Avimimus
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 December 2007
- Messages
- 2,235
- Reaction score
- 501
I was thinking about what the cheapest 6th generation fighter design would be (given that smaller countries can't afford 200-300 million per airframe)!
An initial concept:
I've been wondering about the engine configuration. Certainly a single engine reduces costs. However, I wonder if having a second engine might be a good idea in order to allow the aircraft to survive engine failure (especially as it would lack conventional stabilisers). It might also be possible to normally use the second engine only at high speeds - and it could thus be optimised for supersonic flight (in lieu of an afterburner) but still retain an ability to generate some thrust (or power for effectors) in an emergency where the main engine is lost. This might also be attractive as a second turbine could be useful for generating higher peak power for the oversized AESA on the flight leader subvariant. So a modular design with one or two additional very light weight and relatively simple low-bypass turbojets might actually be useful. This would also allow optimising the main engine for cruise... resulting in a kind-of crude and somewhat inefficient variable bypass/adaptive engine arrangement through the use of additional engines that could be turned off during most of the flight.
Anyway, I'm curious about what you'd try to develop as a counter to the NGAD and its 6th generation counterparts!
P.S. It might also make sense to attempt to compensate for overall limitations through using oversized air-to-air missiles (e.g. a two stage missiles with more than one seeker type might compensate for the reliance on medium/long-range engagements). So, perhaps two large missiles in the leader variant, and four missiles in the wingman variant.
P.P.S. I also wonder about the production of a subvariant with air-to-ground optics or radars to act as a targeting platform for air-to-ground strikes? Perhaps the optics could fit into the weapon bays? Would extensible sensors make sense or would RCS be better to simply use the weapon bay volume with a permanent faired projection? I suspect the latter!
An initial concept:
- Fully bury the pilot in the fuselage (with a periscope for emergency landings. This would further simplify RCS reduction.
- Use a supersonic flying wing with limited subsonic manoeuvrability (basically pushing a typical subsonic stealthy drone design into the supersonic). This would allow deletion of the stabilisers, saving on structural weight and reducing radar signature. Adequate authority for take-off rotations would be achieved with 2d thrust vectoring.
- Use the full cross section of the nose for a larger less-dense AESA (to keep costs down). Integrate flight radars via datalinks.
- Possibly utilise two sub variants: A wingman with smaller cheaper radar and more magazine depth and a flight leader which is focussed on radar. The wingman would relyon the flight leader for early detection of targets (with the flight leader basically being a supersonic capable low RCS AWACs).
I've been wondering about the engine configuration. Certainly a single engine reduces costs. However, I wonder if having a second engine might be a good idea in order to allow the aircraft to survive engine failure (especially as it would lack conventional stabilisers). It might also be possible to normally use the second engine only at high speeds - and it could thus be optimised for supersonic flight (in lieu of an afterburner) but still retain an ability to generate some thrust (or power for effectors) in an emergency where the main engine is lost. This might also be attractive as a second turbine could be useful for generating higher peak power for the oversized AESA on the flight leader subvariant. So a modular design with one or two additional very light weight and relatively simple low-bypass turbojets might actually be useful. This would also allow optimising the main engine for cruise... resulting in a kind-of crude and somewhat inefficient variable bypass/adaptive engine arrangement through the use of additional engines that could be turned off during most of the flight.
Anyway, I'm curious about what you'd try to develop as a counter to the NGAD and its 6th generation counterparts!
P.S. It might also make sense to attempt to compensate for overall limitations through using oversized air-to-air missiles (e.g. a two stage missiles with more than one seeker type might compensate for the reliance on medium/long-range engagements). So, perhaps two large missiles in the leader variant, and four missiles in the wingman variant.
P.P.S. I also wonder about the production of a subvariant with air-to-ground optics or radars to act as a targeting platform for air-to-ground strikes? Perhaps the optics could fit into the weapon bays? Would extensible sensors make sense or would RCS be better to simply use the weapon bay volume with a permanent faired projection? I suspect the latter!
