NationStates Jolt Archive

The nations of Crookfur and Unum Veritas are currently working on a research project to develop a brand new, western tech, naval air-superiority fighter. This craft has not been developed yet, and thus is not for sale at this moment, however it might be at some point in the future.

General Specs:
Carrier based
Supercruise ability
Stealthy design
Variable swept-wing design
Duel engine
2 guns for dogfighting
Capable of inflight refueling
Crew of one or two
18 missile hardpoints (for air-to-air ordnance)
ECM pod
radar warning receivers
radar and infrared tracking systems
HUD display
STOVL and VTOL versions

Suggestions and changes are welcome to make this aircraft as dangerous as possible.

http://sc.groups.msn.com/tn/32/92/captainjacksparrow/4/34.jpg
High Chancellor Sparrow
The Imperial Republic of Unum Veritas
Member: NAIA (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1667209#1667209)
Member: Band of Brothers (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2432224#2432224)
Member: NationStates Protectorate Service (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2503299#2503299)
Owner: Unum Veritas Naval Store (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=655745#655745)

I knwo this is for you guys, but here is my one.

It may b eof reference for you, and you may take ideas from it. Just dont steal the pic.

F-42 Air Superiority Fighter

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/f22/f22-natf.jpg

Design

Designed to be an advanced front line fighter, the F-42 is meant to be first in and first out of a battlefield. Air Superiority is something to have in the modern days of war, and means a lot to a battle. If the skies are clear, aerial transports can arrive and bring supplies and fighter-bombers can roam the air without the risk of being shot down.

Gaining air superiority is hard, and often involves having the largest number of aircraft in the area. But it has been proved in the latest years that numbers are not the most important things. Stealth and superior aircraft are often as important as numbers, and a number of half decent aircraft with a good arsenal can rule the skies.

Bearing this in mind, we designed this fighter to be manoeuvrable, fast and sleek. Carrier capability has also been arranged, so the fighter is capable (in the CV version) of taking off and landing on a carrier. This is significant, meaning an airfield does not have to be near for aircraft to be over the combat zone.

Swing-wings have also been involved for added speed, so airflow and wing hindrance are not involved at high speeds. 2D thrust vectoring has been used, meaning added low speed manoeuvrability. We think this combo is ruling in fighter capability.

The swing-wings hinder stealth slightly, but the smooth curves and shape mean it still has the stealth as say, a F-35 JSF. We are proud of the design, and may use it again into he future, like the Russians with the Su-27.

Systems

The systems on this aircraft are top of the range. The computers are liquid cooled as standard, and allow for the simultaneous tracking of 200 aircraft, but is not capable of tracking ground vehicles due to the lack of under nose pod. JTDS from the F/A-41 and A-15 is used, to greater effect, as it almost controls all communication between base, other aircraft and any other frequencies.

The supercomputer also runs Fly-By-Optics, which use several computers to decide what to do. Fuel shifting for equal balance, thrust distribution and weapon safe firing are handled from here, with little work needed from the pilot. Engine economy is also controlled, and Air to Air refuelling has been reorganised for autopilot. The autopilot system (as used on the F/A-41 'Snake (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96418&highlight=)) for carrier landings is used, meaning easy training of pilots.

A supercomputer is used, more powerful than anything loaded into a fighter plane until now (at least more powerful than all RL fighter planes), and allows for complex applications such as Fly by Optics and JTDS. The radar used is a long range (140nm for an F-16), wide sight radar, used for tracking aerial targets. It can relay many targets positions at once to the computer, as many as the computer can handle. This means first sight, first shot.

Weaponry

Of course, first sight doesn’t mean first shot, not without superior weapons. To keep with its stealth design, a bomb bay is used as a pose to the more traditional pylons. The wide main body is almost a flying wing, whereas the wings are swing-wings. This means mounting pylons on them would be complex, and add to the confusion of an already complex plane. So, a large bomb bay was added. Last we saw, it could load a 2,000-pound bomb (though it isn’t supposed to), and AIM-54's aren’t a problem.

There are 5 slots, and 2 AIM-120's can be loaded on each slot, or 1 AIM-54 on each. This means 10 possible AIM-120's. Fairly large for a stealth fighter. Of course, the bay and computers can cater for most weapons. And once more, a Ghs-30-1 cannon is loaded. Note: ALL EASTERN BLOC EQUIVELANTS ARE CATERED FOR.

[b]That’s time again. Stats :(

Propulsion: 2 KZ-101TV engines, total 90,000 lbs possible thrust.
Height: 16 feet
Wingspan: 72 feet unswept, 45 feet swept
Ceiling: Above 53,000 feet
Speed Max Mach Number = 2.67
Cruise Mach Number = 1.25
Carrier Approach Speed = 130 kts
Crew Two: pilot and radar intercept officer
Payload: Up to 16,000 pounds

General Specs:
Carrier based
Supercruise ability
Stealthy design
Variable swept-wing design
Duel engine
2 guns for dogfighting
Capable of inflight refueling
Crew of one or two
18 missile hardpoints (for air-to-air ordnance)
ECM pod
radar warning receivers
radar and infrared tracking systems
HUD display
STOVL and VTOL versions


A few Crookfur comments on what we are aiming for from our end:
In terms of stealthy design we be looking for a eurofighter or late model sukoi stealth application as opposed to an american style total stealth solution which from our poit of view involves a bit too much in the way of trade off (yes we have lots of stealth on our attack fighters but they are intended for airdefense penetration).

As for crew we feel that with modern systems a crew of 1 will be sufficent esspecailly if we go for a fully integrated digital cockpit with a helmet mouted display and sighting system.

A full on EW/defensive siute with ECm, towed plus remote dcoys, multi spectrum warning receivers and IR/EO jamming (a secondary SEAD mission might be nice and feasible with a decent sensor detection system).

For radar we will msot defiantly be requiring an eletronically scanned radar (just so happens i have a nice range of them) and a high perfromance IRST system. Surface search and targeting modes might be nice but not nessicary.

The Crookfur navy is to be honest not really looking for a VTOL platform but is willing to work on these versions.

can we get onvolved?

UE: that would be upto UV but i have no oblections.
btw did you ever get back to me with more details as to requirements for that radar you asked about? if you did i appologiuse. If not then how about a smaller and lighter version of the JTB's system (with a better AA side of course).


general: Just to really mention what Crookfur is looking at in our fighter: We really fancy a stand off long rnage missile platfrom in the F14/tornado ADV mold. We have fired our ACM-11 XRAAMs from navalised Double Dragons (getting a bit old now, still very useful but they were never brilliant for ship board operations and the stealth multirole ability was good but i feel the need for the new).

UE: that would be upto UV but i have no oblections.
btw did you ever get back to me with more details as to requirements for that radar you asked about? if you did i appologiuse. If not then how about a smaller and lighter version of the JTB's system (with a better AA side of course).


general: Just to really mention what Crookfur is looking at in our fighter: We really fancy a stand off long rnage missile platfrom in the F14/tornado ADV mold. We have fired our ACM-11 XRAAMs from navalised Double Dragons (getting a bit old now, still very useful but they were never brilliant for ship board operations and the stealth multirole ability was good but i feel the need for the new).

What about my thing? Not meaning to show off but I think it's almost what you are looking for.

UE, you are definitely more than welcome to join in.

Kazakhstania, it probably is a lot of what we are looking for, we're just trying to make a new one. Its not that yours isn't awesome or anything, we're just trying to develop a new one.

Crookfur, as for the stealth it really isn't very necessary at all seeing as how this aircraft would fulfill a primary role of fleet protection. By the time its involved in a fight, the enemy already knows its there, so stealth isn't a real big thing. We would definitely want an aircraft with the ability to launch long range missiles. Personally I would also like to see an aircraft with extremely good fuel conservation and perhaps some way of allowing it to stay close to the water without wasting too much fuel (and with a system to keep the pilot from crashing into the water; a big problem for low water flight). A crew of one is perfectly fine, too, so long as the cockpit systems are adequate for such. The Veritasean navy has found the value of VTOL fighters mixed with CTOL jets and likes to have a vast array of both.

UE, you are definitely more than welcome to join in.

Kazakhstania, it probably is a lot of what we are looking for, we're just trying to make a new one. Its not that yours isn't awesome or anything, we're just trying to develop a new one.

Crookfur, as for the stealth it really isn't very necessary at all seeing as how this aircraft would fulfill a primary role of fleet protection. By the time its involved in a fight, the enemy already knows its there, so stealth isn't a real big thing. We would definitely want an aircraft with the ability to launch long range missiles. Personally I would also like to see an aircraft with extremely good fuel conservation and perhaps some way of allowing it to stay close to the water without wasting too much fuel (and with a system to keep the pilot from crashing into the water; a big problem for low water flight). A crew of one is perfectly fine, too, so long as the cockpit systems are adequate for such. The Veritasean navy has found the value of VTOL fighters mixed with CTOL jets and likes to have a vast array of both.

Well actually on consideration we might want some VTOL aircraft. Currently we use a mix of upgraded harriers and some of freedom countrie's F32s(nothign to do with the RL F-32) , and were considering replacing them with an off shoot of UE's JSF still program as we basiclaly desire our vtols to be multirole/omnirole to give small carriers and landing support ships all round capability. A vtol dedicated air combat platfrom might however be of use for small escort carriers accompanying major fleet movements where dedicated strike aircraft (ie the JTB) will be present on board the larger carriers.

We are of course not adverse to some secondary strike abilities...

soz double post

Of course, this jet would be even better if it came in several variants (such as a fighter bomber version, too). However we are primarily concerned with its air-to-air capabilities.

Concept design:
http://www.aircraftdesign.com/ngaf.jpg

and were considering replacing them with an off shoot of UE's JSF program



you still owe me a radar for this :wink:

The image looks good ;)



UE: any particular stats or abilities? My MK4009 model might work (a small sized version of the MK4015 from the EA-220 i designed it for small harrier and JSF sized fighters, see your TGS for details).

Hey, UV, can we start the other projects soon too?

I need to know, or I will have to mae my own Fighter Bomber.

Kazakhstania, yeah, we can begin that whenever. You can start it if you'd like.

Okay, Crookfur, where do we go from here?

Kazakhstania, yeah, we can begin that whenever. You can start it if you'd like.

Okay, Crookfur, where do we go from here?

Well following the normal scheme of things for joint projects we would split the project into parts (ie eletronics, engineand airframe) and devide that amoungst us or take each part and just thow that around amoungst ourselves.

what ever systems takes your fancy works as we can all help each other.


Anyway the first place to start i suppose would the engine.

At the moment i'm currently in the middle of a Eurofighter obsession so i would put forward the next gen EJ2xx engine they are working on for the tranche 3 upgrade.
Basically it will weight not much more than the EJ200 (1037kg) and develope over 27000lbs of thrust on reheat with options for 2d or full 3d thrust vectoring.

I'm not entirely sure of how this compares with other units but the EJ2 family are design to be compact light and farily simple to maintain. UE likely has better ideas on engines.

As for electronics i have a nice big box of things to spill...

Can 5CN join this consortium with a small stake?

I suppose I could take the airframe and perhaps weapons. Also, I have a heavy course load this semester, so if it takes me a little while to reply, don't worry.

5CN, I have no real problems with it, so its up to Crookfur.

No real issues here either.

Its cool about uni/college etc i fully understand (chosing a amsters subject that used lots of online research was a problem for me in that i always had a nationstates window open...).

LoL I fully understand that. I'm trying not to do so, but finding it hard :oops: .

Can we donate some funds early on for R&D in return for production rights ?

- If you absolutely need STOVL, I would say copy the JSF's lift-fan design.

- For the navy, I wouldn't think STOVL is necessary, though. Perhaps a marine variant for the amphibous assault vehicles...and smaller carriers...

- Why would you need two machine guns? Just curious. One seems to work well enough nowadays.

- If you have eighteen hardpoints, which is a heck of a lot, then there's no point just having air-to-air purposes. I don't know where you are finding room for 18 hardpoints though...

- All our domestic aircraft use automated thrust vectoring technology to increase maneuverability in tight situations.

- I can find a good pic for this :)

I skipped nearly everything so if some points were stated before, that's why...

Well the Tomcat could carry around somewhere around 15 missiles (according to globalsecurity.org, I believe) and I wanted to expand on that. The two machine guns was following the theory that more is better ( 8) ). I'm not as interested in STOVL as in actual VTOL, and the point was for amphibious assault or for helicopter assault ships.

Well the Tomcat could carry around somewhere around 15 missiles (according to globalsecurity.org, I believe) and I wanted to expand on that. The two machine guns was following the theory that more is better ( 8) ). I'm not as interested in STOVL as in actual VTOL, and the point was for amphibious assault or for helicopter assault ships.

Best bet would probably be a version of the Navy ATF the F-22N. Although no specifications were ever released for it (:() you'd probably have the same weapons load as the F-22 with 8 AAMs and probably from the looks of the picture, 2 external pylons as I doubt anything would be carried on the swing wings. The F-111 carried ordinance on the wings though so it is possible.

The use of 2 cannons really depends on what type of gun you go for and the role.
Tornados carry 2 Mk27 mausers (although EF-2000 will only use one).

Personally i would be looking for a 25mm weapon for simplicity of logistics (25x137mm being my air to air round while 30x173mm GAU-8 is my ground attack choice) and either a raotary or single abrrel would be acceptable.


As to mountings well the numbers can be jumbled with the inclusion of double/triple mounts for smaller missiles.

Eurofighter at max load of pylons can carry 12-13AAMs (2 small and either 10 or 11 medium to larges) for a conventional take off naval fighter a slightly lower load than that might be ideal say 3 stations on each wing. inner 1 being for medium-large AAMs, middle for the same AAMs plus feul tanks and the outer pylon for a single light AAM. 5 under fuselage stations would likely be possible: 4 M-L AAMs/instrument pods (laser targeting pod for secondary strike uses etc) and 1 centre line pod for fuel, missiles, recon pod, really big missiles...

The GAU-8, though, is so large that the plane had to be designed around the gun. I can see where you work out so many missiles; but the plane would have to be huge :)

Is my funding accepted?

Hence why i only use the actual GAU-8 in the few Su-39s i bought off DT.

But i use the same round (commonly known as 30mm GAU-8) on other ground attack platfroms (and using bushmaster styles guns means it is roughly interchangable with 30mm RARDEN and 30mm okeirlon.


The nice thing about eurofighter is that it can carry a lot of ordinace but isn't all that big really (using brimestone launchers allows it to carry 24missiles... or double light AAMs adapters on the wing stations allowing 18 AAMs total).


My vision of the plane is slightly more straight forward:
Air combat:
Centre station: feul tank
fuselage mountings: 4 medium AAMs (AMRAAM, MICA, meteor or ACM9)
Wing: 4 large AAMs (AIM-54 or ACM11) and 2 dog fight missiles (ASRAAM, AIM-9X, IRIS-T, pyhton 5, ACM7)

(the ACM weapons are crookfur home grown missiles ACM7= upgraded ASRAAM, ACM9= upgraded meteor and ACM11= extreme rnage missile).

Thrsut vectoring has soem uses (extreme angle of attack appraoches, stability ahcived by thrust changes as opposed to drag costly control surface usage) but the close in agility is largely negated by high off boresight missiles.


AS to the funding i have no objections, we could perhaps implement a buy in system as used on the JSF (tier one being developers, teri2 being major investors, then teir 3 etc)

What about Russian backfiring IR missiles? I would love to help develop this plane but unfortunately don't meet some requirements :). I like your straightforward design...like the F-15, kind of, but with more capability.

what should i be responsibke for?

I'm not exactly sure UE. As of now I believe I am building the frame, and Crookfur is doing something with either the electronics or the engines. He said you might have some good engines or ideas on engines, though. Weapons systems will also need to be taken and anything else I'm forgetting.

A single engine design is infinately better for a VTOL aircraft.

Im right away to start the F-B.

What about Russian backfiring IR missiles? I would love to help develop this plane but unfortunately don't meet some requirements :). I like your straightforward design...like the F-15, kind of, but with more capability.

The exact manouverability of soviet dogfighting missiles compared to current advanced western designs is debateable, ASRAAM, AIM-9X and IRIS-T (probabaly the best missile at the moment as the germans have access to lots of soviet stuff and cose it over anything else) are all fully capable of perfroming over the shoulder shots and intercepts when used with helm,et mounted sighting systems.
As for the design as i said it my idea is more like the bastard offspring of the F14 and eurofighter.


Anyway as to work allocation I would preffer to stick to my normal role of eletronics including sensors, counter measures, avoinics and weapons handling systems (open architecture as always ;) ).

I've just been kind of throwing ideas around willynilly so please feel free to rain me in.

Nice to see youa re still using my F-32's Crookfur. Those Radar's really are something.

Anyway. Schlem, generally, is one of the best dogfighting tools around. It gives locks in all locations, at mroe than 40 degrees off boresight. Now that is something.

The 30mm is a nasty shell. Especially the GAU-8. Unless the airframe is as solid as a rock, aiming is impossible and the recoil needs a hard frame. As for two cannon, why not just have one good one. Two is pointless, as the dual vibrations ruin any speed you may have and you cannot therefore...well...turn. Which is a problem. Personally, Id prefer a more 27mm Eurofighter or Tornado.

Universal mounts arent really a problem. Most fighters manage it, and hell, soem of the latest fighters can sue anythign in the NATO arsneal. Like the EF-2000, which could be something. Russian equipment, however, is a problem. They use different locking systems, which could prove dificult to attach. The B-52 just manages it, and theya re BIG.

Two engines may be better , as they can provide thrust doubld, are better for 2D Thrust Vectorng and the like. The single engine is riskier, generally provides less thrust and has problems if it fails, meaning you are a glider. But with one, 3D TV is possible.

Really quite a hard choice, really. Thoufh, one engine is easier for Lift Fan, I cant imagine it with two. The F-32 (renamed F-39) is single engined, and uses lift fan. Only double engined VTOL is the Harrier, and its Subsonic. Real problem there.

Eighteen is quit a lot, especially or Variable Wing Geomitry (sp?). VWG or swing wings means you msut have rotatng hardpoints, which is complex and annoying when needing to fire on the move. Id say if you want 18, go for fixed wing. Other than that, Swing Wings bring a whole lot of good thigns to a plane. Kazakhstania's pic looks pretty good, a combo of stealth and swing wings, though I dont really see how they go :?

Anyway, get back to me.

Actually the Harrier is single engined and thrust vectoring actually works fairly well with 3D vectoring.

Well the HMS from typhoon gives over 90 degree off bore sight (limit of tracking for ASRAAM and IRIS-T) possibly more which is rahter useful if you use lock after launch modes. ASRAAM isn't majorly manouverable but it can pull 50g turns and IRIS-T can do a 180 degree in the inital boost phase.

I woudl say go for a single cannon (rotary or revolver it doesn't really matter) with a linkless ammo supply perhaps using 25x163mm Oerlikon (higher velocity than 27mm mauser and projectile only marginally lighter) or 25x137mm GAU-12/bushmaster (much lighter projectile but a nice high velocity and offers increased compatability with RL units).

Okay, that works as well. Veritas Aerospace is currently working on a few different airframes to accomodate the engines, etc. Some stealth features are being built into it, but no extravagant amounts.

5CN, I have no real problems with it, so its up to Crookfur.

No real issues here either.

Its cool about uni/college etc i fully understand (chosing a amsters subject that used lots of online research was a problem for me in that i always had a nationstates window open...).

Then can I fund an at most 20% stake? If yes, I'll throw in my scramjet research...

OOC:
The GAU-8, though, is so large that the plane had to be designed around the gun.

You're forgetting the GAU-8 Avenger's ungodly recoil. The A-10 has to fire in short bursts, it's total thrust isn't enough to hold the recoil for too long without stalling during flight.

IRIS-T can do a 180 degree turn in the initial boost phase.

That would be useful, if you want to kill yourself.

Well, shamefully enough, tag for obvious purposes and watching the masters of aerospace work.

OOC:

You're forgetting the GAU-8 Avenger's ungodly recoil. The A-10 has to fire in short bursts, it's total thrust isn't enough to hold the recoil for too long without stalling during flight.

Hence why they developed a single barrel version, just incase things didn't work out

IRIS-T can do a 180 degree turn in the initial boost phase.

That would be useful, if you want to kill yourself.
[/quote]

If you look at it that way i suppose but the ability of the missile to launch and flip up and over your wing and into the face of the bandit 5-10km behind you is rather nice (and the missile doesn't actually need lock , you can give it a target once it has launched and it's seeker gets into range.