Vault 10
15-05-2008, 03:33
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/F5_von_c130.jpg/300px-F5_von_c130.jpg
BRIEF HIGHLIGHTS:
Technological benefits:
* Variants using jet fuel or liquid hydrogen
* Usable as a multirole fighter or a high-performance supersonic trainer
* High manoeuvrability thanks to lightweight construction
* Not top-grade, but contemporary avionics
* Advanced ejector seat
Economic benefits:
* Unit cost starting at $4 million
* Minimal maintenance requirements - at least 3-5 times lower than for a typical fighter
* Low fuel consumption
INTRODUCTION
Aerospace Logistics aircraft, unlike some other products, have never been known to be expensive. The lack of roads, as well as long distances and bandits, made aviation the most viable mode of transportation, so planes had to be affordable. And, thanks to great scale of production, both personal aircraft and airliners from ALC were always very competitively priced, to say the least, while staying up to date technologically.
This wasn't always so easy with combat aircraft, however. High costs and long development terms, combined with immediate need for more airframes due to the civil war, made regiment commanders opt for older and cheaper inventory. And, as the civil war was losing its intensity, by the law of universal conservation the pressure to lower expenses intensified.
Despite the advances, the company's unwillingness to spend funds on warfare left the commanders with a need to prefer the evolutionary approach. Or, less euphemistically, well proven and matured designs. Or, plainly, as of 2008 the Fighting Falcon wasn't yet quite on its way to replace Tiger II and Crusader as the standard fighters of the Aerospace Logistics fighter fleet.
New fighters were developed, accepted in small numbers, but no new fighter was as good as to be a replacement for multiple older ones. In a warped way, the abundance of pilots due to widespread personal aviation led to a situation where, when it came to the question of what to put on the treadmill, innovation lost to efficiency. Finally, the administration gave up and just kept the Cost-Cutting Section the most funded out of all the Engineering department.
As always, they had to prove themselves with a new fighter, and they wanted it to be different - to actually be built and purchased by regiment commanders. And for that, it had to be cheap; not just reasonably priced as F-35, not affordable as SAAB Gripen, not even merely low-cost as F-16, but seriously cheap. With a capital "C", but preferably without capital "heap" (as not to waste ink).
Most of the earlier ALC upgrades to the Tiger II were in fact intended to make it even cheaper. Which, for F-5, the fighter that used to be eight times cheaper than its 1960s contemporaries, thanks to being based on a decoy drone engine and a trainer's airframe, is no easy task.
But no one can say the engineers weren't trying: nothing that made the original Tiger II so good was gone, it kept up with the times, yet costs still went down due to painstaking fiddling. Their efforts were not in vain, and the F-5 is still produced by the company, projected to remain in service until 2085.
So what is that new model that allows to keep F-5 in service for so long? Let's see.
F-5M - TIGRO EL CHEAPO
F-5M is itself an upgraded (according to the brochure) or downgraded (according to the pilots) - there's no clear consensus on this point - trainer/fighter revision of F-5G. It has no official name, but has been dubbed "Tigro El Cheapo" by the crews, referring to extensive use of foreign components and labor. The letter "M" is rumored to stand for "Miser", or, alternately, for "Moses", comparing the F-5M's introduction on the 40th anniversary of F-5 Freedom Fighter with Moses' achievement of finding the only place in the Middle East where there's no oil.
The El Cheapo airframe is built of approximately 75% fibreglass, 5% Kevlar, 10% aluminium alloy, and 10% other materials. Thanks to this, the airframe is much cheaper to build and significantly (800kg) lighter than that of the original, but only capable of Mach 1.5, rather than Mach 2.1 as F-5G, since the cheap composite materials used don't take heat well.
The original General Electric F404-GE-100 afterburning turbofan, developing 18klbf or 80kN of thrust, was replaced by a lighter and cheaper Aerospace Logistics TF-72, a largely similar engine, but only capable of 72kN. Since afterburners can damage plastic airframes (requiring more metal), produce heat stress increasing maintenance hours, and most importantly consume expensive fuel, the F-5M engine, obviously, has no afterburner, and features a bypass ratio of 0.7 for better fuel economy.
Since it was designed for minimal maintenance, the engine can be easily disconnected, removed from the aircraft and disassembled into four main parts for individual replacement of each. Thanks to aramide composite fan blades, fibreglass-reinforced casing, and lack of afterburner, the engine only weighs 750kg, 250 less than F-5G F-404, and is over a meter shorter. Unfortunately, it's still heavier and larger than the F-85's twin J85 (which fit into 400-kg and 1.2m), proving that as good the Cost-Cutting Division engineers are, they aren't quite as good as Northrop's were in 1960s.
So, is there a single part of F-5M that isn't all about cheapness?
Yes. Since the regiment commanders were willing to pay for decreased detectability, the S-curved intakes retain metal parts, coated with a low-cost radar absorbent material, similar to that on MLSS-21, to cover the engine from radar waves. The engine casing has the same RAM applied to it. Avionics block shielding is similarly faceted and coated. And all that.
Is then F-5M a stealth aircraft?
No. As the radar-transparent fibreglass wings and most of fuselage already offered a great RCS reduction, it was merely decided to use the opportunity. The most detectable parts just were made less detectable using basic technology, and only from frontal hemisphere and from below, with little attention paid to the rear. Not all reflecting parts are protected, only the major ones, and only when it was easy to do. There is no internal bay, and all payload is well visible, especially from the side. Joints and openings aren't finely sealed and matched, surface finish is far from perfect, the overall build quality is purely functional. While lack of afterburner makes the exhaust a bit cooler, it's nowhere near true stealth aircraft such as B-2.
True stealth only begins at low RCS, and the Tigro El Cheapo doesn't have any other necessary stealth features, except for one: emissions reduction.
http://www.webweavers.co.nz/system-80/hardware_stringy.jpg (http://www.webweavers.co.nz/system-80/hardware_stringy_ad_large.jpg)
Fig.1. All avionics used in F-5M have been certified by a panel of experts to be simply amazing.
Due to the appalling 20-km range of the original radar, its merely low (but not extremely low) maintenance requirements, and very high cost of modern AESA alternatives that could offer good range, it was decided not to bother mounting a radar on the El Cheapo at all, thus eliminating emissions from it. Some of the radar-related features are still in place, such as a terrain-following radar for navigation and a sensitive radar warning receiver. But instead of a search and tracking radar, the aircraft's nosecone houses a more compact and cheaper, but effective FLIR system. It provides a target identification range of 10km, but detection range of 30km against a typical modern fighter, which means most times the plane would have to fire blind, unless it receives data from other sources. But this is OK, because in comparison to most modern ASF the F-5M only has advantage in dogfights (thanks to the agility of a light fighter) and missile evasion, and would be either going for close range with a loud "Kiyaeee!" scream or be guided by AWACS and heavier fighters. The first is especially effective when piloted by Asians used with inspiration.
Thanks to its amazing radar capabilities, F-5M achieves a world first - it's the world's first fighter ever to receive data and guidance from its missiles, rather than provide it to them.
The technological wonders don't end here. F-5M also has a system called "Fly-by-Tension-Wire" (FTW), which uses advanced glass fibre tension wires instead of simple copper wires in conventional FBW systems. Whole two pages of the brochure given to the pilots (since the manual is replaced by an online wiki to be written by crews) are dedicated to advantages of this system over the common FBW.
Of course, putting proper military-grade processing systems was out of question, as they take a lot of place, consume power (which means fuel) and are very expensive. Instead, opening the nosecone and the shielding cage gives access to an 8U, 50cm, 400mm deep fully railed rack, for all avionics needs. Industrial-grade hardware is installed into the rack, providing for all processing needs, with the level of redundancy depending on the specific operator's preference. A basic set of true analog flight instruments, fully certified for general aviation, in no way connected to the processing unit, is provided in the cockpit. The digital part of the avionics displays its output on one 24", two 20" CRT color displays, the HUD and the helmet display. The input in flight uses standard stick and throttle system, while for advanced functions is utilizes a QWERTY keyboard, a trackball, and programmable buttons under the screens. Due to previous complaints from pilots without individual planes, touchscreen functionality was not provided. All of this is controlled by CP/M-32, a real-time POSIX-compatible 32-bit operating system, modified on open-source basis.
Introduction of this highly innovative avionics suite provided an increase in the ejection rate to over 30 ejections per 100 pilots, a record among ALC aircraft in peacetime service. However, thanks to the reliability of FTW system, instantly disconnected from avionics with a lever chopping off the wires, the flight controls usually stayed unaffected. Most of the ejections were caused by the failure of communications, errors in data provided on the screens, mostly in night-time flights, or actual combat damage quickly rendering the avionics insane. This rate was suspicious, so, a further investigation was started, first following the F-5L case, where pilots watching video tapes tended to mistakenly grab the wrong stick. In its time, that was solved by increasing the funding for Aerospace Logistics Pimping Corps.
However, as almost all flightsuits were proven to be intact, this mystery stayed, until an investigator's kid, Kevin Brodovski, climbed behind the pilot's seat in one flight. There, he discovered the main reason for near-crashes: instead of boring themselves with such things as flying a jet fighter, thanks to the astonishing performance of the new avionics, the pilots were playing such high-performance and active games as ADOM, Wasteland, and Star Control. So far all attempts to block programs were hacked around, but don't worry: the search for a solution is underway.
http://www.freewebs.com/vault_10/K-36.gif (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=3169)
Fig.2. "...But the important thing is..."
[Ejector seat main design thread - on HTDC] (http://z3.invisionfree.com/HighTech/index.php?showtopic=106)
[Ejector seat sales thread - on II] (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=556077)
But there is one component in this fighter which is actually built properly and, furthermore, works properly.
The Symmetriad Laertes IV ejection seat, as name suggests, was not developed by the Cost-Cutting Section of the ALC Engineering Deparment, and so, thanks to the Symmetriad's inflexible policies, remains an island of quality in the sea of affordability.
Due to high ejection rate, Symmetriad forced upon ALC its new line of low-g ejection seats. Low-g seats are important since even short-term subjection to an accelerations found on most seats - 12g to 14g - make ejection a very dangerous event. Injuries include broken joints, damaged spinal cords, and in some cases worse. The trend towards lower-g seats continues to this day; old seats used to be more traumatic.
Laertes IV is a zero-zero ejection seat, designed for pilot+gear weight of 20 to 150kg (being the only seat to date safe even for children), in addition to the seat's 100-kg ejected weight. Apart from improved ejection capabilities, it offers enhanced ergonomics - 5 degrees of freedom in adjustment, as opposed to 0 or 1 in most seats. Seat adjustment is electronically controlled to help the pilot cope with g-forces and prolonged flight.
[For more information on this system, see the main article (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=3169).]
When it comes to ejection, the acceleration of Laertes IV doesn't exceed 9g (unless deemed inavoidable, e.g. underwater ejection), which is achieved by throttled initial impulse - the propellant load is divided into multiple cartridges, and only a number of them is used, depending on pilot weight and current g-load. Following propulsion is provided by three guided hybrid-fuel rockets, their thrust and direction controlled by the seat's control unit to ensure vertical position, as monitored by the inertial navigation system.
Since the Symmetriad trusted the ALC ED Cost-Cutting Section as much as insurance agents, some additional features were added when the plans of F-5M were presented to them, scaring eight engineers and three analysts speechless for two days. As a result, a roll bar on top of the seat was added to prevent neck injuries should the canopy jettisoning fail (which it did on more than one occasion).
Further, recognizing that F-5M cheap avionics trusted with F-5M extreme manoeuvrability could easily black out the pilot into loss of consciousness, the seat includes a parachute allowing the seat land together with the pilot, and inflatable flotation modules. [Normally, the conscious pilot would still be separated so he can control the landing].
Apart from that, Laertes IV includes an independent flight monitoring system, connecting to both aircraft's avionics and dedicated Symmetriad altimeter, digital INS and GPS receiver. If the system predicts a 80%+ crash or otherwise destruction that can't be avoided by the avionics or the pilot, the seat ejects automatically with 1 second warning (when time is available) unless manually overridden. This means that even if the pilot is incapable of pulling the handle, the seat will save him if crash is expected.
Fitting these seats is worth $300,000, but both pilot's training and his life are considerably more valuable. Only in a year after Tigro El Cheapo was introduced, dozens of lives are considered to have been saved by the seat's specific capabilities.
And most importantly, if not for the Laertes IV seat, the Tigro's cheapness wouldn't outweigh its lack of reliability. With this seat, however, the plane doesn't endanger the pilot's life, while offering high performance for unprecedented low cost.
KEY SPECIFICATIONS
* Crew: 1 or 2
* Length:
** Single seat, jet fuelled: 11.2 m
** Twin seat, jet fuelled: 12.5 m
** Single seat, hydrogen fuelled: 15.0 m
** Twin seat, hydrogen fuelled: 16.0 m
* Wingspan: 8.0 m
* Height: 3.4 m
* Empty weight:
** Single seat, jet fuelled: 3,850 kg
** Twin seat, jet fuelled: 4,100 kg
** Single seat, hydrogen fuelled: 4,200 kg
** Twin seat, hydrogen fuelled: 4,400 kg
* Normal combat weight (in air superiority role):
** Jet fuelled: 7,050kg
** Hydrogen fuelled: 6,400kg
*** Achieved through lighter fuel, at same range.
* Maximum takeoff weight:
** Jet fuelled: 11,500kg
** Hydrogen fuelled: 12,800kg
* Fuel capacity:
** Jet fuel: 3,500 L or 2,700 kg internal, up to 3,000 L external
** Hydrogen: 15,500 L or 1,800 kg, internal only
*** Note: Using 90% hydrogen, 10% methane mixture
* Payload:
** Standard, in air superiority role: 800 kg
** Standard, in strike role: 2,400 kg
** Standard, in light bomber role: 3,200 kg
** Maximum, with jet fuel: 3,950 kg
** Maximum, with hydrogen: 6,000 kg
* Engine: ALC TF-72 low-bypass turbofan
** Thrust on jet fuel: 72.0 kN
** Thrust on hydrogen: 78.0 kN
* Service ceiling: 17,500 m
* Rate of climb:
** Jet fuelled: 190 m/s
** Hydrogen fuelled: 245 m/s
* Thrust to weight ratio, in air superiority role, combat:
** Jet fuelled: 1.02
** Hydrogen fuelled: 1.20
* Cruise speed: Mach 0.9 or 1050 km/h
* Supercruise speed: Mach 1.5 or 1,600 km/h
* Maximum speed: Mach 1.5 or 1,600 km/h
*** Note: The engine has no afterburner, so supercruises all the way.
* Ferry range:
** Jet fuelled: 6,500 km
** Hydrogen fuelled: 7,500 km
* Maximum combat range:
** Jet fuelled: 4,500 km
** Hydrogen fuelled: 5,500 km
* Combat radius, max payload:
** Jet fuelled: 600 km
** Hydrogen fuelled: 1,100 km
* Combat radius, strike:
** Jet fuelled: 1,000 km
** Hydrogen fuelled: 1,900 km
* Combat radius, interdiction:
** Jet fuelled: 2,100 km
** Hydrogen fuelled: 2,600 km
[B] - * - * - and now for something completely different - * - * -
The accountant-exciting section
Now, if you're an accountant, none of the above probably was of significance to you. What matters to you is another thing: How much will it cost? And the answer is simple: This product will make you happy.
Cost breakdown:
* Airframe material: fibreglass, 1600kg, $150/kg - $240,000
* Metal components: Al-Mg alloy, machined, welded, 160kg, $500/kg - $80,000
* Forming and construction: pressing, bolts, glue - $50,000
* Engine: turbofan, 70kN thrust - $700,000
* Control surfaces: 8 surfaces - $200,000
* Other mechanics: landing gear, pumps, valves - $200,000
* Avionics interface: $80,000
* Processors: 8x1U server, $25,000x8 - $200,000
* IRST system: $800,000
* Ejector seat: Laertes IV, minimal version - $300,000
* Other costs: $200,000
* R&D, over 1,000,000 aircraft:
** Airframe development - $20 billion
** Engine development - $30 billion
** Avionics development - $10 billion
** Software development - $100 billion
** Testing - $5 billion
** Post-design development - $15 billion
** Cost overruns - $5 billion
** Promotional distribution - $4 billion
** Writing the manual - $0
** Coming up with a creative name - $0
** Spanish translators - $0
** Idiots writing cost breakdowns - $0 [Hey, what? If I'm not paid for this, I'll... I will... I will account you to death!]
** Grandiose picnics for the development team - $10 billion
Subtotal $200 billion;
Per aircraft $200,000.
* Assembly work: 10 working days, 960 man-hours
** 1 engineer, 80 man-hours - $24,000
** 5 technicians, 400 man-hours - $80,000
** 1 supervisor, 80 man-hours - $12,000
** 1 welder, 80 man-hours - $12,000
** 2 workers, 160 man-hours - $20,000
** 2 assistants, 160 man-hours - $16,000
** Equipment rent, 3 weeks - $30,000
** Building rent, 3 weeks - $6,000
** Management waste, 20% - $40,000
** Overtime, leaves, union matters, 10% - $20,000
** Component and post-assembly testing - $20,000
** Overhead, 10% - $20,000
Subtotal $300,000.
Total $3,500,000.
Options:
* For 2-seater variant:
** Lengthened airframe - $50,000
** Second ejector seat - $300,000
** Second avionics interface - $80,000
** Additional mechanics - $20,000
** Other costs - $20,000
Subtotal $470,000.
* For LH2-fuelled version:
** Lengthened airframe - $50,000
** Cryogenic tank - $200,000
** Cryogenic pumps - $50,000
Subtotal $300,000.
* With Standard L4 ejector seats instead of Basic:
** Single-seater -$200,000
** Two-seater - $300,000
Additional export costs:
* Return on investment: ~10%
* Testing and shipping: $50,000
Total cost for export:
* Single-seater, standard jet fuel - $4,000,000
* Two-seater, standard jet fuel - $4,500,000
* Single-seater, hydrogen fuelled - $4,300,000
* Two-seater, hydrogen fuelled - $4,800,000
* Option, full-feature Laertes IV ejector seats (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=556077):
** Single-seater: +$200,000
** Two-seater: +$300,000
The fighter is offered for sale to all nations (reserving the right for exceptions), through the Hub Limited Exports, or directly through this thread (OOC or IC both fit).
BRIEF HIGHLIGHTS:
Technological benefits:
* Variants using jet fuel or liquid hydrogen
* Usable as a multirole fighter or a high-performance supersonic trainer
* High manoeuvrability thanks to lightweight construction
* Not top-grade, but contemporary avionics
* Advanced ejector seat
Economic benefits:
* Unit cost starting at $4 million
* Minimal maintenance requirements - at least 3-5 times lower than for a typical fighter
* Low fuel consumption
INTRODUCTION
Aerospace Logistics aircraft, unlike some other products, have never been known to be expensive. The lack of roads, as well as long distances and bandits, made aviation the most viable mode of transportation, so planes had to be affordable. And, thanks to great scale of production, both personal aircraft and airliners from ALC were always very competitively priced, to say the least, while staying up to date technologically.
This wasn't always so easy with combat aircraft, however. High costs and long development terms, combined with immediate need for more airframes due to the civil war, made regiment commanders opt for older and cheaper inventory. And, as the civil war was losing its intensity, by the law of universal conservation the pressure to lower expenses intensified.
Despite the advances, the company's unwillingness to spend funds on warfare left the commanders with a need to prefer the evolutionary approach. Or, less euphemistically, well proven and matured designs. Or, plainly, as of 2008 the Fighting Falcon wasn't yet quite on its way to replace Tiger II and Crusader as the standard fighters of the Aerospace Logistics fighter fleet.
New fighters were developed, accepted in small numbers, but no new fighter was as good as to be a replacement for multiple older ones. In a warped way, the abundance of pilots due to widespread personal aviation led to a situation where, when it came to the question of what to put on the treadmill, innovation lost to efficiency. Finally, the administration gave up and just kept the Cost-Cutting Section the most funded out of all the Engineering department.
As always, they had to prove themselves with a new fighter, and they wanted it to be different - to actually be built and purchased by regiment commanders. And for that, it had to be cheap; not just reasonably priced as F-35, not affordable as SAAB Gripen, not even merely low-cost as F-16, but seriously cheap. With a capital "C", but preferably without capital "heap" (as not to waste ink).
Most of the earlier ALC upgrades to the Tiger II were in fact intended to make it even cheaper. Which, for F-5, the fighter that used to be eight times cheaper than its 1960s contemporaries, thanks to being based on a decoy drone engine and a trainer's airframe, is no easy task.
But no one can say the engineers weren't trying: nothing that made the original Tiger II so good was gone, it kept up with the times, yet costs still went down due to painstaking fiddling. Their efforts were not in vain, and the F-5 is still produced by the company, projected to remain in service until 2085.
So what is that new model that allows to keep F-5 in service for so long? Let's see.
F-5M - TIGRO EL CHEAPO
F-5M is itself an upgraded (according to the brochure) or downgraded (according to the pilots) - there's no clear consensus on this point - trainer/fighter revision of F-5G. It has no official name, but has been dubbed "Tigro El Cheapo" by the crews, referring to extensive use of foreign components and labor. The letter "M" is rumored to stand for "Miser", or, alternately, for "Moses", comparing the F-5M's introduction on the 40th anniversary of F-5 Freedom Fighter with Moses' achievement of finding the only place in the Middle East where there's no oil.
The El Cheapo airframe is built of approximately 75% fibreglass, 5% Kevlar, 10% aluminium alloy, and 10% other materials. Thanks to this, the airframe is much cheaper to build and significantly (800kg) lighter than that of the original, but only capable of Mach 1.5, rather than Mach 2.1 as F-5G, since the cheap composite materials used don't take heat well.
The original General Electric F404-GE-100 afterburning turbofan, developing 18klbf or 80kN of thrust, was replaced by a lighter and cheaper Aerospace Logistics TF-72, a largely similar engine, but only capable of 72kN. Since afterburners can damage plastic airframes (requiring more metal), produce heat stress increasing maintenance hours, and most importantly consume expensive fuel, the F-5M engine, obviously, has no afterburner, and features a bypass ratio of 0.7 for better fuel economy.
Since it was designed for minimal maintenance, the engine can be easily disconnected, removed from the aircraft and disassembled into four main parts for individual replacement of each. Thanks to aramide composite fan blades, fibreglass-reinforced casing, and lack of afterburner, the engine only weighs 750kg, 250 less than F-5G F-404, and is over a meter shorter. Unfortunately, it's still heavier and larger than the F-85's twin J85 (which fit into 400-kg and 1.2m), proving that as good the Cost-Cutting Division engineers are, they aren't quite as good as Northrop's were in 1960s.
So, is there a single part of F-5M that isn't all about cheapness?
Yes. Since the regiment commanders were willing to pay for decreased detectability, the S-curved intakes retain metal parts, coated with a low-cost radar absorbent material, similar to that on MLSS-21, to cover the engine from radar waves. The engine casing has the same RAM applied to it. Avionics block shielding is similarly faceted and coated. And all that.
Is then F-5M a stealth aircraft?
No. As the radar-transparent fibreglass wings and most of fuselage already offered a great RCS reduction, it was merely decided to use the opportunity. The most detectable parts just were made less detectable using basic technology, and only from frontal hemisphere and from below, with little attention paid to the rear. Not all reflecting parts are protected, only the major ones, and only when it was easy to do. There is no internal bay, and all payload is well visible, especially from the side. Joints and openings aren't finely sealed and matched, surface finish is far from perfect, the overall build quality is purely functional. While lack of afterburner makes the exhaust a bit cooler, it's nowhere near true stealth aircraft such as B-2.
True stealth only begins at low RCS, and the Tigro El Cheapo doesn't have any other necessary stealth features, except for one: emissions reduction.
http://www.webweavers.co.nz/system-80/hardware_stringy.jpg (http://www.webweavers.co.nz/system-80/hardware_stringy_ad_large.jpg)
Fig.1. All avionics used in F-5M have been certified by a panel of experts to be simply amazing.
Due to the appalling 20-km range of the original radar, its merely low (but not extremely low) maintenance requirements, and very high cost of modern AESA alternatives that could offer good range, it was decided not to bother mounting a radar on the El Cheapo at all, thus eliminating emissions from it. Some of the radar-related features are still in place, such as a terrain-following radar for navigation and a sensitive radar warning receiver. But instead of a search and tracking radar, the aircraft's nosecone houses a more compact and cheaper, but effective FLIR system. It provides a target identification range of 10km, but detection range of 30km against a typical modern fighter, which means most times the plane would have to fire blind, unless it receives data from other sources. But this is OK, because in comparison to most modern ASF the F-5M only has advantage in dogfights (thanks to the agility of a light fighter) and missile evasion, and would be either going for close range with a loud "Kiyaeee!" scream or be guided by AWACS and heavier fighters. The first is especially effective when piloted by Asians used with inspiration.
Thanks to its amazing radar capabilities, F-5M achieves a world first - it's the world's first fighter ever to receive data and guidance from its missiles, rather than provide it to them.
The technological wonders don't end here. F-5M also has a system called "Fly-by-Tension-Wire" (FTW), which uses advanced glass fibre tension wires instead of simple copper wires in conventional FBW systems. Whole two pages of the brochure given to the pilots (since the manual is replaced by an online wiki to be written by crews) are dedicated to advantages of this system over the common FBW.
Of course, putting proper military-grade processing systems was out of question, as they take a lot of place, consume power (which means fuel) and are very expensive. Instead, opening the nosecone and the shielding cage gives access to an 8U, 50cm, 400mm deep fully railed rack, for all avionics needs. Industrial-grade hardware is installed into the rack, providing for all processing needs, with the level of redundancy depending on the specific operator's preference. A basic set of true analog flight instruments, fully certified for general aviation, in no way connected to the processing unit, is provided in the cockpit. The digital part of the avionics displays its output on one 24", two 20" CRT color displays, the HUD and the helmet display. The input in flight uses standard stick and throttle system, while for advanced functions is utilizes a QWERTY keyboard, a trackball, and programmable buttons under the screens. Due to previous complaints from pilots without individual planes, touchscreen functionality was not provided. All of this is controlled by CP/M-32, a real-time POSIX-compatible 32-bit operating system, modified on open-source basis.
Introduction of this highly innovative avionics suite provided an increase in the ejection rate to over 30 ejections per 100 pilots, a record among ALC aircraft in peacetime service. However, thanks to the reliability of FTW system, instantly disconnected from avionics with a lever chopping off the wires, the flight controls usually stayed unaffected. Most of the ejections were caused by the failure of communications, errors in data provided on the screens, mostly in night-time flights, or actual combat damage quickly rendering the avionics insane. This rate was suspicious, so, a further investigation was started, first following the F-5L case, where pilots watching video tapes tended to mistakenly grab the wrong stick. In its time, that was solved by increasing the funding for Aerospace Logistics Pimping Corps.
However, as almost all flightsuits were proven to be intact, this mystery stayed, until an investigator's kid, Kevin Brodovski, climbed behind the pilot's seat in one flight. There, he discovered the main reason for near-crashes: instead of boring themselves with such things as flying a jet fighter, thanks to the astonishing performance of the new avionics, the pilots were playing such high-performance and active games as ADOM, Wasteland, and Star Control. So far all attempts to block programs were hacked around, but don't worry: the search for a solution is underway.
http://www.freewebs.com/vault_10/K-36.gif (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=3169)
Fig.2. "...But the important thing is..."
[Ejector seat main design thread - on HTDC] (http://z3.invisionfree.com/HighTech/index.php?showtopic=106)
[Ejector seat sales thread - on II] (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=556077)
But there is one component in this fighter which is actually built properly and, furthermore, works properly.
The Symmetriad Laertes IV ejection seat, as name suggests, was not developed by the Cost-Cutting Section of the ALC Engineering Deparment, and so, thanks to the Symmetriad's inflexible policies, remains an island of quality in the sea of affordability.
Due to high ejection rate, Symmetriad forced upon ALC its new line of low-g ejection seats. Low-g seats are important since even short-term subjection to an accelerations found on most seats - 12g to 14g - make ejection a very dangerous event. Injuries include broken joints, damaged spinal cords, and in some cases worse. The trend towards lower-g seats continues to this day; old seats used to be more traumatic.
Laertes IV is a zero-zero ejection seat, designed for pilot+gear weight of 20 to 150kg (being the only seat to date safe even for children), in addition to the seat's 100-kg ejected weight. Apart from improved ejection capabilities, it offers enhanced ergonomics - 5 degrees of freedom in adjustment, as opposed to 0 or 1 in most seats. Seat adjustment is electronically controlled to help the pilot cope with g-forces and prolonged flight.
[For more information on this system, see the main article (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=3169).]
When it comes to ejection, the acceleration of Laertes IV doesn't exceed 9g (unless deemed inavoidable, e.g. underwater ejection), which is achieved by throttled initial impulse - the propellant load is divided into multiple cartridges, and only a number of them is used, depending on pilot weight and current g-load. Following propulsion is provided by three guided hybrid-fuel rockets, their thrust and direction controlled by the seat's control unit to ensure vertical position, as monitored by the inertial navigation system.
Since the Symmetriad trusted the ALC ED Cost-Cutting Section as much as insurance agents, some additional features were added when the plans of F-5M were presented to them, scaring eight engineers and three analysts speechless for two days. As a result, a roll bar on top of the seat was added to prevent neck injuries should the canopy jettisoning fail (which it did on more than one occasion).
Further, recognizing that F-5M cheap avionics trusted with F-5M extreme manoeuvrability could easily black out the pilot into loss of consciousness, the seat includes a parachute allowing the seat land together with the pilot, and inflatable flotation modules. [Normally, the conscious pilot would still be separated so he can control the landing].
Apart from that, Laertes IV includes an independent flight monitoring system, connecting to both aircraft's avionics and dedicated Symmetriad altimeter, digital INS and GPS receiver. If the system predicts a 80%+ crash or otherwise destruction that can't be avoided by the avionics or the pilot, the seat ejects automatically with 1 second warning (when time is available) unless manually overridden. This means that even if the pilot is incapable of pulling the handle, the seat will save him if crash is expected.
Fitting these seats is worth $300,000, but both pilot's training and his life are considerably more valuable. Only in a year after Tigro El Cheapo was introduced, dozens of lives are considered to have been saved by the seat's specific capabilities.
And most importantly, if not for the Laertes IV seat, the Tigro's cheapness wouldn't outweigh its lack of reliability. With this seat, however, the plane doesn't endanger the pilot's life, while offering high performance for unprecedented low cost.
KEY SPECIFICATIONS
* Crew: 1 or 2
* Length:
** Single seat, jet fuelled: 11.2 m
** Twin seat, jet fuelled: 12.5 m
** Single seat, hydrogen fuelled: 15.0 m
** Twin seat, hydrogen fuelled: 16.0 m
* Wingspan: 8.0 m
* Height: 3.4 m
* Empty weight:
** Single seat, jet fuelled: 3,850 kg
** Twin seat, jet fuelled: 4,100 kg
** Single seat, hydrogen fuelled: 4,200 kg
** Twin seat, hydrogen fuelled: 4,400 kg
* Normal combat weight (in air superiority role):
** Jet fuelled: 7,050kg
** Hydrogen fuelled: 6,400kg
*** Achieved through lighter fuel, at same range.
* Maximum takeoff weight:
** Jet fuelled: 11,500kg
** Hydrogen fuelled: 12,800kg
* Fuel capacity:
** Jet fuel: 3,500 L or 2,700 kg internal, up to 3,000 L external
** Hydrogen: 15,500 L or 1,800 kg, internal only
*** Note: Using 90% hydrogen, 10% methane mixture
* Payload:
** Standard, in air superiority role: 800 kg
** Standard, in strike role: 2,400 kg
** Standard, in light bomber role: 3,200 kg
** Maximum, with jet fuel: 3,950 kg
** Maximum, with hydrogen: 6,000 kg
* Engine: ALC TF-72 low-bypass turbofan
** Thrust on jet fuel: 72.0 kN
** Thrust on hydrogen: 78.0 kN
* Service ceiling: 17,500 m
* Rate of climb:
** Jet fuelled: 190 m/s
** Hydrogen fuelled: 245 m/s
* Thrust to weight ratio, in air superiority role, combat:
** Jet fuelled: 1.02
** Hydrogen fuelled: 1.20
* Cruise speed: Mach 0.9 or 1050 km/h
* Supercruise speed: Mach 1.5 or 1,600 km/h
* Maximum speed: Mach 1.5 or 1,600 km/h
*** Note: The engine has no afterburner, so supercruises all the way.
* Ferry range:
** Jet fuelled: 6,500 km
** Hydrogen fuelled: 7,500 km
* Maximum combat range:
** Jet fuelled: 4,500 km
** Hydrogen fuelled: 5,500 km
* Combat radius, max payload:
** Jet fuelled: 600 km
** Hydrogen fuelled: 1,100 km
* Combat radius, strike:
** Jet fuelled: 1,000 km
** Hydrogen fuelled: 1,900 km
* Combat radius, interdiction:
** Jet fuelled: 2,100 km
** Hydrogen fuelled: 2,600 km
[B] - * - * - and now for something completely different - * - * -
The accountant-exciting section
Now, if you're an accountant, none of the above probably was of significance to you. What matters to you is another thing: How much will it cost? And the answer is simple: This product will make you happy.
Cost breakdown:
* Airframe material: fibreglass, 1600kg, $150/kg - $240,000
* Metal components: Al-Mg alloy, machined, welded, 160kg, $500/kg - $80,000
* Forming and construction: pressing, bolts, glue - $50,000
* Engine: turbofan, 70kN thrust - $700,000
* Control surfaces: 8 surfaces - $200,000
* Other mechanics: landing gear, pumps, valves - $200,000
* Avionics interface: $80,000
* Processors: 8x1U server, $25,000x8 - $200,000
* IRST system: $800,000
* Ejector seat: Laertes IV, minimal version - $300,000
* Other costs: $200,000
* R&D, over 1,000,000 aircraft:
** Airframe development - $20 billion
** Engine development - $30 billion
** Avionics development - $10 billion
** Software development - $100 billion
** Testing - $5 billion
** Post-design development - $15 billion
** Cost overruns - $5 billion
** Promotional distribution - $4 billion
** Writing the manual - $0
** Coming up with a creative name - $0
** Spanish translators - $0
** Idiots writing cost breakdowns - $0 [Hey, what? If I'm not paid for this, I'll... I will... I will account you to death!]
** Grandiose picnics for the development team - $10 billion
Subtotal $200 billion;
Per aircraft $200,000.
* Assembly work: 10 working days, 960 man-hours
** 1 engineer, 80 man-hours - $24,000
** 5 technicians, 400 man-hours - $80,000
** 1 supervisor, 80 man-hours - $12,000
** 1 welder, 80 man-hours - $12,000
** 2 workers, 160 man-hours - $20,000
** 2 assistants, 160 man-hours - $16,000
** Equipment rent, 3 weeks - $30,000
** Building rent, 3 weeks - $6,000
** Management waste, 20% - $40,000
** Overtime, leaves, union matters, 10% - $20,000
** Component and post-assembly testing - $20,000
** Overhead, 10% - $20,000
Subtotal $300,000.
Total $3,500,000.
Options:
* For 2-seater variant:
** Lengthened airframe - $50,000
** Second ejector seat - $300,000
** Second avionics interface - $80,000
** Additional mechanics - $20,000
** Other costs - $20,000
Subtotal $470,000.
* For LH2-fuelled version:
** Lengthened airframe - $50,000
** Cryogenic tank - $200,000
** Cryogenic pumps - $50,000
Subtotal $300,000.
* With Standard L4 ejector seats instead of Basic:
** Single-seater -$200,000
** Two-seater - $300,000
Additional export costs:
* Return on investment: ~10%
* Testing and shipping: $50,000
Total cost for export:
* Single-seater, standard jet fuel - $4,000,000
* Two-seater, standard jet fuel - $4,500,000
* Single-seater, hydrogen fuelled - $4,300,000
* Two-seater, hydrogen fuelled - $4,800,000
* Option, full-feature Laertes IV ejector seats (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=556077):
** Single-seater: +$200,000
** Two-seater: +$300,000
The fighter is offered for sale to all nations (reserving the right for exceptions), through the Hub Limited Exports, or directly through this thread (OOC or IC both fit).