Jump to content

Leave your Fantastic Sci Fi Weapon systems at home


Gunther

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Lynneth' date='05 April 2010 - 08:46 AM' timestamp='1270475143' post='2249045']
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.
[/quote]
Restructure the cargo planes and you get sometime different.

For the fighters, here is a comparison:

Suppose a fighter jet is a sports car with a light machine gun mounted on top. Fast, agile, maneuverable, and efficient at ripping up other armed sports cars.

Now throw in a semi-truck armed with two dozens of people operating miniguns and .50 caliber machine guns. Oh sure, it's slow and has poor maneuverability, but has the firepower to rip up a group of armed sports car within its line of sight and scare the crap out of other sports cars' drivers. Can it be destroyed easily? Yes, which is why it needs something to distract the armed sports cars.

The ultra heavy fighter aircraft are meant to add additional firepower to their fighter jets, distract enemy aircraft (some pilots would be more concern with avoiding over 20 AA missiles flying toward him/her than an enemy aircraft), and force them to split up and flee (leaving their escorted bomber jets vulnerable) to avoid being wiped by a mob of AA missiles. They do not engage in direct dog-fights with the enemy fighter jets, they simply loiter around the aircraft dog-fighting area and hurl AA missiles. What happens if the fighter jets they were supporting are wiped? Then the ultra heavy fighter jets would be swarmed and unable to escape to avoid being blown to pieces.

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' date='05 April 2010 - 11:49 AM' timestamp='1270486177' post='2249236']
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.
[/quote]
If an aircraft that weights over 135 tons and take off easily, then a combat aircraft can also do the same thing.

Edited by HHAYD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='HHAYD' date='05 April 2010 - 10:13 PM' timestamp='1270485771' post='2249230']
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.
[/quote]


You would have to entirely redesign the wings and in that case entirely redesign the aircraft. The aircraft is always designed as a single aerodynamic body, every component specifically designed for the purpose it shall be used. Yes, strengthening the body of the aircraft would mean a structural change. For example you have a missile launcher, the missile launcher has to be attached to the fuselage with at least a rudimentary loading system. If the missiles is launched from the fuselage, it would create recoil forces on the fuselage, right? To dissipate that evenly you need to change the basic structure of fuselage.

Transport aircrafts are rather delicate systems. If even a single pallet is out of alignment, the aircraft may have problem flying, let alone if you use the payload area mid flight for combat operations.

Also dont forget that any such structural changes would also cause increasing dry weight of the aircraft, reducing its fuel efficiency, reducing its maneuverability, range, everything. It would be a White Elephant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='king of cochin' date='05 April 2010 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1270486908' post='2249245']
You would have to entirely redesign the wings and in that case entirely redesign the aircraft. The aircraft is always designed as a single aerodynamic body, every component specifically designed for the purpose it shall be used. Yes, strengthening the body of the aircraft would mean a structural change. For example you have a missile launcher, the missile launcher has to be attached to the fuselage with at least a rudimentary loading system. If the missiles is launched from the fuselage, it would create recoil forces on the fuselage, right? To dissipate that evenly you need to change the basic structure of fuselage.

Transport aircrafts are rather delicate systems. If even a single pallet is out of alignment, the aircraft may have problem flying, let alone if you use the payload area mid flight for combat operations.

Also dont forget that any such structural changes would also cause increasing dry weight of the aircraft, reducing its fuel efficiency, reducing its maneuverability, range, everything. It would be a White Elephant.
[/quote]
Just a question, since the Tupolev Tu-160 (carries up to 49.6 tons of payload) drops bombs from the fuselage, couldn't I add in a low-recoil missile launcher there and use it as a fighter aircraft firepower supporter?
[quote name='Zoot Zoot' date='05 April 2010 - 12:08 PM' timestamp='1270487274' post='2249250']
HHAYD
The EB52 megafortress, a fictional B52 bomber from dale browns "fatal terrain" wont ever exist.
I know where you got the ideas from though, its an awesome book.
[/quote]
I never heard of the book "fatal terrain" or even read it.

Edited by HHAYD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='HHAYD' date='05 April 2010 - 10:25 PM' timestamp='1270486489' post='2249241']
Restructure the cargo planes and you get sometime different.

For the fighters, here is a comparison:

Suppose a fighter jet is a sports car with a light machine gun mounted on top. Fast, agile, maneuverable, and efficient at ripping up other armed sports cars.

Now throw in a semi-truck armed with two dozens of people operating miniguns and .50 caliber machine guns. Oh sure, it's slow and has poor maneuverability, but has the firepower to rip up a group of armed sports car within its line of sight and scare the crap out of other sports cars' drivers. Can it be destroyed easily? Yes, which is why it needs something to distract the armed sports cars.

The ultra heavy fighter aircraft are meant to add additional firepower to their fighter jets, distract enemy aircraft (some pilots would be more concern with avoiding over 20 AA missiles flying toward him/her than an enemy aircraft), and force them to split up and flee (leaving their escorted bomber jets vulnerable) to avoid being wiped by a mob of AA missiles. They do not engage in direct dog-fights with the enemy fighter jets, they simply loiter around the aircraft dog-fighting area and hurl AA missiles. What happens if the fighter jets they were supporting are wiped? Then the ultra heavy fighter jets would be swarmed and unable to escape to avoid being blown to pieces.


If an aircraft that weights over 135 tons and take off easily, then a combat aircraft can also do the same thing.
[/quote]

The comparison is interesting (I still kick myself for downloading and watching that movie) but not applicable in this scenario.

The fighter aircrafts can carry as potent weapons as any transport aircraft. Let us assume for a second that Team A has one of your bombers with an AAM with a range of 60 NM and Team B has an interception fighter with an AAM of range 60 NM. Let both aircrafts have target lock at the same time at 60 NM and they engage. Now once engaged, a fighter can attempt to break the lock using evasive maneuvers, least of which is doppler maneuver which breaks radar lock and can effectively use its chaff and flare with its maneuvers to break the target lock. In worst case scenario, they can just power their afterburners and make a run for it, while the Team A bomber would have only one option - praying. Chaff and Flare would be ineffectual in the background of such a massive target cross section. Despite its numerous munitions, everything would be wasted, even before combat.

You are thinking only on the basis of firepower, whereas air combat is mainly a measure of speed and range. These bombers would be killed even before their escorts are destroyed. As for their firing swarms of missiles, firing such a number of missiles from its fuselage or wings alone is enough to tear the aircraft apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='HHAYD' date='05 April 2010 - 10:39 PM' timestamp='1270487350' post='2249251']
Just a question, since the Tupolev Tu-160 (carries up to 49.6 tons of payload) drops bombs from the fuselage, couldn't I add in a low-recoil missile launcher there and use it as a fighter aircraft firepower supporter?

I never heard of the book "fatal terrain" or even read it.
[/quote]

Tu-160, like B52 only drops munitions as dumb weapons. Once dropped if the bomb has a guidance package it becomes a smart bomb. In that respect it is not all that different from World War One air force biplanes in which bombers hand dropped bombs on enemy formations. That is not the way of fighter bombers.

Tu160 also has ,

[quote] * 2 internal rotary launchers each holding 6 × Raduga Kh-55 cruise missiles (primary armament) or 12× Raduga Kh-15 short-range nuclear missiles[/quote]

Of course these launchers can be customized for launching AAMs, but even then it would not be worth the usage. In Air Combat Maneuvers these bombers are sitting ducks and the advantage you think you would gain would not exist, because the aircraft would first have to survive its first contact for its weapons to be worthwhile. Else you can use these aircrafts as a fire and forget platforms. As strategic bombers with nuclear weapon payloads that is their effective role, to fire their payload and then use prayers and luck to escape certain death. It would be insanely stupid to use such fire and forget/kamikaze tactics with such expensive aircrafts with only AAMs as payloads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HHAYD seems to be wanting to RP a missile truck. The B-1R is an example of this, at least in theory. While there is nothing wrong with that, The B1-R is not 'stealthed' compared to the fighters, but is designed to be used with a powerful long range AESA radar, a squadron of stealthed fighters in front to spot for it, and dozens of long range AA's. Nothing is wrong with that, its only how huge and heavy he tried to make the thing be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='king of cochin' date='05 April 2010 - 12:13 PM' timestamp='1270487593' post='2249258']
The comparison is interesting (I still kick myself for downloading and watching that movie) but not applicable in this scenario.

The fighter aircrafts can carry as potent weapons as any transport aircraft. Let us assume for a second that Team A has one of your bombers with an AAM with a range of 60 NM and Team B has an interception fighter with an AAM of range 60 NM. Let both aircrafts have target lock at the same time at 60 NM and they engage. Now once engaged, a fighter can attempt to break the lock using evasive maneuvers, least of which is doppler maneuver which breaks radar lock and can effectively use its chaff and flare with its maneuvers to break the target lock. In worst case scenario, they can just power their afterburners and make a run for it, while the Team A bomber would have only one option - praying. Chaff and Flare would be ineffectual in the background of such a massive target cross section. Despite its numerous munitions, everything would be wasted, even before combat.

You are thinking only on the basis of firepower, whereas air combat is mainly a measure of speed and range. These bombers would be killed even before their escorts are destroyed. As for their firing swarms of missiles, firing such a number of missiles from its fuselage or wings alone is enough to tear the aircraft apart.
[/quote]
Again, they are not meant to be used for direct dog-fighting, but to cause chaos.

Here is what I am thinking:

Team A has 24 fighter jets, Team B has 23 same fighter jets and one ultra heavy fighter. Both engages except for the ultra heavy fighter, it loiters around and hurls AA missiles from its wings and fuselage. The missile launchers in the fuselage are angled at a 45 degree, extended into the fuselage and are designed to force the thrust from the missiles downward into chambers filled with impact absorbing gel and springs instead of backward, reducing the strain on the frames (the low-recoil design is also used in TDI Vector submachine gun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TDI_Vector ). The missile launchers on the wings are the standard types.

Team A notices that they are receiving a constant stream of missiles from Team B's ultra heavy fighter and are distracted by the AA missiles while Team B takes advantage of the chaos created by the stream of AA missiles.

Two situations can occur. Team A is unable to deal with the mob of AA missiles that are building up from the Team B's heavy fighter while engaging Team B's smaller fighter jets and are wiped or flee.

OR

If Team A receives reinforcements and wipes Team B's fighter jets or forces them to flee, then Team B's ultra heavy fighter is screwed.

Edited by HHAYD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='HHAYD' date='05 April 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1270488942' post='2249290']
Again, they are not meant to be used for direct dog-fighting, but to cause chaos.

Here is what I am thinking:

Team A has 24 fighter jets, Team B has 23 same fighter jets and one ultra heavy fighter. Both engages except for the ultra heavy fighter, it loiters around and hurls AA missiles from its wings and fuselage. The missile launchers in the fuselage are angled at a 45 degree, extended into the fuselage and are designed to force the thrust from the missiles downward into chambers filled with impact absorbing gel and springs instead of backward, reducing the strain on the frames (the low-recoil design is also used in TDI Vector submachine gun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TDI_Vector ). The missile launchers on the wings are the standard types.

Team A notices that they are receiving a constant stream of missiles from Team B's ultra heavy fighter and are distracted by the AA missiles while Team B takes advantage of the chaos created by the stream of AA missiles.

Two situations can occur. Team A is unable to deal with the mob of AA missiles that are building up from the Team B's heavy fighter while engaging Team B's smaller fighter jets and are wiped or flee.

OR

If Team A receives reinforcements and wipes Team B's fighter jets or forces them to flee, then Team B's ultra heavy fighter is screwed.
[/quote]

The scenario would work only if the ultra heavy fighter is not detected. As the largest and obviously most prized asset it would be engaged first by any opposing force. Besides this is not formation warfare we are talking about, in modern air combat no loitering around takes place, everything is extremely fast and it is a dynamically changing battle space. Team A would notice the heavy fighter coming with the Team B fighters and would concentrate on taking that out, which wont be so hard. As regards distraction, Team A and Team B would be equally distracted if there are many missiles flying around, no matter who launched it. Fighter pilots do not live long by fully trusting the IFF transponders and capability of missile tracking with their lives. If such a stream of missiles is produced in whatever manner it would be dangerous for all in that air.

Your essentially premise of a parlor dog fight with the heavy fighter in the periphery and shooting the missiles into the melee will not work because there are usually two aspects of air warfare, Outer Air Battle, where attrition is forced using long range missiles and Air Combat Maneuvers (dog fights) where range being too low for radar missiles to be used high speed maneuver battles (WW2) style is resorted to. In Outer Air Battle, your heavy fighter would not survive to even hope to make any impact on the later stage dog fight. You must realize modern air warfare occurs at ranges from 200 - 2 km. The heavy fighters wont survive even until 60 km range.

As regards the launching system you have mentioned, the asymmetric recoil system does not negate recoil, it only reduces the effect of recoil on firing in TDI Vector. The vector would still be there, but because of the barrel orientation and the recoil weight system the recoil force is much better transmitted along the shoulder without it affecting the aim of fire. In an aircraft this wont work as where would the recoil force dissipate to? The gel would only help in reducing the effect of recoil, but it too has to transmit this force out, it wont just absorb the force like that.

It is essentially Law of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy"]Conservation of Energy[/url], force can neither be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another. The force the launcher applies on the gel and springs would have to be released by them and where would they release it to other than on the aircraft's structural body? Besides to have shock absorbant springs and gels for these launchers even more payload weight would have to be sacrificed.

Do you see now why your plan, though ambitious, is neither efficient, effective and not really workable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You asked for it Cochin, I give you..

The B1-R with supported weapons load-out the AIM 120d AMRAAM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFsYcK5lWrQ

and its potential sensory platform which is a drone..

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/darpa_falcon_030723.html

The Mach 10 unmanned falcon. Or the Stealth UAV, the RQ-170

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4339138.html

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for those links, mael. They gave me a better insight on what you were suggesting.

It is definitely interesting, using a modified B1 for supporting Air to Air Combat. The animation tends to suggest a scenario that runs like this:

1. B1Rs flying to meet enemy squadron, F22 being stealthed undetected by enemy fighters.
2. Scouting ahead of B1-R, the F22s give targeting information to the B1-Rs which launch volleys of missiles from long range -120km (AMRAAM).
3. As the enemy fighters on being engaged by radar guided missiles maneuver to break lock, F22 which is still undetected gets into close range and engages them with its shorter range heat seeking missiles.
4. The combination of long range missiles boring on with target acquisition and short range heat seeking missiles coming out of nowhere would spread confusion among enemy squadron, negating their situational awareness enabling more damages to the enemy.

Now I shall tell you why I think this is a fantasy concept.

1. F22s can be detected. They have a low thermal/radar cross section, not a zero cross section. Their stealth is especially compromised at the moment their bomb bays are opened to fire their missiles. That split second could compromise their stealth and enable them to be counter attacked. Also a powerful radar, airborne or ground bases narrowly concentrated and sweeping the skies can defeat the best of stealth.
2. There is the assumption that enemies dont have missiles of the same range as that possessed by the B1-R. Though it may be true of current status, it may not be so in a few years due to rapid modernization of PLA-AF and Russian Air Force. It would definitely not be true of CNRP. The video is of an assumption that the enemies do not have equal range missiles as the B1R. At the same time as B1-R launches its volley of missiles a counter volley of missiles can be fired by the enemy squadron too, with the difference that while the agile fighters may be able to maneuver out of missile lock, the more cumbersome B1-R is doomed when engaged by missiles. To arguments of B1-R stealth, that too would be shot to hell the moment it fires its volley of missiles.
3. F22's stealth if it maintains until this close proximity would enable it to fire these heat seeking missiles, but again from this moment onwards their stealth would be neutralized and they are liable to be engaged by the enemy. With so many missiles flying around, there would be some Friendly Fire incidents of some sort.
4. The Situational Awareness and tactical awareness would not be lost for a well drilled air force unit working with an AWACS to the rear. All the missiles in the air, all the plotted aircrafts would be detected, also anomalies in radar, which could mean presence of stealth would also be detected. Sure heavy casualties can be borne upon enemy units, but in equal measures casualties would be taken

The question basically is, is it wise to gamble an expensive B1-R on such conventional air to air engagements, when they have their proven value in strategic bombing? B1-Rs are not invincible, neither are they invisible. These systems portrayed have never been tested against a high technology opponent - '91 Saddam definitely does not count among high tech opponent.

As regards the HCV and the SLV, as it is conceptualized right now, they are designed not as air field launched systems but missile launched. I have read a declassified Pentagon Briefing document which clearly shows the real application of FALCON. The conventional ballistic missile program I posted in my Chronicles a week or so back is based on this. I will upload the document and share the link here soon. The FALCON as described in that link has not even gone beyond conceptualization.

Here is the [url="http://gokul.eu5.org/Upload/falconsolicitationdraftrev1.pdf"]file[/url].

Btw in the RQ170 link, it states nothing about its stealth capabilities, other than just saying it is stealth. If it has an engine, if it has a radar, if it has anything metallic on it, it can be detected.

Edited by king of cochin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[i]Governor-Plenipotentiary Varrin von Coursca steps to the podium...[/i]

"Delusions of fantastical super-weapons have always been a major problem among world leadership, past and present. Even our own engineers here in the Commonwealth had such delusions when they attempted to affix approximately a dozen rail-guns to a single, decommissioned battleship and when another group of our engineers attempted to make a self-propelled artillery systems based on the rail-gun. These experiments failed miserably. We almost overloaded the reactor on that battleship and we couldn't make a reactor small enough for the artillery without having to run rather large extension cords to the nearest nuclear power plant. What we learn from these follies is to dream big, but not too big. We humans are, at the end of the day, limited by our knowledge of science and our mastery of nature -- each of which we have a tenuous grip on as far as I'm concerned.

That is all I have to say on the topic. I bid you adieu."

[i]...and once again, Governor-Plenipotentiary Coursca returns to his office and back to his seclusion amongst an uproar of flashing cameras and loud clamoring for questions.[/i]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='king of cochin' date='07 April 2010 - 03:19 AM' timestamp='1270624740' post='2251432']
Btw in the RQ170 link, it states nothing about its stealth capabilities, other than just saying it is stealth. If it has an engine, if it has a radar, if it has anything metallic on it, it can be detected.
[/quote]

The U.S. Government tends to have this policy about not letting to much of the cat out of the bag with current primary weapons systems that are in extensive use or planned for extensive use. Especially when it's such a high-tech concept. It is stealth, but they don't want anyone to know just how stealthy. I am going to go on the assumption since it's a small airframe with a very nice RAM coat and that probably doesn't need to fly at fantastic speeds that you probably aren't going to get a profile of that drone on any existing radar system produced to date. It'd be like trying to register a very big bird on radar.. except the bird does not have RAM coating.

Sure, if it has a radar on it and it's in active mode it can be detected, but if it jams at the same time it's running its radar then the probability you're going to find it among the noise is fantastically low.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' date='08 April 2010 - 05:46 AM' timestamp='1270685752' post='2252331']
The U.S. Government tends to have this policy about not letting to much of the cat out of the bag with current primary weapons systems that are in extensive use or planned for extensive use. Especially when it's such a high-tech concept. It is stealth, but they don't want anyone to know just how stealthy. I am going to go on the assumption since it's a small airframe with a very nice RAM coat and that probably doesn't need to fly at fantastic speeds that you probably aren't going to get a profile of that drone on any existing radar system produced to date. It'd be like trying to register a very big bird on radar.. except the bird does not have RAM coating.

Sure, if it has a radar on it and it's in active mode it can be detected, but if it jams at the same time it's running its radar then the probability you're going to find it among the noise is fantastically low.
[/quote]

Yes the cross section would be low, but frankly has these been ever tested against a real and powerful opponent rather than Talibans? Sure it can be electromagnetically masked, to a limit, but what about thermal detection? Especially since it has jet engine.

I am not saying that it is not stealthy, I am only saying stealth is not invincible. I doubt professional military men would trust the stealth capabilities of an aircraft blindly in a combat zone. Wrt high tech opponents like PRC or Russia, the stealth would find its true test, and not before. In CNRP Parlance, stealth would most definitely be breached in some way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A jet engine's output can be masked. There's an engine exhaust system the B-2 and many other planes used called "Black Hole Ocarina" which distributes heat throughout the interior airframe to cool the exhaust to outside temperatures before venting while not reducing thrusts. There's also other ways to get exhaust to outside temperatures before it leaves the airframe. The engine itself is nestled behind as much of the body of the airframe as possible. This makes thermal detection, especially if it's flying at low speeds where external friction is almost mood, nearly impossible as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...