Your Nation's Air Force [MKI]

[Rich and Corporations]

If you mean for the aircraft to be flying off of the reactor's power, yes, but the original idea we're talking about is for a Ground Effect Vehicle that will only be over water. You can dump all but your water you need for emergency-fill during a meltdown, fly over to somewhere else, then pump water back onboard while you're trying to start your reactor back up. The very process of that will heat your reactor coolant, expanding it, so you get some of it back as you discharge it to onboard tanks while you're desalinating your water for your steam plant. It's not quick, but neither is a reactor-start-up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-cycle_gas_turbine
A steam plant is a bit less volume and mass efficient then an air turbine.

[Imperializt Russia]

Okay, here's a question.

I'm trying to find Soviet era/Russian dedicated ECM aircraft.

I see the Yak-28PP, and if thats as good as it gets, I'll go with it. I also see the Su-24MP referred to as an ECM aircraft, but it appears to be less of a jamming platform and more of an ELINT platform.

Am I missing something here?

Not sure.
Aircraft is a thing I'm quite unfamiliar with, but I'd hazard that the Russians were not as big on EW as the West, particularly US and Israel, were.
I imagine that the Tu-22M Backfire and Su-34 (Su-32) could both become EW aircraft. I figure Tu-22M could make a nice EF-111 analogue.

As of this year, Russia is looking into mounting an EW system on the turboprop Il-22, though with the caveat that the Il-22 must be replaced in the decade.

[Pharthan]

If you mean for the aircraft to be flying off of the reactor's power, yes, but the original idea we're talking about is for a Ground Effect Vehicle that will only be over water. You can dump all but your water you need for emergency-fill during a meltdown, fly over to somewhere else, then pump water back onboard while you're trying to start your reactor back up. The very process of that will heat your reactor coolant, expanding it, so you get some of it back as you discharge it to onboard tanks while you're desalinating your water for your steam plant. It's not quick, but neither is a reactor-start-up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-cycle_gas_turbine
A steam plant is a bit less volume and mass efficient then an air turbine.

Except you're talking about a reactor, and you want all forms of coolant to be readily available. While a closed-cycle gas turbine may be effective for a generic nuclear power plant, that's not so for a mobile one. Part of the issue is that you also have to lug around all of this extra weight - the gas - when moving, which you don't want to do. You're always going to need water, as a power plant, and if you can condense everything down in the first place, it's better. Efficiency isn't all you're looking for. You're also looking for safety. If you lose a way to cool your core...
... Enough said.

[Triplebaconation]

Why is every aerospace reactor ever flown metal-cooled?

Okay, here's a question.

I'm trying to find Soviet era/Russian dedicated ECM aircraft.

I see the Yak-28PP, and if thats as good as it gets, I'll go with it. I also see the Su-24MP referred to as an ECM aircraft, but it appears to be less of a jamming platform and more of an ELINT platform.

Am I missing something here?

Wiki or whatever is wrong. MP means modified for jamming, and the Su-24MP had the same ECM complex as the Brewer-E.

The Soviets had an incredible array of jamming aircraft, probably more than the US (certainly more types) but they relied more on large standoff jammers than modified strike aircraft.

[Transnapastain]

Why is every aerospace reactor ever flown metal-cooled?

Okay, here's a question.

I'm trying to find Soviet era/Russian dedicated ECM aircraft.

I see the Yak-28PP, and if thats as good as it gets, I'll go with it. I also see the Su-24MP referred to as an ECM aircraft, but it appears to be less of a jamming platform and more of an ELINT platform.

Am I missing something here?

Wiki or whatever is wrong. MP means modified for jamming, and the Su-24MP had the same ECM complex as the Brewer-E.

The Soviets had an incredible array of jamming aircraft, probably more than the US (certainly more types) but they relied more on large standoff jammers than modified strike aircraft.

Alright, thats good to know, thanks.

[Pharthan]

Why is every aerospace reactor ever flown metal-cooled?

I can only assume because it's better for heat-transfer. You get more bang for your buck immediately.
That, and some metal-cooled reactors are self-sealing in the event of a leak.

Aerospace reactors aren't exactly my thing. I have a disdain for them, though, I really shouldn't. They're the only reason I have so much job security.
Except for the thorium ones and the little mini ones used for space applications. Those are nifty.

[Sevvania]

Art by dan338

I've been looking at this as a potential addition to the Sevvanian Air Force. I'd like to know if there are any glaring flaws with the design, though.

Information I have so far:
•Left fuselage houses pilot and tailgunner.
•Right fuselage houses a forward-facing turret and a tailgun.
•Central wing segment houses a central tailgun and appears to have a windshield. Should the bombardier be in here lying on his belly, or in the right fuselage?

[Estainia]

It's pretty much P-38 Lightning from here, no glaring problems I can see.

[Anemos Major]

(Image)
Art by dan338

I've been looking at this as a potential addition to the Sevvanian Air Force. I'd like to know if there are any glaring flaws with the design, though.

Information I have so far:
•Left fuselage houses pilot and tailgunner.
•Right fuselage houses a forward-facing turret and a tailgun.
•Central wing segment houses a central tailgun and appears to have a windshield. Should the bombardier be in here lying on his belly, or in the right fuselage?

Mrrh. Ditch the central bombardier, use the central wing for semi-recessed bomb capacity, and replace one of the rear gunners with a bombardier's station. As it stands it looks like some horrible middle ground between the Avenger, Lightning and Defiant.

[Sevvania]

(Image)
Art by dan338

I've been looking at this as a potential addition to the Sevvanian Air Force. I'd like to know if there are any glaring flaws with the design, though.

Information I have so far:
•Left fuselage houses pilot and tailgunner.
•Right fuselage houses a forward-facing turret and a tailgun.
•Central wing segment houses a central tailgun and appears to have a windshield. Should the bombardier be in here lying on his belly, or in the right fuselage?

Mrrh. Ditch the central bombardier, use the central wing for semi-recessed bomb capacity, and replace one of the rear gunners with a bombardier's station. As it stands it looks like some horrible middle ground between the Avenger, Lightning and Defiant.

*makes note to do away with the central bombardier*
Could I fit the bombardier into the right fuselage? There appears to be room between the two turrets.

[Imperializt Russia]

Mrrh. Ditch the central bombardier, use the central wing for semi-recessed bomb capacity, and replace one of the rear gunners with a bombardier's station. As it stands it looks like some horrible middle ground between the Avenger, Lightning and Defiant.

*makes note to do away with the central bombardier*
Could I fit the bombardier into the right fuselage? There appears to be room between the two turrets.

I'd say to put the bombardier in place of the front gunner.
That turret looks dodgily placed. ie, shooting off your propeller dodgy.

Though twin-plane boom designs supposedly aren't worth much. They have the same PWR as each individual craft, add additional crew, don't offer much in the way of manoeuvrability or other benefits...

[Albynia]

(Image)
Art by dan338

I've been looking at this as a potential addition to the Sevvanian Air Force. I'd like to know if there are any glaring flaws with the design, though.

Information I have so far:
•Left fuselage houses pilot and tailgunner.
•Right fuselage houses a forward-facing turret and a tailgun.
•Central wing segment houses a central tailgun and appears to have a windshield. Should the bombardier be in here lying on his belly, or in the right fuselage?

The rear facing, central, dorsal turret has a pretty small field of fire, and what it covers seems already covered by the other two rear facing gunners. Would make more sense belly mounted.

[Rich and Corporations]

reading about the history of Soviet aircraft development

an early turboprop used a piston engine-driven compressor... which makes it into a reverse-hyperbar I suppose.

---

Light Bomber - 2007

Uses advanced next generation metallurgy and perforated aluminum to improve armor efficiency by 25%
Uses advanced stealth technology to reduce detectablity to radars
Crew: 2
Length: 19 meters
Wingspan: 21 meters
Height: 4.6 meters
Wing area: 65 m^2
Empty Weight: 15 tonnes
Loaded Weight: 19 tonnes

CAS Mission: 28 tonnes
Anti-armor Mission: 25 tonnes

Max. takeoff Weight: 30 tonnes
Powerplant: 3x turbofans (3800 kg thrust)

Guns: 4 cm CTA four-barrel Gatling-type rotary cannon fires HEI-T (32mm penetration at 30 degrees at 100 meters) and APCRI (85mm penetration at 60 degrees at 100 meters) in alternating sequence (1,600 rounds of ammunition, or 37 seconds of fire). APCR rounds use an advanced nose design to reduce "slippage" when penetrating. Accuracy of 1.5 milliradians.

2x wing-mounted .6 cm MG (APCR ammunition, 6,000 rounds of ammunition, 3 minutes of fire)

Hardpoints: 8x under-wing and 4x under-fuselage pylon stations

• 7.5 cm rocket pod with 19x rockets
• 13 cm rocket pod with 4x rockets (rockets can be of anti-ground or of anti-air type)
• Air-to-air missile
• Air-to-surface missile
  
• 500 kg gravity bomb
• 350 kg incendiary bomb
• Cluster bombs
• Flares or Chaff dispenser pod
• 2x 2,000 liter drop tanks

Electronics: Targetting sensors for bombs, 3 15 cm LCD displays showing stores and targeting data

Maximum Speed: 420 knots
Cruise speed: 320 knots
Stall speed: 110 knots
Combat radius: 600 km
Ferry range: 4,200 km
Service ceiling: 14,000 meters
Rate of climb: 32 meters/second
Wing loading: 430 kg/m^2

[Rich and Corporations]

Light Bomber - 2007 - Variant B (designated solely for anti-heavy tank operations)

---

Guns: A single 75mm cannon, firing from a seven round drum.

[The Alexandrea Lands]

All of the Air Force are flying spaceships made of Axelium. They drop Axelium bombs and shoot Axelium missiles, but the training ones just use atomic bombs and missiles. It is impossible to record how fast they fly. They can go as high as the heavens.

[Imperializt Russia]

Light Bomber - 2007 - Variant B (designated solely for anti-heavy tank operations)

---

Guns: A single 75mm cannon, firing from a seven round drum.

"Light bomber" can only loft a 75mm gun and 7 rounds?
The Mosquito was made of wood and lofted nearer twenty rounds and a nifty autoloader.

Besides, in this day and age, why aren't you using rockets or missiles for this? Or even autocannon?

[Rich and Corporations]

Light Bomber - 2007 - Variant B (designated solely for anti-heavy tank operations)

---

Guns: A single 75mm cannon, firing from a seven round drum.

"Light bomber" can only loft a 75mm gun and 7 rounds?
The Mosquito was made of wood and lofted nearer twenty rounds and a nifty autoloader.

Besides, in this day and age, why aren't you using rockets or missiles for this? Or even autocannon?

I misunderestimated to avoid wank, although it appears I've made it too feeble.

The other variant, uses 4 cm CTA with APCRI to punch neat holes in the roof armor in most armored vehicles. But looking at some NS wank tanks, it appears I'll need a specialized variant to break the assault concentrations of super-heavy tanks. I'm also assuming aircraft-mounted cannons have larger ammunition capacity then an equivalent rocket, as well as being cheaper and more accurate (unless you're using guided rockets, which would be more expensive and accurate).

[Imperializt Russia]

70mm rockets are sufficiently accurate for anti-tank work, especially when deploying submunitions. A helicopter can carry four nineteen-rocket launchers of Hydra or CRV-7.

CRV-7 is quoted as being more accurate than gun systems, as little as 3 miliradians.

Salvo-launching CRV-7s with either unitary tungsten penetrators or the FAT warhead will probably dispatch almost all tanks at 3-4km

You could also fit a GAU-13/GPU-5 gun pod in place of a 75mm gun - 353 rounds of depleted uranium 30x173mm. Just actually give it a targeting suite, and you'll be laughing.

[Rich and Corporations]

70mm rockets are sufficiently accurate for anti-tank work, especially when deploying submunitions. A helicopter can carry four nineteen-rocket launchers of Hydra or CRV-7.

CRV-7 is quoted as being more accurate than gun systems, as little as 3 miliradians.

Salvo-launching CRV-7s with either unitary tungsten penetrators or the FAT warhead will probably dispatch almost all tanks at 3-4km

You could also fit a GAU-13 gun pod in place of a 75mm gun - 353 rounds of depleted uranium 30x173mm. Just actually give it a targeting suite, and you'll be laughing.

A gatling gun for the F-35 is quoted as being as accurate as 1.4 milliradians.
I think you missed my previous post on a light bomber variant using a 4 cm CTA gun pod using APCRI and mentions of it using a targeting solution.
And I prefer not to use 30x173mm APDS since the sabots could cause aircraft damage. I think. Or so I've read.

[Imperializt Russia]

I think it was shellcasings that were more the issue, hence the GAU-8's feeding mechanism. Gun-pods are self-contained, negating this issue.
Remember that sabots travel at about a thousand metres per second and more rapidly fall away, and aircraft do not.

The GAU-22, according to its manufacturer, is cited at 1.4 miliradians for a "1-sigma radius", which is approximately 40% probability.
80% of rounds will strike within 5 miliradians, exactly equivalent to the GAU-8 - and also, the GAU-12 from which the GAU-22 derives.
http://www.gd-ots.com/armament_systems/mbw_GAU-22A.html
http://www.gd-ots.com/armament_systems/ags_A-10.html
http://www.gd-ots.com/armament_systems/mbw_GAU-12U.html

[Pharthan]

(Image)
Art by dan338

I've been looking at this as a potential addition to the Sevvanian Air Force. I'd like to know if there are any glaring flaws with the design, though.

Information I have so far:
•Left fuselage houses pilot and tailgunner.
•Right fuselage houses a forward-facing turret and a tailgun.
•Central wing segment houses a central tailgun and appears to have a windshield. Should the bombardier be in here lying on his belly, or in the right fuselage?

I'm assuming you didn't make the art, so keeping it in line with the art:
Have the bombardier also be the forward-gunner. His primary job is being the bombardier, but he'll have access to a turret in the event of necessity - it's pretty apparent it's in a bad location for anything but last-ditch-effort.
Your mid-gunner should also have access to a lower-gun beneath that middle one. A plane like that will be always attacked from below if you have three turrets on top, forward-facing fixed guns, and none on the bottom. But like the others said, use the rest of that space for fuel and bombs.

[Atlantica]

Which engine do you guys think would be better for a twin-engine multirole fighter:

2 x EJ200 (those things on the Eurofighter Typhoon) with TVC

or

2 x F414 Engines (those things on the Super Hornet)

[Australian rePublic]

--EDITED-OUT--

[Registug]

Much of the happenings of the MT RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) are mostly classified and top secret. However, nothing prevents people from standing in the training paths

However, there are planes patroling our borders non-stop

If you're just going to post "my aircraft are secret", don't bother posting.

[Rich and Corporations]

Much of the happenings of the MT RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) are mostly classified and top secret. However, nothing prevents people from standing in the training paths

However, there are planes patroling our borders non-stop

If you're just going to post "my aircraft are secret", don't bother posting.

Even the Americans knew all about top secret Soviet aircraft.

Possibly because they see them flying in the air or in air bases through their spies and spy planes and spy satellites.

I think it was shellcasings that were more the issue, hence the GAU-8's feeding mechanism. Gun-pods are self-contained, negating this issue.
Remember that sabots travel at about a thousand metres per second and more rapidly fall away, and aircraft do not.

"A-10 ammo. The GAU-8/A as used in the A-10 doesn't use APFSDS for the same reason that no other plane does - too much risk of the discarded sabots being sucked into the engines." - Tony Williams