Design Challenge: Air Superiority Fighter

F

Fighterreaper97

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
7 July 2022
Messages
37
Reaction score
14
A concept for an air superiority fighter aircraft designed to kill low observable aircraft is a great idea.
Specifications include:
1: A fuel fraction greater than the F-16
2: A lightweight sturdy construction designed for ease of manufacture ease of maintenance & designed for absorbing enormous battle damage & get the pilot & plane back home safely plus 2 simple rugged widely separated fuel efficient EJ-200 style engines
3: designed with only all passive systems/sensors for targeting detection of enemy aircraft including stealth aircraft.
4: Armed with 2 GIAT 30 30mm cannons infrared heat seeking & all passive radar seeking missiles ( the air to air equivalent of the AGM-88 High speed Anti Radar missile
5: Affordability reliability a high sortie rate extreme ruggedness the ability to fully operate from forward facing rough field operations a fast run around time of less than 6 minutes
6: An unobstructed 360 degree view armored bubble canopy is not negotiable. It’s a part of all fighter aircraft no matter the mission.
7: Difficult to identify visually.
8: Must be affordable to all 3rd world countries.
9: Must be competitive with other generations of fighters including 6th 7th 8th 9th generations etc.
10: Designs can be operated from land bases, submarine aircraft carriers merchant ships ocean liners grass strips
11: Multiple designs can be submitted & finally
12: everyone has different opinions so please absolutely NO far left nor far right wing politics being shoved down people’s throats ever OR ELSE!
 
Last edited:
So, what prevents its Stealth opponent blowing it away with a Meteor or AMRAAM from 100+km away?
 
With the exception of requirement 6, I think that Airwolf will fit your bill.

Seriously, what passive technologies do you nominate to detect a low-observable target?
 
aim9xray said:
With the exception of requirement 6, I think that Airwolf will fit your bill.

Seriously, what passive technologies do you nominate to detect a low-observable target?
Click to expand...
It has a 360 degree bubble canopy. The pilot will see it when he randomly stumbles across it. So long as you can built and crew 10,000 fighters its a workable plan.
 
Fighterreaper97 said:
1: A fuel fraction greater than the F-16
2: A lightweight sturdy construction designed for ease of manufacture ease of maintenance & designed for absorbing enormous battle damage & get the pilot & plane back home safely plus 2 simple rugged widely separated fuel efficient EJ-200 style engines
Click to expand...
Large fuel fraction means proportionately, less weight for other stuff. More fuel = more weight = lower thrust to weight, unless you reduce the payload. You can make the structure less sturdy to save weight - but then your max G load decreases. "designed for absorbing enormous battle damage' means redundant, widely separated duplicate systems, overengineered for strength, which greatly increases the weight of the aircraft. Now your fuel fraction goes down, or your thrust-to-weight suffers. Increase engine thrust to compensate - now your fuel burn rate increases and your range decreases.

Do you understand the principles here? Aircraft design is a series of tradeoffs. Maximising one attribute may seriously impact another. Your rules are essentially contradictory.
 
Would an F-5 style aircraft be the best example of excellent handling & manoeuvring? It’s a god balance
 
F-5 was a good airplane for its era, but low on fuel and its engines were lightweight but terribly thirsty, which made the range worse. It was pretty agile for its era, but outclassed in this respect by the F-15, F-16 etc later on.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
F-5 was a good airplane for its era, but low on fuel and its engines were lightweight but terribly thirsty, which made the range worse. It was pretty agile for its era, but outclassed in this respect by the F-15, F-16 etc later on.
Click to expand...
Would a modern day equivalent to the F-16 with the ability to operate from forward rough field operations similar to the the Russian fighter aircraft & compact fuel efficient engines be the answer to the problem or will a new fighter be suitable? Please let me know. My personal apologies
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom