NationStates Jolt Archive

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f352/Maldaathi/KS-108Odin.gif

KS-108 Odin Interceptor (http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f352/Maldaathi/KS-108Odin.gif)

Utitlizing the technologies of the Western and Eastern World the Kruger-Schmidt Manufactured KS-108 "Odin" Interceptor with supercruise capabilites, takes some of the greatest parts of American designed and Russian designed planes to create a top line next generation fighter.

Country of Origin: The Communist State of Maldaathi

Similar Aircraft: - -

Manufacturer: Kruger-Schmidt

Crew: One

Role: Interceptor
Air Superiority

Engine: Dual Kruger & Schmidt D36-F Turbofan with Afterburner Capabilities

Thrust: 39,000 pounds

Max Speed (SuperCruise): Mach 1.84

Top Speed: Mach 2.83

Weight: 41,390 Kg

Wingspan: 46 feet and 5 inches

Height: 15 feet and 6.25 inches

Length: 63 feet and 9 inches

Ceiling: 67,600 Feet

Cruise Range: 1,551nm (2,873km/1,785 miles)

In-Flight Refueling: No

Hard Points: 12

Armament: 2 x 20mm M61 Vulcan x 450 Rounds (each)
Six AIM-120C Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM)
Four AIM-9X Sidewinder Missiles
Two AIM-54 Phoenix Missiles

User Countries: Maldaathi

Price: USD$73 Million

I'd like to point out a few things

Similar Aircraft: F/A-18 Hornet
F-16 Fighting Falcon
F-15 Eagle
Su-27 Flanker
MiG-29 Fulcrum
The F-18 is an ASW/close fleet patrol fighter, and a piss-poor interceptor. (Anyone who disagrees, look at the F-14) It's tiny and carrier launched, you shouldn't base anything off the F-18 unless you're looking for a tiny carrier-launched ASW bird.

Also, the Mig-29 is a short range tactical fighter, while the SU-27, F-15, and F-16s are all long range multirole fighters. I wouldn't mention the Mig-29 or the F-18, since its role is more similar to the F-14, the F-16 and the SU-27, but that's just me.



Oh, and I'd recommend some sort of in-flight refueling system. The B-1's system is one to think about.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week47/OG/html/1300-4/US06966525-20051122.html
Essentially, there's a boom on the tanker that goes into a slot on the aircraft. It's nice because it keeps drag down, and keeps stealth up. Kinda a pain to use though.

The Similar Aircraft never really ment anything and were comparitive to what the model aircraft that was used in the design. I never got around to changing it. The Similar Aircraft would be the F-22 Raptor and MiG-31 Foxhound. Also the inflight refuelling seems incredibley pointless for an Air Superiority Fighter with an already decent range.

Remind me how the -31 and Raptor are similar again.

I second Velkie's question.



You might want in-flight refueling, since "range" normally means "one way ferry range with no ammo, a tail wind, and a 20 kilo pilot." (or do you mean "combat radius"?) When you add in combat maneuvers, a full weapons load, and real life weather conditions, range goes down significantly.

I'd like to point out a few things


The F-18 is an ASW/close fleet patrol fighter, and a piss-poor interceptor. (Anyone who disagrees, look at the F-14) It's tiny and carrier launched, you shouldn't base anything off the F-18 unless you're looking for a tiny carrier-launched ASW bird.

Also, the Mig-29 is a short range tactical fighter, while the SU-27, F-15, and F-16s are all long range multirole fighters. I wouldn't mention the Mig-29 or the F-18, since its role is more similar to the F-14, the F-16 and the SU-27, but that's just me.

Oh, and I'd recommend some sort of in-flight refueling system. The B-1's system is one to think about.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week47/OG/html/1300-4/US06966525-20051122.html
Essentially, there's a boom on the tanker that goes into a slot on the aircraft. It's nice because it keeps drag down, and keeps stealth up. Kinda a pain to use though.

OOC: I agree that the comparisons are off, but the Super Hornet is certainly a good interceptor/air superiority fighter. Its meant to be multi-role, but that doesn't stop it doing a great job in the air. With AESA and a low RCS, its on par with the eurofighter and rafale.

OOC: It's not so much that the MiG-31 and F-22 are similar to each other, it's that both are similar to the Odin, in the fact of parts used, specs, armament and role.

Apart from the Similar Aircraft Issue which was over looked and overall has no bearing on the aircraft itself, how well is it put together, value for money etc.

Also the inflight refuelling seems incredibley pointless for an Air Superiority Fighter with an already decent range.

Yeah, you're right, that's why every Western fighter made since the 80s has provisions to refuel inflight.

It's not so much that the MiG-31 and F-22 are similar to each other, it's that both are similar to the Odin, in the fact of parts used, specs, armament and role.

MiG-31: Whale-like interceptor with an RCS the size of Texas.

F-22: Stealthy highly manueverable air superiority fighter.

OOC: This isn't a Western Fighter.

OOC:
On your weapons:
Guns: carrying 2 rotary barrel guns, in particular american ones is pointless and wasteful. If you want to combine then American and russian stuff then please wake up to the fact that the russians make bloody good guns, a single GSh-6-23 or GSh-6-30 is all you need and would give you more fire power than a single M61 and proabably almsot as much as 2 of them and with bugger all spin up tiem. For straight air to air work the 23mm weapon would be ideal but for multirole stuff i would say go for the 30mm.
Missiles: The AIM-54 Phoenix is unfortunatly out of date and has been retired but there are more up to date russian missile that do a similar job such as the R-37 and the R-77M-PD

Really, you can't have something similar to both MiG-31 and F-22. MiG-31 is an air defense system, an interceptor, and, most of all, the principle of MiG-31 is "blast them from far beyond their range" - powerful radar, very long range missiles. F-22 has principle of "sneak and stab". Well, both are excellent machines for gaining and maintaining air dominance, but they are radically different, like crossbowman and light swordsman, or sniper and hitman.

Question: Why do you mix metric and imperial measurements? That gets really irritating.

OOC: I haven't mixed measurments at all. Thrust is measured in pounds. Where I live weight is measured in kg. Deal with it.

Er, yes you have. You've measured dimensions in feet and inches and weight in kilograms. I understand thrust is in pounds, but why would you measure weight in kilograms and dimensions in feet?

Does it really matter? It is not an uncommon thing, i've seen several sources that do it.

You REALLY want in-flight refueling. There's a reason modern fighters almost always have it. Even modern Russian designs are starting to slowly get in-flight refueling equipment.

OOC: I haven't mixed measurments at all. Thrust is measured in pounds. Where I live weight is measured in kg. Deal with it.

Hey, heads up:
In SI:
-thrust (well, force) is in Newtons. You can use pounds, it's just that newtons are nicer.

-Speed's good, but you might want to specify what altitude you're measuring your Mach from.

-MASS is in KG. If you want to use that evil thing called "weight," then convert to pounds, since KG does not denote weight at all, Newtons are SI for weight.
Those are the facts, deal with 'em.



As for your thrust:weight ratio (this is important to put up, tells how maneuverable you're likely to be), I get a weight for your bird of 91,058 pounds. 36,000lbs thrust/91,058 lbs weight gets a thrust:weight ratio of about .43. This is worse than the Mig-17 (coming in at .63) and the B-52 (at .51).

Now, I'm not sure if you intend the 36,000 to be for each engine, or for both combined. If that's for each individual engine, you still only get .86 combined, barely nosing your way over the Mig-31 at .85.

Some more RL comparisons:
The F-14 gets about .91, The F-22 gets 1.17 (or so they claim), and the SU-27 gets 1.09.

It just looks like a really low T:W to me. Oh, and one more thing, could you make several weights? Like "empty," "loaded" (standard combat load), and "max take-off?"

Also, for ranges, some good fields are "combat radius" (obviously, range on an average combat mission) and "ferry range" (how far can you go one way if you're carrying naught but the pilot and some fuel).

ugh...... too much imperial........... *twitch*



Anyways, Crookfur is right about the guns and the missiles, the Vulcan really is rubbish. A 30mm is what you should use in NS, and you'll only need one mounted on one side. (This isn't a ground attack fighter, so no need for dual tank busters of doom) The added stopping power and range is more than worth it. Either make a custom 20mm or go with a decent RL or custom 30mm. With the Phoenix, just make up some modernized design name and run with it. It's an older missile that you really want updated if you're going to use it in an NS environment.

Heck, that's prolly a good idea with all of your weapons. (there are some here who consider RL weapons to automatically be inferior to any/all NS designs)



EDIT: USSNA is right. We don't have to point out that you're using piss-poor RL weaponry, a painfully low T:W, and completely ignoring aerial refueling.

OOC: I haven't mixed measurments at all. Thrust is measured in pounds. Where I live weight is measured in kg. Deal with it.

Listen JACK. Having an attitude like that will get you nowhere fast in this world. Especially when you only have a piss-poor fighter to back it up with. Where I live, we use the Imperial system. But you know what. I use metric on NS because the rest of the world uses it and I actually think it is much more simple. But thats not to say your can't use Imperial either. But don't dis someone just because they are trying to help YOUR sorry butt out. I believe the saying is: "Don't bite the hand the feeds you." or something like that.

Listen JACK. Having an attitude like that will get you nowhere fast in this world. Especially when you only have a piss-poor fighter to back it up with. Where I live, we use the Imperial system. But you know what. I use metric on NS because the rest of the world uses it and I actually think it is much more simple. But thats not to say your can't use Imperial either. But don't dis someone just because they are trying to help YOUR sorry butt out. I believe the saying is: "Don't bite the hand the feeds you." or something like that.

OOC: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?

Aye, but I respect people who try and help me and I do not get arrogant just because someone tried to correct an error. But alas, I fear that nothing good can come of this particular conversation, so I will leave it at that. I am in no mood to aid you in your design but I will say that it does need improvement. Not a total loss, but nothing to brag about either. I hope you design improve though as I wish everyone to excel in what they try their hand at.

Good day to you sir.