AC . Aircraft Experts - Naval Fighter

[Delfos]

OOC: any coalition member, feel free to join.

ND Air Force and Naval Force together with Valideen forces are planning to build a new Naval Fighter.
We suggest the name "Aurofighter" or something like that, as related to our brilliant coalition.
We think the first thing in order to discuss is the take off system, since it's one of the divergences in this kind of thing.
The delfians like Short Take Off, we don't fancy Vertical Take Off since it limits the total performance of such machine. But we're open to suggestions, if the majority rather Vertical Take Off, we're up to develop the project based on this.
We would like to propose a simple design of a fighter with variants capable of intercept for Naval support and defense, and electronic warfare striker, for advanced scout and strike operations. The structure must be fit for a double manned aircraft, or advanced single pilot interface.

[Templarios]

Please can you define Short Take Off?

[Delfos]

Well, Short Take Off are the initial nomenclature used in aircraft carrier characteristics, means mostly that the plane doesn't need any other propulsion system than it's own, and the physical structure allowing most of those Short Take Offs are a 'sky jump ramp' built in the front of the aircraft carrier, or a short airfield strip. Catapult system otherwise uses a..."catapult" wire, helping the aircraft to achieve the propulsion necessary to take off. Vertical take off or landing doesn't require any of those systems, although most of the aircraft carriers or the aircraft themselves suited with Vertical propulsion are suitable for Short Take Off, normally referred to as Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL). While most of any other aircraft needs an arresting wire, giving the last part of the nomenclature to the Short Take Off or Catapult Assisted Take Off (STOBAR or CATOBAR).

[Osamafune]

We agree, and would much prefer short take off over vertical take off.

[Delfos]

We can have variants anyway, but we should focus in one ability first, or there can be a side project to suit all propulsion as variants into the same structure, but most of any structure allows it.

We also want viable sonic speed, capable of maintaining it for long periods, and that requires two engines of 50/60Kn of dry trust and 75/90Kn of afterburner power each more or less. Zabid Missile Industry is willing to study the engines for this fighter.

We would also like to explore the fact this is a joint project for top technology pilot interface as mentioned above, with motion sensors and a more organized frame.

Another thing is the armament payload, must be great, that's all.

Wings, to avoid Dynamic Geometry wing trouble, which delfian forces dislike, we can make a dynamic fixed wing, basically a delta wing would do the job. But wings like this aren't really suitable for folding systems, so we would like to know your opinion, on everything of course.

[Templarios]

We can offer technology that can work in very cold climates and adapt any other technology so it will work in arctic temperature.

[Osamafune]

The delta wing idea songs best to us.

[Delfos]

For more flexibility in delta wings, normally we use front paddles, and remove most if not all tail wings, I think it's our best choice, but there's an important question, not just for the looks and design, but for the performance of the plane. We have two options, beyond having front paddles, a single vertical tail, or a double tail? Single tail has more high-speed performance, but it required higher wing lenght and higher tail, double tails can make the wings shorter, good for aircraft carriers, but there's not much difference in overall.
We don't have much experience with double rudder tails, but that would be a good experience, otherwise we would make single vertical tail. What do you think?

[Osamafune]

Since the double tails make the plane smaller, we'd have to go with that so hopefully we could get an extra plane or two on board.

[geek girl]

while not yet a member of the AC as an interested party would Selid be able to join in the development program we are looking to replace our viggans

[Delfos]

ooc: I'm sorry, this is for coalition members only, we don't want externals wandering around with our R&D projects. Although if it wouldn't be a fighter I would have no problem in accept you, members may agree having you in the project, but I think the best idea would be joining the coalition if you're part of the security area.

[Validus]

"My nation, as you know has a long history of operating carriers, both large and small. We have come to find that having a variant of the same aircraft, of a Vertical take off version, and a standard take off. obviously the standard take off would be able to carry more weapons, and should be operated on the larger ships, were as vertical take off is good for getting into tight places like very small air strips in occupied territory or small vessels. However We can continue to use our F-35 Lightings for the Vertical Role, which is fine by us."

~Thanato

[Delfos]

This is a sketch preview of the beginning of technical, designing and engineering planning.

[Templarios]

Can we have an outline of the current stats so we can comment on them and building further improvements.

[Validus]

I like the design. However if we could get Specs, We should at least try to have the fighter go to Mach 1.8 or even Mach 2 if possible.

~Thanato