F22-81 "Deadeye"Bomber, an original bomber design

Type:Bomber
Length:25 metre's
Wingspan:16 metres
Height:6 metres
Propulsion:2x low-bypass turbfan = 29,000 kgf per engine
Total Net Thrust:58,000 kgf
Empty Weight:25,000 kg
Maximum Take-Off Weight: 62,500 kg
Minimum Fuel Weight : 15,625 kg
Maximum Fuel Weight :21,875 kg
Limit Per/Number of Pylon(s):10 internal,12 external 6 on each wing.
Normal Payload:10,000 kg
Maximum Payload:30,000 kg
Normal Combat Weight:56,875 kg
Thrust-to-Weight Ratio:1/1 ratio
Combat Range:2,000 Miles
Ferry Range:3,750 Miles
Operational Ceiling/Altitude:70,000 ft
Maximum Altitude:75,000 ft
Supercruising Speed: Mach 1.9
Maximum Speed: Mach 2.8
Crew (List):2(Pilot and a weapons controller)
Price:350 million per plane, with fuel and munitions for 200 hours in the air.

credit to Space Union for the specification outline.

Cruising speed means most efficient speed while supercruising speed means highest speed attainable without using afterburners. At any speed above subsonic (ie. greater than Mach 1) the forces of drag will be substantial and will ruin efficiency, so cruise speed is always less than Mach 1.

I'm not an aerospace engineer, but to me a supercruising speed of mach 2.3 seems way too high.

The ranges also look to be far too high, travelling 11,407 kilometres without stopping for fuel is in the realm of airliners and not fighter aircraft. Likewise, a combat range of 4000km is also asking too much, such a range would require an enourmous amount of fuel to be stored on or in the airframe which means you are going to have no room for weapons.

thanks forza,let me see what i can do about that.

how is it now,im open to both good and bad comments.

Welcome to NSD.

Your statblock seems decent, but you need a writeup.

The price of your aircraft seems too expensive. What exactly makes it so much more expensive then an F22?

Carried weight is colossal, and various odd numbers in the statblock. It's incredibly long for a plane of this type - 25m isn't much shorter than a C-130 heavy transport at ~29m. Planes of this type are typically between 14 and 20m long.

According to your stats, its maximum payload is up to and including a fully-loaded EA-6 Prowler aircraft. If you shift down from kg to lbs and keep the numbers the same, then it's still very high, but more realistic than it is now.
The ratio of wingspan to length is very short - most planes have them roughly equal, or the wingspan greater.
7m tall sounds a bit high, but isn't unworkable.

21 tonnes of fuel max is very very high.
The A-10 Thunderbolt has an empty weight of ~11 tonnes and a max takeoff weight of ~23 tonnes. It has just over 7 tonnes worth of external stores plus as many as 1174 30mm cannon rounds adding up to between 400 and 500kg - so, under maximum takeoff conditions, it can physically carry ~3750kg of fuel. The Russian SU-25, also with an empty weight of ~11 tonnes (slightly under, the A-10 is slightly over) can carry, factoring in max takeoff weight of 20.5 tonnes and 4.4 tonnes of stores, around 5.35 tonnes of fuel.

So I'd say a good maximum possible fuel would be between 30% and 50% of the aircraft's empty weight.

Those are things I weighed up based on stats grabbed from wikipedia, comparing it to other aircraft. There are other things up, but I'm by no means qualified to comment on many of them.

i used spaceunions guide to fighters so im not sure what i did wrong but i can fix it.

You didn't really do anything wrong in the first place, shifting from kilograms to pounds only made things worse unfortunately.

It is possible and feasible to build a 25 metre long, 25 tonne bomber. Since it is a bomber you would be most concerned with payload and range as opposed to agility and speed which are more crucial to fighter aircraft.

The MTOW should be in the range of 2-2.2x the empty weight of the aircraft. As it stands now, the MTOW is rougly 4x the empty weight. Loaded weight should be around 60%-80% of the MTOW. Best advice I can think of: switch the empty weight back to 25,000kg like you had before and go from there. There is no shame in a large aircraft.

And again, you need to shorten the ranges, greatly. Take about 3000 miles off the ferry range and about 500 miles off the combat range.

This hasn't been the case for fast jets since 1950 and wingspan often depends entirely on the type of wing being employed I'm afraid.

You didn't really do anything wrong in the first place, shifting from kilograms to pounds only made things worse unfortunately.

It is possible and feasible to build a 25 metre long, 25 tonne bomber. Since it is a bomber you would be most concerned with payload and range as opposed to agility and speed which are more crucial to fighter aircraft.

The MTOW should be in the range of 2-2.2x the empty weight of the aircraft. As it stands now, the MTOW is rougly 4x the empty weight. Loaded weight should be around 60%-80% of the MTOW. Best advice I can think of: switch the empty weight back to 25,000kg like you had before and go from there. There is no shame in a large aircraft.

And again, you need to shorten the ranges, greatly. Take about 3000 miles off the ferry range and about 500 miles off the combat range.

This hasn't been the case for fast jets since 1950 and wingspan often depends entirely on the type of wing being employed I'm afraid.

It started out as a fighter bomber rather than a bomber, so my leftover critique notes aren't worth much now he's changed the aircraft class. It now means the stats on size and payload are more inline with the aircraft type and role.

I compared the stats of the A-10 and Su-25 for pretty much every aspect of critique I gave.

Which is pointless really. Those two are CAS aircraft, which I hope you know, and are play an entirely different ball game to fighter bombers or dedicated strikers.

Which is pointless really. Those two are CAS aircraft, which I hope you know, and are play an entirely different ball game to fighter bombers or dedicated strikers.

I figured that CAS aircraft were close enough to strike/FB aircraft to be compared.

What even is the difference? Thinking it over, I can't think of a doctrinal difference. CAS aircraft can and have been used as strike aircraft not in direct support of forces many times.

Which is pointless really. Those two are CAS aircraft, which I hope you know, and are play an entirely different ball game to fighter bombers or dedicated strikers.

I figured that CAS aircraft were close enough to strike/FB aircraft to be compared.

What even is the difference? Thinking it over, I can't think of a doctrinal difference. CAS aircraft can and have been used as strike aircraft not in direct support of forces many times.

CAS aircraft are designed to deal with small arms fire from the deck and feature heavy armour more often than not. Bombers and strikers do not have armour and aren't designed or intended to provide the close in close air support, although sometimes they do.

For example, an A-10 is designed to come in low and slow on a gun run and rake the enemy, an F-111 is designed to stay at 10,000 feet and drop a bomb, or ten.