Leave your Fantastic Sci Fi Weapon systems at home

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Sargun' date='05 April 2010 - 12:17 AM' timestamp='1270441044' post='2248506']
For part one: I didn't use overwhelming numbers, and you were so [b]annoying[/b] I ended up not destroying you utterly.

For part two: You said 2025 when the real number is 2020. That's not a weak attempt at deflecting your post, that's a direct, factual refutation of your false assertion. If you think that the date is 2025, you're absolutely wrong. If all of your things are based off of 2025 tech, none of them are allowable because the real number is 2020.
[/quote]

You know, its quite a shame you said that, really.
I gave you every reason IC'ly for you to destroy me. You even gave yourself a reason, with that strike on a Louisianian base when I specifically mentioned my strike was against 'known' Sarnungian bases. You would be a fool IC'ly to not destroy me. Nevertheless, for whatever OOC reasons you had, you chose to ignore the thread at every chance you got. You chose to end the war due to an OOC reason, not an IC one.

I tried to accommodate your requests whenever I could, but even then for some OOC reason, you continued to try to pretend our war never happened. I know damn well it wasn't the routine excuses like work or school, since you actively RP'd during and even after I let the war drop behind the first page.

I had to quite literally force you to respond on multiple occasions. Annoying. While you were busy not responding to our war, I could have moved to capture your capital. I should have, noting how you felt about your capabilities over me from what you've just said, especially considering your position on a similar matter. You've said it before, I had every right to move on with the RP, with or without your consent-

[quote name='Sargun' date='24 September 2009 - 04:02 PM' timestamp='1253822550' post='1861961']
OOC: Five days is a courtesy call, double that amount we are free to do whatever. You got a problem with that? I waited five days for someone to respond and they failed, we've waited over ten for Lavo so now it is time to move on. No amount of !@#$%*ing and whining will change the fact that it has been close to two weeks that we have been waiting. You do not get to decide if the war continues on or not, the amount of time that Lavo has had to respond has.

You missed your chance, deal with it.
[/quote]

-but I chose not to. It has been well over that time limit. Well over that two week deadline you set. I tried whatever I could to keep the war going, interesting despite your efforts that, to this day baffle me. If I read your previous post correctly- forgive me if I am wrong, you seek to use our war as some example on how NOT to do something, ie: If you somehow wish to imply that I tried to use numbers or tech to wrongly gain an advantage over you, you are wrong. You say you could wipe me off the map but choose not to do so on behalf of some annoyance I was to you, I say go ahead. I invite you to retcon the dissolution of the Sarnungian Republic and finish what you started. I'm sure that together, with this newfound insight you've brought to this thread, we'd make a war that would serve as an inspiration to others.

As for your second rebuttal, If you honestly think answering my entire post with a simple reference to a date I mentioned that is 5 years off, is a legitimate rebuttal try harder. That is a deflect, pure and simple. Ignore the parts in red, I refuse to colour any more of my words- you were referring to the fact that because rail guns do not exist in a fully operational capacity on a warship today that they wouldn't be 10 years from now. I refuted you by saying that a decision like that is supposed to be made by the community at large, and already has been.

[Kaiser Martens]

In the end, what I don't like, is that CNRP appears to be set up in a manner in which, during warfare, if you fight against a reasonably stronger nation, you will always lose no matter how much you RP, so, you have no option but to lose and all the RP background you put into anything of your gear or mil movements becomes meaningless. In most games, when you work more and try harder, you get some sort of advantage or improvement, but here no matter what one RPs, the bigger nation will win unless the difference is marginal...that's why people end up not fighting and not RPing wars when they realize that they'll lose and then they ragequit. There should be some revision to the war system.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Gunther' date='04 April 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1270417517' post='2247882']
There is no aircraft in existence that can carry 59 tons of anything let alone Air to Air missiles nor possess the ability to fire all of these missiles inside of 10 seconds. The concept is absurd and is not possible to exist even in the next ten years. First the Aircraft would never get off the ground and its weapon systems would overheat and burn up on the first try. RPing, that those deficiencies have been corrected is insufficient. It would take decades to overcome the massive numbers of deficiencies associated with these Science Fiction based weapon systems.



Mach 9.6? Be real. I would call Mach 3 fantastic. Forget about anything faster than that. If you couple UAV technology with a vehicle that can do Mach 9.6, I'd buy it, if it were the year 2040. Again, we have no idea what technology is going to produce in the next 10 years.
The more I read of these lunatic weapon systems, the more incredulous I become.
[/quote]


The giant fighter and bomber aircraft are based off of these with different type of engine: http://en.wikipedia....ions_.28C-5B.29

A C-5 Galaxy cargo plane can carry up to 135 tons of cargo. Throw in missile launching systems and other weapons and you get a slow yet scary fighter or bomber aircraft.

If aircraft can carry 135 tons or cargo, why can't my ultra heavy and slow fighters can carry 59 tons of missiles? You are right about how fast the missiles can be emptied, so I will change that.


As for the mach 9.6 speed, that is possible. Scramjet engines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Specific-impulse-kk-20090105.png

Sure, fuel usage would be massive, stealth is non-existent, the need of powerful cooling system to avoid the aircraft being burnt to crisp, limited turning, weight restriction, expensive material that are capable of withstanding the stress, and high maintenance (which is why I plan on building six of them, not mobs of squadrons). Pilots should be able to survive at such speed as long as the aircraft accelerates and decelerates at a steady pace.

[Sargun II]

If you think I was being serious with that first part, you need to
[img]http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/4018/hulkavl3.jpg[/img]

[quote]
As for your second rebuttal, If you honestly think answering my entire post with a simple reference to a date I mentioned that is 5 years off, is a legitimate rebuttal try harder. That is a deflect, pure and simple. Ignore the parts in red, I refuse to colour any more of my words- you were referring to the fact that because rail guns do not exist in a fully operational capacity on a warship today that they wouldn't be 10 years from now. I refuted you by saying that a decision like that is supposed to be made by the community at large, and already has been.[/quote]
I wasn't answering your entire post. I was just pointing out that you were wrong about it being 2025. I never said anything otherwise. In fact, my entire post was that you had ONE thing wrong in it, and that was the wrong year. I said [b]nothing else[/b] except that you had one thing wrong in your post and I corrected it.

Stop putting words in my mouth, please.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Sargun

[Silhouette]

HHAYD.


That is an infeasible speed.

The main reason being forging wings that can withstand the forces present. After a while, the wings will twist and bend, and stop producing lift. Then it plummets to the ground uncontrollably...

[iamthey]

[quote name='Sargun' date='05 April 2010 - 05:47 AM' timestamp='1270442856' post='2248605']
I'm not sure what you're implying. Are you implying that I'm implying railguns should be wiped? Because that's not what I'm implying. I'm implying that just because something is in testing and we [b]think[/b] it can be done in ten years doesn't mean it can, and so Gunther has a legitimate right to question it. If he can prove reasonable doubt as to why something won't be used in the field by 2020 (note [b]in the field[/b]), and we cannot prove otherwise, it should not be used.

By the way, just because railguns have been in RP for a year and a half... well, it doesn't mean !@#$. We had Knightmares and Rods from God for at least a year before they got banned, probably two.
[/quote]


Alright then I guess we are just approaching tech from different positions. To me 'in the field' is irrelevant as my nation is not a reflection of what governments in the present world are like. Capitalist liberal democracies are slow innovators and what is or isn't in the field within 10 years should have little to do with where they will be. The 10 years span in my opinion is more like a differential function, depending on what you plug in, you could come out with a slow gradual innovation, or the furthest degree of innovation that an efficient and well funded nation would be capable of. In either case as others have pointed out the TE system does exist and this entire debate has less to do with any real balance issue and more to do with how 'flashy' our troops and nation RP's are. So honestly this is largely irrelevant.

[Sargun II]

[quote] To me 'in the field' is irrelevant[/quote]

So what you're saying is that it's relevant only if it's capable of being done in perfect, controlled conditions biased towards the functionality of the weapon and not if it's actually capable of being produced in large numbers and be used in the field without catastrophic failures, crippling issues, or other related problems.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Sargun

[iamthey]

[quote name='Sargun' date='05 April 2010 - 06:03 AM' timestamp='1270443818' post='2248657']
So what you're saying is that it's relevant only if it's capable of being done in perfect, controlled conditions biased towards the functionality of the weapon and not if it's actually capable of being produced in large numbers and be used in the field without catastrophic failures, crippling issues, or other related problems.
[/quote]


Its impossible to predict frequency of contingencies like weapon break downs and miss firings. Especially when you are looking 10 years into the future. RP wise it probably should be determined based on the tech level of the nation we are looking at, and the tech level of their opponent (Ie a player with a relatively low tech fires a salvo at a player with a relatively high tech level x number miss or fail).

That being said the issues you mention are more engineering and implementation issues, not design flaws. All of which could be solved with enough capital and planning. If the technology actually exists within a particular year but it's not in application (or was poor in quality), I think that is more a matter of the given nation or organization not effectively allocating their resources and is unreflective of what another regime could have done. For example during the roman empire the relative technology of Rome was far more superior than that of say the natives of the Americas/the Germanic tribes. In the same way during the dark ages of Europe China had relatively superior technological innovations. What you are saying is essentially using one regime to set the tech standard for the entire world- when in fact that is hardly the case.

In addition what you are saying would be possibly true if CNRP history and RL history merged at 2010, but CNRP history generally begins roughly before or after WWI/WWII (some even say the beginning of the 20th century). So there is definitely a lot of room for flexibility and creative licence. While its probably true similar innovations were developed, at what rate they developed and which were prioritized isn't necessarily clear. (Hence why we have societies without a lot of automobiles, or exotic economic systems).

[Sargun II]

CNRP history technically is supposed to start at 2005, but most people have made their own history starting from ancient times.

[iamthey]

[quote name='Sargun' date='05 April 2010 - 06:34 AM' timestamp='1270445675' post='2248721']
CNRP history technically is supposed to start at 2005, but most people have made their own history starting from ancient times.
[/quote]

Ok fair- then thats 15 years of flexibility and uncertainty.

[Bacharth]

Oh my good god damn can we just shut up and play the damn game. Seriously. This is the kind of thing that kills communities, is people arguing.

Stop arguing, and use those words to actually make posts. Jesus, if we spent as much time arguing and nitpicking as we do rping, we wouldn't have these problems. No, everyone's gotta be right.

[JerreyRough]

The problem here is that this community has too many split ways of how they think a RP war should be thought, a witch's cauldron of random things that just don't mix as well as salt and sugar with water. In my opinionated opinion, I would like for technology to slow down and stop so we could roleplay better; but this is called cybernations because its active and developing, so future technology needs to be attained to suit the wants/needs of some people. Thus this is left to guess work; and with guess work in comes your personal opinion (which isn't a bad thing). So I'll not take a side for this one, as there are too many conflicting opinions with correct answers on all sides.

@Vince Sixx: Actually, these posts are made very quickly and are very easily made (other than perhaps the OP), or at least most of them. So in the same time stamps there prob would be less text (if they are writing creatively).

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Vince Sixx' date='05 April 2010 - 01:50 AM' timestamp='1270450216' post='2248825']
Oh my good god damn can we just shut up and play the damn game. Seriously. This is the kind of thing that kills communities, is people arguing.

Stop arguing, and use those words to actually make posts. Jesus, if we spent as much time arguing and nitpicking as we do rping, we wouldn't have these problems. No, everyone's gotta be right.
[/quote]

The kind of thing that kills communities is people [b]not[/b] arguing. Argument means people are airing differences. Airing differences in a structured setting (that is to say, in a place where we can see them plainly and then find a way to solve it) leads to problem solving. Problem solving leads to happiness and a larger sense of community.

If we just "shut up and [played] the damn game" we would end up arguing even more and have those arguments mixed up with the actual RP. The problem is that this[b] is[/b] a game and the purpose of a game is to have fun. Many people like to have fun by winning or by doing things realistically, so when you say to just play the game all you're doing is encouraging people to continue doing what they are doing which leads to more problems down the road.

[Subtleknifewielder]

After reading the rest of the posts in this thread...half your posts are nothing but nitpicking fine, irrelevent details. YOu should be on a debate team if you aren't already.

EDIT: Or better yet, become a lawyer.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Subtleknifewielder

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='05 April 2010 - 02:40 AM' timestamp='1270453221' post='2248873']
After reading the rest of the posts in this thread...half your posts are nothing but nitpicking fine, irrelevent details. YOu should be on a debate team if you aren't already.

EDIT: Or better yet, become a lawyer.
[/quote]

You don't seem to understand that unless I feel like it, I'm only going to find small details that I know are incorrect and correct them. It annoys me. Other than that, I'm pretty lazy and I just don't give a damn enough to post. If you look at my boiler room posts, you'll see that I lurk in threads then find something nitpicky to do and fix it because it's annoying. I like to read, not play.

Also, I was the first person to put my name on at my high school debate team founding meeting.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Sargun

[Maelstrom Vortex]

In my opinion how the war is fought is a negotiation that needs to take place and be resolved before any war is conducted among the parties involved. Otherwise everyone plays by different rules. It's not argument.. it's establishing the parameters and context of the war which is the nature of the beast with a shared community based RP. There's literally no avoiding it. Now or later, it will be discussed and those advocating it be ignored are just looking at the inevitability of it coming up again despite their best intentions.

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Sargun' date='05 April 2010 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1270453466' post='2248878']
You don't seem to understand that unless I feel like it, I'm only going to find small details that I know are incorrect and correct them. It annoys me. Other than that, I'm pretty lazy and I just don't give a damn enough to post. If you look at my boiler room posts, you'll see that I lurk in threads then find something nitpicky to do and fix it because it's annoying. I like to read, not play.

Also, I was the first person to put my name on at my high school debate team founding meeting.
[/quote]
Lazy? Then stop reading and posting replies here, and let honest debate fill the thread instead of that nit-picking, which is worse than anything I could do. And believe me, that's saying something...

[Lynneth]

My opinion about all this:

Crazy weapons like 20-inch railguns or planes with a million missiles are stupid. While the tech-savvy should try and help more, those who aren't tech-savvy should use their common sense and not make a plane with 59 metric tons of missiles or a speed that would completely annihilate the airframe from the sheer speed.
The fastest manned plane that has ever flown is, after all, is the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird"]SR-71 Blackbird[/url]. Yes, Scramjets can go a whole lot faster.
No, people wouldn't survive that. No, you can't make big planes at those speeds. No, it would be hard using them more than once. (See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-43"]X-43[/url] for an example) And yes, they couldn't take off on their own, having to be launched by other aircraft.


Common sense. That is what people often lack.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Silhouette' date='05 April 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1270443651' post='2248649']
HHAYD.


That is an infeasible speed.

The main reason being forging wings that can withstand the forces present. After a while, the wings will twist and bend, and stop producing lift. Then it plummets to the ground uncontrollably...
[/quote]
Then what speed would be feasible for small wings with carbon fiber/nanotube framing?
[quote name='Lynneth' date='05 April 2010 - 07:22 AM' timestamp='1270470144' post='2248997']
My opinion about all this:

Crazy weapons like 20-inch railguns or planes with a million missiles are stupid. While the tech-savvy should try and help more, those who aren't tech-savvy should use their common sense and not make a plane with 59 metric tons of missiles or a speed that would completely annihilate the airframe from the sheer speed.
The fastest manned plane that has ever flown is, after all, is the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird"]SR-71 Blackbird[/url]. Yes, Scramjets can go a whole lot faster.
No, people wouldn't survive that. No, you can't make big planes at those speeds. No, it would be hard using them more than once. (See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-43"]X-43[/url] for an example) And yes, they couldn't take off on their own, having to be launched by other aircraft.


Common sense. That is what people often lack.


[/quote]
Again, if there are cargo planes that hold up to 135 tons of cargo, couldn't those be turned into a fighter aircraft by adding in missile launchers?

Edited April 5, 2010 by HHAYD

[Lynneth]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='05 April 2010 - 03:08 PM' timestamp='1270472885' post='2249021']
Then what speed would be feasible for small wings with carbon fiber/nanotube framing?

Again, if there are cargo planes that hold up to 135 tons of cargo, couldn't those be turned into a fighter aircraft by adding in missile launchers?
[/quote]
Mach 3 is already a wonder, and few to none planes are actually capable of flying that fast. Also, maneuverability goes to hell, as does stealth, which makes your plane incredibly easy to be shot down.
Cargo planes are CARGO planes. Go read up on what a bomber is and what a fighter is.

>>A fighter aircraft is a military aircraft designed primarily for air-to-air combat with other aircraft.
>>A bomber is a military aircraft designed to attack ground and sea targets, primarily by dropping bombs on them.

Fighters need to be fast, agile, maneuverable, stealthy and a million other things. Your xbox silly plane is none of these. It can't be any of these.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

I think what he's talking about is such plans as the retrofit planned for some U.S. strategic bombers which turns them into stand-off range AAM platforms that use a connection to AWACs and highly sophisticated radars on Stealth Fighter aircraft to designate targets far outside of usual launch ranges for the bombers to attack with high speed, long range air-to-air missiles that can be on target in less than 10 seconds. It was a concept laid out on future weapons that the U.S. Air force is exploring and is very technologically feasible with modern to 2015 technology window.

There's even discussion with doing away with fighters altogether and using radar drones with these bomber mods in their stead, but it's not likely to happen for some time as the systems need perfected first. The limitation of your average fighter is not the aircraft itself, but the human inside. If you remove the human the maneuverability limitations of air vehicles are much less restrained. The F-22 has the capability to perform maneuvers its pilot cannot survive, for example.

There's no reason to have a fighter squadron that cannot outmaneuver the enemy missiles, if they are of equal tech, when you can have drones that can avoid missiles.. have extremely high stealth.. and kill entire squadrons of enemy aircraft that are not drones with the aid of one bomber LR AAM mission package. The day will come when a B-52 can kill an entire squadron of SU-27s or even F-15s. Potentially before the enemy fighters even know what hit them.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Maelstrom Vortex

[king of cochin]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='05 April 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1270472885' post='2249021']
Then what speed would be feasible for small wings with carbon fiber/nanotube framing?

Again, if there are cargo planes that hold up to 135 tons of cargo, couldn't those be turned into a fighter aircraft by adding in missile launchers?
[/quote]

If you want something that can deliver munitions at Mach+ speeds there is only one alternative, SRBMs or tactical BMs. Any aircraft flying at such speeds attempting to maneuver like a fighter would disintegrate due to excessive lateral strains on the body. Wings are used for lift and for maneuvering, beyond a certain speed wings would disintegrate.

As regards cargo planes, sure you can have a cargo plane capable of holding 135 tons of cargo, but if they are munitions to be fired by that plane, it would need massive structural design changes which would reduce its gross tonnage so that you can have barely 20 tons of weapon payload capability, if at all.

Besides another factor is the recoil factor on firing a missile. A fighter or a bomber's wings are designed to take the abuse of launching missiles, not so a cargo plane, also firing of missiles creates a tangible slowing effect, which may not be handled by a regular cargo plane.

So all the small wings/carbon fiber / nano tube would not change issues of simple physics and mechanics. There may be a way for the system you imagine to exit some day, but if you want to use it by claiming unholy amounts of tech advantage, you must be able to explain the technology behind it. Perhaps you may be asked to file a patent for the idea by Lockheed or Boeing if you did.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' date='05 April 2010 - 08:05 PM' timestamp='1270478127' post='2249075']
I think what he's talking about is such plans as the retrofit planned for some U.S. strategic bombers which turns them into stand-off range AAM platforms that use a connection to AWACs and highly sophisticated radars on Stealth Fighter aircraft to designate targets far outside of usual launch ranges for the bombers to attack with high speed, long range air-to-air missiles that can be on target in less than 10 seconds. It was a concept laid out on future weapons that the U.S. Air force is exploring and is very technologically feasible with modern to 2015 technology window.

There's even discussion with doing away with fighters altogether and using radar drones with these bomber mods in their stead, but it's not likely to happen for some time as the systems need perfected first. The limitation of your average fighter is not the aircraft itself, but the human inside. If you remove the human the maneuverability limitations of air vehicles are much less restrained. The F-22 has the capability to perform maneuvers its pilot cannot survive, for example.

There's no reason to have a fighter squadron that cannot outmaneuver the enemy missiles, if they are of equal tech, when you can have drones that can avoid missiles.. have extremely high stealth.. and kill entire squadrons of enemy aircraft that are not drones with the aid of one bomber LR AAM mission package. The day will come when a B-52 can kill an entire squadron of SU-27s or even F-15s. Potentially before the enemy fighters even know what hit them.
[/quote]


Drones cannot avoid missiles, if they are powered with high performance engines, they would create cross sections that enable them to be detected by radar or IR. Once a track has been made missiles can easily destroy a drone. Besides capabilities of drones such as Predators against low tech enemy like Taliban may not be applicable against a higher technology opponent.

As regards the plan that Mael is mentioning, I request some links be posted, if my assumption regarding it is wrong. From my view point arming a conventional heavy bomber with AAMs and using Drones for Target Designation seems to be rather inane, the primary problem being the platform itself. Strategic bombers are cumbersome relics of early Cold War and dont stand a chance against modern Anti Air Defense systems as the unfortunate U2 discovered in Russia. They are also rather slower than a fighter, and with much less defensive capabilities. As regards the LR AAM, what ranges are we talking about here? BVR? When the enemy also has BVR missiles what advantage would you have against their missiles to necessitate the usage of these bombers?

Also please explain how a B-52 can kill an entire squadron of fighters. It is not a matter of ammunition, it is also the capability of delivering them. A B-52 would be detected eons before a more agile fighter is detected and employing of such systems as offensive measures would mean start of turkey shoot season for the air defense troops.

In warfare , the first and last contingency is reconnaissance and counter reconnaissance. Only after parity in them is achieved that the firepower gets a role to play. With bombers like B52 counter reconnaissance would be child's play.

If the payload capability is the only factor why not use air ships as weapons platforms!! They have large payload capability too!!

[HHAYD]

[quote name='king of cochin' date='05 April 2010 - 11:14 AM' timestamp='1270484041' post='2249199']
If you want something that can deliver munitions at Mach+ speeds there is only one alternative, SRBMs or tactical BMs. Any aircraft flying at such speeds attempting to maneuver like a fighter would disintegrate due to excessive lateral strains on the body. Wings are used for lift and for maneuvering, beyond a certain speed wings would disintegrate.

As regards cargo planes, sure you can have a cargo plane capable of holding 135 tons of cargo, but if they are munitions to be fired by that plane, it would need massive structural design changes which would reduce its gross tonnage so that you can have barely 20 tons of weapon payload capability, if at all.

Besides another factor is the recoil factor on firing a missile. A fighter or a bomber's wings are designed to take the abuse of launching missiles, not so a cargo plane, also firing of missiles creates a tangible slowing effect, which may not be handled by a regular cargo plane.

So all the small wings/carbon fiber / nano tube would not change issues of simple physics and mechanics. There may be a way for the system you imagine to exit some day, but if you want to use it by claiming unholy amounts of tech advantage, you must be able to explain the technology behind it. Perhaps you may be asked to file a patent for the idea by Lockheed or Boeing if you did.
[/quote]
Restructure the cargo plane's wings and limit the amount of missiles it can fire from the wings. Why would I need to structurally change the cargo plane other than having to strengthen it for launching missiles? I don't understand.

For the mach 9+ aircraft, I threw them out of my RP.

[Zoot Zoot]

HHAYD, dude, it would be to heavy to fly, fullstop.

We arnt deliberatly pissing on your parade here, but it wouldnt even get off the ground, no aircraft could carry it on its back to launch it airborne.
Its not feasable.