Build planning: "Ultimate Eagle"

[Diamondback]

As might have been seen at ARC, I'm putting together a build-plan for a pair of "Spare No Expense, Best of Everything" F-15 combat-capable R&D ships.

Basic airframe: F-15SE Silent Eagle back-half mated to NF-15B ACTIVE front-half--I think I've figured out a way that you could actuate the canards and keep the internal gun, by using a stub-axle with gear on the canard, then a hollow driveshaft AROUND the barrel assembly, with actuators in a small fairing on the aircraft's "shoulders". Total reconstruction with lighter, stronger and more heat-tolerant materials wherever possible.

Flight controls: Fiber-optic "fly-by-light" controlled by an onboard supercomputer built from multiple F-22 computer cores.

Power: The biggest engines that will fit up this thing's backside... thinking F100-PW-232 demonstrators with hybrid AVEN/LOAN exhausts (lifted this idea from a thread at What-If, but color me clueless on modeling it) as a minimum, ideally F135's or an F-15-optimized Reaction Engines Ltd. SABRE system.
(http://reactionengines.co.uk/sabre_demoprog.html) To model it, if I can't figure out how to do an AVEN/LOAN, I'm thinking to "fake it" with the petaled tailfeathers of the F-15I.

Sensors and pods: ASW-55 (Have Nap/Popeye) and AXQ-14 (GBU-15/AGM-130) datalink capabilities integrated into onboard avionics, pods no longer required; aircraft can now both downlink and uplink, and should the need arise can relay PGM remote guidance from a ground station. Sniper-XR plus Tiger Eyes IRST plus LANTIRN Nav like F-15SA and SG in the usual places. (Thinking the Sniper will be a WHIF itself, an F-35 EOTS back-fitted into a Sniper pod.)

External stores: Centerline pylon from the F-15I, up-stressed for GPU-5 Pave Claw or ASAT. CFT long pylons modified to accept AIM-54 Phoenix and Standard/Aegis missile family. Stub pylons from the F-15K--possibly with upgrades to carry some guided missiles? Stations 2/8 restressed and adapted for Pave Claw, Phoenix and ASAT options. Stations 1/9 of F-15A added, with LAU-128/ADU-552 adapters as offered on SA and SE. Compatibility with all common NATO, WestPac-allied and Russian-origin air-to-air and most air-to-surface stores.

Antennas: External blade antennas replaced with embedded "smart skin" panels, reducing both drag and RCS.

The build: Revell 5511, fins and stabs replaced with Two Mikes and Quickboost resin. Tailfins to have 15-degree outboard cant. F-15K stub pylons and Tiger Eyes from Academy F-15I's unused parts, CL pylon from same kit. Sniper-XR from Hasegawa Weapons Set E.

The problems:
-Afterburner cans and exhausts... I'm NOT cannibalizing two Kitty Hawk F-35s for tailpipes, I don't know of any F-16 AVEN or LOAN cans I could adapt and I'm not sure about the F-15I  tailfeathers.
-ECM "butt pimples"... if I'm going for the best ECM fitted in an existing variant, do I want to use the rear antenna blisters of the -I or -K?
-Instrument panels... Concept is for the aircraft to actually be smarter than its crew, and thus I need ideas about selecting or designing MFD-heavy instrument panels fitting that description. Also, for the SE's wide-angle HUD, does it work to fake it with the WAR HUD from an F-16C Block 40 or do I need to hold out for something better?
-NF-15B canards... these will be the hold-up--I've committed to buy several sets from Lock-On Models as soon as they're ready, but that WILL be at least a few years due to the owner's medical issues. I'm reluctant to scratchbuild, so I'm deferring this part until the rest of the aircraft is decided and underway.
-Tailfin cant... better to insert a shim under the entire fin, shave down the bottom of the entire fin, or a combination of shimming inboard and shaving outboard?
-Landing gear and tailhook... I'm tempted to try something for something to make this beast carrier-capable like the proposed F-15N Sea Eagle that was declined in favor of continuing Tomcat development.
-Stations 1/9... did the updates of the Academy Mudhen kit still have this (Captoveur at ARC thinks she saw the SUU-61 outboard pylons in the early, glitchy boxing), is there an aftermarket part for F-15A upgrading, or am I stuck having to cannibalize or "clone" from a Hasegawa -A?

Anyone have any thoughts to refine this? I'm not much of a scratchbuilder, and the less cutting or supergluing I have to do the better. (Last major bout with superglue was a resin XF-85 Goblin, and I recall having had to chip my hand out of a blob of the stuff...)

[GTX_Admin]

Flight controls: Fiber-optic "fly-by-light" controlled by an onboard supercomputer built from multiple F-22 computer cores.

Probably better to use F-35 computers given it is much more developed than the F-22, though that is beside the point.  Can't wait to see the result.

[Diamondback]

Good point re computers, but I was trying to get the highest power-per-cubic-inch components I could--I also write on a fiction forum, and I'm planning to write this bird and a twin with onboard human-level Artificial Intelligences as a couple characters. My mainframe expert believed the minimum plausible hardware for an AI is equivalent to a dozen Crays, and since fully upgraded F-22s will have the equivalent of 3 packed into the space of two breadboxes if I understand the systems architecture right, I was thinking four F-22 ship-sets daisy-chained together in a large footlocker. If F-35 can pack even more power into the same space, I'm not averse to upgrading... :)

Basically, I'm thinking not just one of the most powerful aircraft computers, but one of the most powerful computers of any kind ever, driving a back-fitted mixed F-22/F-35 avionics suite. You might say, an F-15 limited only by how much the customer's willing to pay to have put in... ABM/ASAT or even satellite launch? Can do. Air-to-air? Air-to-mud? The real limits would be budget and available payload stocks...

[taiidantomcat]

One of the things that will really help is deciding what "can be seen" and what can't.

For Example: the "fly by light"  and advanced computers are cool concepts, but if its an internal thing and they can't be seen on a model, then you should turn your attention firstly to "the big things" Like engines and canards, things that really change a model.

I try to pick one or two things per build that I feel personally "make or break" the model. For example, If I make a Russian F-14, the Fins have to look/Be Russian borrowed from another kit. If I don't alter those shapes, then painting it in Russian Markings makes it look like an "aggressor" USN F-14 rather than an actual "operated by USSR" look that I want. I might also use the distinct cockpit color seen on USSR fighters, and USSR Weapons, to further distance it from its USN cousin.

I am telling you this because its really easy to "write yourself into a corner" with a build. I have the Idea of a Titanium skinned F-14... But I havnt really found a way to show that. So here I have this big backstory I spend tons of time on, and I can't portray it on a model!  So pick a few big things first, then look at the little things like sensors etc. Especially if those senors can be added later: You can have a fully built model before you have to think about which targeting pod you prefer to put on it.

You can totally scratchbuild canards, In fact I recommend that you do. Get some sheet styrene, laminate it if its not thick enough, Cut the shape, and then sand the edges. It will teach you a lot, and its a pretty simple mod that saves money. Its forgiving too, as long as the edges looks nice and round, a good coat of paint will make it look seamless. As far as scratchbuilding goes its about as simple as it gets.

You could buy one Kittyhawk F-35 and then use RTV to Resin Copy the Engine. Thats what I plan on doing when I get enough money to get a hold of an F-35. After that, people around here are going to get sick of my F135 equipped everything! 

[Diamondback]

TT, good points--the only reason I mention anything inside-the-skin is for both the build and the bird as a character--I want to make sure I keep to something that actually COULD exist, and I'm gonna need to ask you guys to help me estimate speed and range gains--I'm thinking around the MiG-25 class with a light Air-to-Air and two travel-pod load.

Big worry isn't the canards themselves--I was thinking the same thing roughly, tracing Hornet tailfins onto sheet-stock as a temp, but it's the fuselage end with the actuators and housings that's the worry, and I need some adhesive I can remove later when the "final" part is available.

Key points beyond the SE config, as I see it, are an advanced cockpit (and maybe an F-35 EOTS fitted ahead of the gear, or a Tomcat-style TCS), the canards and the engines.

[Artoor_K]

Power: The biggest engines that will fit up this thing's backside... thinking F100-PW-232 demonstrators with hybrid AVEN/LOAN exhausts (lifted this idea from a thread at What-If, but color me clueless on modeling it) as a minimum, ideally F135's or an F-15-optimized Reaction Engines Ltd. SABRE system.
(http://reactionengines.co.uk/sabre_demoprog.html) To model it, if I can't figure out how to do an AVEN/LOAN, I'm thinking to "fake it" with the petaled tailfeathers of the F-15I.

If you're planning to make it compatibile with all common NATO, WestPac-allied and Russian-origin air-to-air and most air-to-surface stores then why not borrow engines from Russia ? :) I think  Lyulka AL-37FU (Forsazh Upravleniye, "afterburner-controlled") or  Lyulka AL-31FP from Su-37 will be even better than F100-PW-232. And you have many exhaust aftermarket sets.

[Diamondback]

Artoor, interesting idea--the only reason I added WarPac compatibility was for "scavenging resupply" so that if Poland, Ukraine or any other country with a lot of leftover Russian-origin ordnance decided to buy in they wouldn't have to buy a whole new stockpile just to have a functional weapons system. (And, if these testbeds occasionally get used in black ops, loading black-market Russkie iron is instant Plausible Deniability.)

I'd need to check the stats, see how those engines compare in size and weight, though--if an engine can't fit in the same space, and noticeably either beat the raw power and match power-to-weight, or match power and beat power-to-weight, I can't see how it'd be worth the trouble of replacing the existing PW-232 or GE-132.

Some notes:
F100-PW-232 = 46.4" inlet dia, 46.5" max dia, 191" OAL, 4101# wt,??k# dry thrust, 32.5k# wet thrust
F110-GE-132 = ??" inlet dia, 46.5" max dia, 182" OAL, ~4.4k# wt, ??k# wet thrust, 32.5k# max thrust
F119-PW-100 = ??" inlet dia, ??" max dia, 203" OAL, 3.9k# wt,  ??k# dry thrust, 39K# wet thrust
F135 (CTOL) = 43" inlet dia, 46" max dia, 220" OAL, ??#wt, 28k# dry thrust, 43K# wet thrust
Saturn AL-31F = 35.6" inlet dia, 50" max dia, 196" OAL, 3.5x# wt, 16.7k# dry thrust, 27.5k# wet thrust
Saturn AL-41F1 = ??" inlet dia, ??" max dia, ??" OAL, 3130# wt, ??k# dry thrust, 33k# wet thrust

Basically, we have a cylinder of about 47" diameter and 191" length to work with, unless there's enough room inside for a 30" stretch of engine bay and chopdown of intake trunks or afterburner can or both.

[elmayerle]

The LOAN nozzle looks pretty close to the F135 nozzle on the F-35.  Use that as your guide for shaping the "tail feathers".  A metallic black color for the resultant nozzles would reflect Lo coatings that work at that temperature (yes, they exist; further deponent sayeth not).  The AVEN aspect wouldn't be that noticeable in most cases; if you feel the need to show it, go look at some pictures of the AVEN testbed F-16 for ideas.  one further thought, a vaned radar wave absorber in each inlet as proposed on the X-32/F-32 to help further reduce signature (I"m in the early stages of sketching out a "Silent Tomcat", so I have considered some of these things).  On the centerline pylon, you might want to consider the missile and sensor pod St. Louis is looking at for further developments of the Super Hornet.   Rather than fitting air-launched Standard missiles, how about an air-launched version of the ESSM (RIM-162)?

[Diamondback]

Evan, what a coincidence... :) one of the pair was already planned for an overall metallic black anyway, so I've already been playing around with paint mixes (thinking 75% Gloss Black/25% Chrome Silver, may sub Flat for the cans). LOL (BTW, think we've crossed paths over at that other speculative modeling site... once shot you a PM re a next-gen Pave Low, before I realized the kind of issues you had with Sikorsky.)

Tailpipes will be in no-deflection as modeled, so that cuts one corner. Wave absorbers, will think on, but I'm assuming they'd have to be removed when in CONUS, kinda like the reflectors on an F-117's sides. (I'm also working on a "Tomcat 21 Hotrod" and considering leveraging some SE/F-22/JSF bits for that like adding extra cant to the tailfins--I like this as much for ballast reduction* and other weight shaving as for RCS--so maybe we should compare notes.)
*SE posts a 4-500# ballast reduction from the tailfins now generating lift. Need to figure out how much lift the canards add, and how much total weight they cost too... I know Christine with her canards is a ton heavier than a standard -B, and they had to rip out her internal gun and maybe her IFR receptacle, so the install's probably a good bit heavier still. Good thing F135s mean "power to burn", huh? LOL

C/L pod... will look into it, but not totally sure. (As it is, this thing's already going to have EOTS, IRST and some other advanced optical sensors I haven't figured out the gory details on yet.) Not having to fight with AXQ-14 or ASW-55 stores by having those datalinks integrated with onboard avionics will help open up stores options...

I'm open to ESSM, in fact a lot of my assumptions were based on presuming Tier 3 Aegis still using the same basic body and fins--if I can just modify Hasegawa STARMs and call 'em "upgraded Aegis family", that'll be a lot less scary than scratchbuilding. (Let's put it this way... in terms of actual construction, my only ventures beyond the sprues to date have been battle damage, closing up panels and canopies that a kit manufacturer meant to be open *Gibbs-slap to Revell for not liking buttoned-up-to-fly options on their Hogs* or modifying a Monogram F-101 to show gear in mid-retract...)

For a "Combat ACTIVE", does moving the receptacle one bay back and using a hollow driveline wrapped around the Vulcan's barrels sound like a plausible way to gain the NF-15B's advantages without having to pay most  of the test bird's downside costs?

[Modelling_Mushi]

The problems:
-Instrument panels... Concept is for the aircraft to actually be smarter than its crew, and thus I need ideas about selecting or designing MFD-heavy instrument panels fitting that description. Also, for the SE's wide-angle HUD, does it work to fake it with the WAR HUD from an F-16C Block 40 or do I need to hold out for something better?

Diamondback, it all sounds good. With the cockpit why not go all out? It seems that everything is heading to helmet mounted displays so that the actual need for a cockpit instrument "panel" or "MFD" seems to be going redundant. Voice activated controls, motion sensoring for eyes to control functions, the need for physical touch is redundant. If you want the aircraft to be smarter than the crew, how about also adding some bio-feedback harnessing into the flight suit as well, so that flight information / warnings are also transmitted through stimuli to the crews bodies (i.e. a threat to the rear would appear in the helmet sight, together with a prick or pang in the back). So you have the crew being fed everything through a joint helmet mounted display; if you want a fail safe option for that you could have a holographic HUD in cockpit that responds to hand movements; have a suit that is extensively wired into the flight system; have the crew seated in newer, high G resistant seats; and have the old instrument panel what it will be in the future - nothing!. In short, the modelling detail would be in the helmet design, perhaps some suspended clear card for the holographic display if you like, the new suit design, and the new high G tolerant seating position. Just my 2c.

However you decide to go, I'm looking forward to this one. 

[GTX_Admin]

It seems that everything is heading to helmet mounted displays so that the actual need for a cockpit instrument "panel" or "MFD" seems to be going redundant.

Not quite, but it is getting there.  Here is the cockpit of the F-35 which is probably the most advanced to date:



Mind you, I like your ideas too.

[Diamondback]

For the record, when I say "smarter than its crew"... I'm actually a writer on a fiction forum, and got into WHIFfing (and back into modeling period) because a lot of my teammates don't have the smarts to Google things or the vision to imagine "take this piece from X, that from Y and a few from Z and throw 'em all together" so I need to either build or digital-image something so they can see what I'm thinking. Despite the hard present-day setting I did get an OK to play "What If" on having a few Artificial Intelligence characters, this pair of Mudhens being two of those... (To the point that the aircraft have their own distinct personalities, think and speak for themselves, are capable of fully autonomous flight and even combat, and one of 'em even is planned to pursue a Philosophy degree. Full disclosure: the concept got hatched because the girl who writes my lead character's fiancee started nudging me about "he should build her a matched His & Hers pair of planes," and I figured stealing a second Iranian Tomcat was not just pushing but breaking the limits of plausibility so it was time to move to a new platform for the pair--IF somebody'd kitted the stillborn F-22B two-seater I mighta gone with Raptors, but here again unlikely you'd see a private contractor even WITH DARPA blessing getting those, leaving the Mudhen the most advanced two-seater available... and I figure these two are rebuilds from Boneyard -B's, torn down to the last nut/bolt/rivet, zero-timed and completely rebuilt from the ground up.)

Interesting concepts, Mushi... just a little farther into the future than I'm ready to go right now. (Given that I got them to let me play with Artificial Intelligence and Adaptive Camouflage, I don't want to venture too far past what's already available Off The Shelf... I figure I've already pushed my luck ENOUGH with them letting me write an AI Pave Low equipped with a "cloaking device".)

GTX, I actually did a lot of research on the F-35 panel in planning for the AI Pave Low build (need to start a thread on that at some point, BTW)... when Rockwell Collins had the contract, it was basically two of their MFD-2810 screens mounted with common bezel and display drivers (if commercially offered it'd be MFD-2820), so I figured the same concept could apply with more screens or other sizes, and created an "MFD-21024" (three 8x10's, portrait orientation) and "MFD-2924" (two 9x12's in portrait, like JSF but the next panel size up) for each pilot's primary flight instruments and a center tactical/weapons/aircraft & engine status display.

Elaborating on engines...
F100-PW-232: 4101# wt,??k# dry thrust, 32.5k# wet thrust = dry thrust/wt uncalc, wet 7.925
F110-GE-132: ~4.4k# wt, ??k# dry thrust, 32.5k# wet thrust = dry thrust/wt uncalc, wet 7.386
F119-PW-100: 3.9k# wt,  ??k# dry thrust, 39K# wet thrust = dry thrust/wt uncalc, wet 10.0
F135 (CTOL): ??#wt, 28k# dry thrust, 43K# wet thrust = no calculation possible
Saturn AL-31F: 3.5x# wt, 16.7k# dry thrust, 27.5k# wet thrust = dry thrust/wt 4.771, wet 7.857
Saturn AL-41F1: 3130# wt, ??k# dry thrust, 33k# wet thrust = dry thrust/wt uncalc, wet 10.543 (IF it can fit)
rumored X-32 YF135 prototype: ??#wt, ??k# dry thrust, 52K# wet thrust = no calculation possible

[elmayerle]

Well, they aren't as advanced as your AI's, but you should check out the AI's on the Freehold combat aircraft in Michael Z. Wiliamson's novel "Freehold".  To me, it's direct nuerotronic interface seems a natural extension of the "pilot's associate" incorporated into the F-35 (granted, it only takes voice input or tactile input on the F-35, but 'tis a start).

Regarding a lifting tail in addition to the canards, you'd need to play with, and fine tune, the flight control laws in the simulator before you tried anything, but the concept isn't that "out there", it's rather similar to the "three surface" approach of the Piaggio Avanti.  Personally, I'd go for the simple approach, modify fastpacs with a forward gun section on one and a forward refueling set-up on the other and go with simpler actuators on the canards.  You could then use the current ammo drum location as the ASAT F-15 did and install further mission electronics there.

[upnorth]

Artoor, interesting idea--the only reason I added WarPac compatibility was for "scavenging resupply" so that if Poland, Ukraine or any other country with a lot of leftover Russian-origin ordnance decided to buy in they wouldn't have to buy a whole new stockpile just to have a functional weapons system. (And, if these testbeds occasionally get used in black ops, loading black-market Russkie iron is instant Plausible Deniability.)

I'd need to check the stats, see how those engines compare in size and weight, though--if an engine can't fit in the same space, and noticeably either beat the raw power and match power-to-weight, or match power and beat power-to-weight, I can't see how it'd be worth the trouble of replacing the existing PW-232 or GE-132.

Some notes:
F100-PW-232 = 46.4" inlet dia, 46.5" max dia, 191" OAL, 4101# wt,??k# dry thrust, 32.5k# wet thrust
F110-GE-132 = ??" inlet dia, 46.5" max dia, 182" OAL, ~4.4k# wt, ??k# wet thrust, 32.5k# max thrust
F119-PW-100 = ??" inlet dia, ??" max dia, 203" OAL, 3.9k# wt,  ??k# dry thrust, 39K# wet thrust
F135 (CTOL) = 43" inlet dia, 46" max dia, 220" OAL, ??#wt, 28k# dry thrust, 43K# wet thrust
Saturn AL-31F = 35.6" inlet dia, 50" max dia, 196" OAL, 3.5x# wt, 16.7k# dry thrust, 27.5k# wet thrust
Saturn AL-41F1 = ??" inlet dia, ??" max dia, ??" OAL, 3130# wt, ??k# dry thrust, 33k# wet thrust

Basically, we have a cylinder of about 47" diameter and 191" length to work with, unless there's enough room inside for a 30" stretch of engine bay and chopdown of intake trunks or afterburner can or both.

If that's what you're going for, then perhaps a later variant of the Klimov RD-33 would be a good one to look at. the MiG-29, which the RD-33 powers was much more plentiful among Warsaw pact states than the Su-27:

http://en.klimov.ru/production/aircraft/RD-33-family/

The size looks workable for the job and the high production numbers should assure the type is readily obtainable to any former Warsaw pact state that cares to buy into this Eagle variant.

[Diamondback]

Problem with the RD-33: space fits, noticeable weight reduction, but... HUGE power drop, into the low 20K's. I'm gonna write 'em with F135's, but with secondary mounts for Klimovs and Saturns installed or available (since I'm trying to make these things overpowered to a degree that could be called "ludicrous" LOL)... and I'm gonna insist on at least some traditional instruments, since I only have limited OK for "not presently available" technologies and these things are written as an "after-hours project" by a moonlighting Fed who does Skunk Works stuff as a hobby.

Evan, I have an old frat brother who used to do a lot with X-Plane, so I figure I'll ask him to see if they have an NF-15B ACTIVE available for it, tip the fins out 15 degrees and see how the resulting four-surface arrangement handles. (Canards are 20 degrees up from horizontal, and I'm keeping the tailplanes too just like the original. A three-lifting surface Eagle has already been done, and similarly the Hornet gets some lift from its vertical fins, so I'm guessing it'd be as simple as tweaking software and trim, maybe adding or removing a little ballast.)

Anybody have ideas about combining vectoring with thrust-reversers? The original exhaust nozzles were not just up-down vectoring like an ancestral version of that on the Raptor, but also had a reversal capability that made Christine a supersonic STOL. Why all these surfaces PLUS TV? Simple: with all that, the original NF-15B had downright unbelievable maneuverability for an aircraft of its size and power.

Just for a visual,  here's the dash I concepted for the AI Pave Low:

One triple-8x10-pane display (as the JSF HUD is basically two landscape Rockwell Collins MFD-2810's Siamese-twinned together in landscape, these are three joined in portrait, you might say an MFD-21024) each for the benefit of any human crew, with a center engine/tactical/overall status double-9x12 (or MFD-21218, based on two 2912's). Analog gauges would be above the side MFD's, and next revision will bump the center screen up higher to make room to keep the refueling control panel.

[elmayerle]

The Pave Low panel looks plausible and the fuselage has the width for it.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming a programmable nature to where the pilot, or AI (pilot's associate on the F-35) can divide the larger screens into smaller ones as necessary.  Incorporating the F-35's display into your "Ultimate Eagle" wouldn't be that difficult, but I suspect incorporating the helmet-mounted display could be "interesting".

Regarding engines, the RD33 is definitely too small for this bird and I think you might have trouble shoehorning the F120 or F135 into it (those would actually fit better in a F-14 upgrade - long story there).  If you're going to start with a stripped-down two-seat F-15, how about starting from one of the early D models now being retired?  They, like the F-15C and F-15E have a common engine bay intended to take either F100s or F110s with no changes.  I can see adding provisions to allow other engines, like the Saturn ones, to be installed but they'd have to not interfere with the main engine installations.  I'm thinking you could still wring a bit more poke from the F100 and F110, but it would take some development work.  ::chuckle:: It's too bad the F401 isn't around to be upgraded with all the developments applicable to the latest F100 variants; an inch or two more in diameter, but a definitely increase in power.

Would you be trying to incorporate the F-35's DAS system into this upgrade?  I suspect finding adequate "real estate" and solid mounting structure could be a challenge.  I do think you should look at incorporating the F-35's MADL (Multi-Apperture-Data-Link) since it will allow multiple aircraft to communicate in a very jam resistant format (sufficiently so that major elements are being back-incorporated into the F-22's datalink system).

[Diamondback]

Evan, correct assumption--I'm thinking a combination of physical buttons, touchscreen and voice command. Some Eagles already fly with JHMCS, which I think is the system planned for F-35, though I figure these things will also be Elbit DASH (F-15I Ra'am HMCS) compatible.  Designing that panel, I actually had to improvise, take measurements off the IP in my Academy -E, build a mockup in Sketchup, then take the Rockwell Collins site images of the 2810 and 2912, enlarge those to actual size and "by guess and by golly" it.

Gotcha re the D rear-fuse--I'm even opening to assuming that the entire #3 fuse section (the titanium section indicated in the top graphic at http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/technology/airframe/60-airframe-in-general ) is a new build with only skin and general shape in common. (All I need is "fits inside the skin" with plausible structural strength to take the power, even if structural members have to be modified.) An upgraded F401 isn't necessarily off the table either, since I did get an OK for another bird to write handbuilt GE38 "Super Prototypes" uprated 1/3 over the current -1's development (basically, it's "Show the core technology I'm building on has actually existed even if only in prototype form and I'm Good To Go"). What's a plausible top-end for power? Can I get over 50K per engine in max AB, or am I stuck at the mid to high 30's?

MADL is a must, and I'm also thinking a couple small but high-powered DIRCM's, possibly either DIRCM or a couple DAS apertures or one of each being installed in place of the tailboom "pimple" antennas since basically the entire skin would become one giant multipurpose antenna--from what I was just reading, if the NG PR/marketing hype is to be believed DAS could be very helpful for ASAT/ABM (goal here: have a plausible Bus Phase ICBM-killer) and microsatellite launches. I'm also assuming that the new main computer would allow eliminating a lot of the radar signal processors and other onboard computers, at the cost (by design) of rendering the aircraft completely unflyable when the core is removed.

[elmayerle]

DAS is an electro-optical sensor fit and behind each clear panel is a large and heavy sensor that must be solidly mounted and them plumbed (for cooling) and wired (to tie it into the aircraft).  The F-35 has six, one viewing along each axis, to enhance the pilot's view of things and they need sturdy mounting structure as well as access room for wiring and plumbing (had to mod a bulkhead in the forward fuselage to get that on one unit).  It's going to be quite the challenge to install.

I'm not familiar enough with current engines to comment immediately, I'm still working helicopters, just for another company (I'm becoming very familiar with the V-22).  I could see getting into the 40K lbt bracket with current core technology but I'd hesitate to go beyond that.  Oh, the F401 was the original engine that was supposed to go in the F-14; it was killed while having development problems, much as its F100 sibling, and a Congresscirtter lead the charge to kill it claiming the "TF30 is good enough".  Said Congresscritter later became Clinton's first SecDef.  I could say more, but... (can you tell this is still a sore subject with me, even almost 40 years later?)

Combining everything in one main computer could get challenging, some components need far more isolate, both physical and electromagnetic than others.  Still, it wouldn't be impossible, merely "very challenging".

JHMCS is one such system, I think they are looking at others on the F-35 (I really wasn't part of that design area).  In any case, it should make for an interesting upgrade.  Depending on just how connected your protagonist is, having NGC fabricate new inlet ducts with the RAM molded right into the composite material (as is done for JSF and was pioneered on another program) would work well, especially if you still put a radar-absorbing flow straightener in each inlet duct.

[Diamondback]

UPDATE: The build is underway! Even thoguh it's still in planning... I've already joined the Academy -I centerline pylon and -K "Tiger Eye" IRST to the Revell belly, replaced the Revell LANTIRN Nav pod with the Academy (it looked better IMO), and am looking to fit the Academy drooped intakes unless somebody makes an aftermarket set for the Revell kit. (Departure from current: On these birds, the intakes stay down at power off and only tilt up on demand for maintenance or just before startup. Taxi is usually engines-off or at idle with electric motors turning the wheels, a technology I've read about in-development for airliners.)

Decision: whose CFT's are more accurate? Obviously Revell's fit their kit better, but grafting the Academy -K stub pylons to them is not gonna be an easy task, and the "shoulder" area looks closer on the Academy to my eye.

[mikejapan]

http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=195620&st=20
I didn't realize the Revell's CFT were so far off.
If the Academy ones look better then go with those.

Michael

[Diamondback]

Next question: a suitable "stinger" radar. Am I stuck with warning only, or is there an AESA on the shelf good enough and small enough that I could use it as a full attack radar for tailgaters and/or supplemental tracking of ground targets?

Also, would building up a "spine" on the back like some late-model F-16s provide enough structure to mount a rear-facing DAS aperture between the engine fairings? (I'm assuming that the Tiger Eye, LANTIRN Nav FLIR and "Super Sniper" would be integrated for forward apertures, and one could be mounted in each wingtip, which takes care of three out of six axes. Belly might fit in the ammo bay under the ICS gear... Maybe spine on top of the ICS.)

[mikejapan]

Here's my answer for the spine.
http://www.h4.dion.ne.jp/~lonestar/CHIMERA/Joke05.htm

[mikejapan]

And I can't say anything about a Stinger's radar.
But if you want one the only one I can think of is an F-22 style stinger.

[Diamondback]

Mike, I was thinking something akin to the late-model Super Flankers conceptually for a tail-warning radar look. (Stinger missile is IR only, LOL.)

[mikejapan]

Tail boom ....Stinger.......Same thing it's sticking out it's ass like hornet's stinger haha