Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Husseinarti]

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.

Would it be cool as fuck? Yes.

Thats I need. Fuck reason.

[Kassaran]

Well, I like the idea for this craft already. About a seventy meter wingspan is what I'm thinking, so conformal arrays within the craft would be very likely, but thinking about it I might ditch the flying wing design and go for a closed wing design with an AESA array in the rear cojoined tailplane. It'd still share a similar profile to a flying wing, wide and flat, but the closed wing would be more effective at high altitudes, no? It also should afford me some extra space for some extra goodies, right?

[The Corparation]

Are closed wings actually better at high altitudes? The only things I've read on them is that they help reduce drag regardless of altitude. I forget what the trade-offs are though. Pretty much every "more effective" design you can go with for an aircraft has trade-offs.

[Kassaran]

Are closed wings actually better at high altitudes? The only things I've read on them is that they help reduce drag regardless of altitude. I forget what the trade-offs are though. Pretty much every "more effective" design you can go with for an aircraft has trade-offs.

I'm thinking that they likely are, less air up high so the more lift you can generate, the better. Of course you have other forms of drag in the shape of friction and aeroelasticity (ripped straight from the wiki), but for larger aircraft it's theoretically possible to make them more efficient at doing their job, being big and flying high.

From what I've seen, civilian airliners appear to be the basic chassis for most of the larger AEW craft so why not take a theoretical design plant for a civilian aircraft and go straight in with it being an AEW, assuming of course that the math and the reasons behind it existing aren't just someone's pipedream they refuse to let die. I think from the what the studies show, the main point behind closed wings is having a smaller technical wingspan while maintaining the same wing area, and while I'm not heading for a smaller wingspan, it goes to show that perhaps if I'm not going for smaller wingspan, I can go for the same size with more added on, especially given that I am planning to make it a nuclear-powered aircraft. Come to think of it, a nuclear-powered closed-wing design might be the most optimal for PMT given the advances in propulsion people love to claim.

[The Akasha Colony]

Muh AEW:



Added electronics and antennas and shit. Still working on it.

[The Kievan People]

If it has an AESA instead of a rotodome, two points of attachment would probably be more stable.

[Rhodesialund]

Muh AEW:

([url=http://iiwiki.com/images/thumb/1/1a/RES282.png/800px-RES282.png]Image)[/url]

Added electronics and antennas and shit. Still working on it.

Does it have a receptacle for accepting a refueling boom? It should have one.

[The Akasha Colony]

If it has an AESA instead of a rotodome, two points of attachment would probably be more stable.

It's an AESA; right now it's got the same arrangement as E-3 for the struts but it looks like the A310 AEW just added a third tripod leg, would that suffice for additional longitudinal stability?

I might lower the radome a bit; adding a third strut might make it look awkward.

Muh AEW:

([url=http://iiwiki.com/images/thumb/1/1a/RES282.png/800px-RES282.png]Image)[/url]

Added electronics and antennas and shit. Still working on it.

Does it have a receptacle for accepting a refueling boom? It should have one.

It does, but you can't see it since it's on top, just above the cockpit. I may add markings for it at some point but they weren't a high priority given the complicated curvature and the effect it would have on trying to draw it in that spot.

[The Kievan People]

It should be fine.

I was thinking along the lines of the Erieye.

[The Akasha Colony]

It should be fine.

I was thinking along the lines of the Erieye.

I was considering a 737 Wedgetail arrangement but honestly I went with this one since I just like the appearance, even though an Erieye or Wedgetail arrangement would provide reduced drag.

[Allanea]

Relevant ITT.

[The Corparation]

Relevant ITT.

Summary of the paper in question for those interested but too lazy to click through a link of sources

[The Akasha Colony]

Updated:


Might make the struts thicker, trying to get the proportions right. And properly iron out role and manning requirements.

[Tinder Enthusiasts]

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.

There are many, many reasons and that one of which is so far down the list that it is quite bewildering to see it being presented as a univeral truth in the remote operation of nuclear reactors. The delay in data reception is not as big of an issue as you paint it, my friend.

[United Earthlings]

Working on some AEW&C fun.

(Image)

It's still a WIP and more details are being added but I figured I'd post it to see if anything is egregiously wrong with it. I uses the same airframe as my large 777-equivalent twinjet, so it's probably larger than needed but it's the only airliner I have drawn at the moment. The radome is a fixed triangular design with the usual AESA faces inside. Still working on adding more exterior features, and figuring out what else might be worth adding to use up more of the space.

I understand the OC reasons, but I'd be curious on the IC reasons you've determined on why your armed forces ended up selecting to use the 777 airframe vs some other platform for ex. the 767.

That makes at least three of us now {see post below} that at one point or another have decided to use the triple 7 airframe in some military form or another.

Personally, after weighing the various results and outcomes based on cost, development time between a RFP and IOC and other various variables that would need to be taken into account like say base infrastructure improvement to handle the larger 777 airframe, I went with a split between various platforms or upgrading existing ones to add new capabilities.

On the AWACS/AEW&C front, I decided to go with a hi-lo mix of the 767 AWACS as the hi platform and once I make the full determination either the 737 Wedgetail, something like the E-99 or even just procuring more E-2C/Ds for dual Naval/Air Force use as a cheaper counterpart to complement the E-3 {being retired}/E-767.

(Almost made my own group of support aircraft based off of the 777-200LR. Decided on 787-9 instead).

While, initially I was going to also make a whole fleet of support aircraft based off the 777-200LR, I've since toned it down to just two maybe three variants depending on if a replacement for the retired E4Bs is necessary. The two main variants are an Executive Transport for my nation's head of state and/or head of government and an MRTT/Tanker version to complement the KC-767 my nation already operates.

[United States of PA]

(Almost made my own group of support aircraft based off of the 777-200LR. Decided on 787-9 instead).

While, initially I was going to also make a whole fleet of support aircraft based off the 777-200LR, I've since toned it down to just two maybe three variants depending on if a replacement for the retired E4Bs is necessary. The two main variants are an Executive Transport for my nation's head of state and/or head of government and an MRTT/Tanker version to complement the KC-767 my nation already operates.

At the time, the 200LR was considered by me due to the longer base range (which i viewed as a big plus for the size of NSEarth) of the aircraft. I forget what ultimately made me decide on the 787-9, it was 5 years ago or so. ICly most of my support aircraft are 787 based, with a few exceptions (TACAMO, National Command Aircraft, Presidential Transport) are A380 based as of right now.

[United Earthlings]

At the time, the 200LR was considered by me due to the longer base range (which i viewed as a big plus for the size of NSEarth) of the aircraft.

Same here, base cost and what I figured would be less maintenance overhead also contributed, two engines vs say four in regard to the 747.

I forget what ultimately made me decide on the 787-9, it was 5 years ago or so. ICly most of my support aircraft are 787 based, with a few exceptions (TACAMO, National Command Aircraft, Presidential Transport) are A380 based as of right now.

You sure about spending those millions if not billions of additional development dollars plus waiting potentially a decade or so before those numerous variants of 787s achieve IOC?

Granted, nobodies NS military-industrial complex is probably as dysfunctional as the US one has been, but still it usually takes years of testing a new aircraft platform especially a custom military one. Add in the fact depending on how NS connected your nation is to parallel real world events and on what time scale your nation observes in relation to those events, but considering the 787-9 model only entered service two years ago and you would be competing with civil customers for custom models, I’d estimate you’d be waiting till at least 2018 before the first 787 entered IOC. On the flip side, by 2018 my nation would have already acquired hundreds of MRTT/AWACS variants of said 767 and probably developed more variants to bring into service for example replacing the entire active RC-135 family with a 767 counterpart.

[Eclixia]

Is the concept of a supersonic seaplane (essentially a fighter jet which takes off and lands on water) in any way feasible? I know that the Americans tried in the 50s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F2Y_Sea_Dart) to create one but cancelled the project with only 5 models, with one at one point going faster than Mach 1. They also thought about launching these from submarine aircraft carriers. Could this be useful in modern times?

[Taihei Tengoku]

In the end it was much easier to move an airfield (i.e. the carrier) to the front rather than to create an entire class of floatplane fighters to fight where there was no airfield. The Japanese did this in WW2 with their fighters--which crippled the performance of otherwise excellent planes.

[-Aztlan-]

The Italians have come up with a new toy. V-22 AEW can be a thing?

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /83943310/

[Kassaran]

Is the concept of a supersonic seaplane (essentially a fighter jet which takes off and lands on water) in any way feasible?

Yes, yes it is.

I know that the Americans tried in the 50s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F2Y_Sea_Dart) to create one but cancelled the project with only 5 models, with one at one point going faster than Mach 1.

They didn't try, they did. Like you said, they made five working prototypes, one of which even passed the sound barrier, which leads into the question of then why did they cancel the project? They made five models mind you, that's even more than the legendary myth-plane, the CF-105 Arrow, so there's no way this was in any way more expensive a project.

The Wiki article alone gives three major reasons why this aircraft was abandoned:

1) Underpowered engines making the airframe sluggish

2) Suboptimal shock-absorption from the Oleo legs the hydro-skis.

3) Poor Public Relations

The suboptimal engines in the prototypes rendered the airframe underwhelmingly responsive and for good reason. When an aircraft is designed by engineers, often times they go with what they feel they should have in their design and not with what they'll get in their design. They leave it to the program directors to obtain the resources they need to do their work. Engineers designed the Sea Dart with the projected hopes of being able to make the design able to move into the supersonic realm, no doubt, but with the sub-optimal engines that hope was quickly quashed and it was only in a shallow dive that the design managed to actually obtain supersonic speeds.

As we move into the skis themselves, they not only represent an issue, but also a whole new set of problems. Not only did they have to extend into the water as the craft was moving, but also resist the shock of bouncing or (hopefully and more likely) skipping across the surface of the ocean. Why is this an issue? Because shock and stress on the airframe of an aircraft make it weaker and overall a more limited design, not to mention, but the shock-absorption required likely couldn't be distributed to the whole aircraft equally. In fact, more than likely it would have unequally forced the craft's most crucial aspects (the wings upon which it rested in the water) to bear the brunt unnecessarily making the whole design more unwieldy than it should have been. Sub-par shock absorption was present however which makes me feel that this next point did a lot more than drive the final nail into the coffin of the sea dart.

Bad press coverage. Simple enough to make anything weak and ineffective in spite of the results it may be capable of achieving. While trying to show off their new toy to the people who would ultimately be approving this project for further funding (more than likely), the craft broke apart in midair, the pilot having accidentally overstepped the airframes limited boundaries. No pilot does this on purpose, so if a veteran test pilot managed to do it, what would people ultimately think about the design in the end? Widow-maker. Bad press kills even the greatest of inventions or ideas in spite of their potential and obvious short-road risks and for what can be perceived as good reason. This very much public accident not only served as the hammer and nail through the final corner in the coffin, but also the knife plunged into its heart to kill the program in its infancy.

They also thought about launching these from submarine aircraft carriers.

While this is not the YNWS Thread, I feel that it should be stated that submersible aircraft carriers face a whole host of issues far beyond what any fleet should have to ever put up with. First of all, a submersible aircraft carrier will never be able to dive deep, the simple fact that it must have an access point somewhere is its weakness because holes in hulls make for good targets and excellent cripple-points. A submarine relies on its ability to not be seen to get its job done, like a spy or saboteur which, funnily enough, is the job they oft work as. A carrier relies on its ability to be noticeable in where it goes as a force-projection vehicle, the force it's projecting being air power.

When you try to make one ship do faaaar too many things, it either get's really big to try and do all of those thing effectively which in the end it won't, or it will fail to do any of those things effectively initially. This is why fleets have so many different kinds of ships and why modularization is nice in moderation. Submarine hulls are inherently unstable on the surface because they are built to move through the water with the least possible resistance which makes them quiet, but also slippy-slidy and not very good at holding still. This is bad for deploying anything but dynamic objects like troops or inflatable boats or whatnot because inflatable boats and troops likely don't need flat seas in the first place, especially if you release them just beneath the water. A plane cannot do this hence why seaplanes.

Seaplanes however are very limited and there's again, a good reason why we don't use them in the Navy and instead prefer to use specialty wheeled aircraft. Wheeled aircraft can do more than a seaplane, usually more cheaply and because they don't have to usually worry about contending with both the sea and their enemy on their combat sorties and just have to settle for the latter. A seaplane must contend with the sea as effectively as it does with enemies which quickly makes one possibly wonder, how can this be done? Well, that's simple, don't make it a combat aircraft. As Taihei Tengoku, (or T2 as I will now call him) said, the Japanese tried to do this, but they ultimately failed at this because seaplanes trying to be fite cannot be either well. So why go for suboptimal performance when you can just go for the more effective form of performance?

Submersible carriers are often attempted to be used as the 'trump' card of sorts when in NSRPs, only issue with this is that people don't understand how visible a real submersible aircraft carrier is, even underwater. Just using sonar, a sub-hunting vessel will likely pick up your ship at roughly the same distance as one might try to begin surfacing at, the issue with this being that this is only the sub-hunters, not the actual submarines that might just begin tracking your giant bullseye from well into a couple dozen miles back and close steadily every few minutes until they could reach out and scratch your sail with their hands should they so desire. Why wouldn't they? Because it'd be funny.

So, with your stealth aspect gone, what about your planes? Well any sensible enemy would just sink your carrier while it's underwater, where it can't deploy its one single main weapon, its planes. What about if you deploy from outside a sub-picket or fleet picket? Well now you're on the surface and you've just sacrificed a whole bunch of money that went into making your design submersible to just make it do the same thing a more capable and specialized carrier vessel could already do more effectively, deploy planes. Well, they couldn't see you coming initially, right? No, not exactly because you're hopefully deploying outside of radar range with a surface vessel too so deploying outside of radar range is just beyond the horizon which, as it just so happens, most planes are capable of travelling to nowadays and were capable of travelling to back then...

Could this be useful in modern times?

Short answer? No. The tradeoffs for the results are just far too much and far too expensive. In the end you can't justify having one of either a supersonic floatplane or the supposed submersible aircraft carrier you would ideally have with it.

[Gallan Systems]

Sea Dart was too shit a plane regardless of what people thought of it.

[United States of PA]

You sure about spending those millions if not billions of additional development dollars plus waiting potentially a decade or so before those numerous variants of 787s achieve IOC?

Granted, nobodies NS military-industrial complex is probably as dysfunctional as the US one has been, but still it usually takes years of testing a new aircraft platform especially a custom military one. Add in the fact depending on how NS connected your nation is to parallel real world events and on what time scale your nation observes in relation to those events, but considering the 787-9 model only entered service two years ago and you would be competing with civil customers for custom models, I’d estimate you’d be waiting till at least 2018 before the first 787 entered IOC. On the flip side, by 2018 my nation would have already acquired hundreds of MRTT/AWACS variants of said 767 and probably developed more variants to bring into service for example replacing the entire active RC-135 family with a 767 counterpart.

I took (And still take) certain liberties in regards to IOC dates of real lifeaircraft. At the time of design, the design of the 787-9 (i believe) was pretty well set in stone, just hadn't been to or past the test phase. I just took certain NS liberties with the R&D timeframe and production timeframe would not have been delayed like in real life, leading to capability a few months or even years earlier.

Short of the short, liberties were taken at the time, and i just stuck with it. Also in a very NS fashion, i figured on multiple production plants with multiple lines, compared to the RL 1 1/2 (in my opinion) lines that Boeing has (Boeing South Carolina manufactures part of the aft fuselage, along with two oversea's plants, with final assembly done at the Everett plant) allowing aircraft to be turned out quicker as well.

[Tinder Enthusiasts]

Out of all the dubious claims of realism that float around the site, it seems odd that one would take exception to whether a perfectly feasible and workable airliner can be adapted to military applications within a year or two of it being released to commercial customers.

But that is none of my business.

[-Aztlan-]

Can an F-5 take off from a carrier unassisted with a useable combat load? One of the original requirements for the F-5 was being able to operate from escort carriers, which as far as I can tell lack catapults. But the escort carriers were retired shortly thereafter, so I don't know if the ability was kept, or if it grew bigger and/or heavier with that requirement nixed.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk