It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ultimate Fighter Configuration?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 01:59 PM
What would be the ultimate fighter configuration? I am not talking about the ultimate multi-role aircraft which can be a jack of all trades but a master of none but one specifically designed to be the best of the best air to air fighter!

That is the basic specification i.e the one A/C to rule them all!!!!!!!

Would it have a single engine or two, canards or tailerons, swing wing or fixed, internal weapon bays or fixed hard points, the list is endless but can anyone out there define what would be the ultimate and why?

I suppose some might say that the ultimate fighters are already out there (Raptors, flankers, Typhoon's etc) but even these have had some compromises built into them!

I know there might be lot of variation in design's and a lot of personnel opinions which will differ but I am intrested to see what idea's come out of this!

Sv Out......!

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 02:26 PM
For a start I would guess that the ultimate fighter configuration would not include a pilot. Most people agree that the f-22 and the f-35 will be the last manned fighters built for the US. as far as an air superiority fighter? It really depends. there will always be more than one way to accomplish the same goal. Even when you think you have the perfect setup someone can always find a new tactic to use an inferior design to good advantage. My guess as to the configuration would be a twin engine, v-tail with canards.

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 05:06 PM
the ultimate fighter plane would have to eliminate any unnecessary dead weight, this would mean no silly lift fans, if it was to be STOVL capable at all it would have to acheive it with 'always on' engines like the Harrier, though I would give it two of them and include some form of burning, either afterburning or plenum chamber burning. I would also require at least the aft most nozzles to be capable of 3D vectoring for combat manoevres.

It would also mean no variable sweep, the aerodynamic benefits of VG can be reproduced by other methods like retractable high lift devices etc and the mechanism used for VG is heavy, this not only impedes performance but also eats into fuel and weapons loads.

In fact with a fully variable nozzle arrangement you could probably eliminate ALL flying surfaces except the wing, X-44 style, with no loss of control or agility, the lack of fins, tails or canards also naturally reduces overall weight. Coupled with Internal weapons carriage and the usual considerations you could then produce a fighter with an even smaller RCS than the current generation.

As for the airframe then my fighter would resemble an X-44 but with FVTV (Fully Variable Thrust Vector) abnd be STOVL capable and super agile.

BVR capability is naturally a must but there is so much more to it than that, I need more tiume to mull over my systems fit but it must not be so comprehensive that it weighs the fighter down too much.

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 06:12 PM
The short version:

All Aspect Stealth - That means RCS, thermal, accoustic, visual, and SENSOR stealth.

twin engines - more power, plus if 1 engine goes, you can keep flying

3D TVC - why not?

The shape of the aircraft would be determined by the stealth in real life.

The long version will come when i have more time

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 03:33 AM
To get the thread moving a bit my choice would be a larger version of the X 31 built of modern stealth materials and possibly two engines.

There would be nothing that could outmanovere that beast!

Sv Out.....!

top topics

log in