The Red Star Union wrote:I heard somewhere that once a ship is soooooo long, waves will snap it in 2. Does anyone acutally know what said length is? Just curious.
I believe it was something very large like 17 kilometers.
Advertisement
by Roski » Mon Dec 15, 2014 4:39 pm
The Red Star Union wrote:I heard somewhere that once a ship is soooooo long, waves will snap it in 2. Does anyone acutally know what said length is? Just curious.
by Themiclesia » Mon Dec 15, 2014 4:41 pm
The Red Star Union wrote:I heard somewhere that once a ship is soooooo long, waves will snap it in 2. Does anyone acutally know what said length is? Just curious.
NS stats not in effect
(except in F7)
Gameside factbooks not canon
Sample military factbook
Nations:
• Themiclesia
• Camia
• Antari
>>>Member of Septentrion, Atlas, Alithea, Tyran<<<Left-of-centre, multiple home countries and native languages, socially and fiscally liberal; he/him/his
Pro: diversity, choice, liberty, democracy, equality | Anti: racism, sexism, nationalism, dictatorship, war
News | Court of Appeal overturns Sgt. Ker conviction for larceny in quartermaster's pantry | TNS Hat runs aground in foreign harbour, hull unhurt | House of Lords passes Stamp Collection Act, counterfeiting used stamps now a crime | New bicycle lanes under the elevated railways | Demonstration against rights abuses in Menghe in Crystal Park, MoD: parade to be postponed for civic activity
by The Akasha Colony » Mon Dec 15, 2014 4:57 pm
The Red Star Union wrote:I heard somewhere that once a ship is soooooo long, waves will snap it in 2. Does anyone acutally know what said length is? Just curious.
by Roski » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:01 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:The Red Star Union wrote:I heard somewhere that once a ship is soooooo long, waves will snap it in 2. Does anyone acutally know what said length is? Just curious.
There is no firm number. It depends on the ship's construction and the sea state it's designed to survive, as well as its load and buoyancy at the time.
by Mitheldalond » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:13 pm
by Gallan Systems » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:16 pm
Tule wrote:Gallan Systems wrote:http://www.nationstates.net/nation=gallan_systems/detail=factbook/id=341349
realism overwhleming
pions in ur face
muh gamma rays
muh melting
ughhhhhhh
I'm a little concerned about maneuverability. Those radiators look like they could be susceptible to solar crosswind, and I see no maneuvering thrusters.
It's cool though.
Gawdzendia wrote:Gallan Systems wrote:http://www.nationstates.net/nation=gallan_systems/detail=factbook/id=341349
realism overwhleming
pions in ur face
muh gamma rays
muh melting
ughhhhhhh
Delicious Gallan spacecraft is delicious. Out of interest, what year was this thing designed in? Has a kinda late-PMT aesthetic to it.
by Valburn » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:16 pm
Gawdzendia wrote:Valburn wrote:If you assume working scramjets then somewhat feasible. Nasa did some studies into a system of that variety. I believe atomic rockets has some more information on the subject.
Noted. ICly I've always been sitting on the cusp of the future (2030's or so), I would hope by that point the issues surrounding Scram and Shcram (as there is a difference) jets would mostly be solved. The idea being that as both these forms of propulsion are more efficient at higher speeds to begin with, why not give them a Mach 5 kickstart? Enter some sort of rail/coilgun.
I'd mostly use this sort of setup for ICBM interception, or to turn a destroyer inside out from a shore facility. Then again, nothing stopping me from delivering atomics in this method either.
by Triplebaconation » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:19 pm
Gallan Systems wrote:http://www.nationstates.net/nation=gallan_systems/detail=factbook/id=341349
realism overwhleming
pions in ur face
muh gamma rays
muh melting
ughhhhhhh
by Themiclesia » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:22 pm
NS stats not in effect
(except in F7)
Gameside factbooks not canon
Sample military factbook
Nations:
• Themiclesia
• Camia
• Antari
>>>Member of Septentrion, Atlas, Alithea, Tyran<<<Left-of-centre, multiple home countries and native languages, socially and fiscally liberal; he/him/his
Pro: diversity, choice, liberty, democracy, equality | Anti: racism, sexism, nationalism, dictatorship, war
News | Court of Appeal overturns Sgt. Ker conviction for larceny in quartermaster's pantry | TNS Hat runs aground in foreign harbour, hull unhurt | House of Lords passes Stamp Collection Act, counterfeiting used stamps now a crime | New bicycle lanes under the elevated railways | Demonstration against rights abuses in Menghe in Crystal Park, MoD: parade to be postponed for civic activity
by Gawdzendia » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:31 pm
Themiclesia wrote:What happened to Biop?
NATIONSTATES STATS USED IN THEIR ENTIRETY GOVERNANCE: Chamber of Estates / Presidential Council GOVERNMENT: Citizen Republic President: Alexander Christensen CAPITAL: Adonia City OFFICIAL LANGUAGES: German, French, English CURRENCY: Gawdzendian Dollar (GZD) GENERAL AWARENESS & WEAPON DEPLOYMENT CONDITION 1 - PEACETIME 2 - HEIGHTENED AWARENESS 3 - EARLY MOBILIZATION 4 - MOBILIZATION 5 - SYMMETRICAL WARFARE 6 - NUCLEAR WARFARE | | <<~~ About Gawdzendia ~~>> | | Canadian |
by San-Silvacian » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:39 pm
by The Akasha Colony » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:42 pm
Because the F-20 is lighter, faster, more agile, can climb much faster, has a longer range, a higher service ceiling, a better thrust to weigh ratio, twice as many guns, about the same bomb and missile load, performance characteristics comparable to an F-16, and is cheaper. Well, the Tiger II is cheaper (estimated at about $20-25 million today), so that would probably put the F-20 in the $30 million range with the other two.
And possibly best of all? It was originally conceived as a carrier capable fighter. Which I had forgotten until now. Remember all those F-4s, A-7s, and F-8s I had? Yeah, they no longer exist (or they're piled up in a warehouse somewhere). The F-20 is now the main fighter aircraft of both my Navy and Air Force. They're smaller and lighter than Crusaders/Corsair IIs (theyre actually lighter than the Skyraider, believe it or not), so every carrier in my navy can carry them comfortably.
by Gallan Systems » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:52 pm
San-Silvacian wrote:F-20s aren't bad aircraft.
However trying to apply them as comparable to the F-16? Yeah thats where it kind of ends.
The F-16 beat out the F-20 because it promised better overall performance, better electronics, and had a better prospect of being adaptable to upgrade packages in the future.
The F-20 isn't bad, however for a first-world army with everything from carriers and such, you are much, much better off trying for something else.
by Yukonastan » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:53 pm
by Roski » Mon Dec 15, 2014 6:22 pm
by Korva » Mon Dec 15, 2014 6:32 pm
by Inyourfaceistan » Mon Dec 15, 2014 6:35 pm
Roski wrote:hay guise.
miniguns on jeeps, to be used as a mass slaughter vehicle.
Discuss, specifically the feasiblity of a jeep holding up to 3600+ RPM
by Inyourfaceistan » Mon Dec 15, 2014 6:39 pm
Mitheldalond wrote:Because the F-20 is lighter, faster, more agile, can climb much faster, has a longer range, a higher service ceiling, a better thrust to weigh ratio, twice as many guns, about the same bomb and missile load, performance characteristics comparable to an F-16, and is cheaper. Well, the Tiger II is cheaper (estimated at about $20-25 million today), so that would probably put the F-20 in the $30 million range with the other two.
And possibly best of all? It was originally conceived as a carrier capable fighter. Which I had forgotten until now. Remember all those F-4s, A-7s, and F-8s I had? Yeah, they no longer exist (or they're piled up in a warehouse somewhere). The F-20 is now the main fighter aircraft of both my Navy and Air Force. They're smaller and lighter than Crusaders/Corsair IIs (theyre actually lighter than the Skyraider, believe it or not), so every carrier in my navy can carry them comfortably.
The only real problem they have is the hardpoint arrangement. Because of how low the F-20 is and the positioning of its landing gear, the wing hardpoints are right near the end of the wings, which limits them to a maximum load of 1,000 pounds each. Which is rather inconvenient since they can't carry Harpoons, most cruise missiles, or even 2000 pound bombs. The centerline hardpoint can take the weight, but a single Harpoon or bomb is rather underwhelming. Particularly for a naval fighter that will be expected to engage enemy surface vessels with anti-ship missiles.
Fortunately, there is a solution. The Naval Strike Missile is light enough to be carried on the Tigersharks' wing pylons, has a sufficiently long range, and can be used against both ships and ground targets.
by Gallan Systems » Mon Dec 15, 2014 6:43 pm
by Grand Britannia » Mon Dec 15, 2014 6:57 pm
Roski wrote:hay guise.
miniguns on jeeps, to be used as a mass slaughter vehicle.
Discuss, specifically the feasiblity of a jeep holding up to 3600+ RPM
by Inyourfaceistan » Mon Dec 15, 2014 7:01 pm
by San-Silvacian » Mon Dec 15, 2014 7:03 pm
Inyourfaceistan wrote:Mitheldalond wrote:Because the F-20 is lighter, faster, more agile, can climb much faster, has a longer range, a higher service ceiling, a better thrust to weigh ratio, twice as many guns, about the same bomb and missile load, performance characteristics comparable to an F-16, and is cheaper. Well, the Tiger II is cheaper (estimated at about $20-25 million today), so that would probably put the F-20 in the $30 million range with the other two.
And possibly best of all? It was originally conceived as a carrier capable fighter. Which I had forgotten until now. Remember all those F-4s, A-7s, and F-8s I had? Yeah, they no longer exist (or they're piled up in a warehouse somewhere). The F-20 is now the main fighter aircraft of both my Navy and Air Force. They're smaller and lighter than Crusaders/Corsair IIs (theyre actually lighter than the Skyraider, believe it or not), so every carrier in my navy can carry them comfortably.
The only real problem they have is the hardpoint arrangement. Because of how low the F-20 is and the positioning of its landing gear, the wing hardpoints are right near the end of the wings, which limits them to a maximum load of 1,000 pounds each. Which is rather inconvenient since they can't carry Harpoons, most cruise missiles, or even 2000 pound bombs. The centerline hardpoint can take the weight, but a single Harpoon or bomb is rather underwhelming. Particularly for a naval fighter that will be expected to engage enemy surface vessels with anti-ship missiles.
Fortunately, there is a solution. The Naval Strike Missile is light enough to be carried on the Tigersharks' wing pylons, has a sufficiently long range, and can be used against both ships and ground targets.
You of all people I would expect to use F-35's. Especially because you are so apparently Navy-oriented, and have this desire for everything to do multiple jobs...
by Nirvash Type TheEND » Mon Dec 15, 2014 7:04 pm
Roski wrote:hay guise.
miniguns on jeeps, to be used as a mass slaughter vehicle.
Discuss, specifically the feasiblity of a jeep holding up to 3600+ RPM
by Austrasien » Mon Dec 15, 2014 8:13 pm
Inyourfaceistan wrote:Anyways on a serious note, what does everyone make of Russia's claim that Irbis-E can track and engage F-22 "beyond visual range" (I don't know what number exactly as I can't find a solid source)
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Niwe England
Advertisement