Technology Stats Help

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Fizzydog' date='26 February 2010 - 10:52 PM' timestamp='1267246574' post='2205864']
Satellites, are they allowed for me?
[/quote]
Yes. Satellites were available during the Cold War. Even the lowest tech holding nations are considered to have Cold War technology.

[Fizzydog]

I used to have 80 tech. I gave away some(more like taken by force) and sold 50. I am not low tech holding, I'm just in debt and failed at getting out of it.

[iKrolm]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='26 February 2010 - 09:02 PM' timestamp='1267247142' post='2205880']
Yes. Satellites were available during the Cold War. Even the lowest tech holding nations are considered to have Cold War technology.
[/quote]

Pretty sure you need at least 1 in-game too.

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='iKrolm' date='26 February 2010 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1267248424' post='2205912']
Pretty sure you need at least 1 in-game too.
[/quote]
Correct. Satellites you can have only if you have them IG.

[Fizzydog]

What about space programs? Are those allowed? Or do you need the space wonder?

[Subtleknifewielder]

Anything beyond the satellites, yes, you need the Space Program wonder for.

[Canaris]

[quote name='Executive Minister' date='01 March 2010 - 07:36 PM' timestamp='1267490410' post='2210529']Check out the East African War in my sig. SOM invaded me when i was still in the Cold War era, and we both turned out fine.[/quote]

This raises an indirectly related issue I've noticed. Case in point: compare my IKv-31M (MiG-31M) Foxhound to the GDR's Me 2.304 Habicht. Both aircraft are comparable, despite the GDR's huge lead in development and technology. Depending on how much leeway we give the Habicht's maximum speed, the Foxhound is faster (all the while 3,000 kg heavier with almost identical thrusts and thrust ratios) and more heavily armed. The chief differences are likely avionics and stealth. Does anyone else see this as an issue?

[Fizzydog]

Wrong thread.

[Canaris]

[quote name='Fizzydog' date='01 March 2010 - 08:33 PM' timestamp='1267493803' post='2210599']
Wrong thread.
[/quote]

This thread is for technology discussion, yes?

[Sargun II]

It's really for asking for help on technology-related issues. As I don't know what question your asking I won't make a comment about it, but generally people come here for help on making their own things or to ask if something somebody else is using is feasible.

[JerreyRough]

Civilian and non-"offensive"-military government satellites should be allowed for everyone (I've roleplayed them launching before without complaint), as those are just basic things like communications satellites. By offensive military satellites, I mean things like spy satellites and satellites for use against other nations.

Either that or the nation has to buy them from another country with the Space Program wonder, as you can argue that the nation launching the satellites does not have the capabilities and/or facilities to launch the satellites; it doesn't stop them from designing them though.

[Sargun II]

[quote name='JerreyRough' date='01 March 2010 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1267504258' post='2210795']
Civilian and non-"offensive"-military government satellites should be allowed for everyone (I've roleplayed them launching before without complaint), as those are just basic things like communications satellites. By offensive military satellites, I mean things like spy satellites and satellites for use against other nations.

Either that or the nation has to buy them from another country with the Space Program wonder, as you can argue that the nation launching the satellites does not have the capabilities and/or facilities to launch the satellites; it doesn't stop them from designing them though.
[/quote]
I've always gone by civilian and non-military satellites are allowed, etc.

Space Program is specifically for moon and beyond, so there's no worries about launching.

[Fizzydog]

[quote name='Canaris' date='01 March 2010 - 07:33 PM' timestamp='1267493836' post='2210602']
This thread is for technology discussion, yes?
[/quote]
I am sorry, but that quote was from another thread, so I assumed...



Moving on, I just want all I can get. I've been on Wikipedia for hours.

[Canaris]

[quote name='Sargun' date='01 March 2010 - 11:29 PM' timestamp='1267504363' post='2210799']
Space Program is specifically for moon and beyond, so there's no worries about launching.
[/quote]

Moon and beyond as in a base on the moon and Mars... ? Technically, Apollo took place right smack in the middle of the Cold War.

[Silhouette]

Not the point. Think about how many nations now even have the capability to conduct space launches. While the technology may be readily available, the sheer cost prevents it. If that eases your worries, then my job is done.

[Canaris]

And all my problems just disappeared with a little foreign aid from my alliance... now I'm stronger than I was before the war, and my technology is even higher than my enemy's with more troops and tanks. So it looks like I'll be clobbering [i]him[/i] tonight.

EDIT: Whoops. Wrong thread...

Edited March 3, 2010 by Canaris

[Canaris]

Wrong thread and then a double post. Somebody stop me!

I don't need help per se, but I do need someone to proof-read my vehicles post and make sure there are no errors in my format (you know, missing bullets, jacked up spacing, that kind of thing).

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81739&view=findpost&p=2212950

Please and thank you.

[Centurius]

[quote name='Canaris' date='03 March 2010 - 04:39 PM' timestamp='1267631041' post='2212631']
Moon and beyond as in a base on the moon and Mars... ? Technically, Apollo took place right smack in the middle of the Cold War.
[/quote]

Nope for a base you'll need the actual ig moon or mars base, the program just means you can put a guy on the moon or beyond.

[HHAYD]

I am wondering how efficient this short range missile will be against armored targets:


Recommended operational range is 10 to 300 meters. Although it can be fired closer or farther than the recommended range, it wouldn't be as effective. It burns enough fuel to stay in the air, and immediately burns the maximum amount of fuel starting from 10 meters from the launch site without self-igniting mid-air. Plus, the tip of it will melt off and spray out a type of oil based ultra slippery liquid similar to MDS liquid (Mobility Denial System), but flammable and explosive. The missile's casing is made out of thick carbon nanotube and depleted uranium.

[img]http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/3092/50207995.png[/img]

Black: Carbon nanotube/Depleted uranium
Black pegs: Covered with oil repelling ultra sticky thick gel. This reduces the chance of the missile being deflected.
Blue: Thin CFRP covering
Light blue: Highly pressurized oil based ultra slippery liquid
Dark blue: Highly pressurized oxygen
Grey: Coiled coiled carbon nanotube cloth (still in development) latex sandwiched between the carbon nanotube cloth and the pressurized oxygen.
Red: Friction

When the carbon fiber covering burns off, the pressurized liquid will spray out and cover the entire missile with the help of the force from the pressurized oxygen. This increases speed, but also deflection. To fix that problem, there will be five large thick sticky oil-based liquid repelling gel pegs on the missile that will enhance the grip upon contact and allow the missile to penetrate.

Edited March 13, 2010 by HHAYD

[king of cochin]

You have an interesting concept here but I do have a couple of questions,

1) Where does the lethality of this weapon system come from? How is the gel going to disable an armored vehicle? Is it by attempting to reduce its mobility by creating a friction free surface ,ie, a passive defense, or does it have an active/offensive capability?

2) What is the viability of such an extremely short range weapon system, especially a missile against an armored target when most armored vehicles act in unison and have killing range far greater than 300 m.

3) What is the portability of this system? Man Portable? Vehicle Mounted? Or statically installed?

[HHAYD]

[quote name='king of cochin' date='13 March 2010 - 07:58 PM' timestamp='1268532204' post='2224934']
You have an interesting concept here but I do have a couple of questions,

1) Where does the lethality of this weapon system come from? How is the gel going to disable an armored vehicle? Is it by attempting to reduce its mobility by creating a friction free surface ,ie, a passive defense, or does it have an active/offensive capability?

2) What is the viability of such an extremely short range weapon system, especially a missile against an armored target when most armored vehicles act in unison and have killing range far greater than 300 m.

3) What is the portability of this system? Man Portable? Vehicle Mounted? Or statically installed?
[/quote]

1: Kinetic energy with a very small HEAT ability (if the armor it punched into isn't spaced). The gel greatly reduces the chance of the missile deflecting. I don't understand the part where you ask about friction.

2: I really don't know what would be a realistic effective range for a missile that burns through all of its fuel within seconds (if it burned at a steady amount, then it would be a long range missile). They are meant to be used in urban or forest combat where soldiers can easily get close to an enemy tank, fire, and move while their enemies are distracted by other threats.

3: Smaller version will be man portable, larger ones will be mounted in helicopters, tanks, and ships. They can be statically installed, though it isn't necessary unless if the enemy is going to launch a multiple hundred tank rush at an area (higher rate of fire) or you want even larger version of the missiles to be used against enemy ships (heavy anti-ship missiles).

I decided to redesign the missile to have a more similar shape of a KE missile (has fins).

Pictures of what the KE missile's tip will look like:
[img]http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/7651/38934382.png[/img]

Black: Carbon nanotube/Tungsten carbide
Black pegs: Covered with oil repelling ultra sticky thick gel. This reduces the chance of the missile being deflected.
Blue: Thin CFRP covering
Light blue: Highly pressurized oil based ultra slippery liquid
Dark blue: Highly pressurized oxygen
Grey: Coiled coiled carbon nanotube cloth (still in development) with latex sandwiched between the carbon nanotube cloth and the pressurized oxygen.
Red: Friction
Green: Sticky gel
Light Gray: Enemy armor

Picture 1: Shortly after ignition

Picture 2: Missile starts burning its fuel rapidly and the thin CFRP covering is burned to the point where it burst and sprays the liquid out onto the missile's casing

Picture 3: Shortly after penetrating an enemy armor (Oxygen + something explosive/flammable + high pressure + high temperature + high friction + extremely limited space to expand = mini HEAT effect = shattered enemy armor if it isn't spaced)

Edited March 14, 2010 by HHAYD

[Fizzydog]

This is a bit of a question, but internet started(sort of)during the cold war periods, so do I need the internet wonder?

And how far does cold war nations limited tech stretch? late 60s? 70s? early 80s?

[Sargun II]

You get internet but you don't get extremely fast internet for everybody and late eighties, respectively.

[king of cochin]

Modern anti armor weapon systems work by a method of self forging, where by the high explosive fuses the armored body to make it itself into a projectile boring in the body of the vehicle.

The slippery liquid used in MDS, Mobility Denial System is a non lethal system that immobilizes people or vehicle by creating a friction less surface. Why would you need to use such a liquid here?

Also how would the warhead penetrate the armor of a vehicle? carbon nano tube and tungsten carbide in itself may not be able to penetrate the armor, esp if it is hollow. Tungsten rods at superior velocities would however do the trick.

Besides from what you say, this would be an attack option against frontal or side armor right? That is where the armor is thickest. There are conventional systems that give you far better performance than this idea you are proposing.

You really need to explain the function the jel would be doing. The mechanism you have described would work to spread the liquid all over the tank's body very effectively. Would the liquid be able to corrosively burn through the armor? What liquid has such property?

[iKrolm]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='13 March 2010 - 06:59 PM' timestamp='1268535889' post='2224973']
1: Kinetic energy with a very small HEAT ability (if the armor it punched into isn't spaced). The gel greatly reduces the chance of the missile deflecting. I don't understand the part where you ask about friction.

2: I really don't know what would be a realistic effective range for a missile that burns through all of its fuel within seconds (if it burned at a steady amount, then it would be a long range missile). They are meant to be used in urban or forest combat where soldiers can easily get close to an enemy tank, fire, and move while their enemies are distracted by other threats.

3: Smaller version will be man portable, larger ones will be mounted in helicopters, tanks, and ships. They can be statically installed, though it isn't necessary unless if the enemy is going to launch a multiple hundred tank rush at an area (higher rate of fire) or you want even larger version of the missiles to be used against enemy ships (heavy anti-ship missiles).

I decided to redesign the missile to have a more similar shape of a KE missile (has fins).

Pictures of what the KE missile's tip will look like:
[img]http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/7651/38934382.png[/img]

Black: Carbon nanotube/Tungsten carbide
Black pegs: Covered with oil repelling ultra sticky thick gel. This reduces the chance of the missile being deflected.
Blue: Thin CFRP covering
Light blue: Highly pressurized oil based ultra slippery liquid
Dark blue: Highly pressurized oxygen
Grey: Coiled coiled carbon nanotube cloth (still in development) with latex sandwiched between the carbon nanotube cloth and the pressurized oxygen.
Red: Friction
Green: Sticky gel
Light Gray: Enemy armor

Picture 1: Shortly after ignition

Picture 2: Missile starts burning its fuel rapidly and the thin CFRP covering is burned to the point where it burst and sprays the liquid out onto the missile's casing

Picture 3: Shortly after penetrating an enemy armor (Oxygen + something explosive/flammable + high pressure + high temperature + high friction + extremely limited space to expand = mini HEAT effect = shattered enemy armor if it isn't spaced)
[/quote]

It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it'd be very successful: Most subsonic anti-tank missiles fly between 100m/s and 300m/s, which should easily ignite the low-friction fluid on impact so A, you lose any benefit to penetrating power of it being low-friction (low friction against the air doesn't matter anyway) and B, you burn/explode on the outside of the armor where, given it doesn't have a dedicated warhead, the blast won't do a whole lot of damage. Additionally, at that speed a sticky front wouldn't have an impact.