NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Danternoust]

The number of mounted weapons systems is proportional to the unsubmerged surface area of the ship.

But broadside torpedo tubes, missile spam, and underwater battles! Come on. It will be so cool!

Hmm. Rotate Typhoon-class submarine 90 degrees for maximum broadside with special designed torpedoes?

[Purpelia]

Random idea. Soft launched torpedoes that sit in the water doing nothing for maximum silent launching. Have them loiter around for a while than acquire targets and fire up their engines when the sub is safely gone. Probably idiotic in real life but you do have to admit the idea would be cool.

[Danternoust]

Random idea. Soft launched torpedoes that sit in the water doing nothing for maximum silent launching. Have them loiter around for a while than acquire targets and fire up their engines when the sub is safely gone. Probably idiotic in real life but you do have to admit the idea would be cool.

Self-propelled sea mine?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_mine#Homing_mines

[The Manticoran Empire]

But broadside torpedo tubes, missile spam, and underwater battles! Come on. It will be so cool!

Hmm. Rotate Typhoon-class submarine 90 degrees for maximum broadside with special designed torpedoes?

Or just build a bunch of tubes into all four sides of the boat.

[The Akasha Colony]

Random idea. Soft launched torpedoes that sit in the water doing nothing for maximum silent launching. Have them loiter around for a while than acquire targets and fire up their engines when the sub is safely gone. Probably idiotic in real life but you do have to admit the idea would be cool.

Torpedo mines have a thing for decades.

[Purpelia]

And now it's officially no longer cool. Not even a single bit.

[Manokan Republic]

Yes, momentum can build up in the vehicle, like with an aircraft moving forwards so it eventually reaches flight speed, and the same is true with helicopter blades, which is why they don't take off instantly. The force applied to the blades is a constant force, and then the energy and momentum of the blades build's up over time. The force of the engine does not need to be as high as a rocket's thrust force, because an engine gets the wings up to speed slowly, which is how planes fly and why they need a runway, or how helicopters fly and why there is a certain amount of build-up time before taking off vertically. Secondly I meant a rolling vertical and not hovering, but it's whatever.

This shouldn't be that complicated of a concept for people to understand; literally, wings build up speed in order to create flight. A helicopter can afford to do this even though it's body is stationary because the wings themselves move in order to build up speed, unlike a fixed wing aircraft which has to speed up the entire aircraft to get the wings up to speed. Thus, you don't need the thrust of a rocket in order to fly in a helicopter, as the thrust results in the wings moving, and the wings don't just generate raw thrust downwards, they also generate lift. The combined force of lift and thrust is greater than gravity, but the thrust is not by itself greater than gravity. The important distinction between thrust and lift is that lift results in flight. You can have a car with a higher thrust to weight ratio than a helicopter, and it still won't fly. The mechanism by which the energy is transferred from the wings to the air creates *flight*, and now just raw thrust. If I can try to get my point across as clear as possible, the mechanism by which the energy or force is transferred is incredibly important, as this mechanism results in flight vs. simply driving forwards quickly, moving through water, and so on. The mechanism by which the energy is transferred determines the method of how the vehicle moves. And so, the importance of the generation of lift by helicopter wings as opposed to it being raw thrust, is lift results in flight and raw thrust does not necessarily. The reason why I talked about driving up a mountain vs. flying up one is to demonstrate why the lift force is an important force in aircraft, and it isn't correct simply to quantify this force as thrust.

There isn't a point here.

If the force down per second equals the force up the object remains at a constant altitude. If the force up exceeds the force down then the object has a positive acceleration upwards. If the force down exceeds the force up it's accelerating down.

And that is it. Planes fly because they generate substantial force up, it doesn't matter how that force is brought about. Lift is simply a convenient way to create the force needed to oppose gravity. If instead of lift they simply had more engines pointing down they would still be flying and the amount of force per second needed would be identical.

So, what that means is you don't need an engine producing that amount of thrust per second in order to be able to fly as the wing's build up momentum which then produce this much force downwards. This is also the same for helicopter wings, which is how they take off vertically even if the engine itself doesn't produce that much raw thrust per second. You convert the thrust in to lift and the total lift force then exceeds gravity, rather than the engine needing to by itself be strong enough for vertical take off by the expanding gases of the exhaust alone (like in a rocket). This means you can build up enough momentum and energy in spinning wing blades in order to be able to fly, even if the total force exerted by the engine is below that of the force a rocket would need to take off vertically.

So! Other things with spinning blades, such as a rotary fan or, a ducted lift fan like in the F-35, can do the same thing. You don't need as much raw thrust downwards as a rocket to take off vertically as you get extra lift from the spinning wings. And so the total *thrust force* downwards from the engine is not directly equal to the total lifting capacity of the vehicle. The exact numbers for the maximum weight in testing is something I haven't been able to find. We could squelch this particular question if actual data existed, but so far while the BF-1 completed it's maximum hover time and hover weight figures, as far as I'm aware it's maximum hover/vertical lift-off weight is not actually listed. In a rolling vertical, it can take off with nearly the full weight or 60,000 pounds, but exact figures are not known and testing has revealed it's actually more difficult to land vertically than they originally expected so, in practice it will likely be lower. All of this to say, you will be able to have a STOVL aircraft with two F-135 engines take off with at least 120,000 pounds and then land mostly vertically. Like usual this stuff carries on too long in nation states forums because people insist on being pedantic.

Another important thing to bear in mind is that *listed* thrust values are usually over specific time frames and tested in specific ways, rather than the absolute maximum thrust of an engine. Despite being listed as a 41,000 pound engine, in testing it was shown to actually be able to get up to 50,000 pounds of force, although only briefly. The exact capabilities of the F-35 have thus far remained classified or otherwise a secret, which for obvious reasons you probably wouldn't want the general public and thus, your enemies, to actually know the upper levels of your aircraft so they can design around it, for the same reason M1 abrams armor's exact capabilities are a secret. The maximum altitude, climb rate, engine force, payload, and speed among other things is deliberately withheld and the numbers in the public are generally lower than it's actual maximum capabilities. I've heard of the F-35 and F-22 having oxygen problems, which doesn't make any sense unless the altitude is so ridiculously high there really is a pressure issue, which would have to be over the listed altitude. There's other similiar things like this, which is pretty normal for military aircraft. There's also differing numbers and apparently attempts to reduce the weight of the F-35 as well, so it's actual payload is probably subject to change even if there are exact numbers available, right now. Different landing and take-off techniques, such as the rolling landing, have resulted in an increase of landing payload of 2000 pounds, just for example, so it's entirely possible that in slightly different techniques of take off and landing, maybe at a slight angle vs. straight up or down, the payload will be higher. It's actually not exactly clear. So, the answer on it's capabilities it's not definitively known. What is known is the physics question of does an aircraft have the ability to generate more lift than the constant thrust force of it's engine? The simple answer is, yes, even vertically. To what extent with the F-35, I really don't know. As the software improves, metallurgy, and if they decide to do things like use different fuels (I know this was considered on the F-35 as it was burning the tarmacs of the aircraft carriers), or even add water to the fuel to cool it down (like in the harrier jump jet), it could conceivably be even more powerful. One of the main problems with achieving maximum power thus far has been temperature levels in the engine.

The ground effect is particularly important for VTOL aircraft as well. On the one hand, if you are really close to the ground you actually produce more lift upwards, as the air is pushed directly off of the ground instead of the air, and on the other it has actually plagued VTOL aircraft by sucking them down too much when a draft is formed. It's really complicated, which is why so many attempts at vertical lift-off aircraft have failed, and one solution has been to raise the fan much higher above the ground and control air intake more carefully. One of the key problems has been engines sucking in their own exhaust as well, so the F-35 is designed to avoid doing this. Exactly how it is all accomplished is not even clear, probably for obvious reasons. So, yes there's a lot that goes in to it. Directly hovering over the ground is usually easier than hovering at altitude (think of hovercraft for example), so yes you can take off, but then you can't remain in flight for very long, or can't go up very high. So, with all these factors in mind, it's safe to say exact figures of take-off don't necessarily depend on the very specific, listed pounds-force rate of the engine. Lift can be higher.

[Triplebaconation]

No. A fan produces force in one way - by moving air in the direction it's pointing. The "spinning wings" move air, and thrust is simply the recoil of that air. A fan can't move more air than it moves. This should be especially obvious in the case of a ducted fan, where air can only conceivably come out one end of the duct.

Horsepower is not the thrust of a helicopter engine. Horsepower is torque delivered to the shaft which drives the blades times rotational speed.

The larger the diameter of a fan, the slower the blades have to turn to move a given amount of air. Less horsepower is required for the same thrust.

That's why the F-35B lift fan requires 28,000 hp from the gearbox to produce 20,000 pounds of thrust, while a Chinook only needs 10,000 hp to lift over 50,000 pounds. Since you've brought it up repeatedly, this is why tailsitters were "a thing." They had giant propellers which produced a lot of thrust for their horsepower.

I've heard of the F-35 and F-22 having oxygen problems, which doesn't make any sense unless the altitude is so ridiculously high there really is a pressure issue, which would have to be over the listed altitude.

The service ceiling of the F-22 is listed as 65,000 feet. For comparison, the Mount Everest "death zone," where you have a serious chance of dying without supplemental oxygen, begins at 26,000 feet. Note that airliners typically cruise at 40,000 feet.

[Austrasien]

So, what that means is you don't need an engine producing that amount of thrust per second in order to be able to fly as the wing's build up momentum which then produce this much force downwards. This is also the same for helicopter wings, which is how they take off vertically even if the engine itself doesn't produce that much raw thrust per second. You convert the thrust in to lift and the total lift force then exceeds gravity, rather than the engine needing to by itself be strong enough for vertical take off by the expanding gases of the exhaust alone (like in a rocket). This means you can build up enough momentum and energy in spinning wing blades in order to be able to fly, even if the total force exerted by the engine is below that of the force a rocket would need to take off vertically.

A helicopter rotor absolutely does produce that much thrust per second. If it doesn't the helicopter needs to make a rolling take off like a conventional aircraft.

There is no "storage" as you keep saying of energy, momentum or anything else. It is simply much more energy efficient to produce thrust to keep the aircraft aloft by creating lift, by moving through air, than it is to point a jet engine straight down.

So! Other things with spinning blades, such as a rotary fan or, a ducted lift fan like in the F-35, can do the same thing. You don't need as much raw thrust downwards as a rocket to take off vertically as you get extra lift from the spinning wings. And so the total *thrust force* downwards from the engine is not directly equal to the total lifting capacity of the vehicle.

Yes, it is. Lift is a kind of thrust. Total thrust against gravity must exceed the weight force regardless of what fraction of that thrust is contributed by engine exhaust and which is contributed by lift. The distinction between lift thrust and engine exhaust thrust is made for very sound and logical practical reasons. But in the most fundamental way, they are the same. A mass (air) acquires momentum in one direction and the aircraft acquires momentum equal/opposite. To beat gravity the aircraft must gain momentum vertically faster than it gains momentum down as a result of weight, which is by definition the same as saying the thrust-to-weight ratio must exceed 1.

Another important thing to bear in mind is that *listed* thrust values are usually over specific time frames and tested in specific ways, rather than the absolute maximum thrust of an engine. Despite being listed as a 41,000 pound engine, in testing it was shown to actually be able to get up to 50,000 pounds of force, although only briefly. The exact capabilities of the F-35 have thus far remained classified or otherwise a secret, which for obvious reasons you probably wouldn't want the general public and thus, your enemies, to actually know the upper levels of your aircraft so they can design around it, for the same reason M1 abrams armor's exact capabilities are a secret. The maximum altitude, climb rate, engine force, payload, and speed among other things is deliberately withheld and the numbers in the public are generally lower than it's actual maximum capabilities. I've heard of the F-35 and F-22 having oxygen problems, which doesn't make any sense unless the altitude is so ridiculously high there really is a pressure issue, which would have to be over the listed altitude. There's other similiar things like this, which is pretty normal for military aircraft. There's also differing numbers and apparently attempts to reduce the weight of the F-35 as well, so it's actual payload is probably subject to change even if there are exact numbers available, right now. Different landing and take-off techniques, such as the rolling landing, have resulted in an increase of landing payload of 2000 pounds, just for example, so it's entirely possible that in slightly different techniques of take off and landing, maybe at a slight angle vs. straight up or down, the payload will be higher. It's actually not exactly clear. So, the answer on it's capabilities it's not definitively known. What is known is the physics question of does an aircraft have the ability to generate more lift than the constant thrust force of it's engine? The simple answer is, yes, even vertically. To what extent with the F-35, I really don't know. As the software improves, metallurgy, and if they decide to do things like use different fuels (I know this was considered on the F-35 as it was burning the tarmacs of the aircraft carriers), or even add water to the fuel to cool it down (like in the harrier jump jet), it could conceivably be even more powerful. One of the main problems with achieving maximum power thus far has been temperature levels in the engine.

The ground effect is particularly important for VTOL aircraft as well. On the one hand, if you are really close to the ground you actually produce more lift upwards, as the air is pushed directly off of the ground instead of the air, and on the other it has actually plagued VTOL aircraft by sucking them down too much when a draft is formed. It's really complicated, which is why so many attempts at vertical lift-off aircraft have failed, and one solution has been to raise the fan much higher above the ground and control air intake more carefully. One of the key problems has been engines sucking in their own exhaust as well, so the F-35 is designed to avoid doing this. Exactly how it is all accomplished is not even clear, probably for obvious reasons. So, yes there's a lot that goes in to it. Directly hovering over the ground is usually easier than hovering at altitude (think of hovercraft for example), so yes you can take off, but then you can't remain in flight for very long, or can't go up very high.

There is no particular reason for an aircraft to attempt to take off vertically then accelerate forward while remaining in the ground effect region which extends just a few meters off the ground.

So, with all these factors in mind, it's safe to say exact figures of take-off don't necessarily depend on the very specific, listed pounds-force rate of the engine. Lift can be higher.

Only in a hurricane or in the trivial sense that if they can perform a short takeoff. But you are the only one who is confused (or probably more accurately, intentionally obfuscating so you can wrap around and pretend "vertical takeoff" really can mean "not quite vertical" as you have been) about the distinction between short takeoff and vertical takeoff.

[Gallia-]

each time grizzly shrugs 500 kg the bar goes higher because he's storing the energy from the past shrug and adding more energy to the thrust on top of the previous shrug

checkmate atheists helicopters are just flywheels

[Kassaran]

At this point, Id like to think Manokan's accidentally stumbled onto infinite power by accident and reality is just too limited to accept it.

[The Manticoran Empire]

At this point, Id like to think Manokan's accidentally stumbled onto infinite power by accident and reality is just too limited to accept it.

Please don't. He's hard enough to deal with as is.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Are you lot done yet? Do we need to call your parents?

[Theodosiya]

Seriously, when would drones be available for grunts? Should vehicles crew part of squad or their own platoon/company? How useful drones for squad, platoon, company, battalion, brigade, division and corps?

[The Manticoran Empire]

Are you lot done yet? Do we need to call your parents?

If you want to deal with the hassle, be my guest.

[Gallia-]

Are you lot done yet? Do we need to call your parents?

If you want to deal with the hassle, be my guest.

Don't speak to me or my wife ever again.

[Spirit of Hope]

Seriously, when would drones be available for grunts? Should vehicles crew part of squad or their own platoon/company? How useful drones for squad, platoon, company, battalion, brigade, division and corps?

Now, depending on what type of drone we are talking about. Doesn't really matter, but I put them as part of the squad. Not really useful, some utility, probably should have, very useful, and for all higher levels I would say close to necessary. Though the diffrent level of drone they are using is an important consideration.

[Taihei Tengoku]

When we try to land on Mischief Reef in 2027 BLT 3/6 will be swarmed by one billion DJI Phantoms and three Little Emperors in Huawei cybersuits

"if only we hadn't lost those rifles!"--sgt maj

[Gallia-]

dont forget the attack big dogs

it's just the frontline morale destroyer from death machine with a big dog engine so it's even spoopier

[Triplebaconation]

At this point, Id like to think Manokan's accidentally stumbled onto infinite power by accident and reality is just too limited to accept it.

That's... not how science works...I'll give you an example. The F-35 is 31,751 kg, and it generates 120 kilonewtons of thrust without the afterburner. That's 4 times it's own weight in thrust! So, how come it's slightly less in pounds force, but 4 times as much in kilonewtons! The reality is, pounds force is just calculated differently. Pounds force is based on a rate of acceleration of 9.8 m/s, and kilonewtons are 1 m/s. So you get a disparity in the figure. But kilograms are 2.2 times heavier than pounds. So you get a figure of roughly 4 to 1 in disparity.

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears, and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call...the metric system.

[United Earthlings]

Something a little more fun and lighthearted to discuss....

Battle of the Frigates: Round 1 {Two Broad vs Low Mix}

Type 22 class verses Oliver Hazard Perry class

Ding!

[Manokan Republic]

No. A fan produces force in one way - by moving air in the direction it's pointing. The "spinning wings" move air, and thrust is simply the recoil of that air. A fan can't move more air than it moves. This should be especially obvious in the case of a ducted fan, where air can only conceivably come out one end of the duct.

Horsepower is not the thrust of a helicopter engine. Horsepower is torque delivered to the shaft which drives the blades times rotational speed.

The larger the diameter of a fan, the slower the blades have to turn to move a given amount of air. Less horsepower is required for the same thrust.

That's why the F-35B lift fan requires 28,000 hp from the gearbox to produce 20,000 pounds of thrust, while a Chinook only needs 10,000 hp to lift over 50,000 pounds. Since you've brought it up repeatedly, this is why tailsitters were "a thing." They had giant propellers which produced a lot of thrust for their horsepower.

I've heard of the F-35 and F-22 having oxygen problems, which doesn't make any sense unless the altitude is so ridiculously high there really is a pressure issue, which would have to be over the listed altitude.

The service ceiling of the F-22 is listed as 65,000 feet. For comparison, the Mount Everest "death zone," where you have a serious chance of dying without supplemental oxygen, begins at 26,000 feet. Note that airliners typically cruise at 40,000 feet.

Lift is not the same as thrust. More force is produced downwards, but not more thrust. I've been over this over and over again. Larger wings produce more lift, not thrust. The engine produces thrust, and the wings convert this to lift in flight. This is how the physics works. Calling lift thrust is technically incorrect. If I can get any point across, this would be it. Helicopter wings are not different from the wings of a normal aircraft, other than that they spin independently from the main body.

[Manokan Republic]

So, what that means is you don't need an engine producing that amount of thrust per second in order to be able to fly as the wing's build up momentum which then produce this much force downwards. This is also the same for helicopter wings, which is how they take off vertically even if the engine itself doesn't produce that much raw thrust per second. You convert the thrust in to lift and the total lift force then exceeds gravity, rather than the engine needing to by itself be strong enough for vertical take off by the expanding gases of the exhaust alone (like in a rocket). This means you can build up enough momentum and energy in spinning wing blades in order to be able to fly, even if the total force exerted by the engine is below that of the force a rocket would need to take off vertically.

A helicopter rotor absolutely does produce that much thrust per second. If it doesn't the helicopter needs to make a rolling take off like a conventional aircraft.

There is no "storage" as you keep saying of energy, momentum or anything else. It is simply much more energy efficient to produce thrust to keep the aircraft aloft by creating lift, by moving through air, than it is to point a jet engine straight down.

Yes, it is. Lift is a kind of thrust. Total thrust against gravity must exceed the weight force regardless of what fraction of that thrust is contributed by engine exhaust and which is contributed by lift. The distinction between lift thrust and engine exhaust thrust is made for very sound and logical practical reasons. But in the most fundamental way, they are the same. A mass (air) acquires momentum in one direction and the aircraft acquires momentum equal/opposite. To beat gravity the aircraft must gain momentum vertically faster than it gains momentum down as a result of weight, which is by definition the same as saying the thrust-to-weight ratio must exceed 1.

No it's not. Lift is not the same as thrust at all, here is NASA on the issue. I'm getting a little tired of people making up their own physics. Lift is not a form of thrust at all. Thrust generates speed in the wings, and then the wings produce lift. "Lift is generated by the difference in velocity between the solid object and the fluid. There must be motion between the object and the fluid: no motion, no lift. It makes no difference whether the object moves through a static fluid, or the fluid moves past a static solid object". The importance of this with a helicopter or rotary blade, is that helicopters produce more lift by spinning around quickly, where as wing blades on an aircraft like a boeing 747 do so by the whole vehicle moving. The thrust to weigh ratio of a boeing 747 is negative, yes it is still capable of flight, because of it's wings producing lift by building up speed. The same is true with the wings of a helicopter, only in a slightly different way, hence the thrust to weight ratio can be lower than it's weight, and still allow it to fly. I don't know how to simplify this matter anymore than saying that lift is a product of thrust, and can exceed the raw thrust levels. A constant force applied over time is not the same as the final force applied by another part of the vehicle.

The lift force is not generated infinitely, or from nothing, it's generated from pushback from the air. Newton's third law says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. When you fall to the ground and hit the ground, your bodies own energy is imparted in to the ground, and by virtue, it is exerted back against you. If you fall from a high altitude, the reason why it would hurt is because the ground imparts and equal amount of force back to you that you put in to it. So, if you move through the air, the air is actually giving you push-back. This pushback when in the form of air resistance on the wings, actually leads to flight. The opposing response from the air gives the aircraft lift. As long as the plane doesn't destroy itself like say a meteorite does with too much air resistance, it can continue to fly. The force exerted by the air on to the aircraft body and it's wings are responsible for it taking off from the ground. With an efficient enough glide ratio, you can take off with a lower than 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio, and this is how aircraft fly even without stupendously powerful engines.

[Manokan Republic]

At this point, Id like to think Manokan's accidentally stumbled onto infinite power by accident and reality is just too limited to accept it.

The power isn't infinite, which is why a Boeing 747 with a thrust to weight ratio of 1 to 3, that is less than it's own weight, can still fly, but one with say 1 to 10 probably wouldn't fly well. The air is what gives push back in flight.

Newton's third law of motion says that for any action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you push against the air, it pushes back against you. So, if the plane pushes against the air, the air lifts it up by pushing against it. Hence, the total lift force can be greater than the total thrust force, as thrust is a constant force and not the total aggregate of the aircraft, and the air gives extra force upwards. When you hit the ground after falling for example, it pushes back against you. This is why people die from falling. The same force you exert on to it, it exerts on to you. So how do you get more force? Well, you push against something and it pushes off of you. This is why people can jump, and climb and so on; with the air to push off of, you require less overall force to remain in flight when you use wings, although less efficiently than something pushing off of the ground or water. The same is true with walking up the stairs or jumping and so on. The ground effect, that is when an aircraft is closer to the ground it generates more lift, is due to the fact that if you have something more substantial to push off of, you can fly more easily. Air is obviously not as solid as the ground, and so doesn't give as much pushback. This isn't the creation of infinite energy, it's that a more solid material gives more pushback and thus you can more efficiently use the force you are generating to propel yourself.

[Austrasien]

No it's not. Lift is not the same as thrust at all, here is NASA on the issue. I'm getting a little tired of people making up their own physics. Lift is not a form of thrust at all. Thrust generates speed in the wings, and then the wings produce lift. "Lift is generated by the difference in velocity between the solid object and the fluid. There must be motion between the object and the fluid: no motion, no lift. It makes no difference whether the object moves through a static fluid, or the fluid moves past a static solid object". The importance of this with a helicopter or rotary blade, is that helicopters produce more lift by spinning around quickly, where as wing blades on an aircraft like a boeing 747 do so by the whole vehicle moving. The thrust to weigh ratio of a boeing 747 is negative, yes it is still capable of flight, because of it's wings producing lift by building up speed. The same is true with the wings of a helicopter, only in a slightly different way, hence the thrust to weight ratio can be lower than it's weight, and still allow it to fly. I don't know how to simplify this matter anymore than saying that lift is a product of thrust, and can exceed the raw thrust levels. A constant force applied over time is not the same as the final force applied by another part of the vehicle.[/qoute]

There is a reason that is K-12...

When air goes into the engine it gains momentum in the direction of travel. The engine gains equal and opposite momentum.

The air flows over the wing it gains momentum normal to the wing and downward. The wing gains momentum equal and opposite.

That is it. There is a difference, but it is one of type not kind. It is extremely convenient to distinguish between the force produced by the engines and the force produced by the wings but its not a distinction derived from a fundamental difference. A wing *is* a kind of engine, aka a kind of thruster, which should be obvious if you have ever seen a bird. Or a helicopter.

But apparently helicopters throw you into deep confusion (or more likely they don't but you have committed yourself to this line of argumentation).

The lift force is not generated infinitely, or from nothing, it's generated from pushback from the air.

Now you've crossed lift and buoyancy.

Well, you've admitted you understand what a normal force is only like 5 pages or so after I told you about it but you have the angle turned by 90 degrees. Drag acts against the direction of motion in a fluid. Lift acts at a 90 degree angle to the direction of flow. They are related but they are most definitely not the same.

"equal and opposite" the key is the second part there. Equal and at a 90-degree angle is not the opposite. Conservation of momentum applies to both magnitude and vector. For a force applied parallel to the ground plane to result in an aircraft accelerating at a 90-degree angle away from the ground plane, there must be another force involved.

That force is lift. But lift is really produced by the differential in fluid flow between two sides of an object as a consequence of its geometry. Whether as a result of its shape, the angle of attack of the fluid flow or the rotation of the object relative to the fluid flow (and no I don't mean helicopter rotors, they are rotating, but in the same plane as the fluid they are extracting lift from. Magnus rotors though...) there must not only be interaction with the fluid (drag) but asymmetry. A perfectly symmetrical flow of fluid around an object cannot produce lift but will still produce drag.