The GM's Hall

[Euphaia]

I'm baaaack!

[Biohazard]

Welcome back :)

[Euphaia]

Thanks Bio. :)

[The Zigur]

It's such a shame that instead of allowing conflict to bloom, the GM's use their power like an OOC UN to freeze global politics in a way that is advantageous to their nations.

[JEDCJT]

I'm baaaack!

 

Welcome back.  :awesome:

[Euphaia]

Thanks JED. It's good to be back. :)

[Uberstein]

I am contesting Mael's Mach 6 bomber. I request proof (not Kerbal Space Program, a video game) that such a bomber is reasonable given the 2014 cap.

 

Hopefully the burden of proof is on him to prove it's possible.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

6 words:

 

Space shuttle with bombs on board.. cept this one doesn't fully exit the atmosphere.. it could work its' just not use that way.

 

28,968 kilometers per hour

To achieve orbit, the shuttle must accelerate from zero to a speed of almost 28,968 kilometers per hour (18,000 miles per hour), a speed nine times as fast as the average rifle bullet... that's mach 23 outside the atmosphere.. and the shuttle also returns to safely land from re-entry.

 

Since the shuttle must piggyback a rocket to obtain those speeds and hasn't proven aerodynamically unstable that means such a craft can be built at great cost. Since my craft doesn't achieve anywhere near mach 23 or escape entirely to orbit, but skims the atmosphere.. it's more than realistically plausible with modern science.

 

NASA's HTV-2 Falcon can hit mach 17 and while both crashed, I'm not going anywhere near those speeds.

 

The Shuttle Columbia routinely undergoes controlled re-entry at speeds of 28,000 km/h in atmosphere. The record is held by Joseph H Engle.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Uberstein]

Until I see links to sources showing what your proposed vehicle can do being done this year or prior, I will not be recognizing said vehicles. Tech may have no limit for civilian tech, but military tech is very clearly 2014 at the latest.

 

I'll leave it to the GM's to decide at this point.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Uberstein

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Also, the highest speed bomber built to date was the ... XB-70 Valkyrie.. it went mach 3, did not skim the upper atmosphere.. and is over 40 decades old now. The controls for those kind of speeds are available, as is the design, as is the propulsion power necessary it just hasn't been assembled because the air force is using other doctrines of power projection that do not require such a bomber and because our defense budget is already bloated. And more bombers to them.. may be better than a few high quality bombers.. which is not the same for us in CNRP2 because we can't field the same massive fleets of bombers in reality that modern air forces have.. we only have a set number we can produce.. so quality counts more. Missile and nuke counts are also somewhat limited Thus I am motivated to build such a bomber.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Maelstrom Vortex]

There's also the SR-72...

 

http://theaviationist.com/2013/11/01/sr-72-unveiled/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_SR-72

 

http://defensetech.org/2013/11/04/lockheed-unveils-plans-for-sr-72/

 

The only real thing that's kept it from flying is air force favoritism of stealth drones.. although they've been allegedly spotted already:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2594839/Could-SR-72-Aviation-expert-claims-mysterious-object-photographed-flying-Texas-spy-plane-designed-cross-country-hour.html

 

However, in cnrp2, my nation's taking those plans and using them now. We're not bothering with stealth drones when we've more than one planetary body to worry about.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Evangeline Anovilis]

You are using the daily mail as source?

 

Honestly, this is ridiculous and I'm not even going to bother trying to look into this until there's an actual source for weaponised space shuttles with a possible production variant by 2014. Until then, I hope noone will mind that I ignore these bombers just as I ignore the dragons.

[PresidentDavid]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the "Buran" Soviet space shuttle knock-off was made with a bigger payload because the Soviets feared that we had made the space shuttle to drop nukes or other weapons from space. Perhaps the Buran was designed to carry WMDs into space? Though I am pretty sure using space weapons on Earth is a no-no IC.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

WMD, sure.. but this is just a conventional bomber unless loaded with a nuke. Also, no official test ban treaty IC that I'm aware of, but I and The Federation were discussing signing one.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

You are using the daily mail as source?

 

Honestly, this is ridiculous and I'm not even going to bother trying to look into this until there's an actual source for weaponised space shuttles with a possible production variant by 2014. Until then, I hope noone will mind that I ignore these bombers just as I ignore the dragons.

 

As I said.. allegedly.. I'm just as suspicious as the Daily Mail as you are. But truth is.. you google mach 6 bomber.. and there's entrys all over the place about the SR 72 and the fact it's possible and skunk works already has the design, just the Defense Dept doesn't want to pay for it and has alternatives. I'd prefer you not ignore them as they are definitely plausible in 2014.. but if you don't want to recognize them and until they're formally accepted as plausible for the tech period as they are.. the in the interim they'll be modernized XB-70 Valkyries to you.. (the design is remarkably similar to the XB-70 other than the use of dual mode ramjets).

 

 

 

Major difference being the nose cone has been replaced by a ramjet intake and a second set of broader swept stabilizing wings.

 

I find it amazing people find it acceptable we can get to mars in the rp because of the in game wonders, but they can't believe a mach 6 high altitude bombers is possible despite the presence of the space shuttle and the HTV-2 falcon in reality. There is a remarkable sense of technological backwardness there.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[PresidentDavid]

WMD, sure.. but this is just a conventional bomber unless loaded with a nuke. Also, no official test ban treaty IC that I'm aware of, but I and The Federation were discussing signing one.

 

Wait Mara and I's Federation?

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Negative, Vedran's.

[Centurius]

There's also the SR-72...

 

http://theaviationist.com/2013/11/01/sr-72-unveiled/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_SR-72

 

http://defensetech.org/2013/11/04/lockheed-unveils-plans-for-sr-72/

 

The only real thing that's kept it from flying is air force favoritism of stealth drones.. although they've been allegedly spotted already:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2594839/Could-SR-72-Aviation-expert-claims-mysterious-object-photographed-flying-Texas-spy-plane-designed-cross-country-hour.html

 

However, in cnrp2, my nation's taking those plans and using them now. We're not bothering with stealth drones when we've more than one planetary body to worry about.

No, the reason the SR-72 has not been used yet is because it is still a design proposal and needs quite a few developments to reach a production state. While with proper funding an entry into the 2020s, rather than the 2030s, is possible it most definitely is not within the realm of possibilities in 2014, let alone in a production state.

 

As for the Mars comment, we can't settle on Mars at this point in time in rl. Colonizing Mars however does not give you the capability to strike someone else with disturbing precision and speed.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Centurius

[Maelstrom Vortex]

No, the reason the SR-72 has not been used yet is because it is still a design proposal and needs quite a few developments to reach a production state. While with proper funding an entry into the 2020s, rather than the 2030s, is possible it most definitely is not within the realm of possibilities in 2014, let alone in a production state.

 

As for the Mars comment, we can't settle on Mars at this point in time in rl. Colonizing Mars however does not give you the capability to strike someone else with disturbing precision and speed.

 

Due to the limitations that the United States has on its ability to design and test and to reach a production state... I don't have their problems. I am not even supporting a navy yet. I also don't have their priorities. I'm still rather certain if Skunkworks was given the assets it could get one of those things off the ground this year.. especially if they had started last year when this report was released.

 

Keep in mind, right now I have one of these things, a prototype. I have to produce more if I want to use them broadly.. that'll take time.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Lynneth]

Civilian tech is to be considered distinct and independent of military tech.

 

Civilian technology can be whatever you like. Tikal is in the 22nd century, Mogar's Japan is in a cyberpunk-age, EM's nation is made of pure metal. Rule of Cool applies for the most part.

 

Military technology is limited to what is available and has been built by 2014. If the plane has not been built, you don't get an equivalent. If the weapon has not been applied in the way you want to, you don't get to use it that way. You can slap some modernised technology on existing stuff (modernised Kirov ships for example, or slap current Radars/etc on the SR-71), but you don't get to make up entirely new stuff that has no real-life equivalent or counterpart.

 

That's how I interpret things. Rudolph and/or Bio are free to contradict me.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

If that's the route we go then I'll have them be upated XB-70s Valkyries with integrated stealth tech, jamming, and more modern weapons load outs. At least that way I'll get some speed with the stealth and can keep that beautiful appearance. I'll just be 11 hours around the world instead of 5.5.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Evangeline Anovilis]

If that's the route we go then I'll have them be upated XB-70s Valkyries with integrated stealth tech, jamming, and more modern weapons load outs. At least that way I'll get some speed with the stealth and can keep that beautiful appearance. I'll just be 11 hours around the world instead of 5.5.

Doesn't look like a stealthy airframe to me and a redesign would no longer be the same aircraft.

[Centurius]

If that's the route we go then I'll have them be upated XB-70s Valkyries with integrated stealth tech, jamming, and more modern weapons load outs. At least that way I'll get some speed with the stealth and can keep that beautiful appearance. I'll just be 11 hours around the world instead of 5.5.

'Stealth tech' isn't really a thing, stealth is a design. Stealth at mach 2.5+ speeds by itself is also highly unlikely due to the massive heat output you're getting with the engines you need 

[Lynneth]

'Stealth tech' isn't really a thing, stealth is a design. Stealth at mach 2.5+ speeds by itself is also highly unlikely due to the massive heat output you're getting with the engines you need 

Not to mention friction heating the hull and ruining most, if not all stealth capabilities of the coating/paint.

[Triyun]

There's also the SR-72...

 

http://theaviationist.com/2013/11/01/sr-72-unveiled/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_SR-72

 

http://defensetech.org/2013/11/04/lockheed-unveils-plans-for-sr-72/

 

The only real thing that's kept it from flying is air force favoritism of stealth drones.. although they've been allegedly spotted already:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2594839/Could-SR-72-Aviation-expert-claims-mysterious-object-photographed-flying-Texas-spy-plane-designed-cross-country-hour.html

 

However, in cnrp2, my nation's taking those plans and using them now. We're not bothering with stealth drones when we've more than one planetary body to worry about.

Uhh... no.  I'm sorry but you really really don't know about DOD procurement or the SR-72, and linked conspiracies.  A retired jarhead is worthless.  There are lots of retired marines.  That doesn't give them any special know how especially about a service they have nothing to do with.  Two decades of marine aviation experience means at best harriers, not high performance aircraft, more likely cargo helicopters.  That gives them the same aviation experience as your local news helicopter pilot upon retirement.  Its more likely either a B-2 or a stealthy drone numerous of which are known to be under development, not a whole new super duper SR-72 spy plane which just hand its engine technology developed.  Which it'd be very interesting if the Air Force could get that to work in 2014, when you know it can't get a normal turbofan engine to quite work on the F-35.  Building engines is pretty much the single hardest part of building an aircraft.  Also by the way there has been lots of impressive progress, but a shit ton of failures on stuff like the HTV-2 and X-51 which are technology demonstrators for the SR-72.  Just because the idea of an SR-72 as in, oh I have an idea it'd be really nice to have a balling new spy plane, has been in the works since the 60s, the reality is is that only very very recent advances in engine technology have enabled it and their not ready for prime time quite yet.  The same way the idea of, 'Oh it'd be really awesome if I could watch TV on a screen I carry in my pocket whenever I want' is something I'm sure was an idea when my parents were kids, didn't mean they had an idea about what an iphone was in the 1960s.