Defense Issues

Military and general security

    Advertisements
  • Follow Defense Issues on WordPress.com
  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 244 other followers

  • January 2019
    M T W T F S S
    « Nov    
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Categories

  • Advertisements

Archive for the ‘proposals’ Category

F-5A upgrade proposal

Posted by Picard578 on May 1, 2015

F-5A overview

Weight:
3.667 kg empty
2.812 kg max weapons load
1.787 kg fuel
5.966 kg combat takeoff (100% fuel, 6 AIM-9)
5.072 kg combat (50% fuel, 6 AIM-9)
9.333 kg max takeoff Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Posted in proposals | Tagged: , , , , | 181 Comments »

Air superiority fighter camouflage patterns proposal

Posted by Picard578 on March 15, 2015

flx1-standard Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in proposals | Tagged: , , , , | 14 Comments »

Gripen C upgrade proposal

Posted by Picard578 on December 20, 2014

Introduction

Similar to the F-16 upgrade proposal, this proposal will take an existing aircraft – Gripen C – and adress its greatest shortcomings with minimal redesign. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in proposals | Tagged: , , , , , | 17 Comments »

F-16 new build proposal

Posted by Picard578 on December 15, 2014

Introduction

While I have proposed design of a fighter aircraft that would be superior to any existing or projected fighter aircraft in the world, USAF is unlikely to ever accept a proposal that uses so much of the non-US technology (that being said, in my NATO air forces proposal a CAS aircraft is mostly based on US technology). Further, it would take at least 3-4 years to put into production – and considering the bureocratic nature of modern design projects and lack of external pressure, more likely timeframe is 15-20 years.

New F-16 would be based on the F-16A, but with major modifications. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in proposals, weapons | Tagged: , , , , , | 30 Comments »

NATO navies proposal revised

Posted by Picard578 on September 13, 2014

Introduction

Submarine is the modern capital ship – primary ship for control of the sea against enemy navy. Only submarines can establish control of the sea, clearing it of the enemy ships and opening way for surface transport craft to carry ground troops into an area of operations. Carriers are primarly useful for support of amphibious landings, carrying out tasks including defending invasion fleet from airborne attacks, establishing air superiority over the area and providing close air support for the invasion force. Cruisers, destroyers and frigates can be useful for fire support of landing operations, while missile boats and fast attack craft can be useful in shallow coastal waters. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in proposals | Tagged: , , | 80 Comments »

Aircraft carrier proposal 3

Posted by Picard578 on September 6, 2014

Aircraft used

 

Aircraft used will be an air superiority fighter (FLX), CAS fighter (AX) and observation aircraft (OLX), plus transport aircraft (C-2). This will allow it to be useful for carrier’s primary tasks: defending fleet from an attack by enemy ground-based aircraft, as well as supporting amphibious landings and providing close air support for ground troops. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in proposals | Tagged: , , , | 34 Comments »

NATO air forces proposal 3

Posted by Picard578 on August 23, 2014

Current state

Aircraft costs FY2014

COMBAT: Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in proposals | Tagged: , | 12 Comments »

Forward air controller aircraft proposal revised

Posted by Picard578 on August 16, 2014

Historical lessons

Since UAVs are very bad at actual observation (except maybe as an inexpensive help for individual infantry platoons, controlled by those same platoons), this aircraft will also be manned. Aside from this concern, UAVs are also not adaptable.

First airborne FACs appeared during World War I. In that war, aircraft were employed for surveillance due to ground commander’s difficulties in interpreting the unfolding battlespace. First aircraft used had a crew of two, a pilot and an observer who would sketch the situation for the ground commander; information was later used to make battlefield maps, and aircraft also helped in directing artillery barrages. This led directly to development of CAS fighters and interceptors: some observers started dropping small bombs from aircraft on enemy positions or strafe trenches with guns, and both sides tried to prevent the enemy scouting.

Observations made were often inaccurate – strength of enemy formations could be misreported by thousands. However, information was provided far sooner by airborne observers than by other means, though development of CAS (and thus FAC) doctrine was being neglected in favor of failed strategic bombing deep behind enemy lines; only in 1917 did France and Germany realize its true value.

Interwar period led to the separation of FAC and CAS duties, since performing CAS often led to the FACs neglecting their primary duty. Only US Marine Corps, having no separate air service, was able to concentrate aircraft on CAS duties. And while World War II led to many (soon forgotten) improvements in carrying out CAS missions, appearance of airborne forward air controller had to wait until Korean war. While doctrine did permit use of airborne FAC in air-to-ground operations, there was no equipment allocated for such function, nor was any training undertaken specifically for the mission. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in proposals | Tagged: , , , , , | 32 Comments »

Air superiority fighter proposal 6

Posted by Picard578 on August 2, 2014

text and drawings by Picard578

3D designs by Riley Amos

Requirements

Introduction

Modern air forces are getting loaded with highly complex, expensive “mutirole” aircraft. Result is decreasing force size for same or increasing cost, while at the same time combat effectiveness of these air forces decreases. Main reasons are lack of understanding of components of fighter aircraft effectiveness, inability to enforce design discipline upon service and industry, and infatuation with new (and old) technologies without understanding wether, and why, certain technologies work or do not work.

Nature of air to air combat

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

—G. Santayana

Fighter aircraft exist to destroy other aircraft, and allow other aircraft to carry out their missions without interference from enemy fighter aircraft. That being said, there exists a colloqial – and incorrect – use of term “fighter aircraft” as being applicable to any tactical aircraft, even those that are primarly or exclusively designed for ground attack, such as the A-10 and the F-35. Task of the aircraft is to enable pilot to bring weapons systems in position for a successful kill.

You never make a big truck and tomorrow make it a race car. And you never can make a big bomber and the next day a . . . fighter. The physical law means that you need another airplane. . . . You should do one job and should do this job good.

—Colonel Erich “Bubi” Hartmann, GAP

Most important factor in aerial warfare is pilots’ skill. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in proposals | Tagged: , , , , , | 180 Comments »

Air superiority fighter proposal 4

Posted by Picard578 on February 15, 2014

Design

Airframe

Canopy will be opened and closed completely manually, which will save 10 kg on actuators. Aerodynamics will be optimized for maneuverability; check the previous version of the article for details since there won’t be many changes.

Engine

Engine will be a single-engine modification of F414-EPE, providing 16.800 lb (74,7 kN, 7.620 kgf) dry thrust and 26.600 lb (117,4 kN, 11.975 kgf) wet thrust along with excellent foreign object damage resistance; it will also improve endurance when compared to the EJ-230. Dry weight will be 1.110 kg.

Weapons

Unlike previous proposals, gun will be French GIAT-30. While its higher rate of fire means greater ammo expenditure compared to the BK-27, and higher caliber means less rounds carried, greater energy of individual projectiles and better acceleration mean that it is more effective at getting kills during short opportunities in an actual dogfight.

Final Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in proposals | Tagged: , , | 37 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: