CNRP OOC Thread

[PresidentDavid]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1329426595' post='2921997']
Hahah, no.

I'm not on any continent that, in the real world, is truly inhabited.
[/quote]

Ah I see. I bet RPing in Antarctica would be fun.

[Markus Wilding]

[quote name='PresidentDavid' timestamp='1329441322' post='2922188']
Ah I see. I bet RPing in Antarctica would be fun.
[/quote]
No. No it is not.

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1329434911' post='2922094']
There are penguins, you know...
[/quote]
Yes, I know...but they don't count

[quote name='PresidentDavid' timestamp='1329441322' post='2922188']
Ah I see. I bet RPing in Antarctica would be fun.
[/quote]
[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1329442150' post='2922195']
No. No it is not.
[/quote]
It is quite fun... .on the days I can be motivated to post

[Isaac MatthewII]

while reading around I saw my name...as usual its from eva....



Eva I can RP a rodent population coming from the ocean if I wish...along with a mysterious illegal immigrant problem...go make some cheese cookies

[Captain Enema]

You know...

CNRP needs to agree to let Eva and Isaac work out their problems amongst themselves.


Actually, I'm going to make a PM that contacts all of their 949449 treaty partners and encourage them to remain neutral should these two ever decide to escalate their war of words to like actual rp against each other.

Because as far as I can tell this is nothing more than juvenile buttholing back and forth. I mean damn, I know I've trolled a time or two, but good lord.. this is just silly.


Grow up both of you.... sit down... plan out something.. and bury the hatchets in each other's heads and then the both of you just drop it after that.

And will the PM feature even let me pm enough people at once to contact all 10 trillion of their treaty partners?

[Kankou]

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1329465754' post='2922429']
And will the PM feature even let me pm enough people at once to contact all 10 trillion of their treaty partners?
[/quote]
I think it's 15 people max to a PM thread.

[Triyun]

[quote name='Tanis777' timestamp='1329122163' post='2919456']
If your talking about an F/A-37, I assume you are. It's not my first choice to build a variable-swept wing design, it's probably not really stealthy when switching wing modes. The other key piece is materials used, if composite, it will be better. The radar in the F/A-37 depends on what the RP uses. And engine IR signature also depends on how the RPer develops said engine.

Like I said, before, I've stated what the requirements of stealth are for an airplane. For the most part, the F/A-37 has followed the rules. Some reworking is obviously needed to make it better, but the overall design is fine. The area beneath the cockpit may be weird aerodynamically, since I've never seen such a front end design before. Engineers at Northrop did design a plane similar, but never built it. See Northrop Switchblade.

If I had to work with an F/A-37 at my tech level, I would redesign the wings to be more triangle-shaped, fixed. Engines would be reworked to have exhaust out towards the top, much like an F-22. Round/jag out the bottom of the plane so that the area beneath the cockpit isn't so flat. It would have RAM, composite airframe of maybe 30% due to limitation of composite construction techniques during the 1990s.

Radar would vary depending on the person's tech, I mean for myself, I probably won't have "modern" ASEA, but an older form of it. I probably won't be changing frequencies as much (thus easier detection) along with passive radar for detecting others radar. As I said, when it's done, the F/A-37 won't be looking like the F/A-37 seen in the movies.

EDIT: A forward-swept swing wing design has many potential headaches to an aerospace engineer. Northrop Grumman is considered in expert in the field of innovative aircraft designs. The X-29 and F-14 are part of their handy work in this department.

I vouch against the forward-swept swing wing design due to added weight. It would take up valuable space for internal missile bays, since the mechanism for the wings need to be near the center of the aircraft for center of gravity. Also, forward-swept wings are suspect to "twisting" upward which is countered with added weight on the wings, as seen in flights of the X-29. I just think they would be too many structural stresses to the plane, especially the wing for practical flight in military operations. Half the time would be spent maintaining the planes.
[/quote]

You're completely changing the issue here Tanis for the sake of argument. The question is, is the current F/A-37 from the movie stealthy at a low tech level. The answer is not. Yes if you changed the make up of the air craft an include break throughs in RAM, but the fact is those simply are not available with the technology of 2012 level players. The best they can have is the iron ball coating on the Raptor.

Yes if you completely redesigned the F/A-37 it could be stealth, but that is not really the point is it? If you redesigned the B-52 to be a F-22 it'd be manuverable. I'm aware of all the things you cited about northrop, its still something thats not in production now for a reason. Further I think Northrop would be among the first to acknowledge if you look at their own stealthier designs, more moving parts= more chance of detection via stealth shaping. Variable wings plus canards = much much less stealthy. Again the RAM could compensate, but that is no really the point when you're talking a plane availabe by current production standards.

On top of all of this a PDE/Scramjet would light the thing up on IR scopes like a christmas tree and its radar would be easy to detect. My latter argument was that the F-22 was really the only 4.5 and 5th jet with the IR reduction features it has. The F-135 doesn't even have it. The PAK-FA uses a flanker engine and will for the foreseeable future. Reports are the J-20 uses a Russian Engine. All these are turbofans. As Bob Gates said when they flew the J-20 its unclear how stealthy the J-20 actually is because all you saw was shaping. My argument for a F/A-37 made with late 90s early 00s tech is that its unclear exactly what the IR signature on that thing is going to be. If its going to have PDE/Scramjet, its going to be huge. If it has a turbofan its going to have a severe capability shrink as far as speed and its still likely going to have a pretty decent IR signature.

You and I I think have different definitions of a stealth aircraft. To me the F/A-37 can be built as a reduced radar cross section aircraft, but its still going to have a lot of moving parts, at this tech level limited RAM abilities, a much higher probability of intercept radar, and a pretty decent to very high level of IR emissions. I don't consider this a stealth craft. Its going to be stealthier than a Mig-29 but I doubt it gets to even the level of the F-22-A

Edited February 17, 2012 by Triyun

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1329465754' post='2922429']
You know...

CNRP needs to agree to let Eva and Isaac work out their problems amongst themselves.


Actually, I'm going to make a PM that contacts all of their 949449 treaty partners and encourage them to remain neutral should these two ever decide to escalate their war of words to like actual rp against each other.

Because as far as I can tell this is nothing more than juvenile buttholing back and forth. I mean damn, I know I've trolled a time or two, but good lord.. this is just silly.


Grow up both of you.... sit down... plan out something.. and bury the hatchets in each other's heads and then the both of you just drop it after that.

And will the PM feature even let me pm enough people at once to contact all 10 trillion of their treaty partners?
[/quote]
Well, the problem is, without treaty partners, I'm two times his size, I think.

Also, Biscotti got a total of 2 treaties. It shall not fail, just because of me.

[Tanis777]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1329483469' post='2922515']
You're completely changing the issue here Tanis for the sake of argument. The question is, is the current F/A-37 from the movie stealthy at a low tech level. The answer is not. Yes if you changed the make up of the air craft an include break throughs in RAM, but the fact is those simply are not available with the technology of 2012 level players. The best they can have is the iron ball coating on the Raptor.

Yes if you completely redesigned the F/A-37 it could be stealth, but that is not really the point is it? If you redesigned the B-52 to be a F-22 it'd be manuverable. I'm aware of all the things you cited about northrop, its still something thats not in production now for a reason. Further I think Northrop would be among the first to acknowledge if you look at their own stealthier designs, more moving parts= more chance of detection via stealth shaping. Variable wings plus canards = much much less stealthy. Again the RAM could compensate, but that is no really the point when you're talking a plane availabe by current production standards.

On top of all of this a PDE/Scramjet would light the thing up on IR scopes like a christmas tree and its radar would be easy to detect. My latter argument was that the F-22 was really the only 4.5 and 5th jet with the IR reduction features it has. The F-135 doesn't even have it. The PAK-FA uses a flanker engine and will for the foreseeable future. Reports are the J-20 uses a Russian Engine. All these are turbofans. As Bob Gates said when they flew the J-20 its unclear how stealthy the J-20 actually is because all you saw was shaping. My argument for a F/A-37 made with late 90s early 00s tech is that its unclear exactly what the IR signature on that thing is going to be. If its going to have PDE/Scramjet, its going to be huge. If it has a turbofan its going to have a severe capability shrink as far as speed and its still likely going to have a pretty decent IR signature.

You and I I think have different definitions of a stealth aircraft. To me the F/A-37 can be built as a reduced radar cross section aircraft, but its still going to have a lot of moving parts, at this tech level limited RAM abilities, a much higher probability of intercept radar, and a pretty decent to very high level of IR emissions. I don't consider this a stealth craft. Its going to be stealthier than a Mig-29 but I doubt it gets to even the level of the F-22-A
[/quote]

Indeed, I should clarify the position of my post as what would be required of the F/A-37 to be produced at 90's level tech. The movie version of the plane is impossible at today's tech or even an economically viable production plane for at least a couple decades. I know there's a good reason why certain planes like the Switchblade are not in production, it's just not possible.

The moving parts would take up valuable room for internal weapons bays for mechanical parts of moving the wings and room for extensive wiring for Fly-by-wire computing with such an aircraft shape.

Sure, the F/A-37 in the movie isn't completely stealth due to the location of the exhaust of the PDE/Scramjet engines. If there was a turbofan engine installed, depending on the engine used (using F-22, F119-PW-100 or the F-135 engines) would influence the IR stealthiness of the aircraft. I understand your stealth definition, and I agree with it. Shaping alone isn't enough to be completely stealthy.

[Bacharth]

Sorry for being a prick, but I just want yall to take a step back and read what's being written.

Seems a bit ridiculous the detail that's happening.

[Isaac MatthewII]

[quote name='Bacharth' timestamp='1329561615' post='2923300']
Sorry for being a prick, but I just want yall to take a step back and read what's being written.

Seems a bit ridiculous the detail that's happening.
[/quote]


Very simple words for you

[IMG]http://i1022.photobucket.com/albums/af349/Isaac-Johnson/MINDYOUROWNBUSINESS.jpg[/IMG]


Honestly if we didnt go into detail a lot of nagging would occour,

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1329605164' post='2923596']
Honestly if we didnt go into detail a lot of nagging would occour,
[/quote]
And that's different from now, how, exactly?

[Isaac MatthewII]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1329617400' post='2923707']
And that's different from now, how, exactly?
[/quote]

A lot more* nagging, how bout that.

[Captain Enema]

Including more of your atrocious grammar or less of it?

[Kankou]

I've noticed the number of missiles fired at the Canadians, and I have to say, $%&@ whoever continues arguing that missile numbers should be common sense.

[TheShammySocialist]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1329657927' post='2924011']
I've noticed the number of missiles fired at the Canadians, and I have to say, $%&@ whoever continues arguing that missile numbers should be common sense.
[/quote]

Which is why people not using common sense when using missiles will get their attacks cut down? The common sense rule is in place for a reason, if you don't have common sense, find someone who does, meaning people who don't war too much, ask a GM what they think.

The numbers of missiles being fired at the Canadians is a little much, and it is currently under review by myself. The reason why it was not under review before, being that it wasn't brought to my attention, if people have problems with things being thrown at them, bring them up the myself, or other members of the GM team. Simple as that. We're not going to read every post in every thread, and we can't be aware of abuses unless they are brought up to us.

[Executive Minister]

"It is the best military tactic to saturate your target in a first strike with everything you've got."

In any case, I don't think my numbers were too excessive... if im given enough time before my attacks are vetted, i'll post an OOC summary of what i've done here or wherever.

[TheShammySocialist]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1329673876' post='2924095']
"It is the best military tactic to saturate your target in a first strike with everything you've got."

In any case, I don't think my numbers were too excessive... if im given enough time before my attacks are vetted, i'll post an OOC summary of what i've done here or wherever.
[/quote]

Ty waived off the review of the missile numbers, actually, right after I posted that, basically, and if I'm not mistaken, the numbers that were being disputed were mainly TBM's and Waffles.

Edited February 19, 2012 by TheShammySocialist

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1329621857' post='2923737']
A lot more* nagging, how bout that.
[/quote]
Uh-huh...

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1329635815' post='2923906']
Including more of your atrocious grammar or less of it?
[/quote]
Hear now, TBM...try to be a little more understanding? Hahah, just kidding.

[Captain Enema]

I actually cut down the number of missiles I was originally going to fire. My numbers were based on the number of fighters x 4 ASMs, which I reduced to 2 and then chopped further by reducing the Anti-strike fighter and replaced them with decoy missiles which aren't don't carry explosive payloads.

I do have 70 squadrons deployed in theater with 12 planes per. The numbers do add up in that regard. Whether or not a nation would deploy their entire airforce to an entirely different country is debatable but not impossible considering I have the entire infrastructure of a former nation in terms of airfields to utilize.

As for the rest of the missiles I deployed a relatively modest number of my own launchers and I did capture a large number of Tianxian launchers which I put into service when I ousted Rota.

You can review it till you are blue in the face, the numbers are there to justify it. Had I opened up with my fleet I would have launched even more.

Now the ability to sustain a long term missile duel of that magnitude is suspect and not one I'd bother doing beyond a partial reload of a smaller number of planes for anti-shipping roles.

So really Kankou, dry up your tears.

[TheShammySocialist]

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1329694471' post='2924241']
You can review it till you are blue in the face, the numbers are there to justify it. Had I opened up with my fleet I would have launched even more.
[/quote]

Luckily, I don't have to, as I said before, Ty waived off the review, so that makes my job much more easier.

[MostGloriousLeader]

Hey, I was wondering, would it be possible to have my own space launch facility somewhere on the coast of Jersey? I mean I know that the US Space Program is located at Cape Canaveral because it's closer to the equator so I was wondering if it would be possible for one to be located in Jersey?

Edit: Grammar is terrible.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Altarian Republic

[Centurius]

[quote name='Altarian Republic' timestamp='1330274301' post='2928543']
Hey, I was wondering, would it be possible to have my own space launch facility somewhere on the coast of Jersey? I mean I know that the US Space Program is located at Cape Canaveral because it's closer to the equator so I was wondering if it would be possible for one to be located in Jersey?

Edit: Grammar is terrible.
[/quote]

In cnrp it's possible when you have a space program yes.

[MostGloriousLeader]

Well I just wanted to launch things like satellites seeing as I have no lunar ambitions and I think Lynnett has that covered. I was under the impression that we didn't need a space program for smaller things like that. If so I'll finally be able to make Jersey useful

Edit: also, I've been away for a while but when did the whole moon colonization thing happen cause I don't ever remember that. The space elevator was the most crowning space achievement I remembered.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Altarian Republic

[Centurius]

[quote name='Altarian Republic' timestamp='1330275980' post='2928551']
Well I just wanted to launch things like satellites seeing as I have no lunar ambitions and I think Lynnett has that covered. I was under the impression that we didn't need a space program for smaller things like that. If so I'll finally be able to make Jersey useful

Edit: also, I've been away for a while but when did the whole moon colonization thing happen cause I don't ever remember that. The space elevator was the most crowning space achievement I remembered.
[/quote]

Normal satellites should be fine, colonization kicked in when the wonders were introduced.