While I haven't seen a breakdown, that doesn't mean someone on the forum hasn't found such a thing.
For the Rafale back in the early 2000s the cost breakdown was roughly:
Thank you!
According to this figure around 15% is propulsion, 35% is for systems and the remaining 50% is for the airframe (CTOL)
That may also depend on where they're putting the flight control actuators, etc. Mentally, I file those under "Airframe" not "Systems" but the Rafale example obviously puts those in the "other systems" file.
The wing area of FAR-21 is equal to the F-16 (about 28 m²). Consequently it should be sufficient (F-16 is 8,6 ton empty)@VTOLicious Your FAR-21 seems about midway between the 5.7-ton empty Boeing MRF-24X and 9-ton empty MRF-24F designs posted earlier upthread, so I attempted a side-by-side size comparison.
My takeaway is the wing area seems a tad low (similar to the MRF-24X despite much heavier weight), and the overall fuselage size is almost as big as the 9 ton MRF-24F... which makes me wonder if the 7.6 ton empty weight estimate is too optimistic? Once you adjust that up and start increasing the wing size to offset the weight increase, you might end in a weight spiral that lands you somewhere very close to the MRF-24F in terms of overall size & weight.
In other words, is it realistic to make a stealth fighter much smaller than the MRF-24F? What would need to be cut? (Obviously the MRF-24X suggests a pathway, but not clear how that design achieves such a small size aside from possibly some very optimistic assumptions about technology progress in materials and engine size...
I get the idea, but we don’t know how the lift coefficients compare… the F-16 has a different fuselage/wing planform, more wing-span for high lift devices etc.
It's going to take some very careful shaping to keep the dorsal intake(s) fed during high alpha maneuvers. I don't believe that you can add belly vents without severely compromising the stealth detailing.
Don't get mad at me....but that's what I was trying to say....entirely dorsal engine, the entire air intake duct space becomes new fuel and weapons bays.
The front air intakes become missile bays.
Install auxiliary air grilles, automatic and controlled by the FBW, extending from the belly to the back.
The model will lose some things, but will gain a lot in combat load in stealth bay mode and range and autonomy.
If you can achieve this equation, then you will have a small model but with the loads and autonomy of large fighters...
The grille making up the air ducts opens like gills or shutters only when the plane is in a steep attitude. They are closed when in straight flight or small curves.
I get the idea and appreciate your effort.
I think it's more just "higher risk" rather than "unsuitable". And for previous projects then generally there's no strong disadvantage to a different intake location so why take the higher risk?
I chose "unsuitable" because there are indeed applications for which it is considered suitable and was implemented indeed.
As stated already, something like the FA-50 is going for ~US$40-50M a copy. A Saab Gripen E/F is reportedly ~US$85M a copy. Therefore, I question what sort of capability one is considering here. Talk of advanced sensors and low observability capabilities mean that one is going to be looking at something equal to or greater in cost than even these which undermines the "reduced cost" part.
Master Red Admiral,
My response was based upon your own stated purpose of the exercise being "...intended to provide meaningful capability at reduced cost...", What I am saying in response therefore is that to provide any sort of meaningful capability is at odds with reduced cost. One or the other suffers.
Well, yeah.
How wide are the error bars on those models?
$45mil is close to the cost of Gripen C/D, isn't it?
Those louvres on the Mig 29 are not for air combat but for unprepared airstrip ops. They open up as the intake itself is closed off. They are not meant to add extra air when manuvering.The intakes are ideally placed for air combat (below the aircraft).
But with the engine 100% external and dorsal, above the airframe and hidden by the side empennages
The Fuselage below continues in the longitudinal and free direction, giving space for a second bay, or expanding the original, or even more electronics, in addition to + 2 lateral conformal bays where the original air intakes were in the frontal section and cheeks of the hunting.
These changes can reduce final speed and perhaps some maneuverability, but increase internal load by 50% to 70%. The plane will absurdly reduce the need for external loads that compromise invisibility.
An exchange between the external engine Versus external load....the engine would not be more visible than any tanks or underwing missiles.
Not that big actually if you take into account other variables like production numbers, rates etc.
