The GM's Court

[Centurius]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1318173716' post='2821493']
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.
[/quote]

This would be correct, Mach 2.5 is with Afterburner and the absolute maximum it can go, after further review the F-99 has been put on mach 2 on supercruise and 2.5 with afterburner.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

We have this thread for a reason.
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105201

[King Timmy]

But this is a GM issue.

[Triyun]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1318022727' post='2820099']
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. [/quote]

Ok what is the size of how you are doing this. Additionally you use the term primary fuel? Does this mean it is a secondary fuel? From my own research for UFE designs you need to store hydrogen in a very non-conductive storage tank. Also how big is this?

[quote]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.[/quote]

Its also my understanding that the turbofan is a significantly more complicated piece of equipment and larger than turbojet. I looked into this quite heavily on my own and I do not believe this is feasible. You're going to have to choose one or the other. My understanding is Cent agrees with me on this. You can choose either a turbofan with its advantages of maneuverability, more efficiency, and low IR -OR- a faster turbojet and fit on the combo engine.

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

What is the effect you're claiming on range? How much fuel is it storing? Are you including this with hydrogen. My main question around this is again volume including both.

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]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]

Well a couple things, first I'm assuming this is a forward looking electrooptical sensor to maintain more stealth. But your air plane completely unmanned while moving at rapid speed would presumably be taking in and sending out a huge amount of information. If you have a drone there would be legit issues to discuss as far as reaction time versus a manned unit.



[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1318022809' post='2820102']
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.
[/quote]

Well once you specify the fuel a bit more we can discuss what size we are talking, however, we're quite firm on this issue you may not have 3 DEW and 22 Internal weapons. The internal weapons at minimum will need to be lowered significantly.

Please give us a written up proposal of your new units with your next response.

[iamthey]

Ignore post.

Edited October 11, 2011 by iamthey

[HHAYD]

Is it okay to convert aircraft carriers, battleships and cruisers into submarines? I'm fairly sure a cruiser cost about the same amount as two submarines, especially if the cruiser is a stealth ship. A battleship's or aircraft carrier's construction cost would be equivalent to a few submarines combined.

Edited October 11, 2011 by HHAYD

[Triyun]

Thats kinda a grey area. First no ship except your in game submarines can be covered by the sub multiplier. Beyond that, I personally have no problem with converting stuff other than landing ships, frigates, and corvettes into submarines but its a 1:1 ratio. If you convert 3 carriers into subs you have 3 subs not 15.

[Centurius]

Actually I can be clearer on the subject, your RP navy equals your ig navy exactly(with the exception of the sub modifier). The issue has come up several times and everytime the conclusion was you're not allowed to swap ships for another kind of ship. So I'm afraid you can not trade your ships for submarines.

[Zoot Zoot]

In regards to the new aircraft rules, could the GM's review this 6th gen aircraft?

[quote][i][b]The GB-7 Redcoat High Performance Air Superiority Aircraft[/b][/i]
[center][IMG]http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb144/zoot_zoot/XF70-1.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb144/zoot_zoot/219_large-1.jpg[/IMG][/center]

[b]General:[/b]
The GB-7 is a sixth generation stealth fighter borrowing features heavily from aircraft in the GB line of aircraft. The GB-7 is intended to be a light-weight supplement to existing 5.5 generation fighters and certainly not as a replacement. It will have a carrier variant for naval operations with Carriers in the Royal Navy.

The Redcoat will likely have directed energy weapons—, high-powered microwaves and lasers for defense against incoming missiles or as offensive weapons themselves. Munitions would likely be of the “dial an effect” type, able to cause anything from impairment to destruction of an air or ground target.
Materials and microelectronics technologies would combine to make the aircraft a large integrated sensor, possibly eliminating the need for a nose radar as it is known today. It would be equipped for making cyber attacks as well as achieving kinetic effects, but would still have to be cost-effective to make, service, and modify. The vast amounts of data will be available to the pilot, who may or may not be on board the aircraft. The pilot will see wide-ranging, intuitive views of “the extended world” around the aircraft, he noted. The aircraft will collect its own data and seamlessly fuse it with off-board sensors, including those on other aircraft. The difference from fifth generation will be the level of detail and certainty—the long-sought automatic target recognition.

Embedded sensors and microelectronics will also make possible sensor arrays in “locations that previously weren’t available because of either heat or the curvature of the surface,” providing more powerful and comprehensive views of the battlefield, although the aircraft won’t be autonomous, it will be able to “learn” and advise the pilot as to what actions to take— specifically, whether a target should be incapacitated temporarily, damaged, or destroyed. The GB-7 will have a much more lightweight and hold more space for weapon systems due to the elimination of wiring system. The introduction of nanotechnology and photonics the GB-7 will be able to process information much faster than a standard 5th gen aircraft. A photonic system will have a much tougher resiliance from digital attack. The aircrafts flight systems would be networked through a secure data link to battlespace controllers and immersing it into the RAF's domination doctrine.

New F220 engines will increase individual engine thrust 65,000 pounds of thrust per engine and they will be fitted onto the Redcoat to minimize the IR and acoustic signatures especially when using super cruise. The Redcoats new engines will have S-shaped intake ducts that shield the compressor fan from reflecting radar waves aswell as being designed to disguise the infrared emissions, reducing the threat of infrared homing ("heat seeking") surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles, including flatter thrust vectoring nozzles. Furthermore both jets will have a revolutionary new life support system to deal with the different gasses and pressures of extremely high altitude flight. High altitude flight when referring to the new aircraft would be around 75,000 ft

[b]General Statistics[/b]
Crew - 2 (Pilot and RADAR intercept officer)
Length - 72ft 5in
Wingspan - 50ft 8in
Height - 15ft 11in
Wing Area - 1000ft2
Empty Weight - 30,000lb
Loaded Weight - 65,000lb
Max Takeoff Weight - 65,000lb
Powerplant - 2x Pratt & Whitney F220-PW-200 - 65,000lb (per engine)

[b]Performance [/b]
Maximum speed - Mach 3.4
Super cruise - Mach 2.5
Range - 4000 nmi
Combat radius - 2200 nmi
Weapons:
-Solid State Chemical Energy Laser - 1
-High-Power Microwave Directed-Energy Weapon - 1
-Internal Missile Hardpoint - 8[/quote]

[Triyun]

I can see copying concept art (and of course have) but I have to say the fact that you pretty much lifted this description verbatum from another site is pretty low.

Beyond that you need to be at 2025 as the earliest procurement date for a '6th gen' fighter.

I'll get into the plethora of issues with the rest later.

[King Timmy]

How can the combat radius be 200 miles more than half the range?

[Zoot Zoot]

@Triyun.

No !@#$ I used other sources for the description. It is not unknown for that to happen and it's well known I know sweet $%&@ all about aircraft.

@Timmy
This is why I made the post so it can be reviewed and can be refined.

@general
I was told 3000 tech for the most basic of 6th gen aircraft by Centurius.

[Triyun]

I'm pretty sure it was always 5000. That said, its not that hard to at least rewrite stuff beyond proper nouns. Rather than be !@#$%*y about it, I think you could spend 15 minutes doing your own work.

Now onto the other things:

I'm not an aeronautical engineer but this design seems to be incredibly narrow and wouldn't have much lift to it. In addition you've got a pretty low weight while having two incredibly large turbofans, 8 internal weapons bays and two directed energy weapons, and a two man cockpit. At the same time your weighing less than a single engine F-35, with a one man cockpit, presumably significantly less fuel, two fewer internal weapons, and no directed energy weapons. I can see some improvement in material science by 2020 but not something to this intensity (keep in mind widespread use of the F-35 is 2015ish and its just being introduced now so its really a 5 year at most leap in technology from todays newest operational fighter). In addition to all of this I would say getting turbofans at that level that get to 3.4 or 2.5 super cruise is a bit hard to believe, especially in that weight class.

[Centurius]

I said you could use some of the more simpler systems zoot, fly by light systems for one would be possible but DEWs are out of the question until 5k tech. So is the level of stealth from the sources you have used. That said weight needs to be significantly eidted, likewise the speed needs to be decreased. 2.5-2.8 with afterburner is an absolute maximum, significantly less in supercruise.

[Zoot Zoot]

So what would be recommended stats for the aircraft to be fitting within a realistic technology level?

I am looking for more stealth air sup than ultimate rape machine of the sky's, the DeW's I am not too fussed about.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1318215848' post='2821916']
Ok what is the size of how you are doing this. Additionally you use the term primary fuel? Does this mean it is a secondary fuel? From my own research for UFE designs you need to store hydrogen in a very non-conductive storage tank. Also how big is this?
[/quote]

I'm unsure what you mean about what is the size, or how big is 'this'. I'll attempt to answer as best I can.

In the original concept, the cryo-hydrogen fuel also doubled as a coolant for the airframe's leading edges, skin, pumping this heat into the combustion chamber for greater propulsive efficiency, in addition to its role as the primary fuel source. When it started off on the runway in full rocket mode, the Medusa utilized a small onboard store of oxidizer along with the hydrogen fuel to propel itself like a rocket, typically expending the oxidizer once it transitioned into hybrid rocket/jet mode. In this hybrid mode, the engine opened up, and incoming airflow was turned into oxidizer to be mixed with the fuel to continue flying.

The Medusa will no longer have this dual mode capability, turning into a dedicated liquid fueled hydrocarbon eating turbine with a CVC add-on for performance at speeds higher than a traditional turbine (i'm going to give myself a break and not specify which kind, as differing sources tend to throw both turbojet and fan together when describing the Vulcan concept I'm using. The one thing that's clear is that the Vulcan turbine is to be an ultra-compact design in order to be coupled with a CVC). No TEL launches anymore.

There will still be a store of cryo-hydro onboard, but this will be solely dedicated to the coolant role i described above.

[quote]
Its also my understanding that the turbofan is a significantly more complicated piece of equipment and larger than turbojet. I looked into this quite heavily on my own and I do not believe this is feasible. You're going to have to choose one or the other. My understanding is Cent agrees with me on this. You can choose either a turbofan with its advantages of maneuverability, more efficiency, and low IR -OR- a faster turbojet and fit on the combo engine.
[/quote]

I'm gonna do neither. Its pointless to debate with you on its feasibility when i've already showed you differing articles outlining what i've described here. In any case, its your opinion that matters to me <3.

On one hand the Vulcan concept has been described as merely a 'modification' to existing fighter engines like the F/A-18 or F-22 which are apparently fans. On the other hand, sources describe it as a non-afterburning turbojet fitted to operate at speeds much higher than typical for a turbojet for greater efficiency with regards to fuel consumption and range, with variable geometry much like the SR-71's own engine (seal bleed vents for low speed flight, open them for high speeds.

I'm leaning towards the turbojet, since i've found more info on it though. Whether or not I make it a priority to detail it further in cement, i'll have to see. In any case, I never intended on including thrust-vectoring or other engine-dependent maneuverability systems - I've stressed in both designs that they get their 'agility' from their extremely unstable airframes.

[quote]What is the effect you're claiming on range? How much fuel is it storing? Are you including this with hydrogen. My main question around this is again volume including both.[/quote]

Like the Medusa, the Stheno will use a hydrocarbon engine, making it a LFRJ at its later stages (ie: it won't use cryo-hydro for fuel, only a small store of it for coolant).

[quote]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]

This was something that I said, I suspect this was in error. But i've agreed to make both aircraft larger by 2 m in all dimensions (wing span, fuselage width and height, etc etc) while adding additonal weight. This can be attributed to more fuel to justify whatever range I see is the norm for high supersonic aircraft on these boards.

I'm gonna repeat myself, I based my aircraft's ranges on their top speeds, making sure to make the resulting range much smaller than the bench marks out there. When the bench marks change, i will decrement my range appropriately, since my aircraft will still be smaller than those benchmarks, even after my enlargement of the design.

[quote]
Well a couple things, first I'm assuming this is a forward looking electrooptical sensor to maintain more stealth. But your air plane completely unmanned while moving at rapid speed would presumably be taking in and sending out a huge amount of information. If you have a drone there would be legit issues to discuss as far as reaction time versus a manned unit.[/quote]

Perhaps at high speeds the system looses its resolution (much like how radar/IR sensors would have similar losses at these speeds) compared to lower speeds? Perhaps it reverts to a much less taxing sensor system at top speeds? I've on board an AESA, for example. I'd dare say a computer assisted operator on the ground/in the vicinity would be able to react much faster than an unassisted human in such top speed conditions.

Perhaps actual defensive actions (besides engaging an enemy, unless I want Nod to be even less ethical than it already is) would be performed on the fly without operator intervention -calculations could be made within the airframe, rather than sending a message to an operator on the ground. Ie: A threat response system would detect the launch plume of an incoming missile and force the airframe to act accordingly by burning the seeker with a DEW/ launching an anti-missile-missile or performing evasive action. I don't need to send ALL of the information out from the airframe, I could give operators the bare essentials while throwing away the rest. Perhaps I eliminate the possibility of an 'in your face' confrontation altogether by instructing operators not to engage enemies at close range, fleeing via high speeds to a much safer BVR stance?

If your problem is that I don't use photonics, i could dig up some articles on Quasi-delay insenstive integrated circuits and describe how they'd be much faster than existing ICs due to the fact that they don't wait on a clock timer to do anything, instead operating on input when they get it, disregarding synchronicity with other ICs.

[quote]Well once you specify the fuel a bit more we can discuss what size we are talking, however, we're quite firm on this issue you may not have 3 DEW and 22 Internal weapons. The internal weapons at minimum will need to be lowered significantly.[/quote]

i don't have three DEW, although i do realize I could have been more clear in its description. I have a single 500 kJ 'source' laser that fires down a central corridor which is branched towards three individual turrets. Each time the single laser fires, the required branch turret is the turret the beam emits from. Ie: I could have the three turrets pointed at three differing points in space, but i can only shoot one at a time.

As for the internals - with the original specifications (ie: not the added 2m i mentioned) the Stheno was basically the Rafale wrapped in a bullet shaped cocoon. This cocoon was hollow, and enclosed the entirety of its dimensions and then some. Ie; the empty space from the nose of the rafale to the wing tip was entirely filled and could be used as fuel storage - additional to the onboard fuel tanks that would be present in the enclosed Rafale.

By adding these 2 meters to every dimension, while keeping the maximum payload the same, i've given even more room for the weapons and fuel. I can take 2/3 of the 22 pylons at the very most with these concessions for a total of 14 pylons that would need to bear the brunt of dividing 7,200 kg amongst themselves.

[quote]Please give us a written up proposal of your new units with your next response.
[/quote]

[b]Name:[/b] MILitary Aviation Complex (MILAC) F-25 'Medusa'
[b]Type:[/b] Intelligent Unmanned Hypersonic High Performance Interceptor
[b]Length[/b]: 16.2 m
[b]Wingspan:[/b] 13.3 m (Main Fuselage Maximum Width of 9.6 m)
[b]Height:[/b] 5.2 m (Main Fuselage Maximum Height of 4.4 m)
[b]Propulsion:[/b] Non-Afterburning Ultra-Compact High Speed Turbine with CVC
[b]Empty Weight:[/b] 9,400 kg
[b]Weapons Stations:[/b] 3 Internal Bays (1 x 5 Large Station Bay (600 kg per station), 2 x 3 Small Station Bay (100 kg per station)); Total of 11 Stations [color="#FF0000"]Editor's Note: OR 3 Internal Bays (1 x 4 Large Station bay (650 kg per station), 2 x 2 Small Station Bay (250 kg per station)); Total of 8 Stations[/color]
[b]Maximum Payload:[/b] Only Internal Bays; 5 x 600 kg Stations + 6 x 100 kg Stations = 3,600 kg [color="#FF0000"]Editor's Note: OR Only Internal Bays; 4 x 650 kg Stations + 4 x 250 kg Stations = 3,600 kg[/color]
[b]Normal Combat Weight:[/b] 9,400 kg + 3,600 kg = 13,000 kg (fuel not included)
[b]Thrust-to-Weight Ratio:[/b] Up to 6 Atmospheric
[b]Combat Range:[/b] TBA
[b]Ferry Range:[/b] TBA
[b]Operational Altitude:[/b] 20 km
[b]Maximum Altitude:[/b] 28.5 km
[b]Maximum Speed:[/b] Dry Thrust Only Mach 4+
[b]Special:[/b] 4 External Stations containing [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=65298&view=findpost&p=2565486"]SEAD-MA-EM[/url] systems



[b]Name:[/b] MILitary Aviation Complex (MILAC) F-27 'Stheno'
[b]Type:[/b] Intelligent Unmanned Hypersonic High Performance Superiority Fighter
[b]Length[/b]: 20.27m
[b]Wingspan:[/b] 12.8 m (Main Fuselage Maximum Width of 11.4 m)
[b]Height:[/b] 7.34 m (Main Fuselage Maximum Height of 6.86 m)
[b]Propulsion:[/b] Turbine-based Combined Cycle Engine ----- Non-Afterburning Ultra-Compact High Speed Turbine // SHock-Induced Combustion RAMJET (SHCRAMJET)
[b]Empty Weight:[/b] 14,200 kg
[b]Weapons Stations:[/b] 3 Internal Bays (1 x 10 Large Station Bay (600 kg per station), 4 x 3 Small Station Bay (100 kg per station) ); Total of 22 Stations [color="#FF0000"]Editor's Note: OR 3 Internal Bays (1 x 6 Large Station bay (650 kg per station), 2 x 4 Small Station Bay (400 kg per station)); Total of 14 Stations[/color]
[b]Maximum Payload:[/b] Only Internal Bays; 10 x 600 kg Stations + 12 x 100 kg Stations = 7,200 kg [color="#FF0000"]Editor's Note: OR Only Internal Bays; 6 x 650 kg Stations + 8 x 250 kg Stations = 7,100 kg[/color]
[b]Normal Combat Weight:[/b] 14,200 kg + 7,100 kg = 21,300 kg (fuel not included)
[b]Thrust-to-Weight Ratio:[/b] Turbine Stage (Mach 0-4) Up to 6 Atmospheric, SHCRAMJET Stage (Greater than Mach 4) Up to 2 Atmospheric
[b]Combat Range:[/b] TBA
[b]Ferry Range:[/b] TBA
[b] [/b] [b]Operational Altitude:[/b] 26 km typical engagement
[b]Maximum Altitude:[/b] Slightly Exo-atmospheric
[b]Maximum Speed:[/b] Mach 4 (Turbine Stage) Mach 12 (SCHRAMJET stage) at Operational Altitude, Mach 25 (SCHRAMJET) stage at Exo-atmospheric Height
[b]Special:[/b] 1 x 500 kJ directed-energy laser weapon (500 kJ beam energy total per shot, realized as 50 pulses of 10 kJ each with one pulse every 10 nanoseconds) via 3 x Independently Traversing Shutters; 3 km effective range (maximum damage output), both radar and electro-optically guided

[Kevin Kingswell]

I would like to request two spy rolls against TBM, the first is to hack into the internet that the blogger is using to identify which building and IP address was used and as long as the above is only one action the second would be to cover any attempts at detection of said hack using decoy programs and such. Sorry its not the best detail but I don't know much about hacking.

Also the attack is being carried out by a cyber warfare department of the Islz Cruz military intelligance so they have government resources avaliable etc.

[IMG]http://i858.photobucket.com/albums/ab144/killerkevz666/CNRPspyrollattack.png[/IMG]

[Triyun]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1318624422' post='2825093']
I'm unsure what you mean about what is the size, or how big is 'this'. I'll attempt to answer as best I can.

In the original concept, the cryo-hydrogen fuel also doubled as a coolant for the airframe's leading edges, skin, pumping this heat into the combustion chamber for greater propulsive efficiency, in addition to its role as the primary fuel source. When it started off on the runway in full rocket mode, the Medusa utilized a small onboard store of oxidizer along with the hydrogen fuel to propel itself like a rocket, typically expending the oxidizer once it transitioned into hybrid rocket/jet mode. In this hybrid mode, the engine opened up, and incoming airflow was turned into oxidizer to be mixed with the fuel to continue flying.[/quote]

Yes but you said primary fuel for fossil fuel. As opposed to just fuel. That leaves one wondering if there is secondary fuel. Thats my main question. If there are two fuel storage systems, they take up greater space than a single fuel storage system.

[quote]
The Medusa will no longer have this dual mode capability, turning into a dedicated liquid fueled hydrocarbon eating turbine with a CVC add-on for performance at speeds higher than a traditional turbine (i'm going to give myself a break and not specify which kind, as differing sources tend to throw both turbojet and fan together when describing the Vulcan concept I'm using. The one thing that's clear is that the Vulcan turbine is to be an ultra-compact design in order to be coupled with a CVC). No TEL launches anymore.[/quote]

Turbojet is more simple and I've not run around any explicit mention of turbofan. I have run across a compact turbojet design for the FALCON Project which is part of what your general thing is based on. Thus I'm inclined to rule turbojet really is the only one that works. In regards to maneuverability, just be aware that a turbojet is significantly less advantageous at low speed. This is the trade off your getting in terms of high speed performance of your aircraft. Can't have it both ways. There is a reason there is no plans to make the FALCON project into an air to air unit.

[quote]Perhaps at high speeds the system looses its resolution (much like how radar/IR sensors would have similar losses at these speeds) compared to lower speeds? Perhaps it reverts to a much less taxing sensor system at top speeds? I've on board an AESA, for example. I'd dare say a computer assisted operator on the ground/in the vicinity would be able to react much faster than an unassisted human in such top speed conditions. [/quote]

Well in terms of the envelope where typical air to air battles are fought, which is the subsonic to Mach 2 range, actually the advantage is an onboard pilots. For example the cancelled Lockheed Saber project which would have developed a capability that was modular between X-47 style missions and F-35 missions was designed to have the air to air mission be in the manned configuration. As far as I can tell the technology really is not there for their to be a big advantage in air to air in unmanned configuration, hence why I am wondering some of these limitations on your craft.

[quote]Perhaps actual defensive actions (besides engaging an enemy, unless I want Nod to be even less ethical than it already is) would be performed on the fly without operator intervention -calculations could be made within the airframe, rather than sending a message to an operator on the ground. Ie: A threat response system would detect the launch plume of an incoming missile and force the airframe to act accordingly by burning the seeker with a DEW/ launching an anti-missile-missile or performing evasive action. I don't need to send ALL of the information out from the airframe, I could give operators the bare essentials while throwing away the rest. Perhaps I eliminate the possibility of an 'in your face' confrontation altogether by instructing operators not to engage enemies at close range, fleeing via high speeds to a much safer BVR stance?[/quote]

You'd be welcome to try it, existing defense trends by people who know far more about aerial combat than you or I suggest to me that that isn't really a realistic thing and that you'd have a fairly decent chance of being shot down. But its your perogative to try it.

[quote]If your problem is that I don't use photonics, i could dig up some articles on Quasi-delay insenstive integrated circuits and describe how they'd be much faster than existing ICs due to the fact that they don't wait on a clock timer to do anything, instead operating on input when they get it, disregarding synchronicity with other ICs. [/quote]

I never said anything about photonics my concern is primarily with the scale of data your transfering over broad band in a highly data intense combat environment that would be modern air war. Your previous post in Morocco which seemed highly unrealistic as far as speed of data analysis and optical detection, when multiplied over a massive massive battle scene would seem to me to be something that would be highly difficult to pull off with no reaction delays.


[quote]
i don't have three DEW, although i do realize I could have been more clear in its description. I have a single 500 kJ 'source' laser that fires down a central corridor which is branched towards three individual turrets. Each time the single laser fires, the required branch turret is the turret the beam emits from. Ie: I could have the three turrets pointed at three differing points in space, but i can only shoot one at a time.

As for the internals - with the original specifications (ie: not the added 2m i mentioned) the Stheno was basically the Rafale wrapped in a bullet shaped cocoon. This cocoon was hollow, and enclosed the entirety of its dimensions and then some. Ie; the empty space from the nose of the rafale to the wing tip was entirely filled and could be used as fuel storage - additional to the onboard fuel tanks that would be present in the enclosed Rafale.

By adding these 2 meters to every dimension, while keeping the maximum payload the same, i've given even more room for the weapons and fuel. I can take 2/3 of the 22 pylons at the very most with these concessions for a total of 14 pylons that would need to bear the brunt of dividing 7,200 kg amongst themselves.


[b]Name:[/b] MILitary Aviation Complex (MILAC) F-25 'Medusa'
[b]Type:[/b] Intelligent Unmanned Hypersonic High Performance Interceptor
[b]Length[/b]: 16.2 m
[b]Wingspan:[/b] 13.3 m (Main Fuselage Maximum Width of 9.6 m)
[b]Height:[/b] 5.2 m (Main Fuselage Maximum Height of 4.4 m)
[b]Propulsion:[/b] Non-Afterburning Ultra-Compact High Speed Turbine with CVC
[b]Empty Weight:[/b] 9,400 kg
[b]Weapons Stations:[/b] 3 Internal Bays (1 x 5 Large Station Bay (600 kg per station), 2 x 3 Small Station Bay (100 kg per station)); Total of 11 Stations [color="#FF0000"]Editor's Note: OR 3 Internal Bays (1 x 4 Large Station bay (650 kg per station), 2 x 2 Small Station Bay (250 kg per station)); Total of 8 Stations[/color]
[b]Maximum Payload:[/b] Only Internal Bays; 5 x 600 kg Stations + 6 x 100 kg Stations = 3,600 kg [color="#FF0000"]Editor's Note: OR Only Internal Bays; 4 x 650 kg Stations + 4 x 250 kg Stations = 3,600 kg[/color]
[b]Normal Combat Weight:[/b] 9,400 kg + 3,600 kg = 13,000 kg (fuel not included)
[b]Thrust-to-Weight Ratio:[/b] Up to 6 Atmospheric
[b]Combat Range:[/b] TBA
[b]Ferry Range:[/b] TBA
[b]Operational Altitude:[/b] 20 km
[b]Maximum Altitude:[/b] 28.5 km
[b]Maximum Speed:[/b] Dry Thrust Only Mach 4+
[b]Special:[/b] 4 External Stations containing [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=65298&view=findpost&p=2565486"]SEAD-MA-EM[/url] systems



[b]Name:[/b] MILitary Aviation Complex (MILAC) F-27 'Stheno'
[b]Type:[/b] Intelligent Unmanned Hypersonic High Performance Superiority Fighter
[b]Length[/b]: 20.27m
[b]Wingspan:[/b] 12.8 m (Main Fuselage Maximum Width of 11.4 m)
[b]Height:[/b] 7.34 m (Main Fuselage Maximum Height of 6.86 m)
[b]Propulsion:[/b] Turbine-based Combined Cycle Engine ----- Non-Afterburning Ultra-Compact High Speed Turbine // SHock-Induced Combustion RAMJET (SHCRAMJET)
[b]Empty Weight:[/b] 14,200 kg
[b]Weapons Stations:[/b] 3 Internal Bays (1 x 10 Large Station Bay (600 kg per station), 4 x 3 Small Station Bay (100 kg per station) ); Total of 22 Stations [color="#FF0000"]Editor's Note: OR 3 Internal Bays (1 x 6 Large Station bay (650 kg per station), 2 x 4 Small Station Bay (400 kg per station)); Total of 14 Stations[/color]
[b]Maximum Payload:[/b] Only Internal Bays; 10 x 600 kg Stations + 12 x 100 kg Stations = 7,200 kg [color="#FF0000"]Editor's Note: OR Only Internal Bays; 6 x 650 kg Stations + 8 x 250 kg Stations = 7,100 kg[/color]
[b]Normal Combat Weight:[/b] 14,200 kg + 7,100 kg = 21,300 kg (fuel not included)
[b]Thrust-to-Weight Ratio:[/b] Turbine Stage (Mach 0-4) Up to 6 Atmospheric, SHCRAMJET Stage (Greater than Mach 4) Up to 2 Atmospheric
[b]Combat Range:[/b] TBA
[b]Ferry Range:[/b] TBA
[b] [/b] [b]Operational Altitude:[/b] 26 km typical engagement
[b]Maximum Altitude:[/b] Slightly Exo-atmospheric
[b]Maximum Speed:[/b] Mach 4 (Turbine Stage) Mach 12 (SCHRAMJET stage) at Operational Altitude, Mach 25 (SCHRAMJET) stage at Exo-atmospheric Height
[b]Special:[/b] 1 x 500 kJ directed-energy laser weapon (500 kJ beam energy total per shot, realized as 50 pulses of 10 kJ each with one pulse every 10 nanoseconds) via 3 x Independently Traversing Shutters; 3 km effective range (maximum damage output), both radar and electro-optically guided
[/quote]

So is it 8 and 14?

Those numbers correct? To judge these I'd also like to see ranges.

@ Kevin Kingswell:

[img]http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/1386/picture7as.png[/img]
[img]http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8814/picture8qh.png[/img]

Two successes.

@ Zoot:

[quote]So what would be recommended stats for the aircraft to be fitting within a realistic technology level?

I am looking for more stealth air sup than ultimate rape machine of the sky's, the DeW's I am not too fussed about.
Centurius [/quote]

Tail less reduced cross section aircraft with turbofan super cruise, S type IR Masking, AESA radar, FLIR scope, integrated passive sensors, cyber/electronic attack, frame built radar absorbent technology, good weapons payload, and a greater than 1 thrust to weight ratio are pretty much the makings of a strong air superiority fighter in my judgement. Photonics helps of course it isn't required. I don't see the point in you making one yet rather than upgrading the PAK-FA.

[Captain Enema]

Triyun, my "blogger" is located in Aeon. So why is the roll against me?

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1318978654' post='2828238']
Triyun, my "blogger" is located in Aeon. So why is the roll against me?
[/quote]

As far as I know regardless of where a blogger, hacker etc is located the spy roll is always against the blogger/hacker controlling nation. This stops people using other nations higher technology levels in game to protect them. Also this roll no longer matters as the thread it was in was closed but thank you anyway.

[Beauty]

[quote][u][b]Log Dump:[/b][/u]

[spoiler][03:08] <Rotavele[TIO]> What? I was actually being legit, not trolling.
[03:26] <Rotavele[TIO]> Zoot... Come on now... I dont know what i did wrong to upset you so much?
[03:26] <Zoot> I just dont like you. Your also REALLY annoying me this morning.
[03:27] <Rotavele[TIO]> How? Im trying to be friends with you and you keep trying to ban me
[03:27] <Rotavele[TIO]> Im trying to have conversation with you and you went psycho on me
[03:28] <Zoot> Hardly psycho.
[03:28] <Zoot> I tried to ban you once and for some reason it didnt work.
[03:28] <Zoot> I devoiced you because you were talking crap and it was annoying me.
[03:29] <Rotavele[TIO]> Why though? I told you i wanted to be your friend and you de-voiced me
[03:29] <Zoot> No.
[03:29] <Zoot> [09:07] <+Rotavele[TIO]> Then we will be lovers, k?
[03:29] <Zoot> [09:07] <&Zoot> No
[03:29] <Zoot> [09:07] <+Rotavele[TIO]> f u 2 :,(
[03:29] <Zoot> [09:07] <+Rotavele[TIO]> I want to be ur friend, Zoottiee Woootttie
[03:29] <Rotavele[TIO]> No im not trying to troll you, im actually trying to get along with you but you seem to think im out to get you
[03:29] <Zoot> Your just trolling.
[03:29] <Zoot> Hardly Rota
[03:29] <Zoot> you just annoy me
[03:29] <Rotavele[TIO]> I was playing with you Zoot.
[03:29] <Zoot> to no end
[03:29] <Rotavele[TIO]> Then what do you want me to do?
[03:29] <Zoot> Stop talking would be a good start.
[03:30] <Rotavele[TIO]> Im not going to leave CN RP just because I annoy you, zoot./
[03:30] <Zoot> Did I ask you to leave CNRP?
[03:30] <Zoot> No
[03:30] <Rotavele[TIO]> Stop talking and leaving CNRP would be the same thing... if you dont want me to post in CNRP then it would be the same as leaving
[03:35] <Zoot> Wrong again.
[03:35] <Zoot> Stopping talking means stop talking
[03:35] <Zoot> If I said stop posting and leave cnrp
[03:35] <Zoot> then that would mean I wanted you to leave CNRP.
[03:35] <Rotavele[TIO]> Ok well if i cant talk in a post or in the IRC it might as well be the same thing. Ive settled my issues with everyone, and you just wont let it go.
[03:36] <Zoot> What the $%&@ are you talking about?
[03:36] <Zoot> I couldnt give a !@#$ about the past.
[03:36] <Zoot> This is this morning
[03:36] <Zoot> you annoyed me
[03:36] <Zoot> your continuing to annoy me
[03:36] <Zoot> and its nowhere near the same thing
[03:36] <Rotavele[TIO]> How a, i annoying you?
[03:36] <Rotavele[TIO]> I will stop doing whatever im doing
[03:36] <Zoot> Because you wont take the hint and $%&@ off.
[03:37] <Rotavele[TIO]> Your so mean
[03:37] <Zoot> Deal with it.

[03:40] * Now talking in #cnrp
[03:40] * Topic is 'CNRP OOC Channel :: Official LSU 7-0 Channel'
[03:40] * Set by Sargun on Sun Oct 16 18:04:02
[03:40] * Zoot sets mode: +v Rotavele[TIO]
[03:41] <&Zoot> You do realise Rota. That nothing about what happens on IRC, can be dealt with on the forums?
[03:41] <&Zoot> So not only did you just make a tit of yourself, you didnt even do it with style.
[03:42] <+Rotavele[TIO]> Im just trying to solve the issue without what happened last time zoot.
[03:42] <&Zoot> But your still not getting it.
[03:42] <&Zoot> the GM's cant do anything.
[03:42] <&Zoot> Because its not forum related.
[03:42] <+Rotavele[TIO]> Leave me alone please.
[03:42] <&Zoot> This is IRC.
[03:43] <&Zoot> If you have a problem, then go to Sargun about it.[/spoiler][/quote]

I need something done about this issue. This time i'm coming to the OOC courts first to resolve the issue before anything gets out of hand, and ends up like the Republique Du Fleuve crisis . So can a GM please resolve this issue? Thank you.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Rotavele

[Zoot Zoot]

[quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1319013175' post='2828556']
I need something done about this issue. This time i'm coming to the OOC courts first to resolve the issue before anything gets out of hand, and ends up like the Republique Du Fleuve crisis . So can a GM please resolve this issue? Thank you.
[/quote]

Derp.

Just thought I would like to add the rest of the logs that she missed out... Not that anything in the GM's court is going to solve anything because its an off forum matter.

[quote][08:58] <&Zoot> morning
[08:58] <+Rotavele[TIO]> Hello old friend <3
[08:59] <&Zoot> =/
[09:00] <&Zoot> Sup Rota
[09:00] <+Rotavele[TIO]> Hey
[09:00] <+Rotavele[TIO]> No hard feelings, I hope
[09:01] <+MoGone> the =\ is surely a sign of goodwill
[09:01] <&Zoot> Of course not. Yout not being an utter !@#$ this time round.
[09:01] <+Rotavele[TIO]> I can be for 50 tech.
[09:01] <&Zoot> and I can ban you...
[09:01] <&Zoot> so yeah
[09:01] <&Zoot> lol
[09:01] <+Rotavele[TIO]> Same thing.
[09:02] <&Zoot> No its not...
[09:02] <+Rotavele[TIO]> Yes it is
[09:02] <+Rotavele[TIO]> Banning and !@#$* are the same thing
[09:02] <&Zoot> No. a !@#$ is a derogatory term for female genitals or just a general idiot who does stuff to annoy/piss people off IE a troll as its known on the internet
[09:02] <&Zoot> banning means I can get rid of such things.
[09:03] <&Zoot> However
[09:03] <+Rotavele[TIO]> Zoot you take everything to heart
[09:03] <&Zoot> its 9am
[09:03] <+Rotavele[TIO]> Which means your gonna make me some coffee right?
[09:03] <&Zoot> Too early for any of that
[09:03] <&Zoot> No, your going to make ME some Coffee.
[09:03] <&Zoot> me points the way to the kitchen
[09:03] <&Zoot> 2 sugers, milky please
[09:04] <+Rotavele[TIO]> Im gonna shave my chest hairs and put them in it
[09:04] <&Zoot> loveley
[09:04] <+Rotavele[TIO]> xD
[09:05] * iamthey (iamthey@coldfront-4BD1FCE0.sw.biz.rr.com) Quit ( Ping timeout )
[09:05] <&Zoot> Tempted to go over the Poles with the world war lot
[09:06] <+Rotavele[TIO]> Attack me plz?
[09:07] <&Zoot> Perhaps. But I have no legit reason to do it. So no
[09:07] <+Rotavele[TIO]> Next time we go to war zoot, we will have a plan first.
[09:07] <+Rotavele[TIO]> Then we will be lovers, k?
[09:07] <&Zoot> No
[09:07] <+Rotavele[TIO]> f u 2 :,(
[09:07] <+Rotavele[TIO]> I want to be ur friend, Zoottiee Woootttie
[09:08] * Zoot sets mode -v Rotavele[TIO] for #cnrp
[09:08] <&Zoot> Stop being a !@#$.
[09:08] <&Zoot> I'll voice you in ten minutes[/quote]

Edited October 19, 2011 by Zoot Zoot

[Triyun]

IRC behavior is not the purview of the GMs.

[Captain Enema]

Zootie Wootie.....

Ahahahahaahah ahahahaahahahahah ahhhhahahahahahahahaahah

You are never going to live this down dude.

Also, serious question..

What sort of internet do 3rd world nations have in CNRP?

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1319090864' post='2829141']
Also, serious question..

What sort of internet do 3rd world nations have in CNRP?
[/quote]
I just kind of tracked the top internet of the times. When I was in the 60's and 70's, I had limited DARPAnet that didn't give me any external connections. Now that I'm in the 90's, hello dial-up.