Gun Fighter Project

My own reaction to the concept is - why limit the armament so much? A short range infra-red guided air-to-air missile can be equipped with almost no avionics (if the target is acquired by the missile seeker itself) and doesn't weigh much.

More importantly, most third world power don't have the money to pay for fighters and bombers separately. Given the most wars or counterinsurgency operations involve a lot of ground attack, and given the desire to project firepower upon ground targets at speed - I would think that the potential for sales of a design that carriers a few iron bombs would be greater.

Then there is the issue of situational awareness against other jet aircraft... and the ability to use countermeasures effectively.

So, I could definitely see this design working in the 1960s (especially if it had racks for a couple very light ~100kg bombs), but I don't really see it being viable by the late '70s or early '80s.

Still - it is an interesting concept. Thanks for sharing!
 
Dear Avimimus.


You are totally right.
My idea was just to bring the classic dogfight to the 'quasi' modern era, just with necessary things for a guns only combat.
The concept, as a proposal for these days, is wrong.
I will change the text.
 
Maybe ...I'm busy trying to rationalise it though. It is easier to run out of missiles than it is to run out of ammunition.

Who knows? If lasers become common then optical sensors might fall out of fashion. If it isn't possible to easily make all aspect radars (ignoring the Su-34 for a moment), then high-off-boresight dogfight missiles might become impractical... so supermaneuverability and cannons might re-appear as close range weapons at some distant point in the future.

Of course, there is the problem that pilot's eyes are vulnerable to lasers too...
 
A new reincarnation of the Folland Gnat, up to dimensions and armament ! Accurately
and detailed elaborated, a point, that would be interesting would be the intended price
tag.
 
Inlet location is bad for internal volume. Wing geometry is not ideal. Area ruling would decrease drag at high subsonic speed.


I'd go with something more like this, with a single F414 engine:

Big Wing F-5
index.php


Super Tiger F-5
index.php

index.php

index.php



From topic here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4513.0.html
 
Dear PaulMM.


2.000 kg of Jet A1 fuel correspond to 2.469 liters, you can put almost 2.000 liters in those wings and the rest in the fuselage. The A-4 Skyhawk has similar size and has 2.120 liters in the wings and 908 litres in the fuselage.
I think the wing has a good geometry, please consult: 'F-16 Design Origins' Code One on Loockheed Martin web site, see the wing chapter.
The aircraft would have a lot of thrust for the given weight, there is no need of area rule to overcome shock wave problems and most important, the aircraft would be subsonic.


P.S. The Northrop F-20 (F414 engine) had no area rule fuselage, for the reasons explained above.
 
Perhaps a weapon based on the old HVM might be useful as an optional secondary weapons system?
 
I made a little but substantial correction in the header text, I think it could change the whole idea.
 
Roberto F. Santana said:
Dear PaulMM.

2.000 kg of Jet A1 fuel correspond to 2.469 liters, you can put almost 2.000 liters in those wings and the rest in the fuselage. The A-4 Skyhawk has similar size and has 2.120 liters in the wings and 908 litres in the fuselage.
Click to expand...

Pitot intake is bad for internal volume, bad for high AOA, and bad for weight. There is no advantage in it at all except a relatively long and straight duct, which is why they went out of use.


Roberto F. Santana said:
I think the wing has a good geometry, please consult: 'F-16 Design Origins' Code One on Loockheed Martin web site, see the wing chapter.
Click to expand...


If you are alluding to the F-16 785 "conventional" design alternative, it offered lower performance at the same weight as the 401F-16. Hardly a ringing endorsement.


Roberto F. Santana said:
The aircraft would have a lot of thrust for the given weight, there is no need of area rule to overcome shock wave problems and most important, the aircraft would be subsonic.

P.S. The Northrop F-20 (F414 engine) had no area rule fuselage, for the reasons explained above.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. It uses area ruling, just not as obviously. More drag is always bad no matter the thrust. Also why limit it to being subsonic? If its a fighter, an afterburner is useful in lots of situations, and if you have an afterburner, Mach 1.6-1.8 should incur no real design complications.


Roberto F. Santana said:
Thank you for your comment.
Click to expand...
 
Dear Paul MM.

Regarding the intake:
I agree, that is not good for internal volume and high AOA.
I chose this type of intake just for a simple reason: I like it.
Regarding the wing:
The wing has a 45° swept wing and has a good area a good thickness ratio, very close to the wings of MiG-17 and Canadain Sabre Mk.6, the best subsonic fighter in my opinion.
Regarding subsonic and afterbunner issues:
Most (perhaps all) of dogfighters occur in the subsonic range and at medium and low altittude, an afterbunner is complex, heavy, (200 kg for GE F404), high IR signal and consumes a lot of fuel.
Regarding the suppose F-20 area rule:
Would you please show me where is it:
https://gunfighterproject.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/digitalizar0016.jpg
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom