FA+
Shop
472
Views
Views
9
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Designs / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 1024
File Size 125.5 kB
Report this content
More from Blacktail_F-A
The "Evil Twin" of the F20A3 Stalker, the Type 408 Sword Breaker represents the ultimate threat warplane --- one with 3rd generation stealth, a tandem tri-plane layout, twin engines with 3D TVNs, a 50000 lb payload, massive internal weapons stores, a 2000+ mile range (without AAR or external fuel), 100000lbs of thrust, a Mach 3.4 top speed, 15G stress tolerance, a 150-mile-ranged (at 45-degrees) nanometric-wave AESA radar, a 20-mile-ranges (at 1080 degrees) IRST, and a 23mm cannon with a 10000rpm fire rate.
It can do just about anything the Stalker can.
Also worth noting is how different the layout is from the F20A3 Stalker.
The Stalker has a Gas-Operated 20mm Autocannon with 1400rds of ammo in the upper-forward fuselage fairing --- the Sword Breaker has a Recoil-Operated 23mm Autocannon in a bulge of the lower fuselage fairing. The Stalker has a cylindrical IRST cooled with freon --- the Sword Breaker has a spherical IRST (similar to the Russian OEPS) cooled with liquid nitrogen. The Stalker's thrust nozzles have chevron-shaped petals --- the Sword Breaker's thrust nozzles have daimond-shaped petals. The Stalker has a downward-looking AESA radar (DLR) on it's lower-forward fuselage fairing --- the Sword Braeker has a passive radar "listening array" in the center fuselage. The Stalkers engines are mouned above it's centerline --- the Sword Breaker's engines are mounted below it's centerline. The Stalker's plasma ejectors use closable louvres (like on the F-22) --- the Sword Breaker's plasma ejectors use open vents. The Stalker's engines are accessed from below --- the Sword Breaker's engines are accessed from above. The Stalker has single-piece semi-negative wings --- the Sword Breaker has swept wings with a semi-negative "crank". The Stalker's wings do not fold --- the Sword Breaker's wings fold up at the root of the "crank". The Stalker's tails are canted out --- the Sword Breaker's tails are canted in. The Stalker refuels in mid-air using a drouge --- the Sword Breaker refuels in mid-air using a basket. The Stalker has flaps --- the Sword Breaker has no flaps. The Stalker's silhouette is primarily angular --- the Sword Breaker's silhouette is primarily swet and curved. The Stalker has only a vestigal LERX --- the Sword Breaker has a long, flared LERX that almost reaches the radome. The Stalker has IR-convection afterburners --- the Sword Breaker has microwave-convetion afterburners. The Stalker has plasma touch-screen MFDs --- the Sword Breaker has motion-sensing holographic MFDs. The Stalker has a bubble canopy --- the Sword Breaker has a round-egded pyramidal canopy. The Stalker has semi-negative twin tails --- the Sword Breaker has swept twin tails.
The Stalker and the Sword Breaker are equal opposites --- any encounter between them won't have a happy ending...
It can do just about anything the Stalker can.
Also worth noting is how different the layout is from the F20A3 Stalker.
The Stalker has a Gas-Operated 20mm Autocannon with 1400rds of ammo in the upper-forward fuselage fairing --- the Sword Breaker has a Recoil-Operated 23mm Autocannon in a bulge of the lower fuselage fairing. The Stalker has a cylindrical IRST cooled with freon --- the Sword Breaker has a spherical IRST (similar to the Russian OEPS) cooled with liquid nitrogen. The Stalker's thrust nozzles have chevron-shaped petals --- the Sword Breaker's thrust nozzles have daimond-shaped petals. The Stalker has a downward-looking AESA radar (DLR) on it's lower-forward fuselage fairing --- the Sword Braeker has a passive radar "listening array" in the center fuselage. The Stalkers engines are mouned above it's centerline --- the Sword Breaker's engines are mounted below it's centerline. The Stalker's plasma ejectors use closable louvres (like on the F-22) --- the Sword Breaker's plasma ejectors use open vents. The Stalker's engines are accessed from below --- the Sword Breaker's engines are accessed from above. The Stalker has single-piece semi-negative wings --- the Sword Breaker has swept wings with a semi-negative "crank". The Stalker's wings do not fold --- the Sword Breaker's wings fold up at the root of the "crank". The Stalker's tails are canted out --- the Sword Breaker's tails are canted in. The Stalker refuels in mid-air using a drouge --- the Sword Breaker refuels in mid-air using a basket. The Stalker has flaps --- the Sword Breaker has no flaps. The Stalker's silhouette is primarily angular --- the Sword Breaker's silhouette is primarily swet and curved. The Stalker has only a vestigal LERX --- the Sword Breaker has a long, flared LERX that almost reaches the radome. The Stalker has IR-convection afterburners --- the Sword Breaker has microwave-convetion afterburners. The Stalker has plasma touch-screen MFDs --- the Sword Breaker has motion-sensing holographic MFDs. The Stalker has a bubble canopy --- the Sword Breaker has a round-egded pyramidal canopy. The Stalker has semi-negative twin tails --- the Sword Breaker has swept twin tails.
The Stalker and the Sword Breaker are equal opposites --- any encounter between them won't have a happy ending...
Category Designs / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 1024px
File Size 125.5 kB
UCAVs are controlled entirely by remote control.
If they are highly autonomous, then they have a failsafe feature (i.e., a self-destruct mechanism) that can be via radio --- you can just set the Sword Breaker's cipher computer to sort thorugh every possible algorythym used for the self destruct code, and in minutes you can pulse the codes over the radio arials. ALL of them, simultaneously --- How many hundreds of quadrillions of 1-100 digit combos could there possibly be?
If they are not highly autonomous, then they are constantly being flown by remote control from the rear. Again, just use the cipher computer --- when set to, it will sort radio traffic and soon identify the signal, where it's coming from, where it's going, and even what commands are being transmitted. You can then jam the transmissions, then sneak around to the rear and plunk an ARM onto the radio source. If you REALLY want to ruin Gomer's day, you can transmit false instructions to the UCAV, mask the signal back to ground control with false respopnses, or even slip in a little subtle reprogramming into the UCAV's IFF...
The Stalker and Sword breaker, having fully autonomous flight control systems and human pilots, are invulnerable to these measures. In fact, they use them. >:D
If they are highly autonomous, then they have a failsafe feature (i.e., a self-destruct mechanism) that can be via radio --- you can just set the Sword Breaker's cipher computer to sort thorugh every possible algorythym used for the self destruct code, and in minutes you can pulse the codes over the radio arials. ALL of them, simultaneously --- How many hundreds of quadrillions of 1-100 digit combos could there possibly be?
If they are not highly autonomous, then they are constantly being flown by remote control from the rear. Again, just use the cipher computer --- when set to, it will sort radio traffic and soon identify the signal, where it's coming from, where it's going, and even what commands are being transmitted. You can then jam the transmissions, then sneak around to the rear and plunk an ARM onto the radio source. If you REALLY want to ruin Gomer's day, you can transmit false instructions to the UCAV, mask the signal back to ground control with false respopnses, or even slip in a little subtle reprogramming into the UCAV's IFF...
The Stalker and Sword breaker, having fully autonomous flight control systems and human pilots, are invulnerable to these measures. In fact, they use them. >:D
the argument for both are strong ones, for example:
Unmanned aircraft have many advantages ONLY IF your fighting a enemy who can't match your technology...they are tenitive at best against a adversary of the same level as because are so easy to counter electronicly in truth you don't even NEED to find the control channel, all you need to do is a broad band jamming.
Stealth would even out the playing field somewhat as you can't jam/destroy what you can't see or don't know is there and a smaller aircraft will be VERY much harder to detect, but again, in war it's a race to see who can find and exploit the other's weaknesses. As Sun Tez said "never attack an enemy's strength, always attack his weakness"
There is something to be said for a fast and easy to produce fighter iarcraft Imagine if you will the Falklands conflict... ir first Gulf war.say the Argentine airforce/Iraqi airforce had 4 times as many airctraft of about the Skyhawks/Mig23's capabilitys, but half the size, a quarter of the cost, and, all remotly flown...my guess is that would have made a hell of a diffrence! They could afford the losses, and would be able to simply overwhelm any air defense network. now if those same aircraaft were even remotly stealthy...say flying wing configured..well...
As you can seethe arguments for either type aircraft are srtong enough to warrent development of BOTH for some time to come.
Unmanned aircraft have many advantages ONLY IF your fighting a enemy who can't match your technology...they are tenitive at best against a adversary of the same level as because are so easy to counter electronicly in truth you don't even NEED to find the control channel, all you need to do is a broad band jamming.
Stealth would even out the playing field somewhat as you can't jam/destroy what you can't see or don't know is there and a smaller aircraft will be VERY much harder to detect, but again, in war it's a race to see who can find and exploit the other's weaknesses. As Sun Tez said "never attack an enemy's strength, always attack his weakness"
There is something to be said for a fast and easy to produce fighter iarcraft Imagine if you will the Falklands conflict... ir first Gulf war.say the Argentine airforce/Iraqi airforce had 4 times as many airctraft of about the Skyhawks/Mig23's capabilitys, but half the size, a quarter of the cost, and, all remotly flown...my guess is that would have made a hell of a diffrence! They could afford the losses, and would be able to simply overwhelm any air defense network. now if those same aircraaft were even remotly stealthy...say flying wing configured..well...
As you can seethe arguments for either type aircraft are srtong enough to warrent development of BOTH for some time to come.
I hear that. I'm not entirely against unmanned aircraft though. The problem is that UCAVs are seen by many as a "blanket" replacement for ALL manned craft --- this will never work, in the same way that jet engines will not instantly supplant propellors, rocket motors will not replace jet engines, air-to-air missiles will not replace guns, and cruise missiles will not replace aircraft.
The "experts" made all the above claims 50 years ago, and look at how "right" they were.
Seriously though, UCAVs are only practical if backed up by manned warplanes, and manned warplanes will have a significant force multiplier if routinely assisted by UCAVs. The problem is, getting this concept through the thick skulls of prestige and promotion-seeking generals, and pork-gobbling congressmen --- how much do you want to bet that threat countries will embrace these principals first, and use them against our interests?
The "experts" made all the above claims 50 years ago, and look at how "right" they were.
Seriously though, UCAVs are only practical if backed up by manned warplanes, and manned warplanes will have a significant force multiplier if routinely assisted by UCAVs. The problem is, getting this concept through the thick skulls of prestige and promotion-seeking generals, and pork-gobbling congressmen --- how much do you want to bet that threat countries will embrace these principals first, and use them against our interests?
Or elbowing dad with the fact that there are at least three more generations of manned fighter left.
In all odds, yes, someone's going to beat us to it. My bet is on the Chinese, and it might end up having something to do with that rebellious island province that refuses to fall in line.
In all odds, yes, someone's going to beat us to it. My bet is on the Chinese, and it might end up having something to do with that rebellious island province that refuses to fall in line.
Hmm...
Thier fuel capacity and consumption are similar, but the Stalker and Sword Breaker have different afterburners than today's aircraft.
They use convecting energy to reheat thier exhaust, which is more economical than today's fuel-gushing "chemical" afterburners. The exhaust isn't heated up as much either, and no IR and RCS-producing flame is emitted.
This system also minimizes the wear on the nozzle petals' carbon-ceramic heat shielding.
Thier fuel capacity and consumption are similar, but the Stalker and Sword Breaker have different afterburners than today's aircraft.
They use convecting energy to reheat thier exhaust, which is more economical than today's fuel-gushing "chemical" afterburners. The exhaust isn't heated up as much either, and no IR and RCS-producing flame is emitted.
This system also minimizes the wear on the nozzle petals' carbon-ceramic heat shielding.
It's no speculation, just look at these photos of the F-22 Raptor;
http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/AWA1....._Murphy/01.jpg
http://www.cybermodeler.net/aircraf.....-2295b-147.jpg
http://www.voodoo.cz/yf23/b/yf236.jpg
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com.....Cutaway_lg.jpg
In the first and second links, you can see a set of "zig-zagging" body panels on the F-22, at the start of the engine bulges --- these open up ONLY when the afterburners are engaged, and as the open side faces rear, they obviously don't have anything to do with the air intake system (otherwise, they would open at the front). Hell, they're too far forward to have anything to do with the engines! (see the cutaway in link 4, which conveniantly leaves out any of the associated gizmos that are attached to these louvres.)
Link 3 shows the topside of the YF-23 Black Widow 2. Note the 2 dark cavities on the LERXs, on either side of the forward fuselage fairing --- these vents serve the same purpose as the slotted louvres on the F-22; they emit ionized gases, better known as "Plasma".
You can see paralells in other stealth aircraft, such as the three vents at the nose of the B-2 Spirit;
http://www.tonyrogers.com/images/we.....kpit_600px.jpg
The F-117 Nighthawk's 2 chevron-shaped louvres, located half-way between the intake and exhaust ports (conveniantly painted gray in this picture!;
http://www.flyingmule.com/img/prd/S.....005_01_lrg.gif
It wasn't difficult to figure this out --- an aircraft's exterior always betrays it's capabilities.
The F-35 Lightning 2 doesn't seem to have plasma ejectors, but the JSF project is a sham anyway.
http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/AWA1....._Murphy/01.jpg
http://www.cybermodeler.net/aircraf.....-2295b-147.jpg
http://www.voodoo.cz/yf23/b/yf236.jpg
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com.....Cutaway_lg.jpg
In the first and second links, you can see a set of "zig-zagging" body panels on the F-22, at the start of the engine bulges --- these open up ONLY when the afterburners are engaged, and as the open side faces rear, they obviously don't have anything to do with the air intake system (otherwise, they would open at the front). Hell, they're too far forward to have anything to do with the engines! (see the cutaway in link 4, which conveniantly leaves out any of the associated gizmos that are attached to these louvres.)
Link 3 shows the topside of the YF-23 Black Widow 2. Note the 2 dark cavities on the LERXs, on either side of the forward fuselage fairing --- these vents serve the same purpose as the slotted louvres on the F-22; they emit ionized gases, better known as "Plasma".
You can see paralells in other stealth aircraft, such as the three vents at the nose of the B-2 Spirit;
http://www.tonyrogers.com/images/we.....kpit_600px.jpg
The F-117 Nighthawk's 2 chevron-shaped louvres, located half-way between the intake and exhaust ports (conveniantly painted gray in this picture!;
http://www.flyingmule.com/img/prd/S.....005_01_lrg.gif
It wasn't difficult to figure this out --- an aircraft's exterior always betrays it's capabilities.
The F-35 Lightning 2 doesn't seem to have plasma ejectors, but the JSF project is a sham anyway.
These could all be a sensory arrays or flaps but I do see where you are coming from, the US government still thinks that there is a security risk. I can see that there is avery strong connection in the photos, meanwhile the F-35 will hopefully replace our Harriers but I do see your sense in calling it a 'sham', one thing is that the US government (not Air force) does not want the UK (Its biggest and probably strongest ally) the information about nearly half of the avionics and pretty much all of the sealth technology, how the Hell can our mechanics service the aircraft without the information about the parts they need to service! Its idiocy, we were seriously considering buying the Rafel at one point to serve on our up-and-coming cariers because they were so dam secretive, I think the situation has calmed down now but still, the Idiots in the US Goverment (no offence) could not even trust their own ally, one of which has been through Iraq and Afghanistan and has also suffered because of that action (Yesterday two car bombs were found in London and one burst into flames at Glasgow Airport)!!!!!!!!!!
Anyway, before anger gets me typing and typing ^^, Great aircraft specs, and I like the way you describe them, and thanks for the information!
Anyway, before anger gets me typing and typing ^^, Great aircraft specs, and I like the way you describe them, and thanks for the information!
I'm not too enthusiastic about the US Gov't, either. In fact, it's my belief that national defence is far too important to be left up to those desk-jockeying Whiskey-Deltas.
Unfortunately, I don't exactly have the resources to "put my money where my mouth is".
As for the F-35, it will make a fine replacement for the Harrier... but that's about it.
Unfortunately, I don't exactly have the resources to "put my money where my mouth is".
As for the F-35, it will make a fine replacement for the Harrier... but that's about it.
No, plasma is a simple term for ionised gas. It's sort of like a 4th state of matter (solid -> liquid -> gas -> plasma)
Since plasma has a tendency to absorb (or warp, smother, etc.) radio waves, it is used to mask the RCS of stealth aircraft, by ejecting it into thier slipstream. Observe; http://www.magnetoaerodynamics.com/.....lasmacraft.bmp
This scematic shows how the plasma ejectors on the B-2 (which I pointed out in an earlier post) operate.
Since plasma has a tendency to absorb (or warp, smother, etc.) radio waves, it is used to mask the RCS of stealth aircraft, by ejecting it into thier slipstream. Observe; http://www.magnetoaerodynamics.com/.....lasmacraft.bmp
This scematic shows how the plasma ejectors on the B-2 (which I pointed out in an earlier post) operate.
Between the large wings and broad, "humped" fuselage, it carries plenty of fuel. The Sword Breaker can also extra-large droptanks in it's internal bays (when range is more important than overall loadout). Also consider that this is a 6th-generation warplane, whose engine technology would inevitably be more efficient than that of 5th-generation fighters (F-22, EF-2, Su-47, etc).
Thus, it would not be unreasonable to expect ranges in excess of 2000nm (the range of the F-22), which would mushroom to 4000+nm with internal droptanks, and even greater with external fuel.
Regarding loadout for ordnance, consider that this warplane is over 75 feet long, with a 55-foot wingspan, and the ENTIRE topside of the airframe produces lift --- almost the whole surface area of the Sword Breaker can thus figure into wing area. The amount of lift thus generated would be phenomenal, epecially when you consider that 100000+lbs (that is not a typo --- that's five zeros!) of thrust is heaving it through the air.
That said, a maximum payload of over 50000lbs is not an unreasonable expectation. Also, with two small elevator-style naccele bays with room for 2 small missiles (such as the AIM-132 or R-73AE), two long and deep centerline bays, and 6 hardpoints under the wings, there's no shortage of room to carry whatever is required to complete the mission.
All said, the Sword Breaker can carry one HELL of a lot of stuff.
Thus, it would not be unreasonable to expect ranges in excess of 2000nm (the range of the F-22), which would mushroom to 4000+nm with internal droptanks, and even greater with external fuel.
Regarding loadout for ordnance, consider that this warplane is over 75 feet long, with a 55-foot wingspan, and the ENTIRE topside of the airframe produces lift --- almost the whole surface area of the Sword Breaker can thus figure into wing area. The amount of lift thus generated would be phenomenal, epecially when you consider that 100000+lbs (that is not a typo --- that's five zeros!) of thrust is heaving it through the air.
That said, a maximum payload of over 50000lbs is not an unreasonable expectation. Also, with two small elevator-style naccele bays with room for 2 small missiles (such as the AIM-132 or R-73AE), two long and deep centerline bays, and 6 hardpoints under the wings, there's no shortage of room to carry whatever is required to complete the mission.
All said, the Sword Breaker can carry one HELL of a lot of stuff.
And what about the fuelpod and engine size?They won't be small,so you really can't make it fly too far(Even the engine is going on exreamly High-ended one.Or your fuel is using the NASA one.).And havn't you cal. the hardpoints' airblockage?Too much hardpoints and even a elevator hide hardpoint will cause alot of blockage.
So,I don't think that you design can win the prize.
So,I don't think that you design can win the prize.
The internal fuel capacity is approximately 25000lbs, with the ability to carry an additional 20000 lbs in the centerline internal bay, and up to 16000lbs on the inner four underwing hardpoints --- range on internal fuel alone is over 2000nm.
The fuel is basically a thicker, richer fuel than that used by today's warplanes. The advantages of concetrating the fuel like this are lower combustability (less fire hazard), and obviously more energy released when burned. The disadvantages are that lower combustability means the engine requires more extreme measures to start and restart than with contemporary fuels, richer fuel tends to be heavier, and it's more expensive --- probably USD$8 a gallon.
The problem of fuel ignition, however, could probably be cured by using the same microwave convection technology used in the Afterburners.
As far as "blockage" (drag and/or turbulence) is concerned, there's plenty of space between the weapon stations under each wing --- if you consider that useless portions of the wingspan amount to 50% (20% for the folding wingtips, 30% for the fuselage), that leaves two spans of 12.5 feet within which to attach up to three 4"-wide pylons each --- that's plenty of room for all sorts of ordnance on ALL of them at once, with plenty of room for the slipstream of air to travel in between.
All the mechanisms of the elevators are made of metallic carbon, so even at over Mach 3 there's no risk of them ever being ripped off. Also consider that they would only be opened just long enough for the seeker head to achieve a lock, and launch the missile --- that shouldn't take more than 1.5 seconds.
Regarding to the cocept of winning the "prize", that depends entirely on what that prize is.
Assuming that means selling it to an air force for military service, that's not oing to happen, as all of today's air forces fall into five categories;
1: Those who can't afford a US$100 million fighter (Russia, Ukraine).
2: Those who have no use and/or need for a such a warplane (such as New Zealand or Switzerland).
3: Those who can afford, and NEED, such a warplane, but are incapable of grasping this reality (France, USA)
4: Those who are politically incapable of aqcuiring extremely powerful warplanes (Japan).
5: Those looking for a "silver bullet" weapon to enable easy conquest (China, Iran).
The fuel is basically a thicker, richer fuel than that used by today's warplanes. The advantages of concetrating the fuel like this are lower combustability (less fire hazard), and obviously more energy released when burned. The disadvantages are that lower combustability means the engine requires more extreme measures to start and restart than with contemporary fuels, richer fuel tends to be heavier, and it's more expensive --- probably USD$8 a gallon.
The problem of fuel ignition, however, could probably be cured by using the same microwave convection technology used in the Afterburners.
As far as "blockage" (drag and/or turbulence) is concerned, there's plenty of space between the weapon stations under each wing --- if you consider that useless portions of the wingspan amount to 50% (20% for the folding wingtips, 30% for the fuselage), that leaves two spans of 12.5 feet within which to attach up to three 4"-wide pylons each --- that's plenty of room for all sorts of ordnance on ALL of them at once, with plenty of room for the slipstream of air to travel in between.
All the mechanisms of the elevators are made of metallic carbon, so even at over Mach 3 there's no risk of them ever being ripped off. Also consider that they would only be opened just long enough for the seeker head to achieve a lock, and launch the missile --- that shouldn't take more than 1.5 seconds.
Regarding to the cocept of winning the "prize", that depends entirely on what that prize is.
Assuming that means selling it to an air force for military service, that's not oing to happen, as all of today's air forces fall into five categories;
1: Those who can't afford a US$100 million fighter (Russia, Ukraine).
2: Those who have no use and/or need for a such a warplane (such as New Zealand or Switzerland).
3: Those who can afford, and NEED, such a warplane, but are incapable of grasping this reality (France, USA)
4: Those who are politically incapable of aqcuiring extremely powerful warplanes (Japan).
5: Those looking for a "silver bullet" weapon to enable easy conquest (China, Iran).
Comments