InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.

Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Welcome to Nsdraftroom. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


Pages: (2) [1] 2  ( Go to first unread post )

 F-54 Air Superiority Fighter, Looking for feed back
Finorskia2
Posted: May 23 2012, 12:23 AM


14% Armaments Designer


Group: Members
Posts: 294
Member No.: 1,326
Joined: 25-April 12



FAM F-54

user posted image

Type: ASF
Length: 22.6m
Wingspan: 15.16m
Height: 6.7m
Propulsion: 2x FE-M76F Low-Bypass Turbofan
Total Net Thrust: 60,000lbf
Empty Weight: 18,500lbs
Maximum Take-Off Weight:45,000lbs
Minimum Fuel Weight (0.25):11,250lbs
Maximum Fuel Weight (0.35):15,750lbs
Normal Payload: 8,000lbs
Maximum Payload: 10,000lbs
Normal Combat Weight: 42,250
Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: 1.42/1
Combat Range: 2,000km
Ferry Range: 5,700km
Operational Ceiling/Altitude: 20,000m
Maximum Altitude: 22,000m
Cruising Speed: Mach 0.9
Supercruising Speed: Mach 1.4
Maximum Speed: Mach 2
Stall Speed: can someone help me hear.
Rate of Climb: 250ms
Limit per/number of pylon(s): 2 internal bays each with 1 four station revolver system each station rated at 1,000lbs. 2 wingtip pylons rated at 500lbs. 2 wing pylons rated at 2,000lbs. 2 wing pylons rated at 1,000lbs
Crew: 1
Price: $160 million
Avionics: Radar:Need help picking a good one

History
In 2040 the Finorskian Department of Defense deemed it necessary to replace its aging fleet of Valdriech aircraft with more advanced aircraft. It was decided early on that the largest threat to Finorskia, was deep penetration stealth aircraft. Because of this DoD requested that FAM design and build an air dominance fighter, capable of engaging and destroying the worlds top stealth aircraft.

FAM's response was the F-54 Air Dominance Fighter. The new aircraft was designed to outmaneuver any enemy aircraft that could threaten Finorskian air space. The new fighter not only would also utilize the A&FE Airborne Passive SONAR Aircraft Detection System, which had been in development for nearly 10 years. The new system would allow the F-54 to fulfill its role as a stealth aircraft annihilator.

Fuselage and Wing design
The F-54 is designed for maneuverability, and incorporates a forward swept wing for increased maneuverability, lift, and a slower stall speed, as well as canards for increased maneuverability, and a canted tail to reduce RCS.

The F-54 is built out of 50% aluminum-lithium (combined with another atom for stain hardening), this was done because it is provides a light, strong, and cheaper alternative to composites. Titanium is also used, mostly for reinforcement of areas such as the wings, engines, sensor pods, canards, and tail. Advanced composites are used on the wings and canards, as well as for armor on the engines, and sensor pods.

The wings are swept forward at a 60° angle from the fuselage. One of the problems that faced FAM when designed the aircraft, was the tendency for the wings to rip away from the aircraft, caused by the twisting effect. To counter this, the wings where made of an advanced composite material designed specifically to stop the twisting effect, while still allowing the wing to move so as to allow the maneuverability advantages that forward swept wings provide. As an insurance measure the wings where strengthened with Grade-5 titanium alloy.

The canards and tail are constructed of the same aluminum-lithium as the body of the aircraft. Both are reinforced with Grade-6 titanium alloy. The canards completely replace all tail surfaces, but this is also due in part to the angle of slope on the tail.

The F-54 has the engine housing place under the fuselage, similar in fashion to the US F-14, and runs the entire length of the fuselage, until it turns into the nose/canopy section. This is done to make room for the revolver missile bay. The Engine housing is framed with aluminum-lithium, than constructed with Grade-5 titanium alloy, and finally covered with composites.

There are two avionics pods arranged on the upper fuselage, above the engines with the canted tails placed on top of them. The two pods contain the IR, as well as an advanced LIDAR system. The pods are constructed in the same fashion as the engine housings, so as to protect the delicate avionics from enemy gunfire, as they are located in the rear of the aircraft.

Engine:
The F-54 is powered by two Finorskian Engineering M76F Low-Bypass Turbofan engine, an upgrade on the M75F engine used on the F-84.

Avionics:
The F-54s RADAR is housed in the nose of the aircraft, as well as in the wings, and rear facing pods. While the IR and LIDAR are housed above the engines in armored pods, on the upper side of the fuselage.

The pilot controls the aircraft with a standard flight stick linked to a fly-by-optics control system running through the entire aircraft.

The cockpit is designed with a similar layout to the Eurofighter Typhoon. It has a Tri-LED screen and the amount of buttons and switches where cut down, where possible, to give the pilot less to think about when flying, and the seat is pivoted at 30 degree angle to reduce stress on the pilot when enduring high G manuvers. The pilots helmet is based of the Welco infantry helmet used by the Finorskian ground systems, in conjunction with the Mk-II combat armor suit. The helmet provides a constant heads up display similar to the helmet used by F-35 pilots, yet looks better. Micro cameras positioned around the entire aircraft provide target position data to the pilot, who can then almost always know where the enemy is in relation to his aircraft to within visual range engagements. The Pilots flight suit is also similar to the Mk-IIs HRTAAM suit, more commonly referred to as the "Hit'Em" suit. The flight suit is dubbed the TAG suit, short for Technologically Assisted G suit. The suit both heavily reduces Gs placed on the pilot, as well as having a built in emergency beacon, and GPS, which are wired to a control interface on the pilots left wrist.

Armament:
Besides any missiles that can be carried the F-54 has a single 30mm Auto cannon with a rate of fire of 1,500RPM, mounted in main body on the right side of the cockpit/nose section.[COLOR=red][COLOR=red][COLOR=red]


--------------------
Finroskia on NS
Top
Danton
Posted: May 23 2012, 04:19 AM


Unregistered









It's unnecessary and jarring to capitalize RADAR and SONAR.

Sonar might be useful against helicopters. Maybe. Against supercruising combat aircraft it's dead weight for obvious reasons.

In aluminum-lithium alloys, there's no third atom that gives it strain-hardening properties. Lithium is the other atom the Wikipedia article is talking about.

Canards and FSW are highly unlikely on a fighter built on 2040.
Top
Finorskia2
Posted: May 23 2012, 04:25 AM


14% Armaments Designer


Group: Members
Posts: 294
Member No.: 1,326
Joined: 25-April 12



Why are FSW and canards unlikely in 2040. Many planes already have canards, the Eurofighter, the Gripen, Rafale M. So please explain that to me why FSW and canards are unlikely in a plane designed in 2040.

Why is the Sonar not effective against super cruising aircraft. Even if the aircraft is moving faster than the sound, that sound is still there and can tell the general direction of the aircraft, and can at least alert you of the presence of a stealth aircraft.


--------------------
Finroskia on NS
Top
Vault X
Posted: May 23 2012, 04:50 AM


Designer


Group: Members
Posts: 6,524
Member No.: 937
Joined: 16-July 10



QUOTE (Danton @ May 23 2012, 03:19 AM)
It's unnecessary and jarring to capitalize RADAR and SONAR.

RADAR is still correctly capitalized in formal writing, so is SONAR. Only laser isn't (although words like "lase" are extremely casual, in the same group as "thingy" or "fluff").

---

Sonar is completely useless for an aircraft. You can't even have one really, and if you could, it would be useless. Sounds dissipates quickly in the air and it's far too slow to be useful.

Eliminate verbal trash like "Stealth Aircraft Annihilator" from your writeup. If it is not a device firing antimatter, it's not an annihilator, and if it's an ASF (ASF, not ADF), that covers all anti-air roles.

Remove "(Optional)". It's there to indicate to you that the spec can be omitted.


--------------------
user posted image
Top
Finorskia2
Posted: May 23 2012, 04:59 AM


14% Armaments Designer


Group: Members
Posts: 294
Member No.: 1,326
Joined: 25-April 12



But could such a system be made useful if PMT.
My whole idea with the SONAR was to come up with a way to pick out stealth aircraft. Is there another system that I could use or my nation could develop in place of the SONAR.


--------------------
Finroskia on NS
Top
Vault X
Posted: May 23 2012, 05:18 AM


Designer


Group: Members
Posts: 6,524
Member No.: 937
Joined: 16-July 10



No, it will be even less useful in PMT, because from merely being vastly inferior to RADAR and FLIR it will become vastly inferior to RADAR, FLIR, EOS and LIDAR.
It's probably inferior to the naked eye anyway though.

PMT is not a license to do things that make no sense.


--------------------
user posted image
Top
Finorskia2
Posted: May 23 2012, 05:21 AM


14% Armaments Designer


Group: Members
Posts: 294
Member No.: 1,326
Joined: 25-April 12



So basically in PMT RADAR and IR will be so much better that they become your detectors for stealth aircraft.


--------------------
Finroskia on NS
Top
Vault X
Posted: May 23 2012, 05:27 AM


Designer


Group: Members
Posts: 6,524
Member No.: 937
Joined: 16-July 10



They already are. A sonar is useless for an aircraft, worse than the naked eye.

In PMT you'll also have useful LIDAR and visual spectrum EO systems ("cameras").


--------------------
user posted image
Top
Finorskia2
Posted: May 23 2012, 05:29 AM


14% Armaments Designer


Group: Members
Posts: 294
Member No.: 1,326
Joined: 25-April 12



So the three pods for Avionics systems are still necessary, but not for SONAR.
Thank you very much. You have been very useful.
Is there anything about the aircraft itself that is off and needs fixing.


--------------------
Finroskia on NS
Top
Danton
Posted: May 23 2012, 06:06 AM


Unregistered









Canards are bad for stealth - they're a large movable reflector in the front of the plane. You don't have a lot of options for mitigating that because they have to be fairly precisely situated due the way they interact with the wings and engine. The trend in sixth-generation concepts (haha) is to reduce separate control surfaces, not add them.

High speed forward swept wings will always have a structural penalty compared to conventional wings no matter whatever magic composite you use.

Maneuverability (a really vague term) becomes counterproductive after a point. There's a hard limit sitting in the cockpit.
Top
Finorskia2
Posted: May 23 2012, 06:18 AM


14% Armaments Designer


Group: Members
Posts: 294
Member No.: 1,326
Joined: 25-April 12



I understand that. However this aircraft is not designed to be stealthy but is instead designed to seek and destroy stealth fighters and bombers.
As for the G-forces, once I get around to that wright up, you will find that the seat is reclined.
I plan to make the F-54 something I sell in my store front if (I ever make it), while my air force will utilize the F-154. A more advanced variant that utilizes pron seating and a coffin system.

I understand the penalty of having forward swept wings. That is why the F-54 is slower than most other 6th generation fighters. However it has a better clime rate, can attack at steeper angels, as stated has more maneuverability, and has better fuel efficiency.


--------------------
Finroskia on NS
Top
Orussia
Posted: May 23 2012, 06:35 AM


0% Armaments Designer


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Member No.: 1,342
Joined: 16-May 12



QUOTE (Finorskia2 @ May 23 2012, 06:18 AM)
I understand that. However this aircraft is not designed to be stealthy but is instead designed to seek and destroy stealth fighters and bombers.
As for the G-forces, once I get around to that wright up, you will find that the seat is reclined.
I plan to make the F-54 something I sell in my store front if (I ever make it), while my air force will utilize the F-154. A more advanced variant that utilizes pron seating and a coffin system.

I understand the penalty of having forward swept wings. That is why the F-54 is slower than most other 6th generation fighters. However it has a better clime rate, can attack at steeper angels, as stated has more maneuverability, and has better fuel efficiency.

1: If its main role is to act as an interceptor, then use it as such. IIRC, the MiG-25's radar, while hilariously obsolete, still blasts enough power down a small enough arc that is hard to beat even with stealth technology.
Translation: You don't have to have a super-maneuverable fighter to be able to intercept stealth aircraft. A powerful radar and agile medium-long range AAMs are suitable.

2: Reclining the seat only works to a certain point. Even still, no matter what, extremely high G-forces not only penalize the pilot, but they also warp the airframe if it isn't built to withstand them. Conversely, if you DO build the airframe to withstand those forces, you get penalized with excessive weight, and lose range and performance.

3: a: You obviously DON'T understand. Climb rate is mainly affected by thrust/weight ratio, with some force being provided by the wings.

b: High alpha-maneuvering is perfectly within the capabilities of normal swept wings. Refer to the Sukhoi Flanker series for citations.

c: Maneuverability is affected by the overall size and weight of the airframe, the size and deflection capabilities of the control surfaces, and most of all, pilot tolerance.

d: This is one argument that I might not be able to break. I don't know all of the efficiency characteristics of an FSW, so I can't particularly comment on this.


--------------------
user posted image
Top
Finorskia2
Posted: May 23 2012, 06:50 AM


14% Armaments Designer


Group: Members
Posts: 294
Member No.: 1,326
Joined: 25-April 12



Climb rate is actually greatly effected by the wings because the wings provide lift. The more lift and the better the TtW ratio than the faster the climb. FSWs provide more lift than conventional and Delta wings because of the movement of airflow. On normal and Delta wings the airflow goes from wingroot to wingtip. On FSWs the airflow goes from wingtip to wingroot which creates more lift. This also means FSW aircraft have a slower stall speed which means they can pull more pre-stall speed maneuvers.
Also the F-54 is not designed for intercept alone, but to also be a ASF. That is why we built a super maneuverable fighter. Third FSW provides better manuverability fue to the fact that they create more lift and because they are geometrically unstable.


--------------------
Finroskia on NS
Top
Orussia
Posted: May 23 2012, 07:00 AM


0% Armaments Designer


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Member No.: 1,342
Joined: 16-May 12



QUOTE (Finorskia2 @ May 23 2012, 06:50 AM)
Climb rate is actually greatly effected by the wings because the wings provide lift. The more lift and the better the TtW ratio than the faster the climb. FSWs provide more lift than conventional and Delta wings because of the movement of airflow. On normal and Delta wings the airflow goes from wingroot to wingtip. On FSWs the airflow goes from wingtip to wingroot which creates more lift. This also means FSW aircraft have a slower stall speed which means they can pull more pre-stall speed maneuvers.
Also the F-54 is not designed for intercept alone, but to also be a ASF. That is why we built a super maneuverable fighter. Third FSW provides better manuverability fue to the fact that they create more lift and because they are geometrically unstable.

In slow climbs, as are common with civilian aircraft, yes, the size and airfoil shape of the wing has much to do with climb rate. However, in aircraft such as the later F-16 and F-15s, high-AoA climbs/vertical climbs are all about t/w ratio. From your description of doctrinal usage, this appears to be a 'scramble' fighter, meaning that more often that not, high-AoA climbs are the norm.

And since I already know the advantages of an FSW, I can skip the middle part, and straight to the end.

Ok, so what we have here are a set of conflicting, although arguable, statements. Interceptors and ASFs are two very different categories of fighters. One can perform the role of the other, but not as well as a type dedicated to that role. Hence why I still ICly keep heavily upgraded MiG-31s around, even though I have Su-35s.

So, preferably, it needs to fill one role or the other.

And just a note: It's not called 'geometric instability'. It's called 'relaxed stability' or 'inherent instability'.


--------------------
user posted image
Top
Finorskia2
Posted: May 23 2012, 11:56 AM


14% Armaments Designer


Group: Members
Posts: 294
Member No.: 1,326
Joined: 25-April 12



Thank you for the term correction.

As for why we use this aircraft. Simple. It is part of my nations air defense doctrine. Maneuverability trumps long range missile ability. The whole point of the fighter is to be able to engage enemy aircraft in a dogfight and win.


--------------------
Finroskia on NS
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | Aeronautical & Space Design | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (2) [1] 2 



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.5295 seconds | Archive