So combat radius of about a 1000 miles would be about right with an avergae combat load.
Remeber to include both air to air refuelling systems ie: probe and receptacle.

USAF/IAF= Boom/Receptacle
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/kc-135r-990961a.jpg

USMC/USN/CIS/RAF/Everyone else = Probe/Drogue
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/kc-130-tanker.jpg

The actual weapons carried can be substituted for simmilar ordnance. Im sure the 2 fuselage bays and possibly the center bay could take the larger missiles, but if we get to enlarging the outer bays we are talking about serious aerodynamic problems when the bays are open and possibly a bulge when closed. For the several types of bombs suggested, that would be up to fire control systems to determine exactly what could be carried. For example if this would carry a harpoon there would be no reason for it to not be able to carry an exocet in its place. ( I will get some measurements of several types of ordance for comparison and figure what types of weapons could be carried, trusty fas should take care of it )


Also the Hose and Drouge method (probe/drouge) method wouldn't be the best for a steath aircraft in my opinion, however I don't really see much of an issue since most tankers can do both types of refueling, the KC-10 for example, however as smaller refueling aircraft say the C-130 and the KA-6 use the hose and drouge method I would probly think the more widely used method would be best, of course it could be included as an extra, with versions for either refueling method availble, but both would be clutter don't you think? Also the hose and drouge method is less dangerous then the boom/recptacle method. Just my $0.02

Well a probe can be retratced like on the hornet. We can offer both Im just saying that we nee dprovision for both.

Quick thing with the weapons/fuel- I suppose that an 'external tank' could be placed in the internal bays to improve range, ie: for a ferry flight so it can self deploy without tankers.

From recent studies, we suggest a electric subsystem for the electric-operated control surfaces. As for the main pilot, the control stick will be on the right of the pilot --- instead of the center, to increase effectiveness.

The subsystem will connect to the rest of the electric systems, 50% integrated.

For the break, it will use the F-15's, instead of a parachute.

I think the CCIP system would liely be a must :)

As i said i would probabaly be looking at a open arictechture design on the weapons sub systems so that we can develope sub systems for most foreseeable weapons with out clogging the system with huge amounts info (while modern computer system likely could handle that i thinka simplier system would be best).
As for the cockpit control perhaps the stick should be adjustable for pilot comfort? with a center line stick mounting for conversion training? (possibley over engineering on that and if they are coming from a already advanced plane then simply not needed).

As for weapons systems the usage of WCMDs is of course a must :)

I think the CCIP system would liely be a must :)

As i said i would probabaly be looking at a open arictechture design on the weapons sub systems so that we can develope sub systems for most foreseeable weapons with out clogging the system with huge amounts info (while modern computer system likely could handle that i thinka simplier system would be best).
As for the cockpit control perhaps the stick should be adjustable for pilot comfort? with a center line stick mounting for conversion training? (possibley over engineering on that and if they are coming from a already advanced plane then simply not needed).

As for weapons systems the usage of WCMDs is of course a must :)

Absoultely and better to over engineer than under engineer.
Any thoughts about terrain followng technology?

Radars can be homed in on....


*hugs his SLAAM-6 radar homing SAMs*

Thats they can which is why we need those fancy russian IR trackers ;) (i assume they have improved since the MiG23...

Yep!

DT: anything to say about the fueselage yet?

Nice plane

Nice plane

thanks.

okay, lets get a move onwith this, DT can you make a 1/4 sixe model and ship it to us?

Yes yes, we can, and heres what the BDIA engineers typed up:

The wings and fusalage are made of composite materials and covered with Radar Absorbent Materials (RAM). This ensures that the EA-220 is low-observability. The EA-220 is essentially a flying wing, with fuel stored in both wings and the fusulauge.

Upon leaving the carrier, the EA-220 will climb to altitude prior to entering the operational range of enemy radar sites. The aircraft will then descend to a very low terrain mapping altitude while in transit to the primary target.

The EA-220 delta-wing design, without getting into too much aerodynamics here, is what is known as a lightly loaded wing. Such a design offers some unique challenges in handling the flight control system and making it adaptive to the environment that theEA-220 is designed to be in, which is a very low-altitude, high-speed state as it penetrates enemy defenses.

The weapons bay doors have an extremely fasts snap-action when opening and closing to prevent exposure on radar for more time than absolutely necessary.


Wing Span:

Overall: 70 feet 3 inches

Folded: 36 feet 3.25 inches

Length: 37 feet 3 inches

Height:

Overall: 11 feet 3.375 inches

Folded: 12 feet 6.25 inches

Wing Area: 1,308 square feet


OOC:
1. Crookfur, add in Plasma stealth technology.
2. This will cost about $100 mil per plane
3. Who does the armament, me or Crook?
4. Who does the airframe?
5. Hope I didnt go into anyone elses areas here.

armanents:

Crook does the electronics for them and Phoenix makes the bays.

you make the aurframe itself and then sned it here where we plug all the bits together.

I think i mainly work on electronics so actualy weapons bar integration and control systems is out of my area (i think).
Plasma stelath added.

Working on a combined IR/EO dazzler system.

anything thats especially needed electronics wise for CV operations?

OOC:
Alright, give it the snapping weapons bay then.

Armament should be about 24 M<k-82 bombs or similar, plus 4 AAM's (2 BVR 2 dogfight). Also, it should be able to carry 4 HARM's or 4 AS-17's (Russian mach 3 anti radiation missile).

Heres the airframe:
The wing area of the EA-220 is 1309 ft. sq., more than twice as large as the A-6's wing area. Flying wings generally have a large wing area in order to compensate for their lower lift capabilities. The wingspan of the EA-220 is 70 feet, 3.2 inches and it is 37 feet, 3 inches long.

The planform of the EA-220 has a straight trailing edge. Along the trailing edge are pairs of elevons at each wingtip and pairs of spoilers forward of them. A pitch flap is located in the center, above the engine exhaust area. Yaw control is designed to be provided by differential drag at the wingtips.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/329267/EA-220Man.Breakdown.jpg

Phoenis Militia's already dealt with the weapons more or less ^^^ but maybe hehasnt given it enough.

OOC:
Just a suggestion.


I think Ive done my part more or less, now to get a few more pics.

DT: BTW remember the wings have to fold.

DT: BTW remember the wings have to fold.

Wing Span:

Overall: 70 feet 3 inches

Folded: 36 feet 3.25 inches

Wing Span:

Overall: 70 feet 3 inches

Folded: 36 feet 3.25 inches



:oops: sorry :oops:

Due to signature requirements, the EA-220 is designed to carry all of its weaponry internally. Adding to the 4 weapons bays are the 3 landing gear bays, the tailhook bay, the auxiliary power unit bay, the wing folds, the leading edge flaps, the outboard and inboard elevons, the pitch flap, etc.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/329267/EA-220Man.Breakdown.jpg
EA-220 major components
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/329267/ForwardFuselauge.jpg
EA-220 Forward Fuselage
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/329267/Flapsspoilers.jpg
Pitch flap, main flaps and spoilers.

ive seen these pics before but thanks for making them linkable, i think they also have some good ones of the full scale mock up.

OOC:
Linkable images= actually possible to use.

DT: what do you think of Phoenix's weapons bays idea?

Although its a bomber I think we should have an internal weapons bay near the nose for one of these:

http://www.aviation.ru/gun/GSh-30-2.jpg
GSh-30 30mm gun.

Thats fine, but the weapons bnay should be able to quickly open/close.

To me, this= MiG-43 Flaunter

composites we should use:

carbon fire composites, glass-reinforced plastic, aluminium lithium, titanium and aluminium casting.

what the hell is the Mig-43?

jcomposites we should use:

carbon fire composites, glass-reinforced plastic, aluminium lithium, titanium and aluminium casting.

what the hell is the MiG-43?

Sounds reasonable.

MiG-43 will be my designation for it.

i'll take 10000000000000000000000

Looks nice so far.

I recommend a few WW2 style wing mounted cannons, for strafing, or other jobs.

You did say it sould have the maneuverability of a fighter.

Still, only a suggestion.

Looks nice so far.

I recommend a few WW2 style wing mounted cannons, for strafing, or other jobs.

You did say it sould have the maneuverability of a fighter.

Still, only a suggestion.Yes, though BVR combat is wonderrrrrful.

Looks nice so far.

I recommend a few WW2 style wing mounted cannons, for strafing, or other jobs.

You did say it sould have the maneuverability of a fighter.

Still, only a suggestion.

nah, wings need to be used fo fuel and weapons bays, one cannon should be enough, bearing in mind most bombers lack any.

If you are making fun, shut up.

Its a good idea, as a kinda self defence and backup role.

It would work as a fighter bomber.

If you are making fun, shut up.

Its a good idea, as a kinda self defence and backup role.

It would work as a fighter bomber.Hence the Gsh cannon.


and it has 4 AAM's.

DT: the GSh is still the best Russian gun im assuming?

DT: the GSh is still the best Russian gun im assuming?Yep, but that doenst say too much.

DT: the GSh is still the best Russian gun im assuming?

Sorry to interfere, just to put my two cents in ;)

The Gsh is the best guns manufacturer yes, but about the Gsh-30...

It is designed for ground attack craft, such as the Su25 and Su39.

I think that since a bomber doesn't really need to take out targets with his gun and only needs it for selfdefence, in my opinion the best option would be the Gsh-6-23M.

It is the fastest firing aircraft gun in the world after all :)
The Su-24 strategic fighter/bombers are equipped with it after all :)

http://www.digikitten.com/playhousev2/files/Mishgan/gsh623.jpg
Basic stats:

Round type : AM-23
Caliber, mm : 23
Rate of fire, rds/min : 10000
Muzzle velocity, m/s : 715
Weight, kg
cannon : 73
round : 0.325
projectile: 0.174

Yet again - sry for interrupting! :roll:

Gsh-6-23M=ownage

It has a huge radar signature for a GUN though......

Gsh-30 for properness.

Gsh-6 = Overkill

Its a bomber for christs sake

It has a huge radar signature for a GUN though......

Gsh-30 for properness.

Gsh-6 = Overkill

Its a bomber for christs sake

Thats my point! The Gsh-30 is for the Su-25, Su-39 craft! The ones that actually go down and blow the hell out of enemy ground forces with the cannon.

The Su-24 are bombers and usually do not engage in combat! And they are armed with the Gsh-6 :wink:

Besides, there is always the Gsh-301 :D

Man, its a bomber, hence it uses bombs and missiles, not cannons, like a ground attack fighter.

---

---

Man, its a bomber, hence it uses bombs and missiles, not cannons, like a ground attack fighter.

You just don't get it, do you?

Somebody - explain him what is a Su-25 and Su-39 and what the hell is the Su-24.

Su-25 and Su-39 - Ground Attack

A-10 - Ground attack - USES GAU-8, much like Gsh-6

Su-24 - INTEREPTOR - AIR TO AIR COMBAT

Bombers - Small cannons, for the off chance they MIGHT need to strafe.

Su-24 - INTEREPTOR - AIR TO AIR COMBAT


Nope - go read your tech manuals.

The Su-24 is a frontline/strategical bomber. :wink:

It will be shortly replaced with the Su-34 frontline/strategical bomber. ;)


The Gsh-30 is used on the Su-25 and Su-39.

And the Gsh-6-23M is used on the Su-24. A bomber.
Not to mix with the Gsh-6-30 that is used on fighters!!!

Any further questions?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-24.htm

Similar Airraft - F-111
Tornado
F-15

All aircraft = AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTERS

F-111 Aardvark
Medium Tactical/ Strategic Bomber (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/f111/)

F-15E Eagle
Fighter Bomber (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/f15e/)

Tornado IDS
Attack Bomber (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/tornado_ids/)

Questions? :roll:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-24.htm

Similar Airraft - F-111
Tornado
F-15

All aircraft = AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTERS
F-111 was a swing-wing supersonic penetration bomber
Tornado IDS is a ground attack (InterDiction-Strike)
F-15 is the only fighter out of those.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-24.htm

Similar Airraft - F-111
Tornado
F-15

All aircraft = AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTERS
F-111 was a swing-wing supersonic penetration bomber
Tornado IDS is a ground attack (Interdiction-Strike)
F-15 is the only fighter out of those.
I think they meant the F-15E by similar to the Su-24.

I don't like the FAS.org site... they are so imprecise sometimes! :evil:

Here are the links so that he may see:

F-111 Aardvark
Medium Tactical/ Strategic Bomber (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/f111/)

F-15E Eagle
Fighter Bomber (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/f15e/)

Tornado IDS
Attack Bomber (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/tornado_ids/)

thats the one i noticed, with the F-14

Look, SU-24 is not a fighter at alll, F-111 was designed for strike missions, dummy.


IMO we should put in Gsh-6-23 or Gsh-30.

Gsh-30!!!!

Maybe 2 on the nose

Look moron SU-24 is not a fighter at alll, F-111 was designed for strike missions dummy.


IMo we should put in Gsh-6-23 or Gsh-30.

Well, if anything, there is still the Gsh-301 that is mounted on the Su-35 and the Su-34 :D

Freedom Country:
Su-35 = Multi-Role Fighter (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/su35/)

Su-34 = Medium Tactical/ Strategic Bomber (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/su34/)

Just for you to know ;)

FC [reffered to from here on as "dummy"], why dont you let people who know stuff about military tech (and dont try to land Tu-160's on carriers or use light tanks for urban combat :roll: ) sort this out, MK?

FC [reffered to from here on as "dummy"], why dont you let people who know stuff about military tech (and dont try to land Tu-160's on carriers or use light tanks for urban combat :roll: ) sort this out, MK?

Tu-160 on carriers? :shock:

Why not a Mriya while he's at it! :shock:

I dont use light tanks for urban combat

I NEVER SAID THAT

I use them as cannon fodder, and for reserves....

FC [reffered to from here on as "dummy"], why dont you let people who know stuff about military tech (and dont try to land Tu-160's on carriers or use light tanks for urban combat :roll: ) sort this out, MK?

Tu-160 on carriers? :shock:

Why not a Mriya while he's at it! :shock:
Well, its his carrier which is gonna have its deck smashed, what do I care?

I dont use light tanks for urban combat

I NEVER SAID THAT

I use them as cannon fodder, and for reserves....Yes you did, somewhere in the UE competition thread.


you may have edited it out now, and light tanks are better used for recon than for cannon fodder :roll:


Dummy

What, is this a nerd only game?

What, is this a nerd only game?
No, but idiocy is generally frowned upon.

What, is this a nerd only game?
Guys!
Stop, or UE will kill us all for spamming his thread while he was gone! :shock:

Well dummy has shown off his intellignence ... Tu-160's from carriers....

Back on topic, here are the guns we should consider (other ones a bit later):
Gsh-30:
http://www.aviation.ru/gun/GSh-30-2.jpg
Round type GSh-6-30
Caliber, mm 30
Rate of fire, rds/min 3000
Muzzle velocity, m/s 870
Weight, kg
cannon 105
round 0.832
projectile 0.39

Gsh-23 (a bit smaller, but Mr. APC meet Mr. Stoneage. 400 more rounds per minute than Gsh-30.)
http://www.aviation.ru/gun/GSh-23-2.jpg
Calibre, mm 23
Rate of fire, shot/min 3400
Initial speed of a shell, m/s 700
Fixed resource, shot 4000
Fire control electric 27V
Mass, kg 50
Overall dimensions
length 1387 (1537)
width 165
height 168

Its theoretically possible
for them 2 take off
and you would need an under deck of concrete, but its possible.

They need wings unfolded to generate lift, bye-bye bridge!

And oh yeah a hugeass catapult.

Launched from the back of the carrier (long runway on carrier), using brakes, afterburnersm folded wings etc, its possible.

YOU NEED UNFOLDED WINGS TO GENERATE LIFT, DUMMY!

Gsh-301
http://www.shipunov.com/shipunov-e/str/cannons/gsh301.htm

Gsh-6-30
http://www.shipunov.com/shipunov-e/str/cannons/gsh6_30.htm

Gsh-6-23
http://www.shipunov.com/shipunov-e/str/cannons/gsh6_23.htm

I will shut up now.

I am in a DEEP hole....

I will shut up now.

I am in a DEEP hole....
Well, at least you admitted you were wrong.

Anyway, IMO we should take the Gsh-30.

3 pages of spam and we're back to where we started :roll:
yeah i agree, many dont seem to understand that this is a low level penetration bomber not a B-2

3 pages of spam and we're back to where we started :roll:
yeah i agree, many dont seem to understand that this is a low level penetration bomber not a B-2
....Just another reason to give it a cannon.

Well, its about 90% ready, I guess.

yeah, I'll post some more stuff about it tomorrow, bascially bringing everything together.

Ferussia still owes me some stufff I think.

So which cannon do we give it?

Gsh-30

Good choice!



BTW, I posted its mission plan on page 2 or 3.... its a low level carpet bomber [almost] (24 bombs).

In-flight refueling:

Will have both probe-and-drogue as well as boom refueling capabilities. The boom will be like that of the SR-71, but with an automatic cover to reduce chances of radar reception and increase the streamlined shape.

SR-71 boom port:

http://www.sprucegoose.org/images/Refuling%20Port.jpg

The probe-and-drogue facilitations will look like this, except recess within the plane itself, again with an automatic cover.

http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Foxhound/Images/2047.jpg


Fuel and Range:

The plane will carry two fuel tanks, one in each wing. Both tanks will be connected, with a small integrated computer system controlling flow between the tanks if neccessary. The system will be accessable from the cockpit, so the pilot can take over manually. A backup physical control will be situated in the cockpit as well, in case of computer malfunction.

The program and connections will ensure that in the event that one engine is disabled, fuel is given to the other engine, or if a fuel leak is detected, fuel can either be pumped into or out of the leaking tank, depending on whether both engines are needed.

A small backup tank situated in the middle of the plane provides some fuel reserves, so that the actual range of the plane is slightly farther than what the fuel systems and official range state. This is also connected to the automatic fuel distribution system.

Finally, up to two of the weapons bays can carry fuel pods. These, too, are wired into the distribution system.

All aspects of the distribution can be sealed off within .025 seconds, and will be if neccessary.

The estimated combat range of the plane (average load) is 1,100 nm, or 1,265 mi. Ferry range is 2,500nm (2,876.9 mi). At maximum capacity, the combat range is reduced to 950 nm (1,093 mi). With minimal load and the fuel pods, ferry range is increased to over 3,200 nm (3,682 mi). In actuality, all of these ranges are about 40 nm further than stated, thanks to the backup systems, but this is generally only used in emergencies.


Ejector seats:

When neccessary to eject, an automatic system can be activated by either the pilot or weapons officer (I'm assuming a crew of two?). The Automatic Personnel Ejection System (APES) blows the canopy screws with very small shaped charges, and then detonates additonal charges that blow the canopy off the fuselage. A final charge deploys a small parachute in a small integrated structure in the back of the canopy. The parachute slows the airspeed of the now free canopy, and the entire process of events takes a matter of milliseconds.

At this point, the system ignites charges beneath the seats which detach it from the cockpit at specific points. A small solid rocket booster ignites beneath each seat, propelling the crew about 2-300 feet above the plane. A supplimental oxygen system is activated (via the helmet) if the air pressure is low enough to pose a health hazard to the crew. A large parachute is stored in the back of the seat, which deploys automatically when either G-forces become too high or the altitude is less than 2-3,000 ft from the last reported ground level. Provisions are also made for pilot-initiated deployment of the parachute. An additional strap-on parachute is in a small and easily accessable compartment, in case of malfunction or other reasons that make it necessary to disembark from the chair.

All of the APES subsystems can be activated manually if necessary. The pilot is free from the plane in a calculated .225 seconds from activating the APES system.

OOC:
Bravo, though Ill use Russian Ejection seats on my version.

OOC: Well, they're Ferrussian designed, so in a way, they are! :wink:

Great, well done.

Su-24 - INTEREPTOR - AIR TO AIR COMBAT

Bombers - Small cannons, for the off chance they MIGHT need to strafe.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-24.htm

Similar Airraft - F-111
Tornado
F-15

All aircraft = AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTERS

OOC:

I bow my head into shame for your claims.

Su-24s and F-111s are obviously ground attacks, no question asked.

Sure you are an air force pilot?

Anyways, unless you have something useful to add, please don't post here, and do more research from good sources, not just the incomplete and inaccurate FAS.ORG.

IC:

For the control surfaces, we will add the Omzian "Fast Reaction System", which can give the plane fly-by-wire-type performance, while still using electronics to operate.

For the air brakes, we will enlarge them, behind the refueling probe.

As for the landing gear, they will be reinforced to operate in "not-so-perfect" half-dirt strips.

OOC:
www.globalsecurity.org is a bit better, but basically same thing.

( OOC:
Bravo, though I'll use ACES III Ejection seats on my version. :lol: )


From the size of this plane, I don't think 24 Mk-82 bombs or similar would ever fit on it, we need some clarification here then, on size and weight that we are going to be looking at, im looking at 4 AAMs max plus 3 bomb bays with a total of 5 bombs, 2 of the AAMs could be replaced with bombs. For something that can hold that much ordnance I think we are talking about a differnt size/type of plane.

Phoenix can you give me the totalnumber of JDAMs this thing can carry with a small air to air capabilityas well.

OOC:
Well it should be able to carry 24 Mk-82 bombs or similar...

JDAM amount should be decided by weight of the JDAM.

..nm wait one second

OOC:
http://www.invisible-defenders.org/programs/a12/missionprofile.htm

Scroll down a bit.

I see... I was working off of this image ->
http://www.collectaire.com/modelpages/a12a/a12a7.jpg
My proposals actualy Increased the bomb load significantly and added 2 extra air-to-air missiles, or so I thought.

OOC:
That pic can be the prototype.

So to sumarise the Crookfur part:
Cockpit:
Multiple Multifunction displays in both pilot and Wo stations (5?) possibley some touch screen?
Wide angled HUDs, with CCIP indicator and threat indicators.
Helemt mounted systems offering HUD abilities, weapons targeting and cue and imposition of imagry from senors and targeting systems.
Ferrusian ejoctor seats as standard, optinal replacement with indiginous equipment.
Controls: HOTVS (sorry forgot the exact acronim) with adjustable postioning of main flight stick.

Weapons systems:
Sensors: Synthetic Apeature ground radar, Modern IRST system, High spec FLIR/EO/laser tracking/ targeting pod (Sniper XR standard or better), Air search and targeting radar.

Delivery systems:
AtA: 2 BVR and 2 Dogfight missiles, standard installation covering US systems and MICA/ASRAAM, optional modules for soviet/indiginous systems.
Bombs: Full compatability with laser, IR, GPS/INS and Eo targeting, radar targeting in concert with Stand off radar imaging platforms (not bollocks, there is talk of using J-Stars to giude bombs...) or in biult systems (ie this lot offers full any condition engagement of both stationary and mobile targets.
Missiles: same as bombs and with support for Stand off weapons and microwave targeting for tactical weapons (or we could supply that as part of the weapons mount as in Brimestone).
Gun: targeting using best senor for envrioment

I'm sort of aiming at a fully integrated system where the plan selects the best weapon for the RoE and mission type so that the pilot/Wo chooses the target from the data that is gathered by all systems, a data link to other units is of course included for those who like the infosphere idea and so your FACs can double check your targets (if you use Rather gungho pilots).

How does that sound?

If thats Ok i'll move onto the Defensive side of things.

sounds great.

Yes go ahead with that:

I read something saying VTAS was better than touch screen because on Super Hornet and Rafale it had proved unreliable and tricky to use under combat conditons.

OK well I will rework the underside bays probly 4 small bays and one big
bay which will go across the middle. I have some ideas to solve the door problem too. Also for the record there are two ports on the side of the fuselage in between the intakes and the fuselage itself. The ports would be for 2 AIM-9X Sidewinder, AIM-132 ASRAAM, AA-8 Aphid, or AA-2 Atoll.
This mounting leaves space in the wing body for fuel tanks, though it would probably force a center mounting of the cannon, which isn't all that bad.

im not sure which is right the 24 bombs thing or the model? better make it somewhere between the two, and bearing in mind its for a carrier I think 24 JDAMs is pushing it.

Ok no touch screens then (probably an issue with having to lean forward under G stress), perhaps the screens could be controled using the helmet system (if you can operate windows using your eye...).

Anyway JDams do rnage in size from 500lb to 2000lb so be shure to specify which one, of course for the tactical uses of this perhaps using Paveway 4E as the bench mark might be a better idea.

oh good point JDAMis just a guidance kit, well why not a Mk82 500lb as the bench mark.

Sounds good to me.
JDAM and paveway style giudance addons increase the size a bit more so we might run short on room using those but the weapons load would still be nicely large.

Go with 24 bombs, the more the merrier. The large wingspan should generate enough lift....

24 SMDs (small diameter bombs) it is then!

Std JDAM is a 1000lb bomb, the GBU-LGBs (I dunno how many on NS still use them but my air force uses them on cloudy days) are 2500lb and 5000lbs
so for JDAMs 500lbs, 1000lbs and 2000lb and for LGBs 2500 and 5000lbs


Outermost wing bays will hold 2 AMRAAM or Sidewinder missiles, inner wing bay will hold 2 AMRAAM, HARM, Maverick, Harpoon, Shrike, Rainbow or 4 rockyeye cluster bombs or 2 500-1000lb bombs of multiple types etc or 6 SMD bombs. Main bay will have 9 points they can hold up to 14 500lb bombs or rockeyes (7 points will accomadte double mounts) or 9 5,000lb bombs such as the LGB or a bunker buster bomb. It would carry 22 SMDd in the main bay also (plus 2 in the wing bays = 24 bombs :) :) :) )

this will be plus the 2 IR guided missile ports and the machinegun.

For the bay itself, im thinking of a sliding, collapsing door, split in the middle activated by servo motors powered by battery. It would be completely smooth closed and opened it would not protrude at all. it would be tucked up nicely in the sides of the bay.
What do you think.

Looks great, Phoenix! I can't wait to get these things into action... :twisted:

Sounds perfect only im not keen with having the gun in the centre, how about moving the small missile bays nearer the wingtips?

ah ha!

i've logged on in the middle of an IT lesson at skool

i had to post somwhere and this was the top of the list so.................

just ignore me :lol:

Crookfur are proad to announce that they have completed the system test simulator and full cockpit mockup sim. These are now avaailble for use by test pilots to help work out the kinks in the systems.

The first set of weapons plug in modules should be ready later today following testing using a converted Dragon Pearl as technology test bed (i've got a number of older A model dragon pealrs lieing around so i'll use stripped down versions of them for testing all the electronics etc).

Radar testing will comence using a modified CFU-9 as a mounting (well the eurofighter radar was tested on a BAC-111 and the US a mix of C-130s and NT-39s to test thier systems).

Crookfur, please send a cockpit simluator as soon as it has been perfected.

The Elias Precision Engineering Corporation has completed the first six prototypes of EPE-136M2 turbofans. (18,230lb of thrust each)

They include the following features:

-Integrally bladed rotors: In most stages, disks and blades are made from a single piece of metal for better performance and less air leakage.

-Long chord, shroudless fan blades: Wider, stronger fan blades eliminate the need for the shroud, a ring of metal around most jet engine fans.

-Both the wider blades and shroudless design contribute to engine efficiency.

-Low-aspect, high-stage-load compressor blades: Once again, wider blades offer greater strength and efficiency.

-Alloy high-strength burn-resistant titanium compressor with innovative titanium alloy increases durability, allowing the engine to run hotter and faster for greater thrust and efficiency.

-Alloy C in augmentor and nozzle: The same heat-resistant titanium alloy protects aft components, permitting greater thrust and durability.

-Floatwall combustor: Thermally isolated panels of oxidation-resistant high cobalt material make the combustion chamber more durable, which helps reduce scheduled maintenance.

-No visible smoke: Reduces the possibility of an enemy visually detecting the plane

-Improved Supportability: All components, harnesses, and plumbing are located on the bottom of the engine for easy access, all line replaceable units can be removed with just one of the six standard tools required for engine maintenance.

Testing of the engines will be conducted to ensure relaibility over long periods in all climates. No problems are envisaged as it is a deriviative of an engine which is already in service on the EA-160.

We have also recieved the shell of the 1/4 size model from DT and we will be completing this to a basic standard so it can be used for wind tunnel aerodynamic tests.

How long till it is complete?

Omz: How can you have electric flight controls, its either fly by wire or hydraulic.

Fly by wire will be neccessary as this thing can actually pull more Gs than the F-35, weirdly enough.

Ferrussian engineers recently completed the first two of several test chassises (or is it chasses?), with fully operational blasting systems, a fake canopy, and ejection seats. The first will be dropped from a C-130, weighted so as to keep it level during testing. A rocket has been attached, and the test will measure the effectiveness of the seats/system at speeds approaching Mach 1. The seats will be remotely fired, laden with a crash dummy each and velocity/pressure sensors.

The second chassis has been weighted in the front to simulate ejection during a forced nose dive. The incline will be approximately 75 degrees at the point of ejection, and again both seats will be remotely fired with crash dummies and equiptment.

Additional chassises (entailing only the detonators and seats, with a basic aluminum frame) will be provided to Crookfur for testing full mock-ups of equiptment reliablity, and other uses. In addition, blueprints for the full system are being provided so that when the time comes to attach the system to an actual EA-220 airframe for final testing, it can be done quickly and easily.

Omz: How can you have electric flight controls, its either fly by wire or hydraulic.
OOC: Whatever, sorry, just think of the flight control system of the F-22.

Proabably a fibre optic fly by wire system then (ie fly by light), slightly fater respeonse times and reliability over conventional wired systems.

The first Simulator is currently enroute the the UE facility on board a CFU-10A transport (hey i just like the hulking brute):

http://www.airbustransport.com/landingb.jpg

Crookfur:

Thank you, the simulator will be used to train the first test pilots.

Can you also send a copy of the radar system with a little information about it. Thanks.

The proposed Radar system is the CFES MK4015M

Based on the Mk4005 entered for the FC multi role fighter the 4015M model place more emphasis on a ground surveilance mode, air survielance can still track upto 20 similtainous airborne targets (for zero emissions operation it can use data supplied by other platforms including AEW/AWACS) in air search mode the high definintion scan can give detailed returns on targets over 500km distant.

As with the 4005 the MK4015 is more than just a radar but a complete target indtification and engagemnt magamnet system with automatic threat prioitisation and combat analysis (MICA already does this but i'm expanding it into the air to ground mode).
As an added extra for the stealthy nature of the JTB the MK4015 has a number of low emision ground surveilance modes.
the first mode is completely passive and relys on gathering returns from signals generated by other platforms (kind of like the UAVs they are proposing for the E3 but using GS systems) as well as enemy emissions. the second mode uses a very low powered but highly focused beam to provide a stealthy short rnage surveilance mode giving medium detail.

How does that sound? good, rubbish? i'll add more detail like data links etc.

Anyway the test bed aircraft (1 CFU-9 and 1 Dragon Pearl are being shipped to UE along with the first 5 production units).

I'll buy 20 of these when they're done.

Excellent Corrokfur, whats the range in synthetic aperture mode?

The quick and dirty stats for ranges:

Air search: 370km
Detail scan: 500km
Surface scan (full power) vs. large targets: 500km
Surface scan (full power) vs. small targets: 150km
Surface scan (stealthy) vs. large targets: 150km
Surface scan (stealthy) vs. small targets: 45km

still subject to change if needed.

The quick and dirty stats for ranges:

Air search: 370km
Detail scan: 500km
Surface scan (full power) vs. large targets: 500km
Surface scan (full power) vs. small targets: 150km
Surface scan (stealthy) vs. large targets: 150km
Surface scan (stealthy) vs. small targets: 45km

still subject to change if needed.

great :D

Ok I think the design is more or less comp;ete.

DT: Start assembling the fueselage for a full scale prototype and send it to UE.

All other partners: please make a list of what you have ready and send it over if you have not already done so.

BTW Just a thought.

Prices:

Carrier version: 114,000,000
Land Based version: 102,000,000

If anyone disagrees with this policy please say now. I think it has to be expensive in the begining to cover develpment costs but they can probably go down 10-15% after the first 1000 have been ordered.

i think its a good design and full aplause to the creator

i think its a good design and full aplause to the creator

i think its a good design and full aplause to the creator

Prototype being assembled.


Those are good prices... though since it wont be agile anyways, we may as well install some massive radar to help it be an interceptor as well.

prototype fueselage ready?

Everyone please tel me if there's anything else that needs addressing other than that looks like we're ready to move into Phase 2.

Ready and shipped by An-225 transport plane with escort of 24 SU-37MK's (ah, overkill).

BTW, if it helps,I posted a mission profile somewhere back on oage 2 or 3.

actually it would be darn helpful if each person can summarse evrything theyve done in one post.Obviously just the useful stuff we're using.

First, the at-a-glance stats:

Combat range - avg. load: 1,100 nm (1,265 mi)
Combat range - max. take-off weight: 950 nm (1,093 mi)
Ferry range: 2,500nm (2,876.9 mi)
Ferry range - weapons bay fuel pods: over 3,200 nm (3,682 mi)

In actuality, all of these ranges are about 40 nm further than stated, thanks to the backup systems, but this is generally only used in emergencies.

Ejector seats: Ferrussian APES-1 system



For more in-depth info (you could consider compiling all of this extra info from everyone into one post, then making a link to the more in-depth post on the storefront for the plane):

In-flight refueling:

Will have both probe-and-drogue as well as boom refueling capabilities. The boom will be like that of the SR-71, but with an automatic cover to reduce chances of radar reception and increase the streamlined shape.

SR-71 boom port (http://www.sprucegoose.org/images/Refuling%20Port.jpg)

The probe-and-drogue facilitations will look like this (http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Foxhound/Images/2047.jpg), except recess within the plane itself, again with an automatic cover.

Fuel and Range:

The plane will carry two fuel tanks, one in each wing. Both tanks will be connected, with a small integrated computer system controlling flow between the tanks if neccessary. The system will be accessable from the cockpit, so the pilot can take over manually. A backup physical control will be situated in the cockpit as well, in case of computer malfunction.

The program and connections will ensure that in the event that one engine is disabled, fuel is given to the other engine, or if a fuel leak is detected, fuel can either be pumped into or out of the leaking tank, depending on whether both engines are needed.

A small backup tank situated in the middle of the plane provides some fuel reserves, so that the actual range of the plane is slightly farther than what the fuel systems and official range state. This is also connected to the automatic fuel distribution system.

Finally, up to two of the weapons bays can carry fuel pods. These, too, are wired into the distribution system.

All aspects of the distribution can be sealed off within .025 seconds, and will be if neccessary.


Ejector seats:

When neccessary to eject, an automatic system can be activated by either the pilot or weapons officer (I'm assuming a crew of two?). The Automatic Personnel Ejection System (APES) blows the canopy screws with very small shaped charges, and then detonates additonal charges that blow the canopy off the fuselage. A final charge deploys a small parachute in a small integrated structure in the back of the canopy. The parachute slows the airspeed of the now free canopy, and the entire process of events takes a matter of milliseconds.

At this point, the system ignites charges beneath the seats which detach it from the cockpit at specific points. A small solid rocket booster ignites beneath each seat, propelling the crew about 2-300 feet above the plane. A supplimental oxygen system is activated (via the helmet) if the air pressure is low enough to pose a health hazard to the crew. A large parachute is stored in the back of the seat, which deploys automatically when either G-forces become too high or the altitude is less than 2-3,000 ft from the last reported ground level. Provisions are also made for pilot-initiated deployment of the parachute. An additional strap-on parachute is in a small and easily accessable compartment, in case of malfunction or other reasons that make it necessary to disembark from the chair.

All of the APES subsystems can be activated manually if necessary. The pilot is free from the plane in a calculated .225 seconds from activating the APES system.

The main bay has an 8 panel retracting door with a split in the middle. Electronic servo motors provide quick opening and closing of thew main bay. Should electronics fail for whatever reason a hydraulic system opens the doors at a slightly slower pace. Whether they are open or closed the main bay doors do not protrude from the fuselage.

1 main bomb bay, w/ 9 mounting points 7 of those can accept double mountings (bombs of various types, a variety of ATGM)
2 inner wing bays (AMRAAAMs, bombs, HARM, Maverick, Harpoon, Rainbow etc) [also can take the extra fuel tanks]
2 outer wing bays (AIM-132 ASRAAMs, AIM-120 AMRAAMs, Maverick SHRIKE, etc.)
2 inner IR guided AAM ports (AIM-9X Sidewinder or AIM-132 ASRAAM
1 machinegun (GSh-30,23 or M61)

The wings and fusalage are made of composite materials and covered with Radar Absorbent Materials (RAM). This ensures that the EA-220 is low-observability. The EA-220 is essentially a flying wing, with fuel stored in both wings and the fusulauge.

Upon leaving the carrier, the EA-220 will climb to altitude prior to entering the operational range of enemy radar sites. The aircraft will then descend to a very low terrain mapping altitude while in transit to the primary target.

The EA-220 delta-wing design, without getting into too much aerodynamics here, is what is known as a lightly loaded wing. Such a design offers some unique challenges in handling the flight control system and making it adaptive to the environment that theEA-220 is designed to be in, which is a very low-altitude, high-speed state as it penetrates enemy defenses.


The wing area of the EA-220 is 1309 ft. sq., more than twice as large as the A-6's wing area. Flying wings generally have a large wing area in order to compensate for their lower lift capabilities. The wingspan of the EA-220 is 70 feet, 3.2 inches and it is 37 feet, 3 inches long.

The planform of the EA-220 has a straight trailing edge. Along the trailing edge are pairs of elevons at each wingtip and pairs of spoilers forward of them. A pitch flap is located in the center, above the engine exhaust area. Yaw control is designed to be provided by differential drag at the wingtips.

Due to signature requirements, the EA-220 is designed to carry all of its weaponry internally. Adding to the 4 weapons bays are the 3 landing gear bays, the tailhook bay, the auxiliary power unit bay, the wing folds, the leading edge flaps, the outboard and inboard elevons, the pitch flap, etc.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/329267/EA-220Man.Breakdown.jpg
EA-220 major components
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/329267/ForwardFuselauge.jpg
EA-220 Forward Fuselage
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/329267/Flapsspoilers.jpg
Pitch flap, main flaps and spoilers.

Oh yeah
http://www.invisible-defenders.org/images/a12/highlohigh_colorsmall.jpg

Oh yeah I am making the RAM coatings... I'll mix up a few more batches and send them over. Also a courier (under heavy guard) will deliver the recipe to United Elias only. This is an improved version of the coatings we used on the C-13 and F-27, also it can accept a variety of dyes (to allow the application of visual camofluage patternts w/o comprimising stealth effect)

Cockpit:

Full VHTS controls, with full glass cockpit (5 MFDs plus wide angle hund), helmet mounted sighting and cueing system with display of targeting telementry.

Navigation:

Laser ring gyro Inertial naviagation system, open arcitechture sattelite system (since there are numerous NS GPS systems), radio compas ability, full terrain following autopilt with terrain avoidnace system for low level flight.

Weapons control systems:
Fully integrated threat identifcationa nd prioitisation system, High order langauge mission software, open (expandable) stores managment system.

Sensors:
Radar: multi mode pulse doppler system can handle upto 30 targets with the following ranges:
Air search: 370km
Detail scan: 500km
Surface scan (full power) vs. large targets: 500km
Surface scan (full power) vs. small targets: 150km
Surface scan (stealthy) vs. large targets: 150km
Surface scan (stealthy) vs. small targets: 45km

Microwave targeting of tactical weapons can be added by the addition of an installable module alongside the main radar, or by the use of weapon specific systems (ie the Brimstone launcher system).

Optical:
MK5004 sensor system
Multi mode Electro optical/ IR scanning system with ground tracking, targeting and lasing abilities (with up to x50 zoom and the ability to las up to 4 targets at once) and air to air IRTS mode (up to 200 targets at 120km).

Counter measures:
Full automatic radar/ millimetric/ laser illumination detection and threat warning, missile launch warning system, actuve counter measures including 50 round chaff/ flare/ DPS launcher and active IR/ laser missile dazzler system (the laser is for those rahter annoying ImRec missile some bugger came up with, its just one emitter but the beam works well against both IR and EO seaker heads).

All systems are integrated via a battle space MK15E data link with full rnage of data and communication links.

Thanks everybody, the first full size fueslegae has arrived in UE and currently the engines, cockpit and other components are being mated together.

Hmm are we using metric or SAE measurements?.... hehehehehe :twisted:

Hmm are we using metric or SAE measurements?.... hehehehehe :twisted:

imperial or metric is fine.

bump, I'll post some more tommorrow.

In a conclusion, here are a summary of the landing gear and control systems:

--The control surfaces will use the fly-by-wire system (yes, it got back). Tests has showed that fly-by-wire guarentees a faster response time, and greater agility.

--The air brakes will be parachute lus the air brake on the F-15. For the carrier version, the air brake will be a larger and more effective version of the F-15's.

--The landing gear will be tyhe HEA-20P Landing Gear, can work on both land.

---For the carrier version, arrestor hooks, and reinforced landing gears will be added.

OKay Im going away for a week but when I get back I'll do the thread for sales., unless there is anything else to be done?

How many of these do people want as a matter of interest:

United Elias
We'll have more as Su-24s come up for retirement and we buy more carriers.
Navy: 32 EA-220B Carrier Version
Air Force: 28 EA-220A Land based Version

it doesnt really matter as Im assuming we all production rights, its just intersting to lnow.

Mine demand is 288 carrier vrsion, 72 land version.

The Crookfur requirement will be for:
300 carrier versions (to equip at least 1 squadron to all our carriers both active and reserve and establish a number of reserve and traning naval squadrons)

200 Land versions (will be replacing a number of CFF-5E double dragon, A36L an super vulcan squadrons).

We will require....
oh say 568? Nice rando nunber with a few spares, and enough for my carriers.

between 200-400

We'll require:

2 wings (144x) EA-220 Carrier-based version
3 wings (216x) EA-220 Land-based version

Thanks for letting me help in this great undertaking!

BUMP!!!!

Well???????

We can begin production when necessary.

Hmm what are the final dimenisons/ statisics??

Our Air Force and Navy has already figured out our requirement numbers.

Currently, our report is 144-216 for Navy, and 288 for Air Force.

We also require an additional 36 land version and 36 carrier version for our reserve force.

I''ll be posting within a couple of days.