Tzeentch, read the rest of my post. I calculated the number of modules from the actual mass of the various items - the F-22 holds 9 tons of fuel and has 4 tons of jet engines, for example. It also only has a thrust/weight ratio of about 1.0, which is why its three jet engines only provide 1G of thrust.
I used a medium battery because the F-22 usually has either two or three types of missiles/bombs - in ground attack mode, it carries 2 AMRAAMs, 2 Sidewinders, and one type of bomb (either 8 small diameter bombs, 2 JDAMS, or 2 WCMDs as listed in Wikipedia). It doesn't actually matter if it's a Medium Battery or if its a Hangar Bay, of course, but I prefer an internal weapons battery be listed as an actual weapon battery instead of a hangar bay.
I gave it armor to fill up space. The only parts that I
know have the right number of systems are the engines, internal weapons, and fuel tanks - I don't have mass estimates for the rest of the fighter. You could just as easily switch an Armor system for a third Defensive ECM system, but I don't know what else you could put on an F-22 fighter jet without it not making much sense. Can't outfit it with more weapons, since it doesn't carry any more guns, for example. Same deal with the external clamp/hardpoint issue.
Quote:
|
-- Jet Engines in Spaceships are efficient, but its never stated if thats endurance at max speed or not. Six hours endurance at some sort of cruise doesn't seem to outlandish in the design below.
|
True, but I used the F-22's maximum range (total) to figure out how much fuel endurance each fuel tank supplied. It was 10 minutes per tank. Six hours at cruise seems excessive for any normal jet engine.
Other jet engines can be much more efficient - an A-10 Thunderbolt II has a very long ferry range, giving it a time in the air of around eight hours, but when used in combat it might have an endurance of between two and four hours (depending on what the stats mean on the A-10's Wikipedia page).