SD.Net World Redux Comment Thread IX

[Czechmate]

The 'six-engined hypercruising bomber' thing really is the giveaway.

[Steve]

Wow, I'm getting mod headaches again.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

You do realise there's a mountain of a difference between a B-70 and a stealth aircraft with a totally different airframe form>

You realize there's a mountain of difference between the B-3 (which is really a B-70 in disguise) and the B-4, which is the stealth bomber that stas is complaining about (as well)

No. The issue here is someone decided it was possible to make a claim that an aircraft the size and scale and design of a B-2 can push at MACH 2.2 which shite impossible with current tech, what even the F-22 cannot even hit that speed easily and the fact that you have to actually mount the engines in such a way to reduce thermal signature otherwise, your damn aircraft will be a fucking torch beacon for us to shoot down. Yeah, you guys have thought of that right?

Also, the cruise speed for the B-70 is MACH 3.0. Pushing it to MACH 3.5? Even the Blackbird couldn't sustain that sort of speed continuously if you are going to claim to be using that same tech.

[Czechmate]

On a different note, I want to double-check something. Did Shroom make the Scinfaxi, or was he just joking about it? I don't see it in his OOB, but then again he hasn't updated his OOB in a million years so I don't have updated information. Anybody got solid Shroomanian spy snappings I can peruse?

[PeZook]

On a different note, I want to double-check something. Did Shroom make the Scinfaxi, or was he just joking about it? I don't see it in his OOB, but then again he hasn't updated his OOB in a million years so I don't have updated information. Anybody got solid Shroomanian spy snappings I can peruse?

He uses the pictures as a stand-in for his (and mine, it's a joint project) Yer Mom class SSGNs, which in reality look a lot like the Ohio class, and don't resemble the Scinfaxi.

I just assume the pic is of an advanced prototype/test bed for the class

[Czechmate]

On a different note, I want to double-check something. Did Shroom make the Scinfaxi, or was he just joking about it? I don't see it in his OOB, but then again he hasn't updated his OOB in a million years so I don't have updated information. Anybody got solid Shroomanian spy snappings I can peruse?

He uses the pictures as a stand-in for his (and mine, it's a joint project) Yer Mom class SSGNs, which in reality look a lot like the Ohio class, and don't resemble the Scinfaxi.

I just assume the pic is of an advanced prototype/test bed for the class

Yay! Now I get to figure out how Scinfaxi & Hrimfaxi would actually work, so that in a couple-three game years when all the anschlussing is over I can make them.

EDIT: Mostly I think it'll just be fun to actually research what canon data there is and then figure out the details based on that.

[K. A. Pital]

YA RLY?

Yes, there is, unless you're willing to claim that the machine cannot achieve a higher speed than it's average cruise speed.

[Beowulf]

You do realise there's a mountain of a difference between a B-70 and a stealth aircraft with a totally different airframe form>

You realize there's a mountain of difference between the B-3 (which is really a B-70 in disguise) and the B-4, which is the stealth bomber that stas is complaining about (as well)

No. The issue here is someone decided it was possible to make a claim that an aircraft the size and scale and design of a B-2 can push at MACH 2.2 which shite impossible with current tech, what even the F-22 cannot even hit that speed easily and the fact that you have to actually mount the engines in such a way to reduce thermal signature otherwise, your damn aircraft will be a fucking torch beacon for us to shoot down. Yeah, you guys have thought of that right?

Also, the cruise speed for the B-70 is MACH 3.0. Pushing it to MACH 3.5? Even the Blackbird couldn't sustain that sort of speed continuously if you are going to claim to be using that same tech.

It's not the design of a B-2. It's similar, in that it's a flying wing (no tail, no fuselage), but is a planform known as a cranked kite. But, granted. I've adjusted the max and cruise speeds downward for the B-4.

The B-3 is extensively similar in design to the B-70 (to the point that you'd be able to use a picture of one accurately). However, it is 50 years more advanced in materials. The SR-71 can't maintain M3.5 continuously, because it's turbines (the actual turbine section of the J58, as opposed to the combuster or compressor) would melt. We've tremendously advanced in metallurgy since then. A .2 Mach increase isn't really a great increase in speed. (The SR-71 was authorized to go up to Mach 3.3 so long as the compressor inlet temperature did not exceed 427 degrees C. Faster than that, and other parts of the aircraft started to heat up too much, notably in the canopy area, IIRC.)

[Bluewolf]

OK this is going to be a bit of a potential blow to those who I am doing plots with but what would you think if I changed country to a newer one? I am just floating this idea. I can easily just continue or change plots and then move. I just want to know what you have to say. This is not a de facto choice and I am not abandoning those who I am doing plots with.

[Crossroads Inc.]

OK not to interrupt all this, But I am currently putting together a "Catalog" for my Primary Airship Company so other nations can place orders with me.
Currently the items up for sale are

Military:
An automated surveillance Airship, mostly solar powered , operates in the upper atmosphere, fully independent once launched.


Cargo:
Small Cargo transport, Hybrid Lifting Body design, compact and good for small companies.


Medium Cargo transport. Standard design, built for shipping containers, train containers or truck containers.


Large Cargo transport. Designed primarily for bulk shipping containers, built to land in sea as well as land for loading cargo for ports and Cargo ships,


Passenger
Primary Passenger design, room for over 800 passengers.


I am mostly wondering what "Prices" I should put on these things as well as if there is a thread for "catalogs" from nations who sell ships an such where I should put my finished version.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm not so interested in nitpicking the particular details of the B-70 Mark 2 performance, in fact, and even in Shep's list the cruise and top speed were different (from what I read, the projected top and cruise speed of the B-70 differed by 0.1 Mach, not too much).

OTH radars work on VHF frequencies. It is possible to create a stealth aircraft that will be stealthy against VHF radars (requires careful attention to detail, and having very few, large features on the aircraft, amongst others).

The problem is not only the frequency. And yes, like I said, detection is not prevented - the resolution of the radar merely goes down immensely against such a target. But regardless, for OTH distances even a resolution of 100 km versus the actual size of the object would still provide enough warning. The OTH radar is not expected to track the object precisely, actually. Well, aside from the obnoxiously capable Don-2NP, which as a fire control platform should operate against very small-RCS, high-flying objects like incoming ballistic RVs, and track them with enough precision to allow downing by ABMs.

The interesting thing about Mach 3+ aircraft is that you get more fuel efficient as you go faster (in terms of fuel burn/mile). Thus, you typically want to go as fast as you can. The net result is that your cruising speed is identical to your sustained maximum speed.

Nigh identical, but it's a matter of planned vs. actual capabilities. Usually, the actual machine can go faster than it's limits for a limited period of time until it starts hitting damage issues. If yourspeed are the same, that just means you put your safe cruise speed as your maximum speed. Not that the machine cannot go faster.

[Ryan Thunder]

Some Miratian vehicles rendered in Shipbucket-style.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

OK not to interrupt all this, But I am currently putting together a "Catalog" for my Primary Airship Company so other nations can place orders with me.
Currently the items up for sale are

I'm curious, but might you be interested in a tie-up with Byzantine Air McMillian? We do have our own stratellite and airship line, even though their host countries prefer faster jet powered aircraft.

[Ryan Thunder]

Ryan, that looks pretty fine. You also have obscene MRLS to AFV ratio, but I'm sure everyone told ya that already.

I have lots of rockets because I have lots of jungle for things to hide in and I figure that sometimes the best way to deal with something you don't know the precise location of is to simply level the grid square you think it's in.

By the way, what would a reasonable MRLS to AFV ratio be, anyway?

[Czechmate]

Sartorially Suspicious Shroomanian Soldiery!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GREEK_EVZONES.JPG

[PeZook]

Sartorially Suspicious Shroomanian Soldiery!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GREEK_EVZONES.JPG

That's suspicious? Maybe in Byzantium, but in Shroomania?

Nah.

[Czechmate]

It's certainly suspicious to non-shroomanian citizenry.

[Beowulf]

Next time you give a link to a paper, give a link to the paper: http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRec ... =ADA230534
The paper is theoretical in nature. No hardware was constructed. Even then, there are significant projected limitations (at 13.7 km altitude, projected detection range is about 4 km, in a fairly clean atmosphere. At 9km altitude, there is longer range possible. For a volcanic atmosphere (yes, that's what the maximum range results require), you do get fairly good performance... but you need a fresh volcanic eruption.
"It is apparent that none of the lidars are capable of detecting wakes in the clean tropopause and free tropospheric regions. This result in unfortunate since this area is the prime location for cruising aircraft. Also evident in these results is that it takes a mjoar volcanic eruption to provide sufficient signal level for wake detection in the stratosphere."
Also:
"the required pulse rate to scan a reasonable solid angle in reasonable amount of time would be, well, unreasonable. Even with the signal-to-noise ratio improvements discussed above, aircraft wake detection at high altitude ... does not appear practical."

Even beyond all that, it's effective a pencil beam that needs to be mechnically scanned, with a rather large (1 foot) aperature required. It's not conducive to actual wide area search, though for tracking or narrow search (already have a fairly good idea of the location), it should be doable...

[K. A. Pital]

How about miniature ice particles? Those should be plenty in the relatively cloudy layers and they are a good wake indicator according to the paper.

Also, I know it's "not practical" now and that it's a pencil search (and why not, I'll easily reduce the range to 10 km, after all it was a test).

I still await an explanation of how degrading an OTH radar's resolution in one or several particular stealth bands (don't give me that "wideband" crap) from 1 km to 10-20 km would constitute "efficiency".

[Bluewolf]

OK I am going to ask, what is an example of a good "second world" nation?

[Czechmate]

New Zealand The former Warsaw Pact.

[CmdrWilkens]

OK I am going to ask, what is an example of a good "second world" nation?

Small moment of clarity:
The 1st/2nd/3rd world dichotomy was a Cold War invention that breaks down as such:

1st World: Industrialized Western Bloc(US Sphere) Nations
2nd World Industrialized Eastern Bloc 9Soviet Sphere) Naitons
3rd World: Non-industrialized Nations


Obviously that is a hyper-simplification but the point is that it isn't a ranking system (though with 3rd world we tend to see it as such). If you want a hugely populous but growing 2nd world nation then go with China. More realistically just look at the 4 or 5 nations above and below your cutoff mark in terms of nominal GDP.

[Beowulf]

How about miniature ice particles? Those should be plenty in the relatively cloudy layers and they are a good wake indicator according to the paper.

Also, I know it's "not practical" now and that it's a pencil search (and why not, I'll easily reduce the range to 10 km, after all it was a test).

I still await an explanation of how degrading an OTH radar's resolution in one or several particular stealth bands (don't give me that "wideband" crap) from 1 km to 10-20 km would constitute "efficiency".

Oh, contrails would work just fine. You have to depend on atmospheric conditions being right for contrails to form, of course. I mean, you can see them from 13km away easy (that's just the vertical distance from the ground when you see one, let alone slant range to nearly the horizon)

As for stealth: certain ideas work on all frequencies (shaping) and some work best at higher frequencies (RAM). The B-4 is expressly designed to have good shaping, in order to decrease the radar cross section, and therefore decrease the signal to noise ratio that the receiver gets. Stealth never decreases resolution. It will always decrease detection range. Some shapes will have equally good high frequency RCS reduction, but massively different low frequency RCS reduction, because the low frequency radars need larger features to be able to see the shaping. The B-4, like the B-2 before it, is designed and shaped for reduced RCS even against low frequency radars. One of the clues is that all the edges are aligned with one of 4 (two on the B-2) angles, and that there isn't much of any actual features (F-22 has wings, h-stabs, v-stabs, inlets (with diverter), 2D vectoring exhaust, inlets, etc, vs. a flying wing with divertless inlets and a stealthy exhaust (preceeding is a non-exhaustive list of what could be termed features, which is essentially anything that's not flat)).

Additionally, the Don-2NP radar is not a OTH radar. It's a fairly standard(ish) 3D phased array radar. A bit of simple thought will reveal why OTH radar sets are always going to be 2D search. The issue with OTH radar resolution is one of beamwidth. You can only get the beam so tightly focused, and when you get 1000km down range, even a 1/2 degree beam width is nearly 10km across. That is why OTH radars have crappy resolution. It's got little to do with the strength of the reflection, which affects detection range, like ALL other radars are affected.

[K. A. Pital]

Stealth never decreases resolution. It will always decrease detection range.

Okay, so if an OTH radar can pick out a ballistic missile head flying at a particular range, which has neglible RCS (and has essentially no outstanding features to speak of), so can it pick out a bomber, no matter the crappy resolution. I have not heard of the B-2 being somehow immune to detection by OTH radars.

I also haven't heard of why exactly would a radar that is capable of picking out featureless objects with an RCS on the order of 0,01 m. sq. like missiles be unable to pick out the airplane, no matter how crappy the resolution.

Finally, you're right - coating for low frequencies is a bad idea, since the materials are heavy and unwieldy. So the only protective measure is shape, and shape alone cannot reduce an object's RCS to nigh zer, or to be more precise to a level where it would not be detected. Sorry.

[Zwinmar]

been away for a bit, been moving and finally got the net back up