NationStates Jolt Archive

F/A25 Hound-

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/Doomingsland/fa25.jpg
F22 and F25 fly in formation

The F/A25 was created as a response for an air force requirement for a replacement for the venerable F/A22 Raptor. This latest design has both the speed and payload that the Raptor lacked. It also has a stealthy design to further increase survivability. It has a highly reduced heat signature, and is also coated with radar absorbant materials. It also had an advanced helmet mounted visual display system to increase survivability in a dog fight, by allowing the pilot to simply look at the target to achieve a lock. However, due to its larger engine and higher payload, it is much larger than the F/A22. The F25 has a similar cockpit layout and fly-by-wire system to the F22, to ensure that retraining a pilot would be fairly easy. A carrier based version, the F/A25A, which includes folding wings, is available for the navy, and is currently replacing the ancient F14 Tomcat. The F22 will remain in service with Air Force Reserve units, but the majority will be deactivated, and stored. All CAD members have production rights (hence "joint CAD fighter")


Specs-
Speed- Mach 3.2 (supercruise mach 1.8)
Armament-1 GAU 12 25mm cannon, two side bays (one missile each, sidewinders), one main bay (eight missiles each, AMRAAM, AXRAAM, Sidewinder, JDAM)
Ceiling- 90,000 feet
Wieght- empty 32,000 lb, maximum take-off 55,000 lb
Engine-2 DDI T901 Pulse-detonation/turbofan hybrid(40,000 pounds of thrust each, 80,000 total)
Vectored thrust- 3D
Air-to-air refueling- Yes
Length- 57 feet
Wingspan-36 feet
Range-1600 nautical miles (combat), 3400 nautical miles(transport)
Countermeasures- Chaff/flare pod, IFF systems
Ejection system- ACES II
Radar- AN/APG-77
Cost per unit-130,000,000$

It isn't for sale as of yet, but if you wish to purchase some surplus F/A22 Raptors at a bargain price, just ask.

Official Public Announcement

The Hellenic Navy has started a mass production of the F/A25A, the carrier based version, of around 1,000 of them. The Hellenic Air Force is interested in this fighter too but has not decided if they will use it yet.

And the skies over Shenyang will fill with the glory of the SAF and it's new aircraft.

Nice plane.

Nice. Ill be sure to incorporate these immediatly.

OOC: you may want to fix the stats to indicate this has 2 engines, currently you only list 1 at 40,000lbs where as the F-22 has 2 at over 30,000lbs each...

OOC:Thanks, will do.

bump

It's bigger and better than the raptor, but it costs less?

Is it tailess? It's hard to see from the photo.

Weight?

OOC:Added wieght and updated cost, no, it isn't tailless.

Freon cooling is possible- if you want the plane to stay on the ground.

When you cool something, you are sapping energy from it. You need energetic air--hot air--to come out of your exhaust or else you have no thrust and thus no propulsion.

OOC:Like I said before, take it up with Soviet Bloc, he uses the same engines and cooling methods on his planes.

OOC:Besides, I'd think the engines would be using the same IR reducing methods used on RL planes since it's using turbofans for supercruise, other than supercruise, reducing IR signature isn't an issue.

OOC:Besides, I'd think the engines would be using the same IR reducing methods used on RL planes since it's using turbofans for supercruise, other than supercruise, reducing IR signature isn't an issue.

The faster you go, the hotter the air. Why do you think the B-2 goes subsonic?

OOC:The F22 goes supersonic without making the IR signature go way up, so can we just end this conversation?

OOC:That'll be the turbofan doing supercruise.

OOC:Yes, with a powerful enough engine you can.

k ignored

OOC:The F22 goes supersonic without making the IR signature go way up, so can we just end this conversation?

OOC: Not enough to be invisible. This plane can go almost twice as fast as the F-22. The skin on the plane will heat up A LOT.

OOC:Technically the IR signature on the F22 isn't invisible either.

k ignored

You've heard of supercruise right?

And someone said earlier that the plane wasn't tail less, but I see in the picture that is clearly is. The picture is of that proposed bomber vairaint of the F-22 right, the FB-22 was it?

yes...
have you read about it or just skimmed through someones storefront?

k ignored

could you go more into depth before I follow this ignore as well?

k ignored
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=377134&highlight=soviet+bloc+aircraft

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=368308&highlight=soviet+bloc+aircraft

Why don't you ignore those, too.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=377134&highlight=soviet+bloc+aircraft

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=368308&highlight=soviet+bloc+aircraft

Why don't you ignore those, too.
I do.

OOC:Oh, well, thanks for clarifying then.

yes...
have you read about it or just skimmed through someones storefront?

Read a bit into it.

OOC:

Doomingsland, I recommend you get that fixed, or I will follow TPM's lead.

OOC:What do you mean get it fixed?

Make it realistic, reduce the supercruise to mach 1.5 and change the engines to turboramjets

OOC:Errr, no? The F22 supercruises at mach 1.9, last time I checked, but I could be wrong.

F/A-22
Maximum speed: Mach 1.9+
Supercruise speed: Mach 1.6

Ahh, got mixed up, I thought it was supercruise 1.9 and afterburn 2.1, but whatever.

there are many innacurate sources.
Sources such as http://www.globalaircraft.org are good for overviews but I always do a search and compare results with other websites when it comes to specifics, usualy .PDFs have details omitted on regular webpages

Hmmm, well, what if I lowered the top speed to 3.2, and supercruise to 1.8, would that be better?

Hmmm, well, what if I lowered the top speed to 3.2, and supercruise to 1.8, would that be better?
that would be fine... Also Pulse-detonation/turbofan hybrid engines would probaly work fine but turboramjets would be more suitable since they have been refined more

I guess I'll edit, then. Although I'm still curious as to JA's feeling on the Soviet Bloc fighters I've got in my arsenal with the same speed specs as this. I'll wait for him before changing.

I guess I'll edit, then. Although I'm still curious as to JA's feeling on the Soviet Bloc fighters I've got in my arsenal with the same speed specs as this. I'll wait for him before changing.

I'm going with my gut and agreeing with TPM on this one.

We might want to take it up with SB first, I'll TG him.

We might want to take it up with SB first, I'll TG him.

You can do that. But I won't. In physics class, we started thermodynamics and from what was on the board, it confirms what Scolopondera said. Less heat = Less energy.

Alright. The pulse detonation/turbofan hybrid I use uses controlled explosions instead of compressors and the like to compress and heat the air. The initial heating is greater than what you would see on a turbojet, regular turbofan, or any other suitable engine. The only thing is its shrouded, you can't see a warm object through a cold case (well, you can but the overall target is harder to lock on to).

Now, the engine thrust, en route to the exhaust manifold and thrust directing system is cooled. Through this phase my engines (and exhaust tunnel) are still shrouded with a combination system which dissipates overall heat into the cold, moving air around it (through the fuselage) as well as using a liquid coolant (freon or other substitute). It is true that the aircraft loses thrust but not to the point of severely downgraded capability. Upon exit of the thrust directing system the overall temperature of the exhaust is moderately cooler, however, upon exit the thrust is mixed with a blast of cool air (running over the fuselage, underneath it, in between the vertical stabilizers, etc.), cooling it and spreading it to the point it is a large but much, much cooler target.


Remember, I've been developing the turbofan/pulse detonation hybrid for some time and I've been able to iron out its faults and strengthen its positives to the point it is a viable competitor to many of the other, more conventional fighter engines. The positives to a T/PD? Greater fuel economy, greater range, more thrust (not incredible more amounts and in only the larger T/PD engines such as the one I use in the F-57C, and a smaller engine (since it doesn't require the heavy and bulky compressor systems; overall it is slightly heavier due to the new components added).


Of course it all depends on how big of the turbofan/pulse det. engine you have and in what airframe. My F-57C is capable of Mach 3 but that has twin PD/T engines, no exhaust coolant system, and the engines are big... Very big...

The F/A-91A (and F/A-41A) have twin PD/T engines (or maybe its one, not sure) slightly smaller than the F-57C, are exhaust cooled, and the engines are somewhat large. They're capable of less thrust (but then they're smaller airframes, less weight) but can still achieve relatively high speeds for level flight (maximum speeds, not recommended).


Hope that answers something? It better, lol, it was long enough.

Well, there ya go, I can't go maximum speed for too long (like I would need to go mach 3.6), and this one's got twin engines.

Alright. The pulse detonation/turbofan hybrid I use uses controlled explosions instead of compressors and the like to compress and heat the air. The initial heating is greater than what you would see on a turbojet, regular turbofan, or any other suitable engine. The only thing is its shrouded, you can't see a warm object through a cold case (well, you can but the overall target is harder to lock on to).

Now, the engine thrust, en route to the exhaust manifold and thrust directing system is cooled. Through this phase my engines (and exhaust tunnel) are still shrouded with a combination system which dissipates overall heat into the cold, moving air around it (through the fuselage) as well as using a liquid coolant (freon or other substitute). It is true that the aircraft loses thrust but not to the point of severely downgraded capability. Upon exit of the thrust directing system the overall temperature of the exhaust is moderately cooler, however, upon exit the thrust is mixed with a blast of cool air (running over the fuselage, underneath it, in between the vertical stabilizers, etc.), cooling it and spreading it to the point it is a large but much, much cooler target.


Remember, I've been developing the turbofan/pulse detonation hybrid for some time and I've been able to iron out its faults and strengthen its positives to the point it is a viable competitor to many of the other, more conventional fighter engines. The positives to a T/PD? Greater fuel economy, greater range, more thrust (not incredible more amounts and in only the larger T/PD engines such as the one I use in the F-57C, and a smaller engine (since it doesn't require the heavy and bulky compressor systems; overall it is slightly heavier due to the new components added).


Of course it all depends on how big of the turbofan/pulse det. engine you have and in what airframe. My F-57C is capable of Mach 3 but that has twin PD/T engines, no exhaust coolant system, and the engines are big... Very big...

The F/A-91A (and F/A-41A) have twin PD/T engines (or maybe its one, not sure) slightly smaller than the F-57C, are exhaust cooled, and the engines are somewhat large. They're capable of less thrust (but then they're smaller airframes, less weight) but can still achieve relatively high speeds for level flight (maximum speeds, not recommended).


Hope that answers something? It better, lol, it was long enough.

Not quite.

How much space does this system take up? I'm sure a jet engine will require a considerable amount of freon, therefore, how much volume will a storage tank, and pipe system take up?

Now, if the troposphere is supposed to be subzero, how are you going to cool the exhaust enough to eliminate the high contrast between atmospheric temperature and exhaust temperature? Even if this system could in fact bring the temperature of the exhaust down to the temperature of the surrounding air, wouldn't that completely eliminate any thrust the engine could produce? You've got a Catch-22 on your hands if you're trying to solve that problem.

Another thing, wouldn't there be an extremely large amount of condensation on the engine casing. I'm not all too sure, but I somehow, I don't see how condensation could be a good thing in a highly sophisticated weapon.

Dammit, I had a nice big post going on but... Ugh...


The system actually only requires a quick pump to pump the heated freon to the coolant/condenser system in the air intakes. The reservoir's location varies but its usually located near the cockpit (to the rear to aid in defense in the event an engine explosion occurs).

It doesn't cool the exhaust to the temp of the surrounding air, it actually spreads the heat outwards creating a larger, weaker target meaning damage potential to the aircraft is reduced significantly.

Condensation is a problem for most aircraft, either way we have measures against it including a fully enclosed and sealed engine compartment as well as condensation collection systems to drain the condensation away and eject it from the aircraft.


In any case, remember, the majority of exhaust cooling occurs outside the aircraft like the F-117 (which uses the larger exhaust area as well as coolant systems), we use a similary system, expanding the exhausts area size as well as cooling it with a liquid coolant system in the thrust vectoring system.

Errr, I'll just change the stats for this plane, and you guys can continue to argue over SB's planes since I'll be using them.

Dammit, I had a nice big post going on but... Ugh...


The system actually only requires a quick pump to pump the heated freon to the coolant/condenser system in the air intakes. The reservoir's location varies but its usually located near the cockpit (to the rear to aid in defense in the event an engine explosion occurs).

It doesn't cool the exhaust to the temp of the surrounding air, it actually spreads the heat outwards creating a larger, weaker target meaning damage potential to the aircraft is reduced significantly.

Condensation is a problem for most aircraft, either way we have measures against it including a fully enclosed and sealed engine compartment as well as condensation collection systems to drain the condensation away and eject it from the aircraft.


In any case, remember, the majority of exhaust cooling occurs outside the aircraft like the F-117 (which uses the larger exhaust area as well as coolant systems), we use a similary system, expanding the exhausts area size as well as cooling it with a liquid coolant system in the thrust vectoring system.

It's still a bit confusing. I still have doubts that this system is plausible, much less cost-effective. It seems that whatever advantages you gain by this freon system are destroyed by the loss in thrust, extra cost, extra weight and extra weight.

Just a side question. How many gallons of freon are used? And isn't freon really bad for the environment?

Well, the environmental track record of my country is less than good (although some how the UN stuff says I have a large fishing and agricultural sector), and we don't particularly care about cost effeciency.

The loss of thrust is negligible at best (since its being cooled after it provides the thrust that is moving the aircraft and not the fuel/air mixture being heated to create the thrust). Its hardly anything to be concerned about and in all reality, the aircraft does not need all of that thrust. Extra cost for Freon (for us anyways) is once again negligible because we seem to enjoy Freon and its abilities as a fire retardant (another positive to the Freon system), refrigerant, etc. etc.

System weight is accounted for and in relation to the aircraft its not much. Same goes for size (although the system aids in the pilots defense as extra 'clutter' to go through for shrapnel).


The amount of freon varies (depending on engine size, aircraft size, etc.) but for the F-57C it carries nearly 110 (the F-57C is a large airframe with plenty of space for the tank). The F/A-91A carries about 60-70 but it has smaller engines to deal with along with a different airframe.


Nah, who says freon's bad for the environment? *quickly covers up some EPA data* Actually it is but it takes alot of it to do damage (and if an aircraft were to explode the freon would freeze and dissipate and hit the ground as a fine, fine mist over dozens of square miles). If it has CFCs in it though, it'll royally screw up the Ozone layer.

The loss of thrust is negligible at best (since its being cooled after it provides the thrust that is moving the aircraft and not the fuel/air mixture being heated to create the thrust). Its hardly anything to be concerned about and in all reality, the aircraft does not need all of that thrust. Extra cost for Freon (for us anyways) is once again negligible because we seem to enjoy Freon and its abilities as a fire retardant (another positive to the Freon system), refrigerant, etc. etc.

System weight is accounted for and in relation to the aircraft its not much. Same goes for size (although the system aids in the pilots defense as extra 'clutter' to go through for shrapnel).


The amount of freon varies (depending on engine size, aircraft size, etc.) but for the F-57C it carries nearly 110 (the F-57C is a large airframe with plenty of space for the tank). The F/A-91A carries about 60-70 but it has smaller engines to deal with along with a different airframe.


Nah, who says freon's bad for the environment? *quickly covers up some EPA data* Actually it is but it takes alot of it to do damage (and if an aircraft were to explode the freon would freeze and dissipate and hit the ground as a fine, fine mist over dozens of square miles). If it has CFCs in it though, it'll royally screw up the Ozone layer.

Do you have a source that cites what freon's cooling rating is?

Now, to make it not affect the thrust, wouldn't you have to cool the air AFTER it has left the aircraft? That's kinda hard to do. If it's cooling the air while it's in the craft, the system is in fact doing more harm than good.

Not necessarily. The thrust (well exhaust) is cooled in the exhaust tunnel (right before it hits the thrust vectoring system). And in all reality, the thrust is primarily created as soon as the detonation fires and blasts the heated air down the exhaust tunnel (where it then exits out the exhaust system/vectored thrust system to control movement/whatever). By then the only kinetic motion from the air needed is for the thrust vectoring system (which really doesn't need that much to pull off maneuvers). Besides, the system's intertwined with the thrust vectoring so whenever hard maneuvers (evasive, etc.) are detected where the angle of vectoring is more than 10-15 degrees in any direction the system automatically and abruptly shuts off to allow for the maneuver without any serious side effect.


And finally, the system can be shut off at the flick of a switch if need be.


As for a source, I've picked it up over the numerous aircraft I've designed but I'll try to find a definite source for you. I know they've considered putting freon fire extinguishing systems aboard ships (and aircraft). Otherwise, check your fridge, that right there is freon-cooled.