NationStates

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.

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 suppose it depends on the materials with which the ship is constructed and the water body in which the ship is intended to navigate.

River barges can be many miles long yet not snap, but seafaring vessels are designed to take minimal impact as far as waves are concerned.

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.

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.

I think he is talking about the ship that shall remain unidentified for reasons of national sanity security.

Nachmere wrote:

Tule wrote:
The radar it has is fine.

was it not basically a match up for the radar on the contemporary F-16s?

So it was. Good grief I love this aircraft. I honestly don't get how nobody wanted an aircraft that provides the capabilities of an F-16 at a fraction its cost.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:

Mitheldalond wrote:Is the F-20 Tigershark big enough to fit the radar from an F-16 or F-18?

Does it even need a radar upgrade?

y u no hal tejas?

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:

Tule wrote:
The radar it has is fine.

y u no FA-50?

Supposedly F-50 is planned, to feature AESA, 3 pylons per wing, and a bunch of other stuff.

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.

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.

What is maneuverability? It's a spaceship.

You are correct it has no large secondary engines visible. I haven't decided on what they would be, probably ion or MPD or something that doesn't require (too much) propellant. They wouldn't be tremendously large and probably not visible at that scale anyway.

Gyroscopes are cooler than maneuvering jets anyway.

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.

Sometime in the 2450s or thereabouts.

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.

The facilities necessary to launch a Nuke to mach 5 might be a bit of a strategically vulnerable target. Also rockets might be more practical for accelerating in a anti-ICBM role unless you want to build a lot of massive magnetic coil facilities. It appears that both Shcram and scram jets have roughly the same launch requirements so no issue there.

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 would like Jupiter, please.

What happened to Biop?

Themiclesia wrote:What happened to Biop?

One of his earliest tanks gained sentience and took out its frustrations of existing out on him.

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.

Mitheldalond wrote:

Nachmere wrote:

was it not basically a match up for the radar on the contemporary F-16s?

So it was. Good grief I love this aircraft. I honestly don't get how nobody wanted an aircraft that provides the capabilities of an F-16 at a fraction its cost.

I'm not sure where the notion that it was a match comes from; AN/APG-67 was half the weight of AN/APG-66, and has much lower performance figures than AN/APG-68. Nevermind AN/APG-80. The weight and space reduction isn't free.

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.

What? It has half the payload of an F-16, a shorter combat radius, and rather significant hardpoint restrictions. Its engine is only slightly more than half as powerful. The F-20's two M39s together also put out only half the rate of fire as the F-16's single M61, and the smaller airframe has less space for better avionics.

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.

And get horrifically outranged by anyone operating... just about anything heavier. Which is to say, basically any other fighter aircraft. Even the F-4 outruns them. Light fighters haven't been popular because they have such limited space for... everything. Even the F-16 is over 50% heavier than the F-20, and the F-20's MTOW is basically the same as the F-16's loaded weight (the F-16 is heavier than its original design goals had hoped).

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.

I thought it was cockblocking and spendthrift that killed F-20.

Anyone here an IG 40K nut?

If so, I've got a quick question. Does a Y'stani infantry btn translate well to an IG army, and if so, how many points?

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

It has been done before IRL but generally a HMG or GPMG is more sensible.

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

Stupid CoD Fanboy!

Miniguns are to be mounted on inflatable boats, so says Battlefield!
*nods*

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...

if the cold war never ended f-35 would be as cheap as gripen and typhoon would be 2x as expensive

Inyourfaceistan wrote:

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

Stupid CoD Fanboy!

Miniguns are to be mounted on inflatable boats, so says Battlefield!
*nods*

Small boats are kind of where we use them...

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

Motorcycles with twin miniguns.

Grand Britannia wrote:

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

Motorcycles with twin miniguns.

Tactical Golf Carts with 105mm cannons. Thoughts?
BTW, I'm not looking for reasons why I shouldn't or wouldn't put 105mm cannons on gold carts, just whether I physically could or not.

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)

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...

muh rafale

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

Would be easier to just use a SPAAG. Ya ever seen chunky pasta sauce? Yeah.

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)

Marketing gimmick. They are actually referring to the range it can track a target with an RCS of 0.01 square meters, which is about a hundred times too large.