Ideal naval carrier fighter(aircraft) designs.

.....Planeman, what program do you use for your drawings? I'd love to download that one. The split/joined wing is pretty fascinating. I do see where it would offer some drag and stealth issues though, especially at High AOA aspects. I see alot of people talking about the SU-33 size aircraft, but nobody mentions the Navalised Mig-29, which is much smaller and just as versatile. Also when dealing with a plane of smaller dimensions, you can acheive more capability with wing/body lift blending. This also helps improve stealth attributes to a degree. This further improved with additions of FAST-pack technologies for additional fuel or payloads.....

MS Paint.

Anyway, moving forward I looked at how large an internal weapons bay you'd need to accomodate a 4rd rotary launcher for PL-12s, assuming a folding-fin version for internal carriage. The result is not brilliant. When you add to that the required length to carry a single YJ-83 or similar SSM, over 6m, the result is a very deep fuselage:



The fuselage is approximately 2.4m deep and 14m long giving it a portly apprearance.

dannytoro said:

.....Planeman, what program do you use for your drawings? I'd love to download that one. The split/joined wing is pretty fascinating. I do see where it would offer some drag and stealth issues though, especially at High AOA aspects. I see alot of people talking about the SU-33 size aircraft, but nobody mentions the Navalised Mig-29, which is much smaller and just as versatile. Also when dealing with a plane of smaller dimensions, you can acheive more capability with wing/body lift blending. This also helps improve stealth attributes to a degree. This further improved with additions of FAST-pack technologies for additional fuel or payloads.....

Click to expand...

That's true. You get an F-18 sized and weight aircraft, so a MiG-29K ain't bad. However, the Su-33 will always offer superior range no matter what.

That J-8NG concept looks cool. I have to say.

I have a fantasy concept of a twin engined JF-17. The tail end is changed to twin V rudders.

On the topic of ideal naval fighters I think that the perception that they have to be twin engined is really just the USN's excuse for wanting their "own" F-18 instead of an F-16 variant. A general argument they've had to surrender in the case of the F-35. There are a long string of successful single engined naval jet fighters and even the infamous Russian turbofans are getting to a level of reliability that was only dreamed of in the 1970s. A naval FC-1 or J-10 need not be twin engined.

Don't Laugh! Oh well, that didn't work. How do you take a bmp and make a JPEG?

Danny, when you're in MSpaint, under "save as" where you choose the destination, in the line below you can select the format.

Though the MiG-29K is a nice aircraft, I don't see it coming to PLANAF. A J-10 would fill that size well.
And since PLAAF already has Su-27series/ J-11, they can get carrier experiance from the Su-33 instead of aquiering a -29K.

Crobato: do you know something about the (aerodynamic) consequences of mounting twin inverted V rudders on an aircraft? (like this: / \)

Planeman: small-medium sized fighters with an attack capabilty and internal weapons bay are a difficulkt area, IMO. These can carry not enough payload without compromising their stealth. Unless perhaps they carry Maverick like waepons.
The F-35 can only hold two AMRAAM internal, if I'm correct. Currently I'm not sure if's the same with the JSM as well, or if they are to be carrierd on hardpoints. That's hardly worth it. The 4 PL-12 in your design are the minimum a fighter should carry I think.
Well, if you can afford it, you can use them for special missions like attacking AEWs or deep strikes with few targets.

I have not made any study on inverted V tails, so my response is a guess. I do believe the reason why V tails are outward is to reduce their exposure from the wake produced by the fuselage and LERXs. Putting them inward may increase their vulnerability to such, though it may reduce the RCS side profile to SAM radars.

If I wanted to do an inverted V shaped tail, maybe I may like it as far away from the fuselage bore axis. I may use something inspired from WWII bombers and fighters like the B-24, B-25, and Me-110, where the elevators are between the rudders.

/__O*O__\

Something like this if you view it from the tail end.

crobato said:

If I wanted to do an inverted V shaped tail, maybe I may like it as far away from the fuselage bore axis. I may use something inspired from WWII bombers and fighters like the B-24, B-25, and Me-110, where the elevators are between the rudders.

/__O*O__\

Something like this if you view it from the tail end.

Click to expand...

Looks very similar to an A-10 Thunderbolt.

Great ideas and designs guys. Just great!

I'm trying something closely derived from a Su-33, so it'll become a navalized J-11 at first.
However, moddeling an aircraft proofed to be more difficult to me than a ship.
At least I got the basic -33 design done (to a certain extent).
Now I have to think and try what changes I'll make.