The 5th Generation Fighter challenge [FAR]

[Doke]

[quote name='Van Disaster']Deltas should be able to pull such vast AoA that landing slowly is doable ( probably safer than a more conventional craft, even ). Just keep pulling the nose up until you're increasing thrust again, and you have braking on demand. You could try Q-dependent wing shaping with surfaces like I mentioned a while back, but that's a bit much for just landing.

Stalling is a huge energy sink, whether you keep control or not. Highly swept wings don't really stall the same way as straight ones but even vortex lift runs out eventually, and vortex lift itself is not low-drag...[/QUOTE]

I think it's a matter of practice, but the tiny stock landing legs I'm using probably don't help. Powered landings do seem to be necessary.

[quote name='Robet.G']The rules reads like this to me:
"must look exactly like an F-16 or it doesn't count"[/QUOTE]

What? Just the last couple of pages contain all kinds of planes.

[TheHengeProphet]

[quote name='Robet.G']The rules reads like this to me:
"must look exactly like an F-16 or it doesn't count"[/QUOTE]

To be fair, we can't even build what is technically a Gen 5 fighter, seeing as we have no way of determining stealth capability. More-over, most Gen 5 fighters can't compete with proper Gen 4 or 4.5 aerobatic/dogfighting capabilities, to my knowledge. The fighters really don't have to look like an F-16, but it is a good standard for capabilities.

So far, my best fighter's basic design is based on an aerodynamics experiment to test a prior glitch in FAR, which was roughly based on the F-16. However, it only really looks like one in passing and is much more like an F-20, I guess. That makes it a poor example, really; however, my old MRF-4 is still capable of achieving the applicable goals for qualification and looks nothing like an F-16.

I'm happy to say that the Devil Ray is still viable with the engine swap, albeit slightly less aerodynamic with a wave drag area of about .4 now. It appears to have slightly better control capabilities, which is to be expected (still not the best dogfighter), but it is able to supercruise at roughly mach 2.01 when full. I've been letting the plane fly on its own for the past half hour while I do other things, and it's range seems quite impressive. It seems to cap at about mach 2.88 with afterburners at high altitude, but have not tested its low altitude max speed. End of test result: Maximum ferry range is approximately 2000km. Edited November 17, 2015 by TheHengeProphet

[Doke]

2.8-ish seems to be the cap for most planes with that engine now. Which seems quite realistic. I think I could probably break Mach 3 with the Cormorant if it weren't for engine heat issues -- again, a realistic constraint. It seemed way too easy to build planes that were nearly hypersonic with the previous engines.

Regarding stealth: I agree that it's impossible, because there's no way to test it and no way to build it without using nothing but procedural parts, but I wonder how Halsfury feels about e.g. giving a point for carrying an arbitrary weight of 'stealth coating', having a weapons bay, having vaguely stealthy wing geometry (canted tails, repeated angles, zigzags?), etc.

[Guest]

5th gen doesnt mean anything it's purely marketing.
Just like stealth

[Van Disaster]

5th gen seems mostly about the sensors & software ( and networking ); not sure why you want all that info gathering on an expensive manned craft rather than a cheap drone, but there you go. The stealth is meant to be for first strike, but again why do you want a manned craft rather than spamming cruise missiles. Unless it's a covert first strike I guess, but when was the last time that was any use to anyone? why has nobody built a stealthy cruise missile I wonder.

Other than the F-22 anyway, and I don't know what stealth adds to that thing, is it really any more useful than a modern F-15 would be? ( quite apart from it not being that stealthy if it gets wet :P don't fly it into clouds, ey ).

[TheHengeProphet]

Really, without the stealth capabilities, it's just a gen 4.5 fighter. And if someone did have a stealth cruise missile, do you really think they'd let that info get out? Apart from incidents like Putin's dirty nuke torpedo, I expect that stuff is pretty well under wraps if it does exist.

[Guest]

[quote name='Van Disaster']The stealth is meant to be for first strike.[/QUOTE]
The F-22 has no passive detection meaning it is either blind or has to betray its presence by using radar.
And IR signature tracking which F22 lacks, not only negates radar stealth but also is totally passive.
F35 was meant to have its own but due development issues they may simply buy it with from "4.5 gen" (typhoon) parts.

[quote]Really, without the stealth capabilities, it's just a gen 4.5 fighter.[/quote]
Radar stealth, not invisibility, and it's a compromise so weapon bays add drag and weight.
Also terrible maintenance cost for the coating. Edited November 19, 2015 by RevanCorana

[Doke]

[quote name='RevanCorana']The F-22 has no passive detection meaning it is either blind or has to betray its presence by using radar.
And IR signature tracking which F22 lacks, not only negates radar stealth but also is totally passive.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm sure it has a passive radar-warning setup, and probably some kind of link to AWACS etc. Also, IRSTs are cool but have very limited range compared to modern radar (I don't think ex Soviet ones are ever quoted as having more than 50km, and that's from behind an afterburner or something). Oh, and you'll still need an active radar somewhere to launch any proper long-range missiles (unless someone figured out how to get them to the terminal phase without a lock -- I guess the R-27 sort of can?). I'd love an IRST in BDA, though (oh, and a Gsh-23, and R-73s that can fire off-boresight, and more Soviet/Russian stuff in general).

I suspect you're right that stealth isn't all its cracked up to be, but surely low-observability is still a desirable quality. Just a matter of what it costs, I guess. And fifth-gen is totally a buzzword, but that doesn't mean it isn't useful. Supercruise, fancy sensors, post-stall maneuverability -- these are not things people used to take for granted.

[edit] Never mind all that. Here's what happens when you spend too much time looking at pictures of unbuilt fighter concepts:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/vVuKp5V.png?1[/IMG]
Flies well, but less so since I gave it a 'proper' MiG-29/Su-27-esque high nose/low wing & engine layout (originally the wing ran down the centre of the fuselage). It's picked up a nasty yaw instability at high AoA. I mostly changed it for looks, so I suppose I can go back. What's the deal with that layout, anyway? Edited November 19, 2015 by Doke

[Van Disaster]

Post-stall maneuverability is not something western doctrine looks for, it's still based on [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93maneuverability_theory"]Boyd's theories[/URL] despite decades of combat with the Harrier. The Typhoon/Rafele bend it by dipping into the high-drag part of the envelope a fair bit, but I'm not sure either of them will even let you stall.

No reason you couldn't get your initial homer lock from the AWACS or a drone via data link, assuming you're not being jammed - if you are being jammed then even active radar isn't going to help ( and you've probably been seen too ).

[Robet.G]

So this is the gathering place for all the military buffs. I just don't understand all this obsession with fighters and stuff. We're rapidly approaching the death of fighters, cuz there is just no reason to be maneuverable and no need for dog fights. In a few decades well have laser weapons that render maneuverability completely useless.

Even now days air combat is all about fire and forget missiles, there is nothing romantic or exciting about it.

[FourGreenFields]

[quote name='Doke']Here's what happens when you spend too much time looking at pictures of unbuilt fighter concepts[/QUOTE]

Better not to look at German late-WWII designs then, eh?
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke_Rochen[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Triebfl%C3%BCgel[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_Lerche[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_Wespe[/url]

[url]http://ww2photo.se/air/d/mess/09576.jpg[/url] <- Messerschmitt P 1101 (easy to mistake it for the [URL="http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/341678main_EC-17351_full.jpg"]Bell X-5[/URL]. I wonder why... :wink:)
[url]http://www.luft46.com/mess/3bm1110j.jpg[/url] <- Messerschmitt P 1110 (layout is similar to [URL="http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/9/2/1778295.jpg"]Saab J-32 "Lansen"[/URL], [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Hawker_hunter_t7_blue_diamond_in_planform_arp.jpg"]Hawker "Hunter"[/URL], [URL="http://www.vicflintham.co.uk/content/post-war-military-aircraft/swift/sup535.jpg"]Supermarine "Swift"[/URL], or [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Grumman_F11F-1_Tiger_in_flight_c1950s.jpg"]Grumman F-11 "Tiger"[/URL], and others. Allthough they all seem to use another intake)
[url]http://www.luft46.com/mess/3bm1111.jpg[/url] <- Messerschmitt P 1111 (aka [URL="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d2/20/53/d220538b01eeaca45ab531e09e488f11.jpg"]D.H. 108 "Swallow"[/URL])

Or also the BV 141 [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_BV_141[/url], but that one was actually built. And isn't exactly supersonic.


TLDR: Paper planes ftw!

[Doke]

[quote name='Van Disaster']Post-stall maneuverability is not something western doctrine looks for, it's still based on [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93maneuverability_theory"]Boyd's theories[/URL] despite decades of combat with the Harrier. The Typhoon/Rafele bend it by dipping into the high-drag part of the envelope a fair bit, but I'm not sure either of them will even let you stall.

No reason you couldn't get your initial homer lock from the AWACS or a drone via data link, assuming you're not being jammed - if you are being jammed then even active radar isn't going to help ( and you've probably been seen too ).[/QUOTE]

Didn't know that about missiles and AWACS. I'm traditionally more of a WW2 buff. As for post-stall -- I'm not exclusively interested in Western stuff. :) My [I]completely scientific[/I] testing with KSP suggests that it isn't much use in a dogfight until one or both planes has a low energy state -- at which point it's actually really useful. I'm sure it's different IRL where you might have off-boresight weapons, teammates, etc. Anyway, I should have said 'super-' rather than 'post-stall'.

[quote name='Robet.G']So this is the gathering place for all the military buffs. I just don't understand all this obsession with fighters and stuff. We're rapidly approaching the death of fighters, cuz there is just no reason to be maneuverable and no need for dog fights. In a few decades well have laser weapons that render maneuverability completely useless.

Even now days air combat is all about fire and forget missiles, there is nothing romantic or exciting about it.[/QUOTE]

Well:

(1) Fighters are cool.
(2) Kerbals are basically drones (high G tolerances).
(3) Speed is arguably still important. Energy state of missiles, ability to intercept or escape, etc. Also, it's cool.
(4) Lasers are uncool (and possibly involve heat/power/other issues).
(4) Dogfights are cool. Also, possibly necessary IRL, where unknown factors like rules of engagement and electronic warfare might interfere.
(5) Even without dogfights, energy state and tactics matter in a missile duel. It's not just a matter of pushing a button.
(6) Fighters are cool.
(7) How did I get to seven? My fast missile fighter can beat your slow laser drone.

[quote name='FourGreenFields']Better not to look at German late-WWII designs then, eh?

TLDR: Paper planes ftw![/QUOTE]

Some of those are pretty Kerbal.

[Guest]

[quote name='Doke']Well, I'm sure it has a passive radar-warning setup, and probably some kind of link to AWACS etc.[/QUOTE]
Yep but 4th gen do too Dassault Rafale does it even better with [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_Spectra"]SPECTRA[/URL].

[QUOTE]Also, IRSTs are cool but have very limited range compared to modern radar (I don't think ex Soviet ones are ever quoted as having more than 50km, and that's from behind an afterburner or something).[/QUOTE]
Radar is gonna stay turned off anyway because it makes you detectable at a far greater ranger than its own detection range.
And the range of visual sensor has improved a lot.
The Rafale's [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optronique_secteur_frontal"]OSF[/URL] may detect an F-22 from 80-100km front or 160-200km rear because despite hiding a part of its signature with engine nozzles it's not stealthy at all in this department.

[QUOTE] Oh, and you'll still need an active radar somewhere to launch any proper long-range missiles (unless someone figured out how to get them to the terminal phase without a lock -- I guess the R-27 sort of can?). [/QUOTE]
The actual range of missiles is about 1/4 to 1/5 of the official one because it assumes both aircraft are coming toward each other at mach 2 and it is fired in a balistic trajectory...

[QUOTE]
I'd love an IRST in BDA, though (oh, and a Gsh-23, and R-73s that can fire off-boresight, and more Soviet/Russian stuff in general).
[/QUOTE]
I haven't tested it yet but the FLIR targetting ball seem to be an sort of IRST.

[QUOTE]I suspect you're right that stealth isn't all its cracked up to be, but surely low-observability is still a desirable quality. Just a matter of what it costs, I guess. And fifth-gen is totally a buzzword, but that doesn't mean it isn't useful. Supercruise, fancy sensors, post-stall maneuverability -- these are not things people used to take for granted.[/QUOTE]
All of which can be found on the Rafale at a fraction of the cost and with also a lower IR signature and size so it's harder to detect with IRST itself.

[QUOTE]The jets than have trouble dealing with low RCS ennemies are the one still using radar as a main[/QUOTE]
Correct, heat seaking missiles can lock an F22 easily. Edited November 19, 2015 by RevanCorana

[Guest]

[QUOTE]So this is the gathering place for all the military buffs. I just don't understand all this obsession with fighters and stuff. We're rapidly approaching the death of fighters, cuz there is just no reason to be maneuverable and no need for dog fights. In a few decades well have laser weapons that render maneuverability completely useless.

Even now days air combat is all about fire and forget missiles, there is nothing romantic or exciting about it. [/QUOTE]

Can't we just reflect lasers with a mirror coating :P
A slightly higher turn rate means a lot actually and missile BVR kills are totally overrated, their range is exagerated.
What is much more dangerous are guns mounted on small pivot and aimed by computer during dogfights.

[FourGreenFields]

Ok. Got it to fly.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/YFtmKIX.jpg[/img]
Now just to find someone to programm a proper fly-by-wire for the "Mockingbird"...

And now that there are no points anymore, I switched back to full drag, strict area ruling. Just to add to the "Mockingbird"'s weird-awesomeness.

[Groot]

[quote name='Doke']



Well:

(1) Fighters are cool.
(2) Kerbals are basically drones (high G tolerances).
(3) Speed is arguably still important. Energy state of missiles, ability to intercept or escape, etc. Also, it's cool.
(4) Lasers are uncool (and possibly involve heat/power/other issues).
(4) Dogfights are cool. Also, possibly necessary IRL, where unknown factors like rules of engagement and electronic warfare might interfere.
(5) Even without dogfights, energy state and tactics matter in a missile duel. It's not just a matter of pushing a button.
(6) Fighters are cool.
(7) How did I get to seven? My fast missile fighter can beat your slow laser drone.



Some of those are pretty Kerbal.[/QUOTE]

We are probably less than a decade away from fighter mounted laser weapons. And they will also be able to shoot down incoming missiles.

[Van Disaster]

[quote name='Robet.G']So this is the gathering place for all the military buffs. I just don't understand all this obsession with fighters and stuff. We're rapidly approaching the death of fighters, cuz there is just no reason to be maneuverable and no need for dog fights. In a few decades well have laser weapons that render maneuverability completely useless.

Even now days air combat is all about fire and forget missiles, there is nothing romantic or exciting about it.[/QUOTE]

More likely railguns, but this is pretty much the end of the manned fighter already ( good, pilots are expensive! ). I'm a pacifist ( within the bounds of realpolitik at least ) but I appreciate warplanes for being on the cutting edge of aerodynamics & also as someone who's worked with networks for quite a long time, for the challenges of data links in a very harsh environment. My father was RAF & my grandfather worked on radar development in WW2, so I can't really help it either...

Doke: wasn't saying you weren't! just that post-stall maneuverability isn't a 5th-gen thing. Also you might want to look at British research stuff ( most of it got cancelled in 1957 which was half of the death of our aero industry, but BAE have concocted some really odd things over the years, including something equivalent to a proto-F35 without any cockpit glass ), some of that is pretty mad.

Incidentally, just looked at a Typhoon upgrade: leading edge stuff is awfully familiar...

[url]https://airbusdefenceandspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ipa7_efem-26-1356_zeitler_800.jpg[/url] Edited November 19, 2015 by Van Disaster

[Darren9]

Mine is definitely stealth, and will probably reflect lasers :)

[img]http://i.imgur.com/YWbWGwU.png[/img]

[ostrich]

[quote name='Robet.G']So this is the gathering place for all the military buffs. I just don't understand all this obsession with fighters and stuff. We're rapidly approaching the death of fighters, cuz there is just no reason to be maneuverable and no need for dog fights. In a few decades well have laser weapons that render maneuverability completely useless.

Even now days air combat is all about fire and forget missiles, there is nothing romantic or exciting about it.[/QUOTE]
People have been saying you don't need to dog fight since Vietnam and they are always wrong.

[Robet.G]

[quote name='ostrich']People have been saying you don't need to dog fight since Vietnam and they are always wrong.[/QUOTE]
people have been saying computers could drive a car and they have always been wrong... until now.

[ostrich]

True but computers are different to fighters plus what happens when you run out of missiles? And lasers require a lot of electricity.

[Darren9]

Definitely not super-manoeuvrable but it is fast, has a long range and pulls enough G to qualify. I had the wave drag down to 0.08 at one point before I added all the BD Aromry stuff. It still can't get to mach3 at 10,000 (it does 2.96).

[img]http://i.imgur.com/g4aMfEJ.png[/img]

[Doke]

Nice! Which mod are you using for those intakes?

[Darren9]

^ It's an AoATech and the intakes are part of the cockpit.

[Guest]

Wow gorgeous cockpit
Is the nose cone part of the same mod?
Looks like procedural parts Edited November 20, 2015 by RevanCorana