The GM's Court

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1317828043' post='2817100']
Pravus Ingruo would be correct as the way his post is written leaves room for response whereas your post didn't. The subtle difference between godmodding and writing a story is the use of future tense within reason.
[/quote]
I going to go ahead and point this out. Will is a much more appropriate word for writing in the future tense. Would can easily be used as a past tense word, and in most wars where it's used, it actually is used as a past tense word.

[Centurius]

[quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1317835482' post='2817164']
I going to go ahead and point this out. Will is a much more appropriate word for writing in the future tense. Would can easily be used as a past tense word, and in most wars where it's used, it actually is used as a past tense word.
[/quote]

Actually will indicates it is going to happen, whereas would can imply it is conditional on future actions.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Centurius

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1317836416' post='2817179']
Actually will indicates it is going to happen, whereas would can imply it is conditional on future actions.
[/quote]

Would a simple solution to be add "if no opposition encountered" at the end of the woulds and wills? That way if an attack/army is blocked you can RP it out whereas, if it/they are not it just goes on to do what is wrote down. At least thats my idea.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Kevin Kingswell' timestamp='1317845353' post='2817288']
Would a simple solution to be add "if no opposition encountered" at the end of the woulds and wills? That way if an attack/army is blocked you can RP it out whereas, if it/they are not it just goes on to do what is wrote down. At least thats my idea.
[/quote]
People tend to ignore such addendum when it suits them, even when such conditions are made explicit. That's why I'm against "case-by-case" rulings for this: There's too much conflict according to players' interests, and as such we need one strict rule to cover these types of proceedings.

Yes, I'm being really cynical here, but better a strict standard than constant bickering.

[Triyun]

How could anyone be bias against you

[Kankou]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1317857249' post='2817470']
How could anyone be bias against you
[/quote]
What bias, my dear boy friend Triyun?

[Captain Enema]

All I'm getting here is we should be posting our movement to attack or defend and not the results, but yeah whatever.

Is there open land in Louisiana?

[Executive Minister]

[b]Because I promised.[/b]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1317926793']
Yo. So the GMs have discussed your aircraft. We have the following concerns about them:

Your aircraft both seem to be based on technology which pretty much shrugs off anything that is in the cards for a 2025-2030 production date, and rather than point out one specific thing it is a combination or range, materials, speed, weight etc.

Let us start with weight. It seems that weight wise your fighters are significantly below anything likely to be serviced in that range.

Medusa:
Empty Weight: 7,400 kg
Maximum Take-Off Weight: 17,500 kg

Stheno:
Empty Weight: 10,200 kg
Maximum Take-Off Weight: 28,500 kg[/quote]
[b]
Both the Medusa and the Stheno's given dimensions are designed to be able to fit an ENTIRE [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Harrier_FA2#Specifications_.28Sea_Harrier_FA2.29"]BAE Sea Harrier FA2[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale#Variants"]Dassault Rafale (M)[/url], respectfully within their main fuselages, the M and S's wings extend past those dimensions. For some reason you've chosen to compare my aircraft to the F-35, I'm not very sure what this is supposed to tell me, so i'll ignore it. I will explain my designs to you the way I reasoned them through.[/b]


[quote]BAE Sea Harrier FA2:

Length: 14.2 m
Wingspan: 7.6 m
Height: 3.71 m
Empty Weight: 6,364 kg
Payload: 4× under-wing pylon stations, and 1 fuselage pylon on centerline plus 2 attach points for gun pods with a [b]total capability of 3,630 kg[/b] of payload.[/quote]

[quote]F-25 Medusa[b]

Length[/b]: 14.2 m
[b]Wingspan:[/b] 11.3 m (Main Fuselage Maximum Width of 7.6 m)
[b]Height:[/b] 3.2 m (Main Fuselage Maximum Height of 2.4 m)
[b]Empty Weight:[/b] 7,400 kg
[b]Maximum Payload:[/b] Only Internal Bays; 5 x 600 kg Stations + 6 x 100 kg Stations = 3,600 kg
[/quote]
[b]
The Medusa's main fuselage, essentially a large wedge or triangular body, is large enough to fit an entire Harrier within it. The harrier can boast an entire armament of 3,600 kg +, a number I have faithfully stuck to in the spirit of honesty. The Medusa is also heavier than the Harrier by about 1,000 kg.[/b]

[quote]Dassault Rafale (M)

Length: 15.27 m
Wingspan: 10.8 m
Height: 5.34 m
Empty Weight: 10,196 kg
Maximum Payload: 13 for Aéronavale version (Rafale M) with a capacity of 9,500 kg external fuel and ordnance
[/quote]


[quote]F-27 Stheno[b]

Length[/b]: 18.27m
[b]Wingspan:[/b] 10.8 m (Main Fuselage Maximum Width of 9.4 m)
[b]Height:[/b] 5.34 m (Main Fuselage Maximum Height of 4.86 m)
[b]Empty Weight:[/b] 10,200 kg
[b]Maximum Payload:[/b] Only Internal Bays; 10 x 600 kg Stations + 12 x 100 kg Stations = 7,200 kg
[/quote]
[b]
Due to Stheno's exotic bullet-like shape, it is a bit less straight forwards. Basically, I lengthened the fuselage of the Stheno, while tapering a bit of its girth to compensate. I reduced the payload by a significant 2,300 kg in order to get away with the Stheno's fuselage being 'taller' to accomodate more fuel while still retaining the same weight of the Rafale. If it would make you feel better, I COULD add another 1,000 kg to empty weight.
[/b][b]
[/b]

[Executive Minister]

[quote]This is especially true if you include your internal armaments. [/quote]

[b]I either directly used, or used a smaller maximum payload from the Harrier and Rafale. Again, keep in mind my mindset for the design. Both airframes are unmanned, and do not retain all the life support systems the manned examples (Harrier and Rafale) have, nor do they have cockpits or canopies. All armaments are internal, yet the dimensions of my aircraft were designed so they could place the ENTIRE airframe that carries the payload I use within them. That is more than enough room in my mind for weapons and engines/fuel/electronics.

If the actual number is what bothers you (11 and 22 respectively), please refer to my earlier statement regarding maximum payloads used and the following information I will allow you.

A large station bay holds 600 kg, and will typically hold either a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vympel_R-37"]SARAH-37[/url] BVR air-to-air missile or a SIR-74AC-ER, which is an advanced capability, two stage medium-ranged BVR air-to-air missile based on the original [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=65298&view=findpost&p=2545679"]SIR-73[/url].

A small station bay holds exclusively the 100 kg [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-73_%28missile%29"]SIR-74AC[/url], an advanced capability version of the SIR-73, but retaining the same dimensions.

Now, I've made sure to allow a bit of weight lee-way for my lasers, but I hope this is enough info for you. If you check out the dimensions of the missiles' real-life counterparts, you will see that it is very plausible that my aircraft could hold such armaments in the specified bays. Feel free to recheck my math in that blurb you quoted from my post, but god forbid you'll want me to draw a diagram for you.[/b]

[quote]Here it seems hard to see how you wouldn't need significantly more space and thus more weight when you compare it to the F-22, F-35, J-20, T-50 etc. [/quote]
[b]
Err. I've compensated for both. If you still don't get it, try drawing rough sketches of the dimensions of the aircraft I used as well as my own design to get a feel for it. Of course, I'm no expert myself, but I really do not see how you think I can't make something like this in 2025. While I did include ceramics, composites and exotic alloys, I did not rely on them as a crutch. I made sure that there was enough substance at the foundation of my design before tacking on the frills and technobabble to help sell its plausibility.
[/b]
[quote]On top of this your fuel is equally confusing. My understanding is that hydrogen and oxygen fuel produce a significantly lower range than jet fuel but your Medusa is claiming high range.[/quote]
[b]
I'm claiming high range because of its top speed, not because it has tons of fuel capacity. Tbh, I originally tried to get a maximum range by looking for similar capability aircraft used by other RPers on the boards. In fact, I do recall wanting to base its range off of a much slower and much more ambiguous [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=101637&view=findpost&p=2723119"]F-99 Phoenix[/url] used by a fellow GM (they know better), but I found that number too be far too large to be tasteful. I settled on an arbitrary number to be fair to myself and others.
[/b]
[quote] Additionally please define what you mean by high maneuverability.[/quote]

[b]Can you please quote what you mean? In my efforts in good faith to be as clear and detailed as possible to other RPers, I have created rather large and unwieldy posts.[/b]

[Executive Minister]

[quote]I'm not sure how efficiency would work there. It seems the engine you are describing is intended for a space plane which carry hundreds of thousands of kilos of fuel, to achieve orbit, not small interceptors executing high gee turns in the atmosphere. It definitely was not designed to be launched out of the back of a truck.[/quote]

[b]The engine I directly linked is a hybrid rocket/jet. I have utilized it in a different capacity that what was intended in RL, however, much like people do carbon nano-tubes and nanomaterials.

I find this really exasperating to type as it was detailed extremely thoroughly in my original post, so as to avoid situations much like these, so I will paraphrase. Basically, the SABRE acts like a conventional jet engine at rest to high mach speeds (mach 5), once it reaches mach 5, it seals and acts like a conventional rocket, propelling the aircraft to mach 20ish to escape the earth's sphere of influence.

I merely took that concept and derived my own fictional technology. My SABRE starts off sealed like a conventional rocket, which allows it to be launched 'out of the back' of a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAZ-7917"]Transporter Erector Launcher (TEL)[/url], not a 'truck' (Please avoid such slips in the future, as statements like that tend to lend towards a certain position (incredulity). Once it is airborne a predetermined distance, the engine opens up and acts like a jet with an absolute maximum speed of mach 5.[/b]
[b]
As for the size of the RL concept. Yes, the Skylon is supposed to be a huge aircraft, however I did not link the RL SABRE in my post to imply I have an actual SABRE onboard the Medusa. I just wanted to prove the technology is plausible and can exist at my tech cap. That is also why I stated Thrust-to-weight ratio, rather than give actual thrust values.[/b]

[quote]Lastly I'd like to know if your claiming that the Medusa's IR signature equal to a F-23 is in the Mach 5 range. This seems pretty non-sensical to me. It is my understanding that the US bomber command looked at making a stealth bomber in this range and it was shown to be unfeasible.[/quote]
[b]
I never stated at what speeds the Medusa had that IR signature, Triyun. I thought it was common sense that it would not have absolute IR stealth at AB (technically I don't have afterburners, but you get the point I hope) speeds.[/b]

[quote]
On the Stethno:
Minimum Fuel Weight: 6,375 kg
Maximum Fuel Weight: 8,925 kg
Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: Turbine Stage (Mach 0-4) Up to 6 Atmospheric, SHCRAMJET Stage (Greater than Mach 4) Up to 2 Atmospheric
Combat Range: Essentially Unlimited, typical defensive pattern of 9,000 km, offensive/pursuit greater than 13,000 km

That is just way way out there. A Combat range of 9000 on a combo-engine with less fuel than a F-135 seems way out there. For one thing it looks from the diagram like your engine uses hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel would take up more space (and you already have 22 internal weapon stations).
[b]
[/b]Secondly it would be less efficient and you would enjoy less range. At lower speeds you're utilizing a turbojet which is less efficient than a turbofan. At high speed, your going to be burning a lot of fuel to achieve that thrus either way. It just seems hard to fathom how your going to be able to build a fighter size aircraft with this much range, this little fuel, and holding 22 weapons all at the same time, in addition to all the other onboard stuff you've described.[b][/quote]

I've addressed space enough.

I am using a turbine based on the YJ102R, a highly compact engine that is intended to have 'extended range, high fuel efficiency, and the ability to trade speed for increased range.[/b][b]' Yes, the literal YJ102R is intended for a cruise missile, but again, am I confined to actually using it should I link to it in a post? No. I am merely proving the technology exists.

Again, I'm claiming those maximum ranges assuming top speed at all times in a straight line for one. For two, at speeds of mach 25 in the exo-atmosphere you can pretty much go anywhere you need to. For three, again I wanted to look for a contemporary aircraft of similar purpose on the boards as a guide, and found your [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=93857&view=findpost&p=2673297"]F-3[/url] fit the bill quite nicely. But, your combat range of 17,600 km and radius of 10,200 km were much too distasteful for my uses. Again, I settled on an arbitrary number.[/b]



[quote]
On top of all of this are the stealth claims. I would like to focus on the IR ones.

[quote]Heat ablative troughs line the entirety of Stheno's propulsion system, radically reducing its thermal output like its predecessor, the MILAC F-23 Black Widow. Of course, with previous Nodic expertise in skin-friction based thermal detection, this would not be enough. It would prove to be ultimately impossible to reduce Stheno's skin-friction to invisible levels, nevertheless, its on board cooling systems work tirelessly to reduce skin and leading edge temperatures as much as possible - at least for on board IR countermeasures to be effective. [/quote]

Now your never that specific on how much reduction is achieved. It would seem to us that if your going to claim going Mach 12 and not show up pretty damn bright on IR scopes, that you're pushing the envelope quite a bit.

My understanding from everything I've read as far as trade magazines, designs go etc, is that turbojet is much much less efficient than turbofan, and that there won't be a stealth hypersonic in the timeline we're talking about. Thats why almost everything is build with turbofans. Thus it seems this whole thing needs to be retooled. Either the unit can be hypersonic or have a turbofan and claim substantially reduced IR.[/quote]
[b]
Again, you 'misunderestimate' me. I never said that it obtained IR stealth at high supersonic speeds. If I had fought with this claiming to scream in at mach 12 completely IR stealthed, I'd literally get on my knees and beg for someone to put me out of my misery.[/b]

[quote]Finally in regards to the AI on these things and data delays etc. It seems that you'd have a huge amount of data processing and that for example if you assume a 40 kilo detection range between two top end aircraft (I think thats reasonable). And your plane is traveling at Mach 10, what exactly are you going to be claiming as far as detection capability, (considering the brief moment your plane would have a chance to spot and take action).[/quote]
[b]
You've already tried to peg me on percieved mistakes i've made being too detailed and specific with my design, why would I be forced to give you a number when no one else has on the boards? I am unaware of anyone operating hypersonic aircraft giving numbers on their detection capabilities. How do you know I wont simply use my speed to bear down on an enemy, use my lasers to burn out incoming missiles, and then use said lasers to burn the offending vehicle down at short range, low speed?[/b]

[quote]Also of course as you know the GMs all agreed on the banning of active camo.[/quote]
[b]
Naw, you did Triyun. In any case, this seems to be the only rule i've broken, and I broke it prior to the rule being made, and prior to there being a community poll on the subject. Shouldn't I be grand fathered? [/b]

Edited October 7, 2011 by Executive Minister

[Captain Enema]

I have no idea what you two are even talking about. Which is why I've always said the tech cap should be present day and not a second more.

Far too speculative as to what can be in use and what can't be in use by 2025 to 2030. Which makes both arguments for and against these drones utterly bonkers as it's 2011 and neither of you can prove or disprove that such an item could or couldn't be possible by those years.

In my realm of thinking I'm of the believe that all airplanes will look like large flying dildos by then and will be able fire plasma balls out the tip. Edited October 7, 2011 by Tidy Bowl Man

[Mogar]

someone with 2030 tech create tbm's idea, now.

[Triyun]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1317965672' post='2819447']
[b]The engine I directly linked is a hybrid rocket/jet. I have utilized it in a different capacity that what was intended in RL, however, much like people do carbon nano-tubes and nanomaterials.

[quote]I find this really exasperating to type as it was detailed extremely thoroughly in my original post, so as to avoid situations much like these, so I will paraphrase. Basically, the SABRE acts like a conventional jet engine at rest to high mach speeds (mach 5), once it reaches mach 5, it seals and acts like a conventional rocket, propelling the aircraft to mach 20ish to escape the earth's sphere of influence.[/quote]


I merely took that concept and derived my own fictional technology. My SABRE starts off sealed like a conventional rocket, which allows it to be launched 'out of the back' of a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAZ-7917"]Transporter Erector Launcher (TEL)[/url], not a 'truck' (Please avoid such slips in the future, as statements like that tend to lend towards a certain position (incredulity). Once it is airborne a predetermined distance, the engine opens up and acts like a jet with an absolute maximum speed of mach 5.[/b]
[b]
As for the size of the RL concept. Yes, the Skylon is supposed to be a huge aircraft, however I did not link the RL SABRE in my post to imply I have an actual SABRE onboard the Medusa. I just wanted to prove the technology is plausible and can exist at my tech cap. That is also why I stated Thrust-to-weight ratio, rather than give actual thrust values.[/b][/quote]

The issue the GM staff has is with the size of the craft and how many weapons systems you have on it coupled with range. It doesn't seem likely to us that a hydrogen/oxygen fueled aircraft would be capable of weighing this much, being this small, and have 15 weapons pylons (over twice the weapon levels of an F-35 or F-22). I'm sorry you are exasperated by this but I don't see much in here to show that we're wrong in our objections to this.

Beyond that again, our issue with the 'jet engine' thing here is that your fuel levels simply don't match up. Hydrogen produces significantly less range and you'd be significantly less fuel efficient than a turbofan engine at low ranges. While this is a fine system for getting large aircraft which carry far more fuel into space, this seems very unproven as far as application on a fighter zipping around the atmosphere. In fact, I did some research of my own for my own nation and found hydrogen fuel pretty unrealistic for the 2030 production time line which is starting to begin around now.

[quote]
I never stated at what speeds the Medusa had that IR signature, Triyun. I thought it was common sense that it would not have absolute IR stealth at AB (technically I don't have afterburners, but you get the point I hope) speeds.[/b]

I've addressed space enough.[/quote]

It wasn't very clear at all. If you want to claim something has IR reduction of an F-23 at F-23 speed levels thats one thing, having it at the levels it seemed to be though? No.

[quote]
I am using a turbine based on the YJ102R, a highly compact engine that is intended to have 'extended range, high fuel efficiency, and the ability to trade speed for increased range.[/b][b]' Yes, the literal YJ102R is intended for a cruise missile, but again, am I confined to actually using it should I link to it in a post? No. I am merely proving the technology exists.[/quote]

A cruise missile is quite different from a full size aircraft.

[quote]Again, I'm claiming those maximum ranges assuming top speed at all times in a straight line for one. For two, at speeds of mach 25 in the exo-atmosphere you can pretty much go anywhere you need to. For three, again I wanted to look for a contemporary aircraft of similar purpose on the boards as a guide, and found your [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=93857&view=findpost&p=2673297"]F-3[/url] fit the bill quite nicely. But, your combat range of 17,600 km and radius of 10,200 km were much too distasteful for my uses. Again, I settled on an arbitrary number.[/b][/quote]

Cochin and Cent will be reviewing the F-3 and other UFE aircraft, I believe I've already said on multiple occasions I expect the F-3 to be one of the units dealt with. Additionally the F-3 is an interceptor, air superiority fighter implies something else.




[quote][b]
Again, you 'misunderestimate' me. I never said that it obtained IR stealth at high supersonic speeds. If I had fought with this claiming to scream in at mach 12 completely IR stealthed, I'd literally get on my knees and beg for someone to put me out of my misery.[/b][/quote]

I don't think Mach 12 can really have much IR stealth at all. We asked for clarification. You seem to be taking offense.



[quote]You've already tried to peg me on percieved mistakes i've made being too detailed and specific with my design, why would I be forced to give you a number when no one else has on the boards? I am unaware of anyone operating hypersonic aircraft giving numbers on their detection capabilities. How do you know I wont simply use my speed to bear down on an enemy, use my lasers to burn out incoming missiles, and then use said lasers to burn the offending vehicle down at short range, low speed?[/quote]

Other aircraft are being reviewed as they come up, you will find that you aren't going to be treated differently than anyone else. However its merely an observation of mine. I do think though that when your dealing with huge amounts of data being transmitted back and forth across vast distances, and your aircraft is operating at Mach 12, its pretty legitimate to raise the question about data transfer speeds and reaction times.



[quote]Naw, you did Triyun. In any case, this seems to be the only rule i've broken, and I broke it prior to the rule being made, and prior to there being a community poll on the subject. Shouldn't I be grand fathered?
[/quote]

There will be zero grand fathering. The community voted on 2030 and the GMs are going to enforce the rule. If you do not like it, that is too bad for you. The camo was a suggestion by Cent, and as I recall though I may be wrong Cochin was the first to support it not I. You can try and make this a me versus you thing, but thats just factually incorrect.

Either way, Cent can issue his opinion, I haven't found any of your arguments particularly compelling to defend what is currently in place. Once I speak with him we can discuss in whatever medium you are comfortable what revisions should be made.

[Triyun]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1317965603' post='2819444']
[b]Because I promised.[/b]


[b]
Both the Medusa and the Stheno's given dimensions are designed to be able to fit an ENTIRE [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Harrier_FA2#Specifications_.28Sea_Harrier_FA2.29"]BAE Sea Harrier FA2[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale#Variants"]Dassault Rafale (M)[/url], respectfully within their main fuselages, the M and S's wings extend past those dimensions. For some reason you've chosen to compare my aircraft to the F-35, I'm not very sure what this is supposed to tell me, so i'll ignore it. I will explain my designs to you the way I reasoned them through.[/b][/quote]

F-35 has internal weapons bays, the harrier and dassault do not.




[quote]
[b]
The Medusa's main fuselage, essentially a large wedge or triangular body, is large enough to fit an entire Harrier within it. The harrier can boast an entire armament of 3,600 kg +, a number I have faithfully stuck to in the spirit of honesty. The Medusa is also heavier than the Harrier by about 1,000 kg.[/b][/quote]

There remains the issue of volume 15 hard points is excessive for fitting internally on a craft that weights 7000 kilograms. We've got plenty of aircraft to compare this too, that have internal bays. When you are also dealing with the issues of large volumes of fuel (necessitated by hydrogen) your going to not be able to fit that. Again I need a better argument than that.




[quote]
[b]
Due to Stheno's exotic bullet-like shape, it is a bit less straight forwards. Basically, I lengthened the fuselage of the Stheno, while tapering a bit of its girth to compensate. I reduced the payload by a significant 2,300 kg in order to get away with the Stheno's fuselage being 'taller' to accomodate more fuel while still retaining the same weight of the Rafale. If it would make you feel better, I COULD add another 1,000 kg to empty weight.
[/b][b]
[/b]
[/quote]

You still can't hold [b]22[/b] weapons hard points internally. Lower it significantly.

None of us are aircraft designers but a 22 internal hardpoint, Mach 12, 9000 kilometer range weapon system drone goes so far out of the range of anything in the pipeline, we can safely say its over the line.

Also regarding the F-99, thats going to be reviewed by me and Cochin and will continue to be.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Triyun

[Centurius]

Not only is the F-99 still being looked into but it has already seen its speed, range and stealth significantly reduced to match the new rules.

On other points I agree with Triyun's assessment of the situation and we will discuss what needs editing exactly.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1317967015' post='2819469']
The issue the GM staff has is with the size of the craft and how many weapons systems you have on it coupled with range. It doesn't seem likely to us that a hydrogen/oxygen fueled aircraft would be capable of weighing this much, being this small, and have 15 weapons pylons (over twice the weapon levels of an F-35 or F-22). I'm sorry you are exasperated by this but I don't see much in here to show that we're wrong in our objections to this.
[/quote]

I'm gonna do myself a favor and deliver to you a multi-part solution to this problem to show my conformity to your rules.

First off, for both the Stheno and Medusa - they're not going to use cryo (liquid) hydrogen as their primary propulsive fuels. Instead, they'll use onboard cryo-hydro as a heat exchange/cooling system.

The Medusa will use a system similar to the high speed fan turbine used in the first stage of the turbine based combined cycle engine used in the Stheno, coupled with a Constant Volume Combustion add-on - overall very similar to Project Vulcan. A much less radical and problematic design that retains the high thrust-to-weight ratios needed for acceleration while only docking me down to mach 4+. There will be no TEL take off now, perhaps I will pursue this in the future.

The Stheno's propulsion type will stay the same (barring the fact that the Ram/Schramjet modes will be a LFRJ hydrocarbon based system).

As for size, I will add 2 m to every airframe dimensional statistic and add an arbitrary amount of 1,000 kg's (ie: could be 2,000kg, could be more) to the empty weight.


[quote]It wasn't very clear at all. If you want to claim something has IR reduction of an F-23 at F-23 speed levels thats one thing, having it at the levels it seemed to be though? No.[/quote]
I already agreed with you. Irrelevant.

[quote]A cruise missile is quite different from a full size aircraft.[/quote]
Incidentally, so is my high speed turbine and the YJ102r. The YJ102r was intended to be an ultra compact, efficient, high speed, long range turbine that could compensate range for speed and vice versa. It was also incidentally designed with cheapness and simplicity in mind due to its role onboard a disposable airframe. Of course, I would not take such liberties with the turbine I'd use.

[quote]Cochin and Cent will be reviewing the F-3 and other UFE aircraft, I believe I've already said on multiple occasions I expect the F-3 to be one of the units dealt with. Additionally the F-3 is an interceptor, air superiority fighter implies something else.[/quote]
I couldn't care less about who else you'll be reviewing, you're reviewing me. If the combat range deemed appropriate greatly differs from my aircraft's arbitrary ranges, then I will reduce them. The only reason I made them that 'high' was because the benchmarks were prohibitively high.

[quote]
I don't think Mach 12 can really have much IR stealth at all. We asked for clarification. You seem to be taking offense.[/quote]
I am taking offense that you thought I believed high speed aircraft such as the ones we are dealing with could have IR stealth at their top speeds.

[quote]
Other aircraft are being reviewed as they come up, you will find that you aren't going to be treated differently than anyone else. However its merely an observation of mine. I do think though that when your dealing with huge amounts of data being transmitted back and forth across vast distances, and your aircraft is operating at Mach 12, its pretty legitimate to raise the question about data transfer speeds and reaction times.[/quote]

Gonna need to be a bit more specific. Do you mean the processing power needed for the electro-optical sensors, the network centric concept of the emergency 'intelligence' , or ground based controllers communicating with the aircraft?


[quote]
There will be zero grand fathering. The community voted on 2030 and the GMs are going to enforce the rule. If you do not like it, that is too bad for you. The camo was a suggestion by Cent, and as I recall though I may be wrong Cochin was the first to support it not I. You can try and make this a me versus you thing, but thats just factually incorrect. [/quote]

Grandfathering comment was tongue in cheek. As for the rest, you're right. Om shanti, shanti, shanti.

[quote]
Either way, Cent can issue his opinion, I haven't found any of your arguments particularly compelling to defend what is currently in place. Once I speak with him we can discuss in whatever medium you are comfortable what revisions should be made.
[/quote]

$%&@ it, we'll do it live!

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1317967384' post='2819475']
F-35 has internal weapons bays, the harrier and dassault do not.

There remains the issue of volume 15 hard points is excessive for fitting internally on a craft that weights 7000 kilograms. We've got plenty of aircraft to compare this too, that have internal bays. When you are also dealing with the issues of large volumes of fuel (necessitated by hydrogen) your going to not be able to fit that. Again I need a better argument than that.

You still can't hold [b]22[/b] weapons hard points internally. Lower it significantly.
[/quote]

The harrier and rafale are of X weight and size and can support Y amount of payload, period. I made sure that the main fuselages alone of both the Stheno and Medusa could fully enshroud at least X weight and size, and have at most Y payload. That was my reasoning.

The payload figures for harrier and rafale include large drop tanks and bombs, while each of my internal pylons can only hold narrow air-to-air missiles of an extremely specific size, shape and weight. If the actual number of missiles carried is an issue, I am willing to divide the max payload stated for each aircraft amongst fewer pylons, while also subtracting an additional 1,000 kg or so from the total payload stated.

[HHAYD]

EDIT 2:

I like to clear this up before the [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105851"]World War RP[/url] fires up:

[quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1308231050' post='2732381']
Question:
Is a maximum speed of mach 3.6 useful for a manned fighter-plane?
Supercruise of mach 2.8? Wouldn't the g-forces while turning make the pilot black out and do a number on him?

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90288&view=findpost&p=2731230 <- triyun's latest plane, goes mach 3.6 maximum, [b]2.8 supercruise[/b].
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=82847&view=findpost&p=2731912 <- Cent's latest plane, goes 3.4 max, [b]2.5 super[/b]
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90288&view=findpost&p=2706931 <- less relevant, but still max speed of 3.0, [b]supercruise of 2.2[/b]

All pretty fast. Wouldn't g-forces make it hard for these planes to maneuver at those speeds? :V
I could see them possible if unmanned, but not if manned.
Just asking.
[/quote]

I don't have a problem with aircraft exceeding the mid mach 2. But supercruise at those speed? Wouldn't such speed render the turbofan engines incredibly inefficient or worse destroying its fans within minutes? I don't think material science would be advanced enough by 2030's to allow supercrusing close to mach 3.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Specific-impulse-kk-20090105.png/800px-Specific-impulse-kk-20090105.png[/img]

Edited October 8, 2011 by HHAYD

[Centurius]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1318110269' post='2821105']
EDIT 2:

I like to clear this up before the [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105851"]World War RP[/url] fires up:



I don't have a problem with aircraft exceeding the mid mach 2. But supercruise at those speed? Wouldn't such speed render the turbofan engines incredibly inefficient or worse destroying its fans within minutes? I don't think material science would be advanced enough by 2030's to allow supercrusing close to mach 3.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Specific-impulse-kk-20090105.png/800px-Specific-impulse-kk-20090105.png[/img]
[/quote]

As the world war rp is a mostly preplanned event it is beyond the scope of gm rulings as such the request should be directed to the main organizer.

[iKrolm]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1318121884' post='2821185']
As the world war rp is a mostly preplanned event it is beyond the scope of gm rulings as such the request should be directed to the main organizer.
[/quote]

These planes are in CNRP so regardless of their use in the World War RP the ruling request is valid.

[Centurius]

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1318141589' post='2821364']
These planes are in CNRP so regardless of their use in the World War RP the ruling request is valid.
[/quote]

No it's not because as you will see earlier in this thread we have already ruled on custom aircraft and have begun reviewing all designs currently used in CNRP, likewise two of the three planes have already had their speeds reduced to fall within range of the chart. We will not make a blanket ruling on a cap on engine speeds and review it on a case-by-case basis, especially if the user can show a source that says the speeds can be higher.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1318160441' post='2821416']
No it's not because as you will see earlier in this thread we have already ruled on custom aircraft and have begun reviewing all designs currently used in CNRP, likewise two of the three planes have already had their speeds reduced to fall within range of the chart. We will not make a blanket ruling on a cap on engine speeds and review it on a case-by-case basis, especially if the user can show a source that says the speeds can be higher.
[/quote]
Unless if all three aircraft were designed to supercruise on afterburner (which has been done in RL, the SR-71), I find it hard to believe that they can achieve such high speeds with turbofan alone.

Edited October 9, 2011 by HHAYD

[Centurius]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1318163112' post='2821436']
Unless if all three aircraft were designed to supercruise on afterburner (which has been done in RL, the SR-71), I find it hard to believe that they can achieve such high speeds with turbofan alone.
[/quote]

The F-99 right now has a top speed of mach 2.5, Triyun has already been told to put the F-2 at a lower speed.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1318166633' post='2821454']
The F-99 right now has a top speed of mach 2.5, Triyun has already been told to put the F-2 at a lower speed.
[/quote]
Top speed and supercruise are two different things.


Top supercruise speed is the highest aircraft's speed [b]without afterburner[/b].

Top speed for many modern jet aircraft [b]includes afterburner[/b].

Edited October 9, 2011 by HHAYD

[Triyun]

This appears to be a non-issue. The F-2 is going to be changed, that was already said. Cochin went away before he could help Cent review mine. If others want, Cent can do it alone. As for the F-99 the stats in the revised one was moved to Mach 2.5 max. I see no reason not to assume that does include the afterburner.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Triyun