NationStates Jolt Archive

F/A-5J Komadori

http://kryogenix.cbstaff.com/nationstates/fa5.jpg

The F/A-5J Komadori was created in order to replace the formidable, but expensive Su-54 carrier based planes built by Former Soviet Mafia. Built by Mitsubishi, the F/A-5 is a multi role plane of world class quality. Like the F/A-18 Super Hornet, which the craft was loosely designed after, it can perform all weather, day or night, air or ground missions. It is optimized towards the role of the interceptor and bomber.

The Komadori also features 3D thrust vectoring, which enables it to perform STOL maneuvers, a valuable asset for naval aircraft. It is powered by two powerful Ishikawajima-Harima TFD-16000 turbofans, with a combined yield of 32,000 lbs of thrust. It also has reduced radar signature thanks to advances in stealth technology, though it isn't as stealthy as many other planes.

The F/A-5J features an updated electronics suite and superb avionics. It features a brand new AESA radar which is rated equal or superior to the radar found in the JSF. Its computer system is integrated in the Kanka Naval Combat system, meaning each F/A-5J can serve as a node when gathering battleground intel. The glass cockpit displays a friend or foe map of the area. Its ability to share data quickly and efficiently adds to its value.

Specifications

Powerplant: 2 x Ishikawajima-Harime TFD-16000 = 32,000 lbs combined thrust
Length: 15.8m (52 feet)
Height: 4.7m (15.4 feet)
Wingspan: 11.6m (38 feet)
Empty Weight: 14000kg (30,800 lbs)
Max takeoff: approx 26,000kg (~57,300 lbs)
Combat Radius: 1250km (680nm)
Speed: Mach 2, supercruise Mach 1.5
Armament:

1 x 20mm cannon
2 x AAM-3
2 x ASM-3 (or 4,000 of any other air-to-surface muntions)

Price per unit: $60 Million

Production rates are currently at 3 aircraft per plant per month under normal rates.

Attention: The Ministry of Defense has now cleared this aircraft for export. Note to prospective buyers: the export version (F/A-5E will be somewhat downgraded. RCS and IR signature will be higher, avionics will be those of the JSF's and it will be armed with the American equivalents of the F/A-5E's weapons.

-Ministry of Commerce

OOC:

Edit:Small changes made as per Mr. Scolo's reccommendations.
Edit2: More changes made as per CSJ's reccommendations.
Edit:3 Alright, I changed the stats to allow for extra fuel, raising my fuel fraction to .292 . Thank you CSJ and Scolo for all of your help.

bump, will make this available if enough people show interest

OOC: Despite what you advertise, you followed the "jack of all trades, but master of none" syndrome perfectly. The whole issue was aircraft being designed as both fighters and attack planes. Due to the differing avionics and performance requirements, this dual-role capability compromises effectiveness in both roles. You stated yourself that this was both a highly effective strike aircraft and a highly effective fighter, so purpose-designed fighters will eat it for breakfast, and purpose-designed strike aircraft will be far more feared by ground troops.

As for the F-15 comparison: The F-15C, which is approaching obsolescence already (especially in the NS world), would actually stand a pretty good chance against this aircraft, so far as I can see. It's too cheap to have top-of-the line avionics, so I have a feeling its radar isn't going to best the APG-63 or APG-70. While this has supercruise, the F-15 has serious speed and rate of climb advantages, and shouldn't be too far off in agility. That actually leaves it with an advantage in a dogfight, and comparable at longer ranges. Additionally, the F-15C has a notably larger payload, which will translate to better endurance (drop tanks) and more missiles. In fact, this is pretty lightly armed for a modern aircraft. The F/A-18E/F is a bit slower, and without the supercruise, but should be comparable in agility, and with a better radar for BVR engagements, especially in later models. Though this doesn't stack up that unfavorably, it's definately carrying a lot of room for improvement.

Weights and loadings also seem a bit off. The empty weight is a bit low for the maximum takeoff weight - you'd be suffering some losses in structural integrity to do that (in other words, more susceptible to damage). Even more importantly, if this is going to be used on carriers (couldn't really tell for certain if this role was intended), that's going to wreak havoc on the bringback weight. I also don't think this should have a 0.46 fuel fraction, especially when 0.3-0.35 is the norm for such aircraft. Higher is only needed for those that to long patrols or deep strikes, which this isn't really optimized for. Finally, the payload is, as noted, very light for the aircraft.

It would also be nice to see the break down of the different hard points and/or weapons bays. The number, type, capabilities, and limits of those are as important to payload as the actual load limits.

OOC:^^^^^
OWNED

I'm afraid CSJ is right and I agree with him totaly. It isn't what people will be looking for. It doesn't seem to be very effective against other enemy fighter aircraft.

If you shaped it up a bit, more people would probably take note of it and probably purchase it.

OOC: Thanks for all the help guys. Scolopondera (spelling?) on #nationstates told me it's shape is more suited for being a good interceptor/bomber than a dogfighter, so I'm going to have to change it around. I'll up the price to $60 Million, so it'll have better than JSF avionics. I'll tweak it around a bit, and when Scolo gets back to me with what numbers I should have, I'll update them.

OOC: bump, any more suggestions?

Check my aircraft I just posted. Its a Multi-Role so maybe you can get some ideas from it. Feel free to use it as a base.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9001610#post9001610

Hope this helps :)

bump for more suggestions

For transparency, here's what I came up with using a spreadsheet I created for an aircraft performance class. If anyone's interested, I'll host the spreadsheet for download.

I sent this to JA via telegram.

Righto, here's what I promised. With the givens (from both your thread and extrapolated from an F-5 [http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/app-a3.htm]):

Weight (W, lb): 29750
Wing Area (S, ft^2): 374.1
Wing Span (b, ft): 38
Oswald Efficiency (e): 0.87 (right for AR and CD0)
Parasite Drag (CD0): 0.02
Max Lift Coeff (CLmax): 10
Max Thrust (T, lb): 32000
TSFC (ċ, lb/hr/lb): 0.95
Fuel (Wf, lbs): 4000 (fits range)
Deceleration Factor (fs, s^2/ft): 0.4 (industry standard)

Results are:

Level Stall Speed (Vs, mph): 55.77348108
Min. Power Speed (Vx, mph): 260.2304425
Max. Power Speed (Vy, mph): 342.4825227
Max Range Speed (Vxmax, mph): 342.4825227
Max End. Speed (Vtmax, mph): 260.2304425
Max. Range (Xmax, mi) CL: 730.7031998
Max. Endurance (tmax, hr) CL: 1.739411886
Landing Distance (dL, ft): 1338.284175
Coeff. Lift, Take-Off (CLTO): 6.94
Take-Off Velocity (VTO, fps): 98.1613267
Take-Off Distance (dTO, ft): 139.1015481
Take-Off Time (tTO, s): 2.834141566
Steep. Climb Speed (Vymax, fps): 381.6713156
Steep. Rate of Climb ((R/C)ymax, fpm): 22638.0661
Faster Climb Speed (VFC, fps): 1097.930061
Fast. Rate of Climb ((R/C)FC, fpm): 46776.5193
Tightest-Turn Load Factor (nTT, g's): 1.411894424
Tightest-Turn Speed (VTT, fps): 108.5971335
Tightest-Turn Rate of Turn (χ˙TT, °/s): 16.93293516
Tightest-Turn Radius, (rTT, ft): 367.4588817
Fastest-Turn Load Factor (nFT, g's): 4.868704809
Fastest-Turn Speed (VFT, fps): 381.6713156
Fastest-Turn Rate of Turn (χ˙FT, °/s): 33.28261367
Fastest-Turn Radius, (rFT, ft): 657.0444185
Turning Stall Speed (Vs,t, fps): 87.04769765
Stall Load Factor (ns,t, g's): 1.132390535
Stall Rate of Turn (χ˙s,t, °/s): 11.26115814
Stall Radius, (rs,t, ft): 442.8910091
Maximum Load Factor (nmax, g's): 12.35214326
Ceiling Altitude (hc, ft): 59829.14427
Ceiling Speed (Vc, mph): 914.595921 (Mach 1.5)

All these are calculated without considering afterburners; so your supercruise is perhaps a touch high unless you fudge the numbers in its favor. All these performance values are also for an empty (not dry) aircraft; performance will deteriorate with payload.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

* Increase fuel factor as per CSJ's suggestion.
* Either decrease supercruise velocity or come up with rationalization for better-than-expected results (sleeker aircraft would result in lower zero-lift drag, thus improving performance)

Oh, yeah, second note: All these numbers assume aerodynamic forces only; no thrust-vectoring for the turns and such. And all the turns are for level turns; you can turn tighter, but then you'll lose altitude.

To elaborate on payload:
The F-15C, which is less than 20% heavier, carries three 610 gallon drop tanks (2309 liters, or 1854+ kg / 4088+ lbs fuel), along with 4 Sidewinder (85.5 kg) and 4 Sparrow (225 kg) missiles. That constitutes a total payload in the range of at least 7000 kg.

And for the record, I was saying the fuel fraction seems a bit high, not low. Considering the payload and the empty weight, this would have a fuel fraction of 0.46 (meaning 46% of the total weight in fuel) or more. The only kind of aircraft that has that kind of fuel fraction is a long-range, high-speed bomber intercepter / high-altitude recon aircraft. Specifically, the MiG-25 and MiG-31. The F-15 and F-22 are both around 0.3, and the F/A-18A/B/C/D is 0.23 (which is the reason for its poor range), with the E/F model going back up to the 0.3 range.
This high fuel fraction is due to a less-than-optimal empty weight, and a less-than-optimal payload. Up the empty weight by 2-3000 kg, and do the same for the payload, and you'll have a much more solid aircraft.

This plane already has a fuel fraction of only around 0.13, which is unquestionably low; decreasing that would be just silly, given that a dry fraction of 0.87 is more than enough for decent structural integrity (especially after noting the trend of powerplants and avionics getting lighter as technology improves). Increasing Operational Empty Weight and Maximum Take-Off Weight by arbitrary thousands of kilos isn't going to do anything for that fraction; all it will do is decrease performance. I'd suggest just increasing the OEW a bit (to represent more fuel being loaded on, maybe 4000 lbm more to put the fuel fraction at around 0.3) and leaving the MTOW the same. That should make the payload weight a bit more reasonable, too, because there's no point in jacking that up to match with larger dumptrucks.

OOC: Ok, I upped the empty weight to 14000 kilos which is about 30,000 lbs. And yes, I'd love to have access to the spreadsheet.

I wish to purchase 1,000 F/A-5J Multi-role Carrier based fighter/attack planes for a total sum of $60,000,000,000.00

-Chia Neng Lee

I wish to purchase 1,000 F/A-5J Multi-role Carrier based fighter/attack planes for a total sum of $60,000,000,000.00

-Chia Neng Lee

To: The office of Chia Neng Lee, Roach Busters
From: Akira Yoshioka, Mitsubishi Aerospace

We regret to inform you that the F/A-5J has not yet been cleared for export by the Department of Defense. Thank you for your interest in our hardware, please check back with us in the near future.

Update!

To: The office of Chia Neng Lee, Roach Busters
From: Akira Yoshioka, Mitsubishi Aerospace

We are pleased to announce that the Ministry of Defense has approved the F/A-5E for export. Shipment will begin immeadiately, and will continue for the next 25 years. Thank you for choosing Mitsubishi Aerospace.

bump; now for sale!

Thanks!

*Money wired*

On behalf of the Freudotopian Imperial Navy (FIN), I request one (1) F/A-5J plane, for a total of $60,000,000.00; money will be wired automatically upon confirmation of order.

--Rear Admiral Hiram Neeson, Director of Procurement, FIN.

On behalf of the Freudotopian Imperial Navy (FIN), I request one (1) F/A-5J plane, for a total of $60,000,000.00; money will be wired automatically upon confirmation of order.

--Rear Admiral Hiram Neeson, Director of Procurement, FIN.

We cannot sell F/A-5J model aircraft, due to current restrictions. However, we can still sell F/A-5E export model aircraft to foreign nations if you are still interested.

-A. Yoshioka