A stealth scenario…

Small airplanes do not carry enough sensors, communications/EW, weapons or fuel for today’s operations (DCA, policing, OCA, strike, CAS, Etc.).

Sensors such as long range radar with state of the art modes allows you to target incoming cruise missiles, ID and target enemy aircraft at long range with low probability of detection by that enemy. IRST allows you to ID and target enemies without EM emissions. ESM allows you to ID enemies and their determine bearing in relation to ownship. Add volume, weight, power and cooling.

Communications data links provide interoperability and data sharing with friendly air and ground assets. Electronic warfare keeps your jet from getting shot down quickly. Add volume, weight, power and cooling.

Multiple weapons allow you to put multiple enemies at risk simultaneously. While you might not kill them all, you will cause them to go defensive and alter their strategy. Add volume, weight, power and cooling (yes, smart weapons require power and cooling).

Fuel is energy which allows you to go fast at full throttle, go to high altitude quickly, go long distances or loiter for long periods of time. Add volume and weight.

There is a substantial financial burden associated with operation and support of any airplane, no matter how simple or complex an the airplane. These “logistics tail” costs include manpower (pilots and maintenance personnel paychecks), training and facilities (runways, buildings/hangars, infrastructure and utilities) – lots of money before the first airplane arrives at the airbase.

If an air force has limited budget, it would limit the number of different types and thus the number of different logistics tails it has to pay for. Then it becomes a trade study to select how much goodness in enough – balance the mix of sensors, comms/EW, weapons and fuel to fit the budget. But you can bet the result will not be a small airplane.

Yes the more the reality kicked in the bigger my design(s) grew ( this was discussed in depth in my other thread ).

Still the jet fighter has smaller engines and smaller radar.

Ground attack aircraft utilizes the advatages of a pusher prop and lifting fuselage ( like the Glider Monkey above ). Also it has rocket assisted power via propellor shafts ( prop engines are 340 hp lycomings ).

Ground AC idea was to be able to loiter a long time using piston engines and for a fast getaway the rocket power ( and for take off with great mass ).

Small airplanes do not carry enough sensors, communications/EW, weapons or fuel for today’s operations (DCA, policing, OCA, strike, CAS, Etc.).

Sensors such as long range radar with state of the art modes allows you to target incoming cruise missiles, ID and target enemy aircraft at long range with low probability of detection by that enemy. IRST allows you to ID and target enemies without EM emissions. ESM allows you to ID enemies and their determine bearing in relation to ownship. Add volume, weight, power and cooling.

Communications data links provide interoperability and data sharing with friendly air and ground assets. Electronic warfare keeps your jet from getting shot down quickly. Add volume, weight, power and cooling.

Multiple weapons allow you to put multiple enemies at risk simultaneously. While you might not kill them all, you will cause them to go defensive and alter their strategy. Add volume, weight, power and cooling (yes, smart weapons require power and cooling).

Fuel is energy which allows you to go fast at full throttle, go to high altitude quickly, go long distances or loiter for long periods of time. Add volume and weight.

There is a substantial financial burden associated with operation and support of any airplane, no matter how simple or complex an the airplane. These “logistics tail” costs include manpower (pilots and maintenance personnel paychecks), training and facilities (runways, buildings/hangars, infrastructure and utilities) – lots of money before the first airplane arrives at the airbase.

If an air force has limited budget, it would limit the number of different types and thus the number of different logistics tails it has to pay for. Then it becomes a trade study to select how much goodness in enough – balance the mix of sensors, comms/EW, weapons and fuel to fit the budget. But you can bet the result will not be a small airplane.

No, you have not. Neither have you ever designed an aircraft. But over the years I have seen quite a few drawings of imaginary airplanes by you.

I don’t get it ? Do you think I got funding for my aeroplane project back in 2010 with just pretty pictures ?

Do you have any idea how many aeroplane design books I have on the selves ?

But anyway. I thank you for your kind words ( I hope the pun was not intented ).

Have I ever said it ( aircraft designing ) would be just profile drawings ? Don’t put words into my mouth.

No, you have not. Neither have you ever designed an aircraft. But over the years I have seen quite a few drawings of imaginary airplanes by you.

i think you will find this evaluation from 39 min. on interesting,
the implications of the compounding effect of low rcs & speed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqgfjXaJxV8

Yes it would make the difference. I also want to point out that this film prop was made of low quality plywood, but the Luftwaffe Horten 229 was highly developed composite which had originally charcoal dust in the glue ( paint ? ) to make it less visible for radar…so the betterment in RCS could have been as much as 30 % ( 50 % ? )…considering the engines gave it way ( reflects via inlets the turbine blades ). I didn’t watch the whole document so I could be wrong too.

Anyhow I have no intention to penetrate the coastal radar network of any nation with any kinda stealth aircraft ! I just think that a small AF could get what it needs just by having small number of very fast ( affordable ) stealth aeroplanes.

This GM-1 ( GliderMonkey ) is 1/3 of the HO-229 in frontal area and less than half the span etc.

I almost had forgotten this design from few years back hadn’t I seen this somewhere; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saunders-Roe_SR.53
It is a developement for ROE 177….a rocket/jet propulsion hybrid interceptor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saunders-Roe_SR.177

I conducted some testing with the GM-1 small model and it actually flies very stable at M2 equivalent scale speeds ( shot with a sling into the air ). Still displays no real Mach numbers sure, but the thin wing foil actually could enable supersonic speeds ( some unsolved problems certainly remained as it was a sketch more or less ). Also the stealth features were pretty undeveloped at that stage.

I repeat what I said: To design an aircraft is more than making three-view (or in some cases, just profile) drawings of imaginary airplanes.

Have I ever said it ( aircraft designing ) would be just profile drawings ? Don’t put words into my mouth.

It is not easy to be an aircraft designer in Finland. Instead of applause and cheers you get put down in a jiffy !

Carry on Finny…perhaps finnish economy will rise in this manner ( ….and now back to the factory…see my blog ).

Here is a smaller ground attack aircraft.

I repeat what I said: To design an aircraft is more than making three-view (or in some cases, just profile) drawings of imaginary airplanes.

i think you will find this evaluation from 39 min. on interesting,
the implications of the compounding effect of low rcs & speed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqgfjXaJxV8

I am sure that an internationally famous and accomplished designer, such as topspeed, will have no problems in designing an aeroplane capable of everything he said, plus a bit more, just overnight. And looking at his post above, I can see that he has done exactly that!! The only small thing is that someone should try to make topspeed understand that “to design” is not the same as “to draw three-view profiles of imaginary aircraft”. But, from my experience from a few, mainly Finnish, aviation forums, the best way to deal with this reality-challenged “designer” is not to comment his posts. Just let him discuss with himself for a while. A rule which I managed to break again…:(

It is not easy to be an aircraft designer in Finland. Instead of applause and cheers you get put down in a jiffy !

Carry on Finny…perhaps finnish economy will rise in this manner ( ….and now back to the factory…see my blog ).

Here is a smaller ground attack aircraft.

I would say you have listed an impossible to design or build aircraft. Average single turboprop aircraft can cost that much. Stealth is not yet cheap, fly by wire controls are not cheap, and would almost certainly needed for a highly manuverable stealth aircraft. Your speed requirements call for high thrust (large engine) which would be very difficult in such a tiny airframe. The cost of the engine alone would be over your price range. Even if you crammed a powerfull engine in such a small airframe it would likely be extreemly short ranged as you would have no room for much fuel.

A stripped aircraft with bare minimum avionics, no radar etc. would be quite limited in todays threat environment. It would likely be limited to daytime, good weather flight, and thus be out in the daylight, so would still be visible to the eye, and thus vulnerable to other aircraft or defences. We have yet to see an aircraft that is totally invisible to detection. It sounds like you desire the perfect small, cheap, fast, steath fighter optimized for the knife fight (close in dogfight), but I am afraid you can’t have all of those things at once.

I am sure that an internationally famous and accomplished designer, such as topspeed, will have no problems in designing an aeroplane capable of everything he said, plus a bit more, just overnight. And looking at his post above, I can see that he has done exactly that!! The only small thing is that someone should try to make topspeed understand that “to design” is not the same as “to draw three-view profiles of imaginary aircraft”. But, from my experience from a few, mainly Finnish, aviation forums, the best way to deal with this reality-challenged “designer” is not to comment his posts. Just let him discuss with himself for a while. A rule which I managed to break again…:(

I would say you have listed an impossible to design or build aircraft. Average single turboprop aircraft can cost that much. Stealth is not yet cheap, fly by wire controls are not cheap, and would almost certainly needed for a highly manuverable stealth aircraft. Your speed requirements call for high thrust (large engine) which would be very difficult in such a tiny airframe. The cost of the engine alone would be over your price range. Even if you crammed a powerfull engine in such a small airframe it would likely be extreemly short ranged as you would have no room for much fuel.

A stripped aircraft with bare minimum avionics, no radar etc. would be quite limited in todays threat environment. It would likely be limited to daytime, good weather flight, and thus be out in the daylight, so would still be visible to the eye, and thus vulnerable to other aircraft or defences. We have yet to see an aircraft that is totally invisible to detection. It sounds like you desire the perfect small, cheap, fast, steath fighter optimized for the knife fight (close in dogfight), but I am afraid you can’t have all of those things at once.

There are limitations yes…and cost may be 10-15 mio sure.

This is smaller than Folland Gnat and has even a ( very small ) radar in it; http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?123446-Size-of-the-new-5th-gen-fighters-too-big-!/page6

2 x rockets and a “homing turbofan”. :eagerness: It is also flying in my avatar.

If the Folland Gnat sized aircraft made totally stealth and has extreme dogfighting capabilities was around and cost maybe 5 million a piece…would that be a sales success ?

Consider it has no radar and…and would be around M1.6 in speed.

Armed with 2 sidewinders and possibly a 30 mm cannon with 250 rounds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYLcBcJWVCs

I would say you have listed an impossible to design or build aircraft. Average single turboprop aircraft can cost that much. Stealth is not yet cheap, fly by wire controls are not cheap, and would almost certainly needed for a highly manuverable stealth aircraft. Your speed requirements call for high thrust (large engine) which would be very difficult in such a tiny airframe. The cost of the engine alone would be over your price range. Even if you crammed a powerfull engine in such a small airframe it would likely be extreemly short ranged as you would have no room for much fuel.

A stripped aircraft with bare minimum avionics, no radar etc. would be quite limited in todays threat environment. It would likely be limited to daytime, good weather flight, and thus be out in the daylight, so would still be visible to the eye, and thus vulnerable to other aircraft or defences. We have yet to see an aircraft that is totally invisible to detection. It sounds like you desire the perfect small, cheap, fast, steath fighter optimized for the knife fight (close in dogfight), but I am afraid you can’t have all of those things at once.