StarDestroyer.Net BBS

MariusRoi wrote:

Ryan Thunder wrote:Well I haven't really announced it, so I'm going to pretend I was researching submersible helicopter assault carriers instead. Does anybody want to set up a deal building them?

Why not just go all out and get Nuclear Powered Hydrofoil Battleships?

Yes yes. At least that is workable. Submersible carriers are not.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

MariusRoi wrote:Why not just go all out and get Nuclear Powered Hydrofoil Battleships?

Yes yes. At least that is workable. Submersible carriers are not.

Yep, but not if we want them to have 12 18" guns, 300 missiles, AEGIS, 3 feet of armor, is stealthy, and doesn't weigh more than 100 tons, then we get into the same ball park.

For the record Ryan Thunder - a Simple submersible Invincible equivalent was figured to cost bout 32.2 billion.

MariusRoi wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

MariusRoi wrote:Why not just go all out and get Nuclear Powered Hydrofoil Battleships?

Yes yes. At least that is workable. Submersible carriers are not.

Yep, but not if we want them to have 12 18" guns, 300 missiles, AEGIS, 3 feet of armor, is stealthy, and doesn't weigh more than 100 tons, then we get into the same ball park.

That's probably why the idea of a hydrofoil never went off beyond a small corvette or fast patrol craft.

On the other hand, Catamarans might be more affordable.

Karmic Knight wrote:

Step 7: Industry!

Step 8: ???

Step 9: Profit!

Corrected that.

Well, unlike underwear, industry leads directly to profit, so step 8 is unnecessary

Karmic Knight wrote:Also, I have a question about the flights, is there a reason you put the Communist and the Hypercapitalist in the same flight team?

For the lulz, of course! Call it an assingment screwup.

Or I'll make a post where they get along fabulously!

PeZook wrote:For the lulz, of course! Call it an assingment screwup.

Or I'll make a post where they get along fabulously!

Someone once told me that a bunch of PRC students attending American Econ 101 kind of violently disagreed with a number of assumptions laid out in the class.

President Stanislav makes pompous "humanity use artificial evolution to better self" speech to hide some new expenses for the heavy ... erm, military industry.

COMMUNE-1 is slowly growing. Population control key to maintaining it as a shining "communist city" on the hill, most problems are never explicitly reported to the outside world

Stas Bush wrote:President Stanislav makes pompous "humanity use artificial evolution to better self" speech to hide some new expenses for the heavy ... erm, military industry.

COMMUNE-1 is slowly growing. Population control key to maintaining it as a shining "communist city" on the hill, most problems are never explicitly reported to the outside world

What of the fusion reactor I am constructing there?

I presumed it's still under construction. After all, sustainable fusion is a hard nut to crack even with the enormous resources SDN world has, a tough R&D issue, which can't be solved by just throwing money at it. Time and scientific advances are of great importance.

Stas Bush wrote:I presumed it's still under construction. After all, sustainable fusion is a hard nut to crack even with the enormous resources SDN world has, a tough R&D issue, which can't be solved by just throwing money at it. Time and scientific advances are of great importance.

True. The timeline for construction was something like 5 years or so and it started .. 2-3 years thereabouts.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote: Someone once told me that a bunch of PRC students attending American Econ 101 kind of violently disagreed with a number of assumptions laid out in the class.

It's a good thing they're not gonna be listening to econ classes up there, then

PeZook wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote: Someone once told me that a bunch of PRC students attending American Econ 101 kind of violently disagreed with a number of assumptions laid out in the class.

It's a good thing they're not gonna be listening to econ classes up there, then

But economics is one of the big distinguishing factors between a capitalist and a communist state.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:But economics is one of the big distinguishing factors between a capitalist and a communist state.

Really?

Zor, I wouldn't mind buying ore from you. Any metals that you can lay your hands on. Need to supply my existing supplies...

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Zor, I wouldn't mind buying ore from you. Any metals that you can lay your hands on. Need to supply my existing supplies...

The Zorian People welcome Byzantine commerce and RMM would be glad to sell you some of it's ore.

Zor

Zor wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Zor, I wouldn't mind buying ore from you. Any metals that you can lay your hands on. Need to supply my existing supplies...

The Zorian People welcome Byzantine commerce and RMM would be glad to sell you some of it's ore.

Zor

I'll write up something later then.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:You might want to search for a thread on submersible carriers. I hope you are in the HAB.

That's a negative, though I should probably join. I do find that stuff interesting.

MariusRoi wrote:

Ryan Thunder wrote:Well I haven't really announced it, so I'm going to pretend I was researching submersible helicopter assault carriers instead. Does anybody want to set up a deal building them?

Why not just go all out and get Nuclear Powered Hydrofoil Battleships?

Yes yes. At least that is workable. Submersible carriers are not.

So you're pretty much telling me that anything we have already is there because it is entirely practical and efficient, and anything outside of that is easily defeated and/or pointless. How fucking boring is that? How's the leader of an (incredibly wealthy) third-world weapons-designing country supposed to feed his constituency when there's nothing new to build?

I don't suppose anybody wants VTOL jet gunships, either, right?

I don't suppose anybody wants VTOL jet gunships, either, right?

Why not? That can have merits if it's mass produced and reliable enough in operation.

Submersible carriers are also interesting, you shouldn't just drop the issue because people tell you so

Stas Bush wrote:

I don't suppose anybody wants VTOL jet gunships, either, right?

Why not? That can have merits if it's mass produced and reliable enough in operation.

Submersible carriers are also interesting, you shouldn't just drop the issue because people tell you so

Well, no one is stopping him from bankrupting his economy with a carrier that will cost 30 billion, along with with probably double the research cost...

Stas Bush wrote:

I don't suppose anybody wants VTOL jet gunships, either, right?

Why not? That can have merits if it's mass produced and reliable enough in operation.

I thought so, but I figured the same would be true of SCVs. Then people just said "uh, no... realistically thats useless."

Submersible carriers are also interesting, you shouldn't just drop the issue because people tell you so

Well, I need a market for something like that. If nobody wants to produce them, I've just spent billions of dollars developing an item that's totally worthless to me because I don't even have a coastline, much less a real navy. See?

Ryan Thunder wrote:Well, I need a market for something like that. If nobody wants to produce them, I've just spent billions of dollars developing an item that's totally worthless to me because I don't even have a coastline, much less a real navy. See?

I think you really ought to check out the size of the beast of a carrier. I think Stuart calculated it would be akin to two or more Typhoon SSBNs, and a whole host of safety issues. How do you plan to squeeze that through a river?

As for the VTOL jet gunships, that might have some use, provided it is at least better than the Harrier.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

Ryan Thunder wrote:Well, I need a market for something like that. If nobody wants to produce them, I've just spent billions of dollars developing an item that's totally worthless to me because I don't even have a coastline, much less a real navy. See?

I think you really ought to check out the size of the beast of a carrier. I think Stuart calculated it would be akin to two or more Typhoon SSBNs, and a whole host of safety issues.

How does one do that?

It would most certainly be the largest military submarine on earth, were it built. On the other hand, with a few nuclear reactors it could stay underwater for months and be virtually impossible to track.

How do you plan to squeeze that through a river?

I don't. I was going to license out production rights to whoever wants to build one.

As for the VTOL jet gunships, that might have some use, provided it is at least better than the Harrier.

It'd be closer to a streamlined V-22 than a Harrier, actually, with a computer-assisted control system to help with transitions (So the pilot uses the controller to tell the plane what he wants, the computer does its best to comply. This technology allowed a pilot to land an F-18 with a missing wing on one occasion, IIRC.)
It could carry a heavier payload than a helicopter of similar size due to greater thrust provided by the jets. With vectored thrust from the jets it would also be more maneuverable, and faster as well. Fuel would be the largest issue, I think.

Yak-141 is a decent VTOL fighter, but designing a gunship? Some sort of VTOL Hinds like in Red Alert might actually be a good idea. Can't believe i'm saying it

As for submarine carrier, something the size of a Typhoon can carry around 10-12 planes, which is sadly a very small wing. Of course, if you carry a decent VTOL fighter or gunship, the small wing might be justified...

Ryan Thunder wrote:How does one do that?

Many many reasons. To start with, no steel exists that allows you to make a simple two pressure hulled configuration. I remember the picture had something like 8 large pressure hulls.

Then there were the safety issues. Aircraft jet fuel is extremely combustible at high pressures. Too much accumulation will lead to many bad things. There's a lot of piping required, further complicating matters. Never mind if you have a fire in the hanger, I think that boat might be lost.

It would most certainly be the largest military submarine on earth, were it built. On the other hand, with a few nuclear reactors it could stay underwater for months and be virtually impossible to track.

Another problem Stuart raised, even if it's impossible to track, it's going to be bloody slow. Ping away with active sonar, and then lob an ASW, and poof goes 30 billion. And also, you have to surface just to launch aircraft, introducing more vulnerability.

I don't. I was going to license out production rights to whoever wants to build one.

OK... Just that I don't think I will dare to build such a monstrosity. The insurance bill will be huge.

It'd be closer to a streamlined V-22 than a Harrier, actually, with a computer-assisted control system to help with transitions (So the pilot uses the controller to tell the plane what he wants, the computer does its best to comply. This technology allowed a pilot to land an F-18 with a missing wing on one occasion, IIRC.)

Please ditch that hybrid system and stick to the standard VSTOL configuration as in the Harrier. A lot of the lack of reliabilities in the V-22 is because of that absurd configuration that requires a very sophisticated flight computer to fly.

Ryan Thunder wrote:
It would most certainly be the largest military submarine on earth, were it built. On the other hand, with a few nuclear reactors it could stay underwater for months and be virtually impossible to track.

Nothing at least twice the size of a Typhoon is "virtually impossible to track".

I don't. I was going to license out production rights to whoever wants to build one.

Did you know that "early adopter" is a synonym for "sucker"?

It'd be closer to a streamlined V-22 than a Harrier, actually, with a computer-assisted control system to help with transitions (So the pilot uses the controller to tell the plane what he wants, the computer does its best to comply. This technology allowed a pilot to land an F-18 with a missing wing on one occasion, IIRC.)
It could carry a heavier payload than a helicopter of similar size due to greater thrust provided by the jets. With vectored thrust from the jets it would also be more maneuverable, and faster as well. Fuel would be the largest issue, I think.

Knock yourself out. But the sad thing is, in an attempt to break into a saturated arms market you've moved past "novel" and entered the realm of the bizarre.

Stas Bush wrote:Yak-141 is a decent VTOL fighter, but designing a gunship? Some sort of VTOL Hinds like in Red Alert might actually be a good idea. Can't believe i'm saying it

As for submarine carrier, something the size of a Typhoon can carry around 10-12 planes, which is sadly a very small wing. Of course, if you carry a decent VTOL fighter or gunship, the small wing might be justified...

10-12 planes? I think less. Like 6. Volume must be set aside for a machine shop, fuel tanks, elevators, ammunition etc. 10-12 planes will probably be pushing it.

VTOL Hinds in RA2 are possible. I remember that there were attempts to fit 105mm artillery to... Chinooks? I think Shep posted up that one.