h a l f b a k e r y"Put it on a plate, son. You'll enjoy it more."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Faux-22 Raptor
Airframe and engines of the original. Budget: Fifty million a plane... but | |
...we'll buy 500 of them.
They need to do the following:
1- Work.
2- Win 2 out of 3 dogfights with existing deployed Chinese and Russian aircraft.
We'll upgrade the aircraft as necessary following the model of the B-52, an aircraft that's been in service for decades. Supplementation of the
basic aircraft may include:
Affordable versions of all the features the original F22 had.
Outrigger unmanned attack aircraft controlled by the "mother ship"
Any other magic we come up with budget permitting.
It does not need to possess VTOL, go underwater or turn a sandwich into a banquet. It's an air superiority fighter. It needs to beat up competing fighter planes, give them wedgies and take their lunch money. Nothing more.
If the Chinese or Russians come up with something better we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
Concorde thread
http://www.pprune.o...corde-question.html
[bs0u0155, Aug 01 2014]
Obscure confusing tumbleweed reference
Tumbleweed_20Emoticon
Had to be there. [doctorremulac3, Aug 01 2014]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
$10.02 million per F119 engine. $29.96 million left. |
|
| |
How much is the airframe? |
|
| |
LOL. I'm picturing the math leading to this: |
|
| |
"We have enough money left to drop a used Subaru Outback into the airframe. Actual flight may not be advisable." |
|
| |
The Faux Raptor will still have the raptor mascot but the drawing on the rudders will show him clipping coupons. |
|
| |
OK. How about this. The flyaway cost of an F104G
is about $1.42 million in 1960 USD. So, a quick
google suggests that's around $20 million in 2014.
Which I think we can all agree is the development
costs for the computer model of the wheel nut
test jig on the F35. |
|
| |
Now, the F104 had a couple of well know
problems, mainly a Dutch roll characteristic
induced by the T-tail being nearly as big as the
wings. So we're going to trim the tail down a bit*.
Pilots may look a little worried at this point, but
it's OK because we're going to fit the thrust
vectored version of the EJ200 engine out of the
Eurofighter to maintain pitch control (and trim
during transonic center of lift changes). |
|
| |
Say that engine is $8 million (smaller/older than
the F119). It gives us more 14% more dry and 14%
more wet thrust** at 20%/16% less specific fuel
consumption respectively. Even better, it's 760kg
lighter. |
|
| |
So, we improved thrust to weight from 0.78 > 1.1
while dropping wing loading from 680 to 597
kg/m2 (ballpark F35). |
|
| |
Now, there's a great big chunk of fuselage behind
the cockpit in the F104 that wasn't there on the
prototype XF104. They filled it with the
clockwork/steam powered spinning wheels
necessary for computing something, anyhow that's
now being taken care of by a smartphone taped to
the pilot's helmet. In addition, the new engine's
shorter. |
|
| |
So there's space, about 3 metres/9ft. How about a
half fuel/half internal weapons bay? Should be able
to fit some sidewinders in there, while increasing
the internal fuel. Should be able to take the
Combat/Ferry range up to 500/1900 miles. |
|
| |
Now, let's spend $10 million on Avionics, a couple
more on some composite bits to handle the new
higher top speed. Hopefully we can get some
savings by
reducing the component numbers, those 5D cnc
milling machines can make all sorts of shapes. |
|
| |
There, faster, cheaper (10 fold), longer legs than
the F35. Similar turning performance. All the
problems are known. The F104 had a tiny RCS to
start with. Now we've buried a smaller engine
deeper in the plane and splashed some radar
absorbing paint on it. |
|
| |
*should make it a Gnat's faster |
|
| |
Something else to add to the specs: |
|
| |
"The enemy should not know if they're dealing with a Faux-22 or the more capable F-22 until it's too late." |
|
| |
Joke: The Faux-22 is the one that sounds like a 68 Buick with a bad muffler. End of joke. |
|
| |
By the way, I say we bring back the F-104 for some jobs. You just want to go look at something and brandish a couple of air to air missiles, that'll get you there at mach 2. If you just want to spook a Tupolev Bear that's prowling too close to your beaches, they work just fine. Paint it with skulls and and stuff to make it scary looking. Or better yet, paint it with pandas and teddy bears to make them think we're crazy. |
|
| |
We might want to replace the F104's ejection seat
too, I heard they don't work so well. |
|
| |
This is non-military related, but the idea of taking a
classic, well performing aircraft and updating it with
modern materials has been done. The Piper
Comanche is a very popular plane for its range,
efficiency and payload. There was a project to
modernize it, which resulted in the Ravin 500. No
doubt it's one of the best planes ever made, but it
hardly saves any money. It's about 5x as much, and I
suspect the same thing would happen if you updated
the F104. |
|
| |
They'd fixed the ejection seat by the end. |
|
| |
//It's about 5x as much, and I suspect the same thing
would happen if you updated the F104// |
|
| |
5x would save about $100 million a plane, with no
expensive surprises down the road. |
|
| |
Concorde would be a great air superiority fighter. |
|
| |
It's max speed is limited only by temperature.
Nothing a little titanium can't sort out. It had
faster super cruise 40 years before the Raptor. It's
range is about 4 fold more than any fighter. Lots
of space for a big radar and internal weapons
carriage. |
|
| |
The crew accommodation is such that no special
flying suits would be required, and the availability
of tea and biscuits would bring much needed calm
to BVR engagements. |
|
| |
//Concorde would be a great air superiority
fighter.// |
|
| |
The development cost was folded into the unit cost. If you separate
the
two you can easily churn out a thousand of them for 50 million a pop.
I'm not sure about 500 but it seems at least feasible.
It's a
HUGE advantage in old-style military industrial capacity that people
don't think about when bemoaning the cost. If the US actually got into
a fight with, say, Russia the plans for the most kickass fighter ever
developed are sunk cost. We could make as many as needed for
only the cost of manufacturing. |
|
| |
//F119// //EJ200// turbofans, pretty limited to Mach 1.6'ish, no ? |
|
| |
So, what's the cost of the support team that you
need to maintain in order to trade off the VTOL
capability? You know, the aircraft carrier upkeep,
manning, maintenance, supporting fleet, home
bases... |
|
| |
A couple hundred more F16's should do the trick
nicely. |
|
| |
Except it's not, that was supposed to be the B1A.
They never got the intakes right enough and as such
it was limited to Mach 1.6 and couldn't cruise at high
speed with anywhere near the efficiency. They
eventually gave up on the B1A's high altitude role,
the Gary Powers situation compounded the
development issues. There's a great thread <link> on
Concorde if you have a free afternoon. |
|
| |
//turbofans, pretty limited to Mach 1.6'ish, no ?// |
|
| |
well, the F22 and the Eurofighter are happy at Mach
2. These are low bypass, and feature clever intake
designs, pure turbojets are better at sustained
supersonic speeds if you tune the intake. Again, see
Concorde. |
|
| |
While we're at it, bring back the English Electric Lightning, surely the most Awesome Jet Fighter Of All Time. |
|
| |
bs0u0155, dang dude, you seem too knowledgable
about this stuff to be an amateur. You in the biz? My
uncle was in the aircraft design business then worked
for North American Rockwell on the Apollo command
module. I hold aerospace pros in high regard. If
you're part of the royal order, come out and take a
bow. |
|
| |
Me? I used to design model rockets when I was a
kid.... |
|
| |
Dang, how'd that tumbleweed get in here? |
|
| |
//If you're part of the royal order, come out and take
a bow// |
|
| |
Nah, just a VERY enthusiastic amateur, albeit with
family that worked for BAC and the RAF. Also got
drunk in a NYC bar with an ex Concorde pilot once,
was tremendous fun. |
|
| |
I've mentioned it before, but I've got a silver
Concorde money clip from somebody who actually
flew on it. They gave them away free with purchase
of the seven thousand dollar ticket. In other words,
I'm a bit light on credentials myself. Just a fan of the
art. |
|
| |
To save money, you could make them really small
and just put them really, really close to the enemy. |
|
| |
or far away and very very very big, on a pole, out of
concrete. Concrete aircraft are very low
maintenance. |
|
| |
Perhaps it would make sense to develop drones with
laser projectors to convince pilots that they are
being attacked by very expensive planes. |
|
| |
//we're going to fit the thrust vectored version of the EJ200 engine out
of the Eurofighter // |
|
| |
No, you're not. They're ours, all of them, and we're keeping them. You
want something like them, go make your own. |
|
| |
Well, the F35 B has a great big shaft sticking out
the front of the engine delivering 29,000 odd
horsepower to turn the lift fan. In the F35A/C this
space is just an auxiliary
fuel tank. Some have speculated that 29,000 odd
horsepower could be turned into very much
electricity. Some have proposed uses for this
electricity. Such as MW class lasers. I think they'll
use it to power a MaxCo laser projector. On
entering an air to air engagement, the F35 will be
able to project a convincing image of a much
better fighter jet, and the opposition will run
away. |
|
| |
Simpler to project an image of whatever the opposition's flying, thus
causing immense confusion. |
|
| |
//You want something like them, go make your own.//
Shirley the US has developed VTOL jets? (And no, I don't
mean that weird thing in the 1960s that took off and
landed pointing upwards.) |
|
| |
//MaxCo laser projector// We are currently in the pre-
antepenultimate phase of initial discussions concerning
the future possibility of subsequent preliminary
evaluations. |
|
| |
Actually, surely the most efficient use of lasers would be
be to blind the enemy pilot? I mean, how hard can it be
for an onboard computer to figure out where the enemy
pilot is, and sweep the area? Kilowatts, rather than
megawatts of laser would do it; multiple such lasers
could be mounted on different parts of the attacking
aircraft, to get the best chance of a "laser-to-eyeball"
hit. The only defence against this would be to have
cameras give the pilot a virtual, rather than direct view
of the world. |
|
| |
// They're ours, all of them// |
|
| |
It's Borg engine? I thought it was mostly Rolls Royce*? |
|
| |
* Of course, I joke. It was the Eurojet consortium. It's
not like Rolls Royce designed, built and tested the
whole thing and then a couple of European firms
were allowed to decide the colour of the service
manual binder, oh no. |
|
| |
//The only defence against// |
|
| |
Actually, if you have a good idea about the
wavelength you can just get some laser safety
specs. |
|
| |
//this would be to have cameras give the pilot a
virtual, rather than direct view of the world// |
|
| |
The F35 actually* has this. |
|
| |
The other use of a good energy weapon is to ruin
the day of the average heat seeking missile. |
|
| |
//Actually, if you have a good idea about the
wavelength you can just get some laser safety
specs.// |
|
| |
Well, there are lasers whose frequency can be
shifted. |
|
| |
But, in any case, there's a limit to what laser specs
can do. If you want an OD much above 10 at a
chosen wavelength (which you'd need, and more)
they're going to seriously impair vision throughout
the spectrum. |
|
| |
100,000 radio-controlled foam models of the f-22, at
$50 each, could provide a cost-effective alternative
for many applications. |
|
| |