Technology Stats Help

[Kankou]

Please give me time to get some translations and RP done before I do the countering.

[Kankou]

First of all, let's start with this: High-power microwave can be used as weapons because of their gigahertz-band frequencies (4 to 20 GHz). At this point, HPM has the capability to penetrate not only radio front-ends, but also the most minute shielding penetrations throughout the equipment. At sufficiently high levels, the potential exists for significant damage to devices and circuits.


With this said I'll go on with what the Japanese government has released so far concerning its i3 fighter.

[IMG]http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac318/kousenkankou/microwave1.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac318/kousenkankou/microwave2.jpg[/IMG]

Fujitsu developed a gallium nitride high electron-mobility transistor which is more energy-efficient and higher performing than any other transistors out there. Related Link: http://www.fujitsu.com/global/news/pr/archives/month/2009/20090612-01.html


Yes, it is true that this system would need a large amount of energy. However, the efficiency of the current transistors (combined with the high-power engine which I need to write about more) are enough to weaponize this to the extent of using it to interfere with the electronic data transmission of fly control systems. It wouldn't be a sort of frier, more of a disabler.

[Sargun II]

I love it when my explanatory diagrams are in a completely different language

[king of cochin]

As I said earlier I agree that this can be used as a weapon, it is already in practice in the AWACS. It can be likened to active jamming. The problem as ever is how much energy is pumped out. You would need at least 1 or 2 MJ of microwave energy per burst for this to be even minutely capable as a truly effective weapon. Are you saying you have fighter engines capable of delivering that much power to the radar?

EDIT: At the end of the day it can be a powerful jammer against unshielded aircrafts but seriously not much combat capability. That sort of jamming capability already exists.

Edited December 6, 2010 by king of cochin

[Kankou]

The fighter engines are revolutionary. Single-crystal turbine rotor blades and ceramic matrix composite (a ceramic reinforced with fiber, such as carbon fiber) for stator blades are used to make the temperatures in the engine much higher, increasing both efficiency and power. The thrust (Note: I used the old numbers for the turbofans, which has been since updated in recent releases) is at 15 tons for each turbofan, which given the fighter's spec is actually overpowered. Using a 90 kVA generator for each would mean 180 kVa, equal to 10.8 mJ, enough power to run all the systems and at the same time up to microwave weapon status. So yes, it is possible to get the power needed to the radar, although it is likely that I may have to tone down the stats, since these are based on current research (and might not be completely feasible).

So, if my numbers are correct, the microwave would do more than your usual jammer, although it is not likely to fry everything so the opposing fighter falls out of the sky immediately. MOst likely, it'll make the enemy disabled enough to have to abandon the mission and get back to base.



But then, this might be too powerful for use in RP, in which case I wouldn't mind having it be lessened for balancing purposes.

[Executive Minister]

*urges Nyani to seduce the Brilliant Leader enough so that Nod acquires this capability*

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1291634838' post='2531864']
The fighter engines are revolutionary. Single-crystal turbine rotor blades and ceramic matrix composite (a ceramic reinforced with fiber, such as carbon fiber) for stator blades are used to make the temperatures in the engine much higher, increasing both efficiency and power. The thrust (Note: I used the old numbers for the turbofans, which has been since updated in recent releases) is at 15 tons for each turbofan, which given the fighter's spec is actually overpowered. Using a 90 kVA generator for each would mean 180 kVa, equal to 10.8 mJ, enough power to run all the systems and at the same time up to microwave weapon status. So yes, it is possible to get the power needed to the radar, although it is likely that I may have to tone down the stats, since these are based on current research (and might not be completely feasible).

So, if my numbers are correct, the microwave would do more than your usual jammer, although it is not likely to fry everything so the opposing fighter falls out of the sky immediately. MOst likely, it'll make the enemy disabled enough to have to abandon the mission and get back to base.



But then, this might be too powerful for use in RP, in which case I wouldn't mind having it be lessened for balancing purposes.
[/quote]


15 tons of thrust or 33000 lbf is near to the performance of the Pratt and Whitney F119 engine which gives 35000 lbf of thrust. Now apart from the thrust requirements of flight where do you get the extra power? The engine specs you have said is frankly lesser than engine specs RPd by several players here. Even with ceramic composite turbine blades you would only be able to generate as much power as already applicable to existing CNRP fighters. And that kind of power does not give you the ability for further power diversion for microwave attacks.

The kind of thing you want to do is capable for now only by multi engined AWACS which can afford to loiter on single engine while devoting one or more engines for sheer power generation. A fighter aircraft by its very nature would not be able to do it. Besides at the end of the day it would be just a white elephant, the moment you produce the first microwave burst, all SAMs would have a massive beacon and it would be fireworks time.

[Kankou]

First, 15 tons is dry thrust, without afterburners. This is 5 tons more than the Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 of the F-22 Raptor. I'm actually using an overpowered engine for my fighter, and as for what the others RP..... they just use bigger engines for bigger planes.

The thing I don't get is your saying AWACSs need a lot of energy. The most that is needed on the E-767 to power up all the radar and other onboard equipment are two 150 kVA generators, one on each of the [b]TWO[/b] turbofans. I have no idea why you say a high amount of power is necessary. This doesn't even take into consideration that the rotodome of a AWACS is for 360 degrees coverage, which the radar on the fighter is more of a pinpoint targeting, meaning even less energy is needed to run the system in the first place. In addition, the "burst" is a continuous stream of highly concentrated microwave that will only hit the target (check the diagram above). There would barely be any registering on part of SAMs, never mind that its unlikely the microwave will be used over hostile territory.

[king of cochin]

What is the advantage of AESA phased array radar? It is so that when needed radar energy can be concentrated on a narrow cross section or what you are planning to achieve with a nose mounted radar of a fighter jet for pinpoint targeting. Naval vessels serving in ABM roles are also equipped with AESA for similar purposes, as targeting and tracking a high velocity inbound needs greater power for the radar.

AWACS can serve in passive detection, active detection and also potentially electronic warfare roles. In active detection, yes, the rotodome radiates energy to maintain overwatch of the battlespace. Greater the radar energy generated, greater would be the potential range. If the radar energy radiated over 360 degrees is concentrated with AESA onto a narrow band, it can serve as electronic warfare platform.

It is sheer common sense that for a microwave attack of the type you are planning you would need a high power radar. What else are you planning to knock down an enemy fighter with, the energy of a microwave oven?

Besides no matter how highly concentrated it is, it would still have sideband frequencies which are easy bait for any SAM.

[Kankou]

Your point being? Are you agree that my system is possible, not possible, or a white elephant?


As for SAMs, I wouldn't worry too much, since I don't intend on the microwave to be used much. The fighter is already as good as it is without it, and I was thinking of defense when I added in the microwave. That's why I said "it's unlikely the microwave will be used over hostile territory."

[Zoot Zoot]

I know this isnt much of a contribution, but I just got a surreal image, of a fighter large beyond anything normally thought up, shooting White Elephants out to disrupt radar.

On a side not, im 1350 tech, and I want to start a research RP for railguns for my 1500 tech breakthrough.... nowthen. I dont know a thing from anything about stuff like this, so would it be allowed if i simply did the common RP percentage thing? IE

"Railgun materials research 2%"
"Energy source research 2%"
"Componant and construction research 1%"
"Rail replacement construction 1%"

you know, that sort of thing.

When i eventually get round to rebuilding the navy, im replacing some of my destroyers with the destroyer X sort of designs, or ill be retrofitting the main gun with a railgun. Wont be doing battleship railgun salvos or anything.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1291704050' post='2532713']
Your point being? Are you agree that my system is possible, not possible, or a white elephant?


As for SAMs, I wouldn't worry too much, since I don't intend on the microwave to be used much. The fighter is already as good as it is without it, and I was thinking of defense when I added in the microwave. That's why I said "it's unlikely the microwave will be used over hostile territory."
[/quote]

My point being that you cannot have microwave weapons aboard your fighter jet for the following reasons:

1) - No power/extra thrust for generators for radar use
2) - No transducers to produce that much amount of microwave aboard a comparatively small platform.

[Kankou]

1. Already showed you that I have overwhelmingly powerful engines which gives enough energy. I only need 20 tons of dry thrust (expanded to 30 tons with afterburners), yet I have 30 tons to use even without afterburners, which can go up to 40 tons total if I use afterburner. Your numbers for the Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 is based on afterburner use, mine is without afterburners. So simply put, I have too much extra thrust to use.
2. I have already shown you the extremely efficient gallium nitride high electron-mobility transistor. I will not go on with this


Is it just me, or has every single evidence I gave gone over your head, and you keep on with your inaccurate picture of AWACs needed more than two engines, that transistors for the efficiency needed has been developed, or that my turbofan engine is 1.5 times more powerful than the Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100?

Also, where are the other people who complained? Are they just hiding behind Cochin, or overwhelmed by the evidence?

GMs, please give your opinions. Given that it seems Cochin has been ignoring all the RL evidence I’ve shown, I believe that continuing this will not be a good use of time. Let’s end this.



Zoot: I'll help with your plans tomorrow.

[Markus Wilding]

Even though I highly doubt I'll ever have to face this weapon or whatever it is, I refuse to recognize it on the basis that it just seems too out there for me to take it seriously. Whether others follow me and refuse to recognize it is their decision, but I won't recognize this, period.

[Kankou]

That is a very bad attitude. I wouldn't mind toning the thing down for balancing purposes (or having it banned after it is recognized as being workable, like the kinetic strike rods), but outright ignoring just because you don't like it?

[Markus Wilding]

I don't recognize it not because I don't like it, I don't recognize it because I feel that the science behind it is shaky, and given that your explanatory diagrams are in Japanese (which I can't read) I'm walking blind here. Since only a select few of us in CNRP can read and understand Japanese, we have to take your word on what these diagrams say. Where's the proof of a working concept for this weapon? Where's the science the everyman can understand? Unless I see something that can change my mind, I won't recognize it.

[Lavo]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1291730683' post='2532931']
my turbofan engine is 1.5 times more powerful than the Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100
[/quote]
I'm going to question how you can have an engine which produces 33.6 thousand lbf of dry thrust. That, even with today's tech, is [i]obscene[/i] for pure turbofans. What you have there is more powerful than the SR-71's J58 turboramjets (32.5k lbf). Furthermore, I'm going to have to call you out on your diagrams, and that you must post an English version. If you do not, they are entirely invalid, as we can't bloody understand them. Plus, for your amplifier, can you demonstrate how it could be minimized onto a fighter platform? Your article says it is planned to be used in weather and air-traffic control radars, satellite communications, and phone base stations, all of which are a good deal larger than fighters.

I'm not going to recognize these engines and the microwave crap as you fail to show how they are plausible, and that you use either extremely complexly worded or foreign language articles and diagrams to support yourself. These articles which are far beyond the vast majority of CNRPers, including myself, as they require a good deal of knowledge on the subject in order to comprehend them at all, which is in bad taste.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1291730683' post='2532931']
1. Already showed you that I have overwhelmingly powerful engines which gives enough energy. I only need 20 tons of dry thrust (expanded to 30 tons with afterburners), yet I have 30 tons to use even without afterburners, which can go up to 40 tons total if I use afterburner. Your numbers for the Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 is based on afterburner use, mine is without afterburners. So simply put, I have too much extra thrust to use.
2. I have already shown you the extremely efficient gallium nitride high electron-mobility transistor. I will not go on with this


Is it just me, or has every single evidence I gave gone over your head, and you keep on with your inaccurate picture of AWACs needed more than two engines, that transistors for the efficiency needed has been developed, or that my turbofan engine is 1.5 times more powerful than the Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100?

Also, where are the other people who complained? Are they just hiding behind Cochin, or overwhelmed by the evidence?

GMs, please give your opinions. Given that it seems Cochin has been ignoring all the RL evidence I’ve shown, I believe that continuing this will not be a good use of time. Let’s end this.



Zoot: I'll help with your plans tomorrow.
[/quote]

1. You still have not explained how you would have so much extra thrust for electrical power generation apart from thrust needed for flight. Or are your fighters producing this much microwave energy by sitting still on the tarmac? What are the percentages of thrust devoted to electrical power generation and flight.

2. From this [url="http://www.japancorp.net/article.asp?Art_ID=22771"]article[/url] regarding your transducer,

This transistor has 18% efficiency which is more than twice that of other transducers. This amplifier can operate in multiple frequencies enabling it to swtich between C, Ku and X bands with ease. This article only tells us that it would be a more effective Air Defense radar.

As regards your other assertions,
Normal flight , 30 ton force = [url="http://www.convertunits.com/from/pounds-force/to/ton-force"]67,200 lbf[/url] = [url="http://www.unitconversion.org/energy/joules-to-pound-force-foots-conversion.html"]91 KJ[/url]
Afterburner , 40 ton force = 89,600 lbf = 121 KJ

Going by the 18% transformation efficiency, the actual microwave energy you get is,

Normal flight = 16.38 KJ
Afterburner = 21.78 KJ

Now are you going to do microwave attacks with this?

You know if you are arguing something, prove it with facts and logic. I bet not many people understand Japanese in here, so it is your onus to bring something in English to prove a point.

Also why are you getting so irked up? I am not a GM. I am just somebody with a technical background dissecting the technical fallacies in your concept. It is so nice of you to run to GMs to complain about me "ignoring" your "RL evidence",

[HHAYD]

I was writing the stats for my new tank and calculating the speed based on Leopard 2's stats when something appeared unusual. Am I doing something wrong?


My tank: 55 tons (61 tons) : 2,000 hp engine : ? (?) mph

Leopard 2: 68.6739947 tons : 1,479 hp engine : 45 mph


Leopard 2: 1,479 hp/68.6739947 tons=21.63103124 hp/tons

My tank (55 tons): 2,000 hp/55 tons=36.36363636 hp/tons

My tank (61 tons, fully loaded with ammunition): 2,000 hp/61 tons=32.78688525 hp/tons


36.36363636/21.63103124=1.68108658 difference between my tank and Leopard 2

1.68108658*45=75.6488961 mph for 55 tons


32.78688525/21.63103124=1.5157338 difference between my tank and Leopard 2

1.5157338*45=68.208021 mph for 61 tons



Another question, assuming if the 155mm barrel is strong enough, is it feasible to give the tank a belt-fed ammunition system (like in stationary machine guns) instead of a standard auto loading system?

Edited December 22, 2010 by HHAYD

[HHAYD]

What's the 185mm HE shell's weight?

Edited December 24, 2010 by HHAYD

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1292980047' post='2548965']
Another question, assuming if the 155mm barrel is strong enough, is it feasible to give the tank a belt-fed ammunition system (like in stationary machine guns) instead of a standard auto loading system?
[/quote]

Your best bet would be using something similar to the Bradley.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1292980047' post='2548965']
Another question, assuming if the 155mm barrel is strong enough, is it feasible to give the tank a belt-fed ammunition system (like in stationary machine guns) instead of a standard auto loading system?
[/quote]
I highly doubt it. If anything, the system would just be far to bulky to use in the tight confines of a tank. You're better off just sticking to the normal system.

[Kankou]

The weight of the shells deem it that you cannot use a belt.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1293363370' post='2554307']
The weight of the shells deem it that you cannot use a belt.
[/quote]
I see.

I'm still not sure about my tank's calculated top speed. Did I make a mistake in the calculation in the previous page?

[King Timmy]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1292980047' post='2548965']
I was writing the stats for my new tank and calculating the speed based on Leopard 2's stats when something appeared unusual. Am I doing something wrong?


My tank: 55 tons (61 tons) : 2,000 hp engine : ? (?) mph

Leopard 2: 68.6739947 tons : 1,479 hp engine : 45 mph


Leopard 2: 1,479 hp/68.6739947 tons=21.63103124 hp/tons

My tank (55 tons): 2,000 hp/55 tons=36.36363636 hp/tons

My tank (61 tons, fully loaded with ammunition): 2,000 hp/61 tons=32.78688525 hp/tons


36.36363636/21.63103124=1.68108658 difference between my tank and Leopard 2

1.68108658*45=75.6488961 mph for 55 tons


32.78688525/21.63103124=1.5157338 difference between my tank and Leopard 2

1.5157338*45=68.208021 mph for 61 tons



Another question, assuming if the 155mm barrel is strong enough, is it feasible to give the tank a belt-fed ammunition system (like in stationary machine guns) instead of a standard auto loading system?
[/quote]

One thing I would say is how is it that much lighter with a larger gun, which will then use larger ammunition, and also a larger engine which will need to carry more fuel?

Also, I don't think speed is directly proportinal to bhp/ton. The power required is related to the increase in speed cubed. For example if you want to increase speed by 10%, that would be 1.1^3 which is 1.331, so 33% extra power which is about what you have there.

Edited December 26, 2010 by King Timmy