NationStates

Gallia- wrote:

Oaledonia wrote:Nope, not like that.
It will beg the question: What constitutes a soul?

Souls are non-extant in an AI universe. o:

When machines can think like man, nothing separates the two.

Well, nothing besides an undying hatred of the flesh and burning desire to create everything in your own image, I suppose. AIs are never raised to be social animals.

Galla, sometimes I think you only think in 2D :<

Purpelia wrote:

Mozria wrote:Would it be possible to have a dual-purpose ATGM platform that can fire both ATGWs and SAMs? It wouldn't be using a radar or anything of the sort, as the SAMs would be infra-red seeking.

Does this fit your requirements?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defens ... ank_System

Yes, I would say that that would be rather close. However, I would be looking for a platform that could launch and control both sorts of missiles from the same launch tubes (80mm). Seeing that the CRV7 rocket (70mm) was a very powerful high-energy rocket that was used by the MMEV program and was capable of performing very well against AFVs, I would presume that a guided munition of similar specifications could be used against ground vehicles while the platform could also launch MANPADS missiles through the same tubes.

Would this idea work out? If so, could I possibly fit longer-range and more precise AA munitions into the launchers (example being a smaller LFK-NG ripoff)?

Oaledonia wrote:

Gallia- wrote:
Souls are non-extant in an AI universe. o:

When machines can think like man, nothing separates the two.

Well, nothing besides an undying hatred of the flesh and burning desire to create everything in your own image, I suppose. AIs are never raised to be social animals.

Galla, sometimes I think you only think in 2D :<

I think in 4D. black white hot cold

AIs are just 2D.

On or off.

Triplebaconation wrote:

Triplebaconation wrote:
Odd. Perhaps you have the scale wrong.

Ah. Just as I suspected. The one oddity is the nose, which I stole from an obscure Ted Nomura comic because I thought it looked cool. Since this is supposed to be a mediocre FT fighter I felt that was justified.

Well, that certainly helps with figuring out what the scale is. Seeing as it's FT, that changes things by a fair bit. The engines look like they're too small to me still, but it's plausible given that much technological advancement. The chimes also make sense if you want a very high speed and high altitude aircraft. I assumed this was an MT/PMT fighter when I laid into it, so I apologize for the misunderstanding.

That said, the wings are swept too much for their size FT or not. I say move the leading edge of the wing root forward to about where the F-16's anchors on that underlay and reduce the sweep of the trailing edge. That'll make it a tail-first delta, which would be much more aerodynamic. I'd also terminate the chimes before the radome to avoid interfering with radar operation.

Zeinbrad wrote:Mind helping me make the specs for it, and maybe, work on the Ragon craft for their elite squadrons?

Triplebaconation wrote:You'd probably be better off asking an expert like Velkanika.

I'm game. I'd say it maxes out at ~Mach 3.5-4 at around 100-120,000 feet altitude on Earth, just as a first guess from the limited art available (can't see the intake design or fuselage profile). You'll want to have variable-geometry intakes with precoolers to keep your engines operating for long periods of time. You'll also want internal weapon bays and heavy area ruling to minimize drag, and skin that can expand under prolonged heat. The SR-71 had corrugated skin so that it wouldn't buckle when it expanded at cruising speed. You also might want trapezoidal wings for hypersonic flight.

Velkanika wrote:

Zeinbrad wrote:So I have this bad boy (thanks to triplebackonnation for making it) the Type-57 Fighter Jet

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=19851087#p19851087

Here's the jet design, it looks small to me,does that hold any advantages? It is also armed with two 30mm autocannon,and has six or so hard points for missiles and all that good stuff.

This is the mainstay of the Ragon airforce, used by the non-elite squadrons.

The reason for two 30mm is because dogfighting is still a thing in this universe.

You only need one 30mm cannon. Two is just extra weight.

Only 6 missiles? That's borderline for a viable Air-to-Air missile load, you'd be better off with 8.

That cockpit has terrible visibility below the nose. Landing will be a very dangerous thing.

The engines look like they're only 10 feet long. Those are very small compared to other engines, and will probably give you crappy performance as such.

The wings are very small compared to the rest of the aircraft and don't generate much lift. This thing won't be able to turn for a damn even if those are massive chimes on the nose.

Small size isn't a bad thing in a fighter, but this aircraft isn't just small. The entire airframe shape is terrible for a fighter aircraft. Those petite little wings mean you're going to have a very high landing speed with a cockpit the pilot can't see the runway out of. They also mean your payload is going to be tiny, assuming you can even get it into the air with those under powered engines. This thing can't bring a fighting payload to the fight, can't turn, can't climb, can't run away, and can't hide from the enemy. It's a Widowmaker in the worst sense of the word for your pilots.

Mirage 4000 Mk. 3 uses 2 30mm cannons and pwns dumb other planes

i winnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Mozria wrote:

Purpelia wrote:Does this fit your requirements?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defens ... ank_System

Yes, I would say that that would be rather close. However, I would be looking for a platform that could launch and control both sorts of missiles from the same launch tubes (80mm). Seeing that the CRV7 rocket (70mm) was a very powerful high-energy rocket that was used by the MMEV program and was capable of performing very well against AFVs, I would presume that a guided munition of similar specifications could be used against ground vehicles while the platform could also launch MANPADS missiles through the same tubes.

Would this idea work out? If so, could I possibly fit longer-range and more precise AA munitions into the launchers (example being a smaller LFK-NG ripoff)?

Bofors RBS-70/Bolide combo.

Look it up.

It's what Hurty uses. Because it's pretty much jam-proof as a bullet.

Velkanika wrote:

Triplebaconation wrote:


Ah. Just as I suspected. The one oddity is the nose, which I stole from an obscure Ted Nomura comic because I thought it looked cool. Since this is supposed to be a mediocre FT fighter I felt that was justified.

Well, that certainly helps with figuring out what the scale is. Seeing as it's FT, that changes things by a fair bit. The engines look like they're too small to me still, but it's plausible given that much technological advancement. The chimes also make sense if you want a very high speed and high altitude aircraft. I assumed this was an MT/PMT fighter when I laid into it, so I apologize for the misunderstanding.

That said, the wings are swept too much for their size FT or not. I say move the leading edge of the wing root forward to about where the F-16's anchors on that underlay and reduce the sweep of the trailing edge. That'll make it a tail-first delta, which would be much more aerodynamic. I'd also terminate the chimes before the radome to avoid interfering with radar operation.

Zeinbrad wrote:Mind helping me make the specs for it, and maybe, work on the Ragon craft for their elite squadrons?

Triplebaconation wrote:You'd probably be better off asking an expert like Velkanika.

I'm game. I'd say it maxes out at ~Mach 3.5-4 at around 100-120,000 feet altitude on Earth, just as a first guess from the limited art available (can't see the intake design or fuselage profile). You'll want to have variable-geometry intakes with precoolers to keep your engines operating for long periods of time. You'll also want internal weapon bays and heavy area ruling to minimize drag, and skin that can expand under prolonged heat. The SR-71 had corrugated skin so that it wouldn't buckle when it expanded at cruising speed. You also might want trapezoidal wings for hypersonic flight.

Also a note, the Ragon aircraft are based on eastern aircraft, Gaians, western.

Okay. Not that I actually understood most of the things you where saying.

Chimes? What's that. When I searched it, I got these bell things they apparently put on airliners.

This is for the Boers after their little rebellion, but is a Stridsvagn 103 based tank good for ambushing and maybe flanking?

Hurtful Thoughts wrote:

Mozria wrote:Yes, I would say that that would be rather close. However, I would be looking for a platform that could launch and control both sorts of missiles from the same launch tubes (80mm). Seeing that the CRV7 rocket (70mm) was a very powerful high-energy rocket that was used by the MMEV program and was capable of performing very well against AFVs, I would presume that a guided munition of similar specifications could be used against ground vehicles while the platform could also launch MANPADS missiles through the same tubes.

Would this idea work out? If so, could I possibly fit longer-range and more precise AA munitions into the launchers (example being a smaller LFK-NG ripoff)?

Bofors RBS-70/Bolide combo.

Look it up.

It's what Hurty uses. Because it's pretty much jam-proof as a bullet.

Except against Shtora, I'd say. Perhaps, guidance versus ground could be radio-based SACLOS while a radar-slaved laser designator or simple independent IR tracking could be used versus air.

Shtora is worthless against beamrider missiles.

The Kievan People wrote:Shtora is worthless against beamrider missiles.

I was under the impression that it jammed laser emitters and sensors. It is a dazzler, after all.

Shtora is only good against old missiles like TOW and Sagger.

San-Silvacian wrote:

Velkanika wrote:You only need one 30mm cannon. Two is just extra weight.

Only 6 missiles? That's borderline for a viable Air-to-Air missile load, you'd be better off with 8.

That cockpit has terrible visibility below the nose. Landing will be a very dangerous thing.

The engines look like they're only 10 feet long. Those are very small compared to other engines, and will probably give you crappy performance as such.

The wings are very small compared to the rest of the aircraft and don't generate much lift. This thing won't be able to turn for a damn even if those are massive chimes on the nose.

Small size isn't a bad thing in a fighter, but this aircraft isn't just small. The entire airframe shape is terrible for a fighter aircraft. Those petite little wings mean you're going to have a very high landing speed with a cockpit the pilot can't see the runway out of. They also mean your payload is going to be tiny, assuming you can even get it into the air with those under powered engines. This thing can't bring a fighting payload to the fight, can't turn, can't climb, can't run away, and can't hide from the enemy. It's a Widowmaker in the worst sense of the word for your pilots.

Mirage 4000 Mk. 3 uses 2 30mm cannons and pwns dumb other planes

i winnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

A wild Mirage 4000 Mk.3 appears!

Type-25 SPAAG I choose you!

Type-25 SPAAG uses Surface-to-air missile!

It's super effective!

Mirage 400 Mk.3 faints!

You may kill me now.

Mozria wrote:

The Kievan People wrote:Shtora is worthless against beamrider missiles.

I was under the impression that it jammed laser emitters and sensors. It is a dazzler, after all.

Basically it drowns out the IR beacon on SACLOS missiles - the tracking unit doesn't know where the missile is anymore so it can't guide it.

Jamming a beamrider requires an actual dazzer strong enough to disorient the user for a few seconds.

Zeinbrad wrote:

Velkanika wrote:Well, that certainly helps with figuring out what the scale is. Seeing as it's FT, that changes things by a fair bit. The engines look like they're too small to me still, but it's plausible given that much technological advancement. The chimes also make sense if you want a very high speed and high altitude aircraft. I assumed this was an MT/PMT fighter when I laid into it, so I apologize for the misunderstanding.

That said, the wings are swept too much for their size FT or not. I say move the leading edge of the wing root forward to about where the F-16's anchors on that underlay and reduce the sweep of the trailing edge. That'll make it a tail-first delta, which would be much more aerodynamic. I'd also terminate the chimes before the radome to avoid interfering with radar operation.



I'm game. I'd say it maxes out at ~Mach 3.5-4 at around 100-120,000 feet altitude on Earth, just as a first guess from the limited art available (can't see the intake design or fuselage profile). You'll want to have variable-geometry intakes with precoolers to keep your engines operating for long periods of time. You'll also want internal weapon bays and heavy area ruling to minimize drag, and skin that can expand under prolonged heat. The SR-71 had corrugated skin so that it wouldn't buckle when it expanded at cruising speed. You also might want trapezoidal wings for hypersonic flight.

Also a note, the Ragon aircraft are based on eastern aircraft, Gaians, western.

Okay. Not that I actually understood most of the things you where saying.

Chimes? What's that. When I searched it, I got these bell things they apparently put on airliners.

I'd suggest more of a Robotech/Starblazers paradigm for what you seem to want.

Hurtful Thoughts wrote:

Mozria wrote:Yes, I would say that that would be rather close. However, I would be looking for a platform that could launch and control both sorts of missiles from the same launch tubes (80mm). Seeing that the CRV7 rocket (70mm) was a very powerful high-energy rocket that was used by the MMEV program and was capable of performing very well against AFVs, I would presume that a guided munition of similar specifications could be used against ground vehicles while the platform could also launch MANPADS missiles through the same tubes.

Would this idea work out? If so, could I possibly fit longer-range and more precise AA munitions into the launchers (example being a smaller LFK-NG ripoff)?

Bofors RBS-70/Bolide combo.

Look it up.

It's what Hurty uses. Because it's pretty much jam-proof as a bullet.

Anti-missile MANPADs, the lulz.

Zeinbrad wrote:

San-Silvacian wrote:
Mirage 4000 Mk. 3 uses 2 30mm cannons and pwns dumb other planes

i winnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

A wild Mirage 4000 Mk.3 appears!

Type-25 SPAAG I choose you!

Type-25 SPAAG uses Surface-to-air missile!

It's super effective!

Mirage 400 Mk.3 faints!

You may kill me now.

I also have 11 hard points and it uses modern weapons.

Also Mirage G, Mirage 2000, Rafale and Super Entendard and Jaguar when it comes to the Navy.

Gallia- wrote:

Oaledonia wrote:Well they aren't all going to be genocidal. The biggest section of that RP is going to be how the military copes with having young people who are rather innocent run the information. One of them is a big ol' crybaby.

If grim^dark fiction teaches us anything, all AIs are genocidal, and the ones that aren't soon will be. Remove weak flesh replace with STRONK steel.

I don't think AI's will explicitly seek humans out and destroy them.

We humans would without hesitation or remorse pave a road over an ant hill, but we generally do not actively seek such primitive creatures out and destroy them. Why would we? They are not even close to being capable of hurting or threatening us.

I have a friend who's an exterminator.

Gallia- wrote:Shtora is only good against old missiles like TOW and Sagger.

Does that also apply to the TOW-2 as well?

San-Silvacian wrote:

Zeinbrad wrote:A wild Mirage 4000 Mk.3 appears!

Type-25 SPAAG I choose you!

Type-25 SPAAG uses Surface-to-air missile!

It's super effective!

Mirage 400 Mk.3 faints!

You may kill me now.

I also have 11 hard points and it uses modern weapons.

Also Mirage G, Mirage 2000, Rafale and Super Entendard and Jaguar when it comes to the Navy.

I didn't know what a good number of hardpoints where okay. ;-;

Besides, when you can't trust 90% of your air force to not crash the plan while taking off, you really go hardcore on SPAAG designs.

Zeinbrad wrote:

San-Silvacian wrote:
I also have 11 hard points and it uses modern weapons.

Also Mirage G, Mirage 2000, Rafale and Super Entendard and Jaguar when it comes to the Navy.

I didn't know what a good number of hardpoints where okay. ;-;

Besides, when you can't trust 90% of your air force to not crash the plan while taking off, you really go hardcore on SPAAG designs.

Or.

Or.

Invest in a competent air force.

Triplebaconation wrote:I have a friend who's an exterminator.

Exterminators only take out animals that are harmful to humans in one way or another. They don't go after ant hills somewhere in the wilderness.

An AI would undoubtedly take over our natural resources e.g. steel. But I doubt an AI would be bothered by some human hunter-gatherers on some remote, resource-poor Pacific islands.

Tule wrote:

Gallia- wrote:
If grim^dark fiction teaches us anything, all AIs are genocidal, and the ones that aren't soon will be. Remove weak flesh replace with STRONK steel.

I don't think AI's will explicitly seek humans out and destroy them.

We humans would without hesitation or remorse pave a road over an ant hill, but we generally do not actively seek such primitive creatures out and destroy them. Why would we? They are not even close to being capable of hurting or threatening us.

Come to the Republic of Texas.

Then you will see ants who hurt you.

Tears will be shed. Manly tears. A Mexican will come with the gas, and kill all the larvae where they lay.

San-Silvacian wrote:

Zeinbrad wrote:I didn't know what a good number of hardpoints where okay. ;-;

Besides, when you can't trust 90% of your air force to not crash the plan while taking off, you really go hardcore on SPAAG designs.

Or.

Or.

Invest in a competent air force.

They try, but it's hard to make a competent air force, when your competition (The Thresians) have some of the best pilots in the galaxy.


The Thresian air force if like a entire branch of Red Barons.....

Tule wrote:

Triplebaconation wrote:I have a friend who's an exterminator.

Exterminators only take out animals that are harmful to humans in one way or another. They don't go after ant hills somewhere in the wilderness.

An AI would undoubtedly take over our natural resources e.g. steel. But I doubt an AI would be bothered by some human hunter-gatherers on some remote, resource-poor Pacific islands.

???