Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[New Vihenia]

Ah, so what would be more reasonable for a large-scale Flying Wing? 30 meters or so?

The biggest your industry can produce. Producing lolhuge aircraft basically requires new industrial base and construction hall to support it. Plus plan on where it will take off and land. and of course it need a mission.

----------
regarding high altitude flight. yes, flying wing would be optimum. Notice that all high altitude aircraft have large aspect ratio wing.. U-2, M-55, Grob.

[Laritaia]

the materials science to make an aircraft of scale simply does not currently exist .

Ah, so what would be more reasonable for a large-scale Flying Wing? 30 meters or so?

you're approaching the problem from the wrong direction.

The question isn't "how big an aircraft can I make" it's "how big an aircraft do I need"

[Kassaran]

Ah, so what would be more reasonable for a large-scale Flying Wing? 30 meters or so?

you're approaching the problem from the wrong direction.

The question isn't "how big an aircraft can I make" it's "how big an aircraft do I need"

Well, a loiter time of well into 18+ hours would be ideal, plus being big enough to house all of the sensor equipment and personnel required to man said equipment. I was thinking that a flying wing would be optimum at high enough altitudes, the issue would be initial takeoff and possibly landing so I wanted a stable enough chassis for perhaps that. I wouldn't expect big or gratuitous maneuvers given that there would likely only be ten or so of these made in total, but I do have well into 4,000km² of territory to cover (most of it water, hence needing the long range and loiter time).

[Purpelia]

Why not just go all ham and have an atomic AWACS? What can possibly go wrong?

[Kassaran]

Why not just go all ham and have an atomic AWACS? What can possibly go wrong?

Why would I go atomic, are atomic aircraft a thing? Is that even feasible? Like, aren't them some serious personnel requirements for that, not to mention that it'd probably be more immediately expensive than just a traditional aircraft?

[The Corparation]

Why not just go all ham and have an atomic AWACS? What can possibly go wrong?

Why would I go atomic, are atomic aircraft a thing? Is that even feasible? Like, aren't them some serious personnel requirements for that, not to mention that it'd probably be more immediately expensive than just a traditional aircraft?

They would have been a thing if air-to-air refueling and ICBMs weren't invented. As for crew requirements, operating an aircraft reactor wouldn't require all that many additional flight crew. You'd be going from the 777's crew of 2 to maybe 4 to 6 at most with the reactor crew. (Not including relief crew of course). And yes it would be more expensive than a traditional aircraft.

[The Northernmost Americas]

Any thoughts on the TSAT program? How big of a jump in capability was it compared to current satellite systems?

[Purpelia]

Why not just go all ham and have an atomic AWACS? What can possibly go wrong?

Why would I go atomic, are atomic aircraft a thing? Is that even feasible? Like, aren't them some serious personnel requirements for that, not to mention that it'd probably be more immediately expensive than just a traditional aircraft?

Because if you are going to go all ham you might as well go for the biggest ham out there.

[Kassaran]

Why would I go atomic, are atomic aircraft a thing? Is that even feasible? Like, aren't them some serious personnel requirements for that, not to mention that it'd probably be more immediately expensive than just a traditional aircraft?

Because if you are going to go all ham you might as well go for the biggest ham out there.

Alright, how long can an atomic aircraft remain airborne?

[Purpelia]

Because if you are going to go all ham you might as well go for the biggest ham out there.

Alright, how long can an atomic aircraft remain airborne?

Until your food and water supplies run out.

[Laritaia]

Because if you are going to go all ham you might as well go for the biggest ham out there.

Alright, how long can an atomic aircraft remain airborne?

As long as it has sufficient supplies of consumables.

[Kassaran]

Oh jaysus, really?

[New Visegrad]

Alright, how long can an atomic aircraft remain airborne?

As long as it has sufficient supplies of consumables.

*Assuming no mechanical failures.

[Kassaran]

As long as it has sufficient supplies of consumables.

*Assuming no mechanical failures.

And if I'm at high altitude with this thing, the radome should be beneath the craft, right? I'm sketching out a design right now. :\

[Purpelia]

*Assuming no mechanical failures.

And if I'm at high altitude with this thing, the radome should be beneath the craft, right? I'm sketching out a design right now. :\

No. Wheels should be beneath your aircraft. Sooner or later it is going to run out of fuel and water or the crew will die of old age and you will want it to land. And if that happens you cant well land on top of a fragile antenna array.

Well you can. But it's going to wreck the aircraft.

[Connori Pilgrims]

*Assuming no mechanical failures.

And if I'm at high altitude with this thing, the radome should be beneath the craft, right? I'm sketching out a design right now. :\

Given the size of this leviathan, why not conformal arrays built into the giant fuselage or wings?

[New Chilokver]

What about a much smaller nuclear powered AWACS UAV that you could have patrolling the borders of your nation for weeks at a time?

[Spirit of Hope]

What about a much smaller nuclear powered AWACS UAV that you could have patrolling the borders of your nation for weeks at a time?

If it is nuclear you need a crew on board to monitor and control the reactor, so a nuclear UAV is kinda out.

[Tinder Enthusiasts]

What about a much smaller nuclear powered AWACS UAV that you could have patrolling the borders of your nation for weeks at a time?

If it is nuclear you need a crew on board to monitor and control the reactor, so a nuclear UAV is kinda out.

The reactor can be controlled and monitored by a ground crew like the rest of the UAV. I think you'll find the majority of the world's reactors are remotely controlled in one way or another; handling the control mechanisms directly isn't good for your health!

[Spirit of Hope]

If it is nuclear you need a crew on board to monitor and control the reactor, so a nuclear UAV is kinda out.

The reactor can be controlled and monitored by a ground crew like the rest of the UAV. I think you'll find the majority of the world's reactors are remotely controlled in one way or another; handling the control mechanisms directly isn't good for your health!

I think you will note there are some critical differences between remote controlling a nuclear system on a UAV and the remote control operations on other reactors. Critically the time between command and implementation, there is a reason why the control centers for reactors are physically close to the actual reactor and have direct hard line connections. Since this is a military aircraft the fallow up would be "what if the enemy jams your connection?" Not you have an un-monitored nuclear reactor on top of a crashing aircraft.

Additionally UAV's still have a very high crash rate vs. regular aircraft, not something you want when the UAV will be carrying nuclear material.

[The Corparation]

I really need to finish the write-up for my AEW/EW/Airborne Command post LRNSA Variant.

[Purpelia]

IIRC NASA was developing a nuclear reactor for their Icy Moons Orbiter proposal that would have been in operation for years without anything but remote assistance. So it is not inconceivable that such a thing could be put on an UAV.

[The Kievan People]

The reactor can be controlled and monitored by a ground crew like the rest of the UAV. I think you'll find the majority of the world's reactors are remotely controlled in one way or another; handling the control mechanisms directly isn't good for your health!

Aerial refueling.

Just because you have infinite fuel does not mean you can fly for weeks. Jet turbines cannot run for weeks on end.

[Spirit of Hope]

IIRC NASA was developing a nuclear reactor for their Icy Moons Orbiter proposal that would have been in operation for years without anything but remote assistance. So it is not inconceivable that such a thing could be put on an UAV.

There are significant differences between an orbiter and a UAV, especially a military one. Most obviously is where the nuclear material would be if there was an emergency, the UAV would be crashing on the planet the orbiter would be out by Jupiter. There aren't a lot of people, animals or other things out by Jupiter that would be severely effected by nuclear materials, the same can not be said about the earth (even NS earth). Secondly a rocket and a UAV are two very different beasts when it comes to control, UAV's have a very high accident rate and are much harder to control. Thus the chances of an accident that would spread nuclear material all over the place are much higher for the UAV. Finally we must remember that this is for a military AWAC UAV, which means an enemy may attempt to disable it through jamming, which is an issue NASA probably didn't have to worry about.

Could you theoretically put a nuclear reactor in a UAV? Sure. Is it a good idea? No.

[Purpelia]

Could you theoretically put a nuclear reactor in a UAV? Sure. Is it a good idea? No.

Can't argue with that.