FA+
Shop
327
Views
Views
5
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Designs / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1024 x 1280
File Size 101.6 kB
Report this content
More from Blacktail_F-A
While most of my designs incorporate themes of existing airframe patterns, this one is an unabashed rip-off.
The F13A1 Incubus is meant to be a caricature of the F-22 Raptor. In other words, it's no accident that it looks just like a YF-22. Not only does it resemble the Raptor in appearance, but it also has the Raptor's dismal performance.
Note the high Wing Loading, a Fuel Fraction that makes Supercruise impossible ("Supercruise" is flying at supersonic speed on minimal thrust --- NOT at full Military Thrust, as Raptor Apologists LIE about --- and you need at least 35% to do this), mediocre Turn Rates, generic Climb Rate and Service Ceiling, narrow Thrust Vectoring angles, finicky Weapon Stations, and complete absence of an Airbrake --- all pure F-22 Raptor.
I've gone even farther; the F-35 Lightning II's excessively-tall rear canopy sill and awkwardly-hinged Horizontal Stabilizers are present as well.
However, this dreary little raincloud of a fighter has a silver lining --- it's half the cost of an F-22 Raptor, and less than 1/3 the cost of an F-35!
===== F13A1 Incubus Data =====
©2011 Blacktail
Role: Air Superiority Fighter
Unit Price: US$150 Million
Crew: 1
Size(LxWxH): 66x45x18ft
Wing Area: 850ft2
Empty Weight: 40000lbs
Internal Fuel: 20000lbs
Payload: 15000lbs
Max. T/O Weight: 75000lbs
Wing Loading: 100lb/ft2
Fuel Fraction: 30%
T/W Ratio: 1.75
Range: 2000 miles
Ceiling: 50000ft
Cruise Speed: Mach 1.2
Top Speed: Mach 1.8
Climb Rate: 50000ft/min
Initial Turn Rate: 30 degrees/sec
Continuous Turn Rate: 18 degrees/sec
Max. G-Load: +9/-3
Sensors: PSRA-100A AESA Radar, RWR
Scan Range: 150 miles @ 45 degrees
Look Down: Yes
Shoot Down: Yes
Propulsion: 2x Storm Low-Bypass Turbofans w/ 50000lbs/Military Thrust, 70000lbs/AB
Thrust Vectoring: Yes (2D, +/- 20 degrees)
Weapon Stations: 1x Mk.7 20mm autocannon w/400rds, 1x Internal Bay w/8000lb Capacity, 2x Auxillary Internal Bay w/300lb Capacity, 2x Underwing Hardpoint w/2000lb Capacity, 2x Underwing Hardpoint w/1000lb Capacity
ECMs: Chaff/Flare Dispensers (30/30rds), Tactical Jammer
FBW: Yes (Digital)
RCS: 5cu/ft
Stealth: Yes
Tailhook: No
Catapult Hitch: No
Drag Chute: No
AAR: Yes
Other: 1-piece Polyurethane Bubble Canopy, Zero-Zero Ejection Seat, Contoured Seat, HOTAS, Holographic HUD, Liquid-Cooled Electronics, LCD 3-screen MFD, DVI, Oxygen Generator, APU, Digital Databus, IRS, TMS/ACFC
The F13A1 Incubus is meant to be a caricature of the F-22 Raptor. In other words, it's no accident that it looks just like a YF-22. Not only does it resemble the Raptor in appearance, but it also has the Raptor's dismal performance.
Note the high Wing Loading, a Fuel Fraction that makes Supercruise impossible ("Supercruise" is flying at supersonic speed on minimal thrust --- NOT at full Military Thrust, as Raptor Apologists LIE about --- and you need at least 35% to do this), mediocre Turn Rates, generic Climb Rate and Service Ceiling, narrow Thrust Vectoring angles, finicky Weapon Stations, and complete absence of an Airbrake --- all pure F-22 Raptor.
I've gone even farther; the F-35 Lightning II's excessively-tall rear canopy sill and awkwardly-hinged Horizontal Stabilizers are present as well.
However, this dreary little raincloud of a fighter has a silver lining --- it's half the cost of an F-22 Raptor, and less than 1/3 the cost of an F-35!
===== F13A1 Incubus Data =====
©2011 Blacktail
Role: Air Superiority Fighter
Unit Price: US$150 Million
Crew: 1
Size(LxWxH): 66x45x18ft
Wing Area: 850ft2
Empty Weight: 40000lbs
Internal Fuel: 20000lbs
Payload: 15000lbs
Max. T/O Weight: 75000lbs
Wing Loading: 100lb/ft2
Fuel Fraction: 30%
T/W Ratio: 1.75
Range: 2000 miles
Ceiling: 50000ft
Cruise Speed: Mach 1.2
Top Speed: Mach 1.8
Climb Rate: 50000ft/min
Initial Turn Rate: 30 degrees/sec
Continuous Turn Rate: 18 degrees/sec
Max. G-Load: +9/-3
Sensors: PSRA-100A AESA Radar, RWR
Scan Range: 150 miles @ 45 degrees
Look Down: Yes
Shoot Down: Yes
Propulsion: 2x Storm Low-Bypass Turbofans w/ 50000lbs/Military Thrust, 70000lbs/AB
Thrust Vectoring: Yes (2D, +/- 20 degrees)
Weapon Stations: 1x Mk.7 20mm autocannon w/400rds, 1x Internal Bay w/8000lb Capacity, 2x Auxillary Internal Bay w/300lb Capacity, 2x Underwing Hardpoint w/2000lb Capacity, 2x Underwing Hardpoint w/1000lb Capacity
ECMs: Chaff/Flare Dispensers (30/30rds), Tactical Jammer
FBW: Yes (Digital)
RCS: 5cu/ft
Stealth: Yes
Tailhook: No
Catapult Hitch: No
Drag Chute: No
AAR: Yes
Other: 1-piece Polyurethane Bubble Canopy, Zero-Zero Ejection Seat, Contoured Seat, HOTAS, Holographic HUD, Liquid-Cooled Electronics, LCD 3-screen MFD, DVI, Oxygen Generator, APU, Digital Databus, IRS, TMS/ACFC
Category Designs / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1024 x 1280px
File Size 101.6 kB
Along with F-117 Nighthawks, A-10 Thunderbolt IIs, and F-16 Fighting Falcons --- more than 4000 airframes to be replaced by less than 1000.
The best parts are that less than 3% of the testing will be complete before they enter service; http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/.....ocumentID=4599
...nobody knows how much they will cost, but we DO know it will be much more than anyone has so far promised; http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4596&from_page=../index.cfm
...the "Joint" Strike Fighter is almost 99% funded by the US taxpayer; http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?documentid=4055&programID=37&from_page=../friendlyversion/printversion.cfm
...and it's "stealth capability" isn't; http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4580&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=37&from_page=index.cfm
Just to name a few things wrong with it.
The best parts are that less than 3% of the testing will be complete before they enter service; http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/.....ocumentID=4599
...nobody knows how much they will cost, but we DO know it will be much more than anyone has so far promised; http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4596&from_page=../index.cfm
...the "Joint" Strike Fighter is almost 99% funded by the US taxpayer; http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?documentid=4055&programID=37&from_page=../friendlyversion/printversion.cfm
...and it's "stealth capability" isn't; http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4580&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=37&from_page=index.cfm
Just to name a few things wrong with it.
I'd be delighted to provide you with said info.
Bookmark these links and take notes, and be sure to include names, dates, and numbers in said notes. The better your argument is, the deeper the hole your opponents will "argue" themselves into... if they don't acknowledge the significance of your information, that is.
Here's some pages on the F-22 from CDI (the organization --- not the video game system);
1- http://www.cdi.org/issues/tacair/F-22.html
2- http://www.cdi.org/issues/tacair/F-.....Factsheet.html
3- http://www.cdi.org/adm/1035/transcript.html
4- http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/stevenson%2.....22%20brief.pdf
5- http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3379&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=37&from_page=index.cfm
Here's more at the Nieman Watchdog;
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00197
The Washington Post;
1- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR&sid=ST2009071001019
2- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.....T2009071001019
The GAO;
1- http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-171R (covers corrosion in the F-22)
2- http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?rptno=GAO-07-415&accno=A67626 (covers stress cracking in the F-22's tail)
3- http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?rptno=GAO-05-390T&accno=A18638 (covers how "Significant changes in the F/A-22 program have severely weakened its original business case...")
RAND (This one's a bit odd, because RAND is usually a habitual cheerleader for big-budget military programs);
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_b.....efs/RB159.html
Lots of concerns over the too-small number of F-22s;
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re.....ements-Retreat
Still more on the F-22;
http://defensetech.org/2008/02/07/f.....efense-budget/
Defense Industry Daily;
1- http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com.....-turkey-02536/
2- http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com.....re-f22s-01736/
The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) archive on the F-22 (read it all!);
http://www.pogo.org/investigations/.....ity/fa-22.html
There's more out there, if you google for it, but this is a TON of info to digest as it is. Remember --- take notes!
Bookmark these links and take notes, and be sure to include names, dates, and numbers in said notes. The better your argument is, the deeper the hole your opponents will "argue" themselves into... if they don't acknowledge the significance of your information, that is.
Here's some pages on the F-22 from CDI (the organization --- not the video game system);
1- http://www.cdi.org/issues/tacair/F-22.html
2- http://www.cdi.org/issues/tacair/F-.....Factsheet.html
3- http://www.cdi.org/adm/1035/transcript.html
4- http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/stevenson%2.....22%20brief.pdf
5- http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3379&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=37&from_page=index.cfm
Here's more at the Nieman Watchdog;
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00197
The Washington Post;
1- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR&sid=ST2009071001019
2- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.....T2009071001019
The GAO;
1- http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-171R (covers corrosion in the F-22)
2- http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?rptno=GAO-07-415&accno=A67626 (covers stress cracking in the F-22's tail)
3- http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?rptno=GAO-05-390T&accno=A18638 (covers how "Significant changes in the F/A-22 program have severely weakened its original business case...")
RAND (This one's a bit odd, because RAND is usually a habitual cheerleader for big-budget military programs);
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_b.....efs/RB159.html
Lots of concerns over the too-small number of F-22s;
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re.....ements-Retreat
Still more on the F-22;
http://defensetech.org/2008/02/07/f.....efense-budget/
Defense Industry Daily;
1- http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com.....-turkey-02536/
2- http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com.....re-f22s-01736/
The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) archive on the F-22 (read it all!);
http://www.pogo.org/investigations/.....ity/fa-22.html
There's more out there, if you google for it, but this is a TON of info to digest as it is. Remember --- take notes!
Comments