You have no understanding…upright seating position at 9 gs already causes 9 times the head weight load to the neck…in reclined ( more than F-16 ) there is practically none. Colonel Stabb endured 46 Gs in test environment..and he was aged doctor.

This was not sustained force. It was only for an instant. Also, if you would like the aircraft to be stealthy, you will need internal bays. As for getting in a gunfight with an F-22, I should point out that modern fighter aircraft are designed for 9 to 11 g’s of sustained force along the vertical axis. One cannot say the same about the antique aircraft you are using for your inspiration. Your aircraft would simply come apart if it tried to turn like this.

Your aircraft is:

1. Too small and too lacking in thrust to carry a meaningful payload
2. Not structurally sound
3. Not capable of sustained supersonic flight due to lack of suitable nozzle on turbofan engine
4. Not stealthy due to external carriage of weapons
5. Likely incapable of powering even the meager APG-67 radar you would like to fit to it.
6. Not controllable in supersonic flight even if it was capable of supersonic flight due to lack of hydraulically or electrically actuated controls

Easy now Paralay. You could give Topspeed some very bad ideas.. Let him focus on his super duper 6:th gen fighter and that stealth aircraft carrier instead.

Actually, I think it’s quite inspired.

No I wasn’t going to resurrect the Scorpion. I just figure their aim was bright.

Idea is t keep this really simple…and the nozzles aren’t anything like in Raptor.

In what way are they different? You are still talking about rectangular thrust vectored nozzles…

I was thinking suntin like the RATO rockets in F-104…but instead of providing 578 kN they just provide 6 kN each for a minute or two. Really easy patented invention with fast “strap on” locking can only be used once ( weight each 90-120 kg )…but both have an ignition button of their own..and can be used separately. Definitely the rockets would only extent this kites envelope to supersonic at high with initial speed of around mach 1 with turbofan.

There is a 95% chance this will never be built. I might do a flying model just to see how well that lay out performs…I might also need some serious help in defining the shape/foil/washout etc for the wing/lifting surface. I could also build small balsamodels to see how they glide ( 1/20 scale etc ).

Being really small and weighing just 1500-1800 kilos empty this should not be insanely costly as the big fighter jet projects are. BD-10 project was made with just 60 mio USD back in 1980ies ( and that teached a big lesson for all of us ).

The BD-10 was a deathtrap. It was also not a fighter with the associated weight of weapons, fuel, avionics, ejection seat, etc…

That is the common understanding as we know it right now.

My rocket assisted supersonic jump to supercruise mode with commercial PW535F might be new to many. It might need special tuning for the inlets to access higher acceleration for the airflow.

😉

I almost entirely certain that this will not work. The PW500 series engines have a bypass ratio much too large for supersonic flight, even when they are “jumped” there using rockets. As you increase in mach number, the optimally efficient bypass ratio drops. At some point, you really lose the ability to produce a meaningful amount of thrust with a high bypass engine. I also think you are greatly overestimating the drop in drag in the supersonic regime.

More importantly, supersonic aircraft by necessity always have variable convergent divergent exhaust nozzles, which this engine lacks. It is not possible to achieve supersonic flight without this feature, as for an engine to produce thrust, it needs to have a exhaust velocity greater than the aircraft velocity (as I recall at least), and for a turbine engine to produce the required M > 1.0 exhaust velocity, a de-laval type nozzle is required.

I would strongly advise you to give this line of thinking up- it’s not tenable for quite a few reasons.

Also, you may find this interesting.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]215619[/ATTACH]
It’s the PZL-230F Skorpion. It’s a subsonic, ground attack aircraft though. It was never completed.

Russia certainly has produced more ramjet products. and presumbly exported 5000 BVR AAMs in last 20 years. highly illogical that missile with identical weight claiming so much range. and how does Gripen operate such weopon effectively?. Sukhoi certainly needs that 400km range radar.
Als that spending example that $10b spent in less than two years on one project. It is not like spreading money over 20 year project. where it become obsolete during implementation. Most of EU projects have this problem. see Galileo.

I think that the reason that the Irbis E has such high range is more of a side effect of the need to detect VLO aircraft at a useful range, not to engage targets at this range. Also- there is a difference between “detection” and “tracking.” You need the latter to determine a firing fix.

Also, are you sure a large missile like the RVV-BD/SD is meant for engaging fighters? I thought similar, large non ramjet missiles like the AIM-54 were at a disadvantage against quickly maneuvering fighter sized targets and were typically more effective against tankers and AWACS.

I would also like to point you to this image on APA here:

This gives a 150 nmi (280 km) *detection* range against a 1 m^2 rcs target, which I think would fit the RCS of the Rafale while both carrying Meteor and MICA missiles (drop tanks would add to this). However, in a cleaner configuration, the Rafale RCS may be as low as 0.01 to 0.1 m^2 depending on the angle of the Rafale relative to the Su-35. So we are really looking at a potentially much lower range than the 400 km you are providing. Also at 400 km, what would be the NEZ of the missile in question? If the Rafale detects the incoming missile, it will have *plenty* of time to evade if it is actually launched from that range.

And if you really want to bring yet to be deployed systems into the mix (such as RVV-SD/BD), you could just as easily bring the next generation SPECTRA EW system into the discussion- GaN TR elements and a fully digital channelized design would likely make it very possible for the Rafale to detect LPI signals emitted by the Irbis radar. I would bet with very reasonable certainty that detection and classification of LPI signals were part of the next gen SPECTRA requirements.

Take into account the radar equation:

A radar system will have twice the R value (distance from emitter to receiver) and a factor of 0.01 m^2 to 1+ m^2 to overcome vs an ESM suite since the radar signal actually has to bounce off the target and return all the way back to the emitter. That’s a factor of ~1/10th to 1/1600th (!!!) of the amount of power required for the ESM suite to detect the emitted signal vs a radar. So were I a Su-35 pilot, I would be *very* careful about emitting when there are Rafales (or F-16 b60’s or F-35’s or F-22’s with similarly advanced ESM suites) present. Likewise, a Rafale pilot may have to do the same vs a Khibny equipped Su-35 (although perhaps to a lesser extent, as I doubt Khibny is a solid state GaN digital receiver).

So I think it would turn into a cat and mouse fight- the Rafale has an advantage in missiles and RCS and EW, and the Su-35 has an advantage in range and radar power outside of the merge. In a dogfight, I think the Rafale’s *possibly* lower wing loading, higher thrust/weight, and greater structural load tolerance *may* give it an advantage in a sustained turning fight, but the Su-35’s thrust vectoring and better HOBS missiles would likely dispense of the Rafale very quickly otherwise- so I would probably give the WVR advantage to the Su-35 unless the Rafale pilot is very careful. BVR could go either way depending upon the scenario.

It varies with the aspect the aircraft is viewed at, the frequency of the radar, and the load of pods and weapons on the aircraft. And actual numbers are usually not advertised.

What is the 2nd image?