"design A Fighter" Group Build

[GTX]

First question/decission: Stealth? Personally I do not think this nessary, but some features can be acceptable.
Second question/decission: I think F-404 is a good option.
Third question/decission: I would go with a modernized F-20. Canard config, perhaps?

With regards to stealth, I wouldn't expect too much apart from some basic shaping/shielding.  At the end of the day, I don't think the potential buyers would worry too much.

F-404 is a good choice.

Modernized F-20 would probably fit the bill with more modularity - ie. interchangeable nose/engine etc.
Regards,

Greg

[elmayerle]

The best approaches for "Stealth" are using RAM where applicable, minizing external scoops and contour breaks, and a LOAN-style nozzle.  These will do their share of signature reduction without driving the cost up.

[Burncycle]

Maintenance and operating costs are the major issue

Something like the Mako trainer might fit the bill. Mach 1.5 class aircraft, basic stealth features designed into it, and it's already capable of using a wide variety of ordnance including medium ranged A2A missiles...

Take a single seat version, give it an APG-80 derivative (easier maintenance among the advantages of AESA), opt for the internal 27mm mauser, add a LOAN style nozzle, and datalinking capabilities like link-16 if it doesn't already have it.

I'm assuming it already has a decent RWR.

Of course, it would probably cost about as much as an F-16 after all that (if it doesn't already).

[PanzerWulff]

More on my F/A-4 Skyhawk + The consideration of using Composite materials to lighten the airframe without sacrificing stregnth. and a Question for the Experts,How hard would it be to upgrade the Skyhawk to enable the use of LGB's and AMMRAM's. Also should I stick with the twin 20mm's or replace them with a single rotary barrel weapon??? maybe with the 25mm used on the Harrier?Or even a ADEN/DEFA 30mm
Opinions Please
"Panzer"

[GTX]

One problem with composites would be potential cost.

Use of LGBs would be easy - especially if there wasn't a self designation need.  Even it there was you could use a simple targetting pod - say LANTRIN or similar.

Israeli A-4Ns substituted a pair of 30-mm DEFA cannon (with 150 rounds each) for the 20-mm cannon of the US version.

Regards,

Greg

[elmayerle]

More on my F/A-4 Skyhawk + The consideration of using Composite materials to lighten the airframe without sacrificing stregnth. and a Question for the Experts,How hard would it be to upgrade the Skyhawk to enable the use of LGB's and AMMRAM's. Also should I stick with the twin 20mm's or replace them with a single rotary barrel weapon??? maybe with the 25mm used on the Harrier?Or even a ADEN/DEFA 30mm
Opinions Please
"Panzer"

Within the existing single-seat Skyhawk airframe, you probably couldn't fit botha  radar to allow AMRAAM uses and the necessary electro-optics for using LGBs in self-designating mode.  My first thought is to develop a single-seat version of the larger TA-4F/OA-4M airframe and install both a good radar and an internally-mounted designation/sensor system.  I want it internal to avoid having to use a dedicated hardpoint for it.

Regarding the cannon, there's just not the airfram volume, either way, for a rotary barrel weapon.  As GTX mentioned, the Israelis did substitute 30-mm DEFA cannons for the US-stock 20-mm cannons.  I'd try and leave the choice of gun to the customer, as much as possible, depending on what other aircraft/gun combinations they operate; you want to reduce the logistical footprint of your aircraft as much as possible.  I could see using a 25-mm cannon that shares rounds with the GAU-12, the 27-mm Masuer cannon that Tornado and Typhoon use, or the 30-mm Oerlikon KCA that the Jaktviggen uses (same rounds as the A-10's GAU-8).  That last might end up being a single-cannon installation due to volume requirements for the ammo storage.

[PanzerWulff]

Within the existing single-seat Skyhawk airframe, you probably couldn't fit botha  radar to allow AMRAAM uses and the necessary electro-optics for using LGBs in self-designating mode.  My first thought is to develop a single-seat version of the larger TA-4F/OA-4M airframe and install both a good radar and an internally-mounted designation/sensor system.  I want it internal to avoid having to use a dedicated hardpoint for it.

I was thinking of using one of the "Humpbacked" A-4's as a start Maybe an A-4M and possibly fairing in a Pave Nail type system into the aircraft either opposite the single cannon mount (I was thinking of the DEFA With so many Mirage III and F1 users out there) or faired into the nose opposite the IFR probe.or even making seperate Fr/Gr versions of the aircraft with the Gr variant having a Dedicated & more Sophisticated LGB designator With the Pave Nail setup the aircraft would work in pairs with one illuminating while it's partner releases and Vice versa,while the Gr setup would be able to operate solo or as lead for a "Hunter Killer" Team

[elmayerle]

I considered both those options and decided that, IMHO, a slightly larger single-seater, as I described, could fit both items cleanly while leaving all hardpoints free for other uses.  With a choice of engines (a dry RB.199, EJ200, or M88 being optional to the "standard" 404/414) and some options as to cannon fit as well as to full avionics fit, I think the result should do nicely for anyone not absolutely needing supersonic performance.  I can, also, think of a few design changes that would be exteranlly invisible but which would help reduce the RCS.  If you really want to get a bit more tricky, there're some moves that can reduce the IR signature, too; though switching to a dry turbofan engine will definitely help there.

Just to throw out another thought, a late F11F-1 upgraded with modern radar and avionics and with the afterburning J65 replaced by an afterburning F404/414.

[PanzerWulff]

OOps :dum:  I forgot to mention the Gr type would use the 2 seater airframe while the Fr variant would use the single seater airframes    
BTW elmayerle Thanks BIG TIME for tossing your expertise to someone who I admit is DEFINATLY a Layman when it comes to alot of the engineering standpoints on this idea
"Panzer"

[ysi_maniac]

And what about a more ambitious Supersonic Skyhawk?: thin wings with small LERX, modified air intakes, a la F-18 but in shoulder, F-404, ...  

[ysi_maniac]

I'd been thinking along these lines a little while ago when I picked up a 1/48 Hawk.  The hawk has already been upgraded to the Hawk 100 & a cheap single seat fighter in the Hawk 200.  I thought about increasing it's capabilities further by adding a new wing, possibly a delta & substituting the non-afterburning Adour for a developed version of the Jaguars afterburning Adour 106.

Hi Mosie,
I have been testing and I think that F-16 wings can be easily matted to a Hawk-200 fuselage.  

[Mossie]

Sounds good Carlos, I look forward to seeing it! I've got a two seater Hawk T.1, I'd been thinking about putting a delta on it, as a low cost strike platform.

[jcf]

A quicky reference for modern guns:



Modern Fighter Gun Effectiveness


From Tony Williams website:
Cannon, Machine Guns and Ammunition


Cheers, Jon

[ysi_maniac]

^^^^
First quality guns reference.

I have been collecting data on engines:

Engine   --   dry(lb) --   reheat(lb) --   length   --      diameter

F-404   --   10600 --   17000   --   154 in (3912 mm) --   35 in (889 mm)
RD-33   --   11000 --   18300   --   167 in (4250 mm) --   41 in (1040 mm)
F-100   --   14600 --   24000   --   191 in (4851 mm) --   46.5 in (1181 mm)
F-414   --   12000 --   22000   --   154 in (3912 mm) --
J-79   --   12000 --   18000   --   208 in (5283 mm) --   38 in (965 mm)
PW-1120   --   12500 --   18600   --   162 in (4115 mm) --   40 in (1016 mm)
M-88   --   11000 --   17000   --   139 in (3538 mm) --   27.4 (696 mm)
RB-199   --    9000 --   16000   --   142 in (3607 mm) --   28.3 in (719 mm)
EJ-200   --   13500 --   20000   --   157.5 in (4000 mm) --   29 in (737 mm)
Atar-9K   --   11000 --   16000   --   232 in (5900 mm) --   39 in (1000 mm)

Hope it helps.
Carlos

BTW: If you think that any data is wrong please correct me.
I have not found F414 diameter, is it he same as F404?

[elmayerle]

BTW: If you think that any data is wrong please correct me.
I have not found F414 diameter, is it he same as F404?

Briefly, yes.

ALso, the published numbers AW&ST has for the M88 show a diameter of 30.3 inches and a length of 143.1 inches for the M88-2 and 31.1 and 143.7 for the M88-3 which has a reheat thrust of 20,300 lb.

Interestingly enough, Sweden's RM12 which has a lot of commonality with the F4-4/F414 family, has a diameter of 34.8 inches and a length of 159 inches for a reheat thrust of 18,100 lbt.