The GM's Court

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='Kevin Kingswell' timestamp='1319011115' post='2828551']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.[/quote] You're going to hate me for pointing this out, but he could always create another blogger character.

[iKrolm]

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

What sort of internet do 3rd world nations have in CNRP?
[/quote]


Triyun or one of the other GM's may correct me on this, but I believe the current ruling is: any country may implement internet but very fast internet and universal availability are limited to those with the Internet wonder.

[Centurius]

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1319094217' post='2829163']
Triyun or one of the other GM's may correct me on this, but I believe the current ruling is: any country may implement internet but very fast internet and universal availability are limited to those with the Internet wonder.
[/quote]

Wrong, the internet wonder only has a meaning in rp if the owner wants to have one. Without the wonder you can claim speeds of 1Tbps as far as the guidelines care. It's flavor rp.

[Triyun]

If you look at under developed countries they tend to often have pretty decent access to the internet be it Vietnam, some African nations, etc. I don't really see a need to restrict development or speed. I would say if your going to talk about a huge complex cyberwarfare or ultra secure remote datalink capability for military forces that'd be one thing, but its really in the rules, more my personal opinion.

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1319124635' post='2829270']Wrong, the internet wonder only has a meaning in rp if the owner wants to have one.[/quote]Then what does the Internet wonder actually do?
Every wonder in CyberNations should be quantifiable in CNRP!

Edited October 21, 2011 by Generalissimo

[Centurius]

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1319155239' post='2829529']
Then what does the Internet wonder actually do?
Every wonder in CyberNations should be quantifiable in CNRP!
[/quote]

As far as the guidelines care? Nothing. I myself use it for a secured and isolated military internet, others use it for actual internet. It means what the rp'er wants it to mean.

And no, it really shouldn't because the game has wonders for certain things that are just common sense. With most wonders the cn is ignored in favor of the rp.

[Executive Minister]

I combine it with the Pentagon wonder to justify my battlenet

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1318966896' post='2828066']
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]

Hm, I see your point. No there is no secondary fuel - unless you treat the cryo hydro as the 'fuel' for the cooling system.

[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]

Errr. No. I'm not using FALCON for the Medusa. The Medusa doesn't go anywhere near mach 10, let alone mach 20. I'm talking solely about the engine, since its the only conceptual thing im changing. I am using Project [url="http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/DARPAs-Hypersonic-Vulcan-Engine-Meld-05466/"]VULCAN[/url] - I don't know how many times I have to say this. I really did not want to drop in a link, but i'm getting tired of this argument of yours.

[quote]
The Vulcan engine will integrate a [b]traditional jet turbine engine that performs well at [u]low speeds[/u], with a constant volume combustion (CVC) engine that performs well at [u]higher speeds[/u].[/b] The combination will help the vehicles go from standing starts to Mach 4 or so, where hypersonic engines can take over. DARPA's ultimate goal is to design, build, and fly Mach 6+ re-usable, air-breathing, turbine-based hypersonic vehicles.
[/quote]

Only I'm going to stop at 4+.

I think you are making the same mistake I did - you got confused at the mentions of 'jet turbine' that do not specify whether its a jet or fan... but wait, there's more!

[quote]What current engines will the Vulcan program modify? What are the program's goals? What is its structure? DID has answers…

Contractors will use an in-production turbine engine that is capable of operating at or above Mach 2, such as[b] United Technologies' subsidiary Pratt & Whitney's F100-229 (in F-16/F-15 fighters) and F119 (F-22A) engines, and GE's F110-129 (F-16/F-15) and F414 (F/A-18E/F, JAS-39NG) engines.[/b] The hope is that picking a proven high-Mach conventional engine will save a lot of money and time, as opposed to past efforts that have tried to develop an entirely new conventional engine for use in hypersonic mixed-cycle systems.

DARPA believes that it may be possible to [u][b]take advantage of each cycle type's performance strengths, achieving full-spectrum performance[/b][/u] and [b]30-35% gains in fuel efficiency,[/b] using a melded "Humphrey Cycle" approach.

DARPA's ultimate hope is to integrate the Vulcan engine into the HTV-3X FALCON/Blackwing vehicle ([b]a.k.a. "SR-72"), and leverage either the engine design or its key concepts and lessons in other full-size hypersonic cruise vehicles.[/b][/quote]

So in addition to previous articles I referenced with regards to my IC pseudo YJ102R compact non-afterburning turbojet, here we have an article directly referencing legacy high performance turbofans as the turbine basis of VULCAN. I'm still leaning towards using the turbojet for just the size, and the fact that for an interceptor such as the Medusa, it'll operate at around the mach 2 range, which is the lower bound for turbojets.

For the Stheno... it is much larger than Medusa, so i'll probably use a turbofan-CVC VULCAN engine for the turbine stage of the TBCC engine. Of course, the fan itself won't be afterburning, and the 'full-spectrum performance' bit sounds good for an air superiority (I suspect you and I have differing terms on what that means) aircraft such as the Stheno. The '30-35%' gain in fuel efficiency will couple well with its much larger size and higher top speeds.

Oh and on that comment about the FALCON not being suitable for air-to-air, this article is describing it in the vein of an SR-72ish aircraft. The SR-71 did have an air-to-air variant developed, yes a long range missile boat, but still air-to-air.


[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]

I've found that the manned version was intended to be an onsite controller, not air-to-air because the sabre was incapable of it. You''re going to have to come up with actual reasons (or links) on why you think that the advantage would be to onboard pilots, pilots susceptible to stress, fatigue and are limited to comparatively low G maneuvers. Even still, what makes you think i'm going to fight with either of these in a 'typical' air battle? You don't know what i'm going to do with them.

We have crude algorithms that allow drones to refer to databases to 'predict' what a nearby aircraft will do based on its attitude, behavior, etc etc. What makes you think I can't go a step further and add to the database other things an aircraft could do given its current behavior, ie: firing a missile, closing in to intercept me, etc etc.


[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]

Damn right its my perogative.

I take no offense to the comment about existing defense trends, I really don't, but the level of 'realism' you're implying that CNRP should have, or that I should consider when Rping my aircraft is really puzzling. We have wars where thousands of cruise missiles are fired in single engagements (missile spam), we have wars taking place over swamps and other impossible terrain, we've got conventional ICBM launches being used liberally in first strikes, etc etc.

Do I try to use real world concepts when Rping the nitty gritty details of my air battles, sure, but all these explanations you ask of me are really getting ridiculous. I really will enjoy seeing other people coming forwards to consult with the GMs about their tech or their damned tactics and justifying it here, I really, really do.

[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]

You're going to have to be much more specific with that comment, Triyun. I posted tons in that war. I don't see how any of those posts were any different from other highly developed nations in CNRP that have network-centric warfare as their armed forces' primary role.

[quote]
So is it 8 and 14?

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

No, its the original numbers unless you can definitively tell me why I cannot have them, taking into account the dimensions i outlined and the compliance i gave you by increasing the main fuselage of both substantially.

If I get tired of this argument, 8 and 14 is the minimum i will settle for if I decide not to cop out and not list dimensions like other people do.

[Triyun]

Consulting with Cent, I am hereby issuing an official ruling on the Stethno.

It is ruled an illegal aircraft for the following reasons:

The turbofan-ramjet-scramjet Vulcan engine design cited is specifically designed for the FALCON project. The Falcon project for those not familiar with it is intended as part of Prompt Global Strike as a bomber. These are significantly larger aircraft than a fighter. We find that such a design would be acceptable on a strategic bomber sized aircraft, but not on a fighter sized one.

On top of this on an article on sixth generation [i]fighters[/i] Darryl Davis, head of Boeing's Advanced Division Stated: "Not only will hypersonics require years more work, Davis said it must be combined with other, variable-cycle engines that will allow an aircraft to take off from sea level, climb to high altitude, and then engage a hypersonic engine. Those enabling propulsion elements are not necessarily near at hand in a single package."

While there is sufficient evidence from Prompt Global Strike to justify the deployment of a large platform, or even I would say though I would say its foreeable with a compact turbojet combination (turbojet being a significantly less complex piece of machinery than a turbofan) for a fighter built for speed not manuvering, it does not necessarily follow that one could employ a long range turbofan/ramjet/scramjet tactical aircraft, this is especially true given its high thrust to weigh ratio.

Additionally, we also find fault with the employment of 22 onboard weapons hard points. This will need to be reduced. Upon looking for evidence of fighters with internal weapons bays, the largest one we could find is the J-20. [url=http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2011/07/26/stealth-fighter-or-bomber/]The mock up is located here.[/url] Now I freely admit that we can expect an increase in the carrying capacity. But it seems to us that nearly a 3 fold increase over both the F-22 and J-20 exceeds what one can reasonably expect.

Our general approach to this, is that we have to be somewhat mindful both of balance in the game between advanced nations, and less advanced nations, but also somewhat practically minded. There are people a lot better educated, paid a lot more money, and probably quite a bit smarter than us designing many of these air crafts IRL. I think it would simply be follow to assume one can come up with an aircraft that is just a huge leap forward in all aspects (speed, stealth, weapons carrying capacity, agility, etc.)

As far as hard points, 8 (assuming the reduction in the medusa's size) and 14 are the maximum allowable [i]internal[/i] hard points we as GMs will allow. Any larger amount of weaponry on a [i]tactical[/i] size aircraft will be in violation of the rules and such aircraft cannot be RPed except under the principle of mutual consent.

Additionally Cent and I both agree that any sort of pilot AI, is going to have a significant disadvantage to an on board pilot in maneuvering.

So be the official ruling.

/me slams his shoe

Please submit a finalized version of the Medusa for approval, as I understand that one does have significantly reduced, range, payload, and a turbojet combination engine

Edit: As clarification, when I refer to a strategic bomber being the end result of the falcon project, I am refering to the HCV, which is a hypersonic combat vehicle. Not the HTV-3 which is essentially a glorified remote control plane (i.e. it is a technology demonstrator, not a full scale mock up and lacks room for weaponry, sensors, heat sinks, and other things on a full size system).

Edited October 22, 2011 by Triyun

[Centurius]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1319212209' post='2829929']
Consulting with Cent, I am hereby issuing an official ruling on the Stethno.

It is ruled an illegal aircraft for the following reasons:

The turbofan-ramjet-scramjet Vulcan engine design cited is specifically designed for the FALCON project. The Falcon project for those not familiar with it is intended as part of Prompt Global Strike as a bomber. These are significantly larger aircraft than a fighter. We find that such a design would be acceptable on a strategic bomber sized aircraft, but not on a fighter sized one.

On top of this on an article on sixth generation [i]fighters[/i] Darryl Davis, head of Boeing's Advanced Division Stated: "Not only will hypersonics require years more work, Davis said it must be combined with other, variable-cycle engines that will allow an aircraft to take off from sea level, climb to high altitude, and then engage a hypersonic engine. Those enabling propulsion elements are not necessarily near at hand in a single package."

While there is sufficient evidence from Prompt Global Strike to justify the deployment of a large platform, or even I would say though I would say its foreeable with a compact turbojet combination (turbojet being a significantly less complex piece of machinery than a turbofan) for a fighter built for speed not manuvering, it does not necessarily follow that one could employ a long range turbofan/ramjet/scramjet tactical aircraft, this is especially true given its high thrust to weigh ratio.

Additionally, we also find fault with the employment of 22 onboard weapons hard points. This will need to be reduced. Upon looking for evidence of fighters with internal weapons bays, the largest one we could find is the J-20. [url=http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2011/07/26/stealth-fighter-or-bomber/]The mock up is located here.[/url] Now I freely admit that we can expect an increase in the carrying capacity. But it seems to us that nearly a 3 fold increase over both the F-22 and J-20 exceeds what one can reasonably expect.

Our general approach to this, is that we have to be somewhat mindful both of balance in the game between advanced nations, and less advanced nations, but also somewhat practically minded. There are people a lot better educated, paid a lot more money, and probably quite a bit smarter than us designing many of these air crafts IRL. I think it would simply be follow to assume one can come up with an aircraft that is just a huge leap forward in all aspects (speed, stealth, weapons carrying capacity, agility, etc.)

As far as hard points, 8 (assuming the reduction in the medusa's size) and 14 are the maximum allowable [i]internal[/i] hard points we as GMs will allow. Any larger amount of weaponry on a [i]tactical[/i] size aircraft will be in violation of the rules and such aircraft cannot be RPed except under the principle of mutual consent.

Additionally Cent and I both agree that any sort of pilot AI, is going to have a significant disadvantage to an on board pilot in maneuvering.

So be the official ruling.

/me slams his shoe

Please submit a finalized version of the Medusa for approval, as I understand that one does have significantly reduced, range, payload, and a turbojet combination engine.
[/quote]

I can confirm this ruling was made in consultation with myself and has my full support.

[iKrolm]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1319124635' post='2829270']
Wrong, the internet wonder only has a meaning in rp if the owner wants to have one. Without the wonder you can claim speeds of 1Tbps as far as the guidelines care. It's flavor rp.
[/quote]


Alright, I was just going off of a past ruling:

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1275093899' post='2315102']
No, you just need the wonder to have super high speed advanced wonder internet within your nation.
[/quote]

[Zoot Zoot]

[IMG]http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb144/zoot_zoot/tyspyops.png[/IMG]

Can I have two spyrolls against Californian Please.
50% odds.

One roll to cut off Franz Josef Lands Communication network.
One roll to shut down/jam Ty's RADAR network on Franz Josef Land.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1319540475' post='2832029']
[IMG]http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb144/zoot_zoot/tyspyops.png[/IMG]

Can I have two spyrolls against Californian Please.
50% odds.

One roll to cut off Franz Josef Lands Communication network.
One roll to shut down/jam Ty's RADAR network on Franz Josef Land.
[/quote]

Two rolls at 1-50 Fail and 51-100 Success

[IMG]http://i710.photobucket.com/albums/ww110/gokulvarmank/zoot1-1.jpg[/IMG]

One Success and one Fail

[Centurius]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1319540475' post='2832029']
[IMG]http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb144/zoot_zoot/tyspyops.png[/IMG]

Can I have two spyrolls against Californian Please.
50% odds.

One roll to cut off Franz Josef Lands Communication network.
One roll to shut down/jam Ty's RADAR network on Franz Josef Land.
[/quote]

I'm inclined to consider these rolls not efficient enough for their intended purpose. It is fair to assume that those facilities have multiple layers of security and as such every single action needs a roll. The roll made by cochin thus only affects one element of the spy op.

That said, if you are using something else than actual infiltration of the facilities through a network or a spy the rolls do not apply at all and rp should solve it.

[Triyun]

Jamming the communications and radar grid is a military action. Grow a pair and send out your electronic attack craft.

[Kevin Kingswell]

I was wondering would it be okay with the GM's if I was allowed to RP an intelligance vessel for my nation? I have no means to build any navy ingame but it would only be corvette size and no offensive weapons just a pair of auto chain guns for anti-air/anti-missile though those could be removed if you want.

[Triyun]

You're allowed to, but if your loitering off someones coast getting their signals, you gotta actually RP you are there so somebody can respond. Intel vessels are pretty vulnerable assets, their main defense, is not wanting to get into a shooting with the owners.

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1319574380' post='2832229']
You're allowed to, but if your loitering off someones coast getting their signals, you gotta actually RP you are there so somebody can respond. Intel vessels are pretty vulnerable assets, their main defense, is not wanting to get into a shooting with the owners.
[/quote]

Of course. Plus in my opinion any first intel action would be getting the vessel into foreign waters in the first place. Anyway thanks for your reply.

[Triyun]

That is a military action not a spyroll. Some things you still need to actually RP instead of relying on rolls. Nations have the right to defend their waters in whatever way they wish. If you send a ship within what I consider my waters between Taiwan and the Marianas, a spyroll is not going to protect you from an anti-shipping missile should I choose to shoot one. A spyroll would matter if you wanted to pick up a piece of signal intelligence my military communications are using. Its up to me whether or not I wanna be blowing such a thing away or not. Not a spy roll. Its one thing putting one individual into a country. Its quite another to send in something with a large radar and sonar signature. Its the same thing with surveillance aircraft.

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1319577346' post='2832252']
That is a military action not a spyroll. Some things you still need to actually RP instead of relying on rolls. Nations have the right to defend their waters in whatever way they wish. If you send a ship within what I consider my waters between Taiwan and the Marianas, a spyroll is not going to protect you from an anti-shipping missile should I choose to shoot one. A spyroll would matter if you wanted to pick up a piece of signal intelligence my military communications are using. Its up to me whether or not I wanna be blowing such a thing away or not. Not a spy roll. Its one thing putting one individual into a country. Its quite another to send in something with a large radar and sonar signature. Its the same thing with surveillance aircraft.
[/quote]

Sorry to confuse I was speaking as in a general sense not related to the spy roll as you perfectly said to find out intel would require a spyroll and RP whereas to get the boat in would be RP only. That is what I was trying to mean.

[king of cochin]

Any non combat ship or plane can be used freely and judiciously without any reference to IG stats eg: transports, oilers, replenishers and other auxilliaries including intel vessels.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1319212209' post='2829929']
Consulting with Cent, I am hereby issuing an official ruling on the Stethno.

It is ruled an illegal aircraft for the following reasons:

The turbofan-ramjet-scramjet Vulcan engine design cited is specifically designed for the FALCON project. The Falcon project for those not familiar with it is intended as part of Prompt Global Strike as a bomber. These are significantly larger aircraft than a fighter. We find that such a design would be acceptable on a strategic bomber sized aircraft, but not on a fighter sized one.[/quote]

[img]http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/11/10/eb6b86b2-a2b6-4b34-8a05-ac9ce0675d3b.Large.jpg[/img]

[quote]F-117 Have Blue
Length: 14.62m
Wingspan: 6.8m
Height: 2.33m
Empty Weight: 4,060kg
[/quote]

[quote]F-27 Stheno
Length: 18.27m
Wingspan: 10.8m (wing tip to wing tip) 9.4m (Fuselage maximum width)
Height: 5.34m (Fuselage and vertical stabilizer) 4.86m (Fuselage maximum height)
Empty Weight: 10,200kg
[/quote]

Usage of a VULCAN-esque engine on the Stheno is possible. My bird is LARGER than the HTV-3X (which is comparable in size to the Have Blue F-117 demonstrator or F/A-18). Oh, and before you start saying that the HTV-3 is unarmed, the Stheno has a substantial volume advantage over it. The HTV-3 is flat, wedge shaped, with the much smaller dimensions it has. My aircraft uses larger dimensions across the board by only its fuselage alone, but is completely filled in - bullet shaped. That volume justifies both the same or greater range of the HTV-3X, and a payload (either the original or my 2/3 reduction).

[quote]
On top of this on an article on sixth generation fighters Darryl Davis, head of Boeing's Advanced Division Stated: "Not only will hypersonics require years more work, Davis said it must be combined with other, variable-cycle engines that will allow an aircraft to take off from sea level, climb to high altitude, and then engage a hypersonic engine. Those enabling propulsion elements are not necessarily near at hand in a single package."
[/quote]

I do not see how that trumps the other links I posted now, or in the past. Of course the tech isn't ready today, that argument can be used for other things in CNRP that are prevalent.

[quote]
While there is sufficient evidence from Prompt Global Strike to justify the deployment of a large platform, or even I would say though I would say its foreeable with a compact turbojet combination (turbojet being a significantly less complex piece of machinery than a turbofan) for a fighter built for speed not manuvering, it does not necessarily follow that one could employ a long range turbofan/ramjet/scramjet tactical aircraft, this is especially true given its high thrust to weigh ratio.
[/quote]

And what does the HTV-3X (which incidentally was not what I used as a direct basis for my design, rather it was snippets and bits and pieces I found that I used to form a general concept), a relatively small platform use for propulsion?

[quote]

Skunk Works also is performing subscale tests of the combined-cycle propulsion system, which comprises a high-Mach turbojet and dual-mode ram/scramjet. The turbine is used for take-off and landing, and to accelerate the vehicle to Mach 4, where the ramjet takes over.

The [HTV-3X] will use a round-combustor dual-mode [RAM/SCRAM] ramjet under development by Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne. Both Rolls-Royce and Williams International are developing candidates for the 13-inch diameter high-Mach turbine.[/quote]

[url="http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/BLACK07248.xml&headline=Boeing%20Joins%20Lockheed%20Martin%20On%20Blackswift&channel=defense"]http://www.aviationw...channel=defense[/url]

Exactly the engine I mentioned originally for the Stheno - Turbine-based Combined Cycle Engine ----- Non-Afterburning Ultra-Compact High Speed Turbine // SHock-Induced Combustion RAMJET (SHCRAMJET)

The "Non-afterburning ultra-compact high speed turbine" part of my post is the '13-inches' of turbine that accelerates the craft to mach 4 mentioned in the article, before the next stage takes over.

VULCAN is possible on my aircraft. You are wrong.

[Executive Minister]

[quote]
Additionally, we also find fault with the employment of 22 onboard weapons hard points. This will need to be reduced. Upon looking for evidence of fighters with internal weapons bays, the largest one we could find is the J-20. The mock up is located here. Now I freely admit that we can expect an increase in the carrying capacity. But it seems to us that nearly a 3 fold increase over both the F-22 and J-20 exceeds what one can reasonably expect.

[/quote]

I’ve already reduced it to 2/3rds the number, rounding down to 14.

[quote]J-20
Length: 21.26m
Wingspan: 12.88m
Height: 4.45m
[/quote]

The Stheno’s fuselage alone affords much more room for internal armaments (its only option since I did not want external hardpoints on the first block of the design), fuel and propulsion than the J-20. It is also unmanned, allowing for a much greater – ‘volume for essentials’ than the J-20. I am also using a SCHRAMJET as the hypersonic stage, not a simple SCRAMJET like the ones used on the boards (I think I’m the only person using the SCHRAMJET too, so my engine would be pound-for-pound lighter and shorter than anyone elses.

[quote]The scramjet design is hampered by the slow rate of diffusive burning in the combustor at very high flight Mach numbers. This results in a longer combustion chamber than the shcramjet, required to mix adequately the fuel with the incoming air, and release the available energy of the mixture. This translates into a more massive structure of the engine and a more complicated cooling system, which decreases the performance of this type of flight vehicle.

A way out of this dilemma is to decouple the fuel/air mixing and the combustion processes. The premixing of fuel and air can be accomplished in the long slender forebody (inlet) flow of the vehicle, taking care to avoid premature ignition of the premixed flow. Combustion can then be initiated by a conveniently located shock wave, generated by a wedge or blunt body. The ensuing shock-induced combustion is very rapid and results in a very short and lightweight combustor.

[/quote]

http://caius.utias.utoronto.ca/shcramjet.html

[img]http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/1/063d4d09-eb06-4de1-a1d6-e2c6af5a13ea.Large.jpg[/img]

It combines the inlet and compression stages into one, dubbed the inlet, and the combustion chamber is only 25% the length of this inlet. My engine would be lighter and shorter than the one picture above that is used in an identical role with the HTV-3X.


http://caius.utias.utoronto.ca/shcramjet_feasibility.html

[quote]
Our general approach to this, is that we have to be somewhat mindful both of balance in the game between advanced nations, and less advanced nations, but also somewhat practically minded[/quote]

That’s very cute. I have never displayed any intent to lord myself over smaller CNRPers in the past, nor will I ever. Heck, you are talking to the RPer that allowed his high performance F-22+ aircraft to be shot down by Stinger missiles during an airstrike, fired by a cold war CNRPer.

This aircraft does not do everything better than existing aircraft out there – I reduced some gains so that others could be increased mainly stealth and range for speed and armament, by making the Stheno more akin to a Bullet Bill than a low cross section design in shape.

[quote]
As far as hard points, 8 (assuming the reduction in the medusa's size) and 14 are the maximum allowable internal hard points we as GMs will allow. Any larger amount of weaponry on a tactical size aircraft will be in violation of the rules and such aircraft cannot be RPed except under the principle of mutual consent.[/quote]

Wow, great to see you accept a concession I made posts ago. This has truly been an interesting discussion indeed.

[quote]

Additionally Cent and I both agree that any sort of pilot AI, is going to have a significant disadvantage to an on board pilot in maneuvering.
[/quote]
Whatever, that’s fluff. I’ve never seen wars won because one side’s aircraft were more maneuverable than another RPers. I’m going to let that be up to RP to decide. And its not a pilot 'AI', it is a computer assisted remote link to an operator located elsewhere. The craft can merely perform actions of its own accord when its sensors give it data to suggest that current events are following a pre-programmed scenario. Any talk of AI or similar would only happen in closed RPs or for fluff not applicable to wars.

[Triyun]

The issues closed. You can appeal to HK, but the issue is closed we've been over this. Its illegal. No further comment will be made. Further the outright hostility to GMs will not be tolerated.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Triyun

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1319659367' post='2832565']
The issues closed. You can appeal to HK, but the issue is closed we've been over this. Its illegal. No further comment will be made. Further the outright hostility to GMs will not be tolerated.
[/quote]

Very well. I shall submit two new, totally original designs for the GM's to 'evaluate' prior to their posting in my thread. If the GM's wish, they can relegate this evaluation to another, noticably more silent GM instead to prevent hostility against them. This pre-emtive submission prior to their use in RP is being done solely to prevent the need for the GMs to undertake the cumbersome task of contacting me should their be an issue with their statistics.

Should I not receive any complaints, RP will begin accordingly.


Name: MILitary Aviation Complex (MILAC) FU-25 'Asudem'
Type: Intelligent Unmanned Hypersonic High Performance Interceptor
Length: 16.2 m
Wingspan: 13.3 m (Main Fuselage Maximum Width of 9.6 m)
Height: 5.2 m (Main Fuselage Maximum Height of 4.4 m)
Propulsion: Non-Afterburning Ultra-Compact High Speed Turbine with CVC
Empty Weight: 9,400 kg
Weapons Stations: 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
Maximum Payload: Only Internal Bays; 4 x 650 kg Stations + 4 x 250 kg Stations = 3,600 kg
Normal Combat Weight: 9,400 kg + 3,600 kg = 13,000 kg (fuel not included)
Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: Up to 6 Atmospheric
Combat Range: 6,600 km
Combat Radius: 2,800 km
Operational Altitude: 20 km
Maximum Altitude: 28.5 km
Maximum Speed: Dry Thrust Only Mach 4+
Special: 4 External Stations containing SEAD-MA-EM systems


Name: MILitary Aviation Complex (MILAC) FU-27 'Onehts'
Type: Intelligent Unmanned Hypersonic High Performance Superiority Fighter
Length: 20.27m
Wingspan: 12.8 m (Main Fuselage Maximum Width of 11.4 m)
Height: 7.34 m (Main Fuselage Maximum Height of 6.86 m)
Propulsion: Turbine-based Combined Cycle Engine ----- Non-Afterburning Ultra-Compact High Speed Turbine // SHock-Induced Combustion RAMJET (SHCRAMJET)
Empty Weight: 14,200 kg
Weapons Stations: 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
Maximum Payload: Only Internal Bays; 6 x 650 kg Stations + 8 x 250 kg Stations = 7,100 kg
Normal Combat Weight: 14,200 kg + 7,100 kg = 21,300 kg (fuel not included)
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: 8,000 km
Combat Radius: 3,700 km
Operational Altitude: 26 km typical engagement
Maximum Altitude: Slightly Exo-atmospheric
Maximum Speed: Mach 4 (Turbine Stage) Mach 12 (SCHRAMJET stage) at Operational Altitude, Mach 25 (SCHRAMJET) stage at Exo-atmospheric Height
Special: 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


EDIT: I'd also like to invite non-GM Rpers to voice any concerns they may have about these new aircraft. Rest assured, I can be contacted via pm, IRC or in this thread, GMs willing. If not, I will take queries in the [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=42831"]CNRP OOC thread[/url], [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=69203"]technology stats help thread[/url], or the [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105201"]tech complaints thread[/url].

Edited October 26, 2011 by Executive Minister