NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Arkandros]

[.
The expansion of that air as it heats is what is actually drives the turbine. .

Isn't that a given in any reactor, coal and nuclear power plants uses water to turn into water vapor to do the work of pushing the mechanical and electrical turbine. So in these aircraft reactors they use air instead. Never heard of these air reactors, is it a open system that requires a air intake?

There were designs for direct cycle air cooled reactors analogous to boiling water reactors where air was both the primary coolant and the working fluid, which did have air intakes and exhausts to the core. A good specific example (and an example of why they no longer see use) is the heat transfer reactor experiment, which had an overpower and partial meltdown, leading to a radiological accident.

As for your question about efficiency with regards to temperature differential, every heat engine operates by converting a portion of heat input to work. This transfer can be simplified to a proportionality, where work output (W) is proportional to the difference in energy of the input heat (Qin) and the output heat (Qout). Combined with the general use efficiency equation (usable output/total input, in this case W/Qin), we get the equation for a heat engine’s efficiency as (Qin-Qout)/Qin. A drop in input heat (Qin) caused by a lowering of temperature, or a rise in output heat caused by a rise in heat sink temperature will therefore cause a lowering of the engine’s total efficiency.

[Miku the Based]

(usable output/total input, in this case W/Qin), we get the equation for a heat engine’s efficiency as (Qin-Qout)/Qin . A drop in input heat (Qin) caused by a lowering of temperature, or a rise in output heat caused by a rise in heat sink temperature will therefore cause a lowering of the engine’s total efficiency.

Oh, I see, thank you.

[Barfleur]

I don't know how popular Popular Mechanics is on this thread, but url=https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a35865601/f-36-kingsnake-air-force-next-fighter-jet-concept/]here's and interesting article I read this morning.[/url]

Is anything going to come of this? Should anything come of this? Or is it just a pipe dream/money hole/another 4.5 generation fighter that will never actually fight?

Nothing's going to come of a notional illustration on Hush-Kit.

If the US actually builds a more affordable supplement to the F-35 it almost certainly won't look like that. It'll either be a new block of actual F-16s or something like the F-35's various conceptual predecessors.

I am not qualified enough to give an opinion as to whether the USAF should go with the "F-36 Kingsnake" or any other model, but I absolutely see the need for a cheaper, less flashy, workhorse for the fighter fleet, preferably one that costs less per unit than the F-22 and F-35 and takes less time to develop and build.

Can you see it becoming like the F-16 in the sense of being exported on such a large scale to nations somewhat friendly to the United States?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I absolutely see the need for a cheaper, less flashy, workhorse for the fighter fleet, preferably one that costs less per unit than the F-22 and F-35 and takes less time to develop and build.

This is like 1890's General Macks encountering the repeating bolt action rifle with "large" magazine capacities and going "OMG we need magazine cutoffs because think of all the wastage!"

[The Akasha Colony]

I am not qualified enough to give an opinion as to whether the USAF should go with the "F-36 Kingsnake" or any other model, but I absolutely see the need for a cheaper, less flashy, workhorse for the fighter fleet, preferably one that costs less per unit than the F-22 and F-35 and takes less time to develop and build.

For what purpose?

Given the timelines needed to develop new aircraft, if the USAF were dead set on buying something "supplementary" it would almost certainly just be an upgraded F-16, in the same way that they're buying F-15EX. But since F-35 is still in production while F-22 is not, they don't really have much of a need to settle for a re-warmed 50-year-old fighter.

Can you see it becoming like the F-16 in the sense of being exported on such a large scale to nations somewhat friendly to the United States?

All the US allies with money and access have already bought F-35. All the US allies without money or access have already bought something like F-16V/F-15SA etc. The few remaining countries that have the money to buy Western but decide not to buy American just buy Rafale or Gripen.

[Triplebaconation]

I absolutely see the need for a cheaper, less flashy, workhorse for the fighter fleet, preferably one that costs less per unit than the F-22 and F-35 and takes less time to develop and build.

This is like 1890's General Macks encountering the repeating bolt action rifle with "large" magazine capacities and going "OMG we need magazine cutoffs because think of all the wastage!"

This is a remarkably bad analogy since both aircraft are more or less obsolete.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Nothing's going to come of a notional illustration on Hush-Kit.

If the US actually builds a more affordable supplement to the F-35 it almost certainly won't look like that. It'll either be a new block of actual F-16s or something like the F-35's various conceptual predecessors.

I am not qualified enough to give an opinion as to whether the USAF should go with the "F-36 Kingsnake" or any other model, but I absolutely see the need for a cheaper, less flashy, workhorse for the fighter fleet, preferably one that costs less per unit than the F-22 and F-35 and takes less time to develop and build.

That doesn't make sense in the 21st Century. Pretty much every major power is developing 5th Generation fighters. Russia has the Pak Fa. China has the J-20 and FC-31, India has the AMCA, Iran has the Qaher 313, Pakistan has the Azm Program, Turkey has the TFX, and the EU, Sweden, and Japan are studying 5th Generation technologies and aircraft. So going to a so-called "cheaper workhorse" is simply not practical. The only thing that it will accomplish is to replace aging, near obsolete aircraft from the 1970s with a modern but equally obsolete aircraft. The modern battlefield will be one rife with drones, integrated air defense systems, and 5th-generation fighters. Against that backdrop, a Gen-4.5 aircraft like a modernized F-15 or F-16 or a so-called "5th Gen minus" aircraft like the concept F-36.

At the end of the day, the F-35 isn't going away. It is also not looking like its procurement will be cut, since the US military still plans on 1,763 F-35A, 353 F-35B, and 340 F-35C. This also doesn't consider foreign buyers, which adds another 861 aircraft being sold to 12 countries.

[Triplebaconation]

Qaher 313

Imagine spending 1.5-2 trillion dollars to take out the Qaher 313 lol

The modern battlefield will be one rife with drones, integrated air defense systems, and 5th-generation fighters. Against that backdrop, a Gen-4.5 aircraft like a modernized F-15 or F-16 or a so-called "5th Gen minus" aircraft like the concept F-36.

Yes, the people telling us this for the past 30 years tend to get nice jobs with Lockheed. In reality the F-16 is actually better at blowing up hospitals and pistachio farmers and the proliferation of IADS and advanced aircraft hasn't really happened. I suspect the total volume of defended airspace has actually gone down over the past few decades.

Meanwhile a relatively backwards country like Iran has demonstrated and acted upon the ability to precisely target individual aircraft hangars from hundreds of miles away. Uh oh.

Most likely the F-35 will eventually be adequate. It's hard to tell since negative articles about it are sensationalized and fluff pieces are suspect.

Even if it performs as advertised it's probably still an example of state capture than actual threat-based procurement - the dumbest things about it don't directly relate to its capabilities.

Anyway all this is besides the point, since even a full F-35 purchase (looking increasingly unlikely) leaves the USAF with hundreds of 4th generation fighters well into the 2040s. Buying new-build F-15s and F-16s is actually cheaper than maintaining (let alone upgrading) the current ones over that time frame and gives you operational aircraft afterwards.

So at the actual end of the day, while the F-35 isn't going anywhere, neither are 4th generation fighters. The Air Force will continue to rely on a mix of capabilities for the foreseeable future. It's better from both economic and readiness perspectives if that 4th generation fighter is new instead of a 50-year-old rustbucket.

It would be even better if the Digital Century advocates are right and new aircraft can be designed quickly - this would go a long way towards fixing a broken procurement system.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I am not qualified enough to give an opinion as to whether the USAF should go with the "F-36 Kingsnake" or any other model, but I absolutely see the need for a cheaper, less flashy, workhorse for the fighter fleet, preferably one that costs less per unit than the F-22 and F-35 and takes less time to develop and build.

That doesn't make sense in the 21st Century. Pretty much every major power is developing 5th Generation fighters. Russia has the Pak Fa. China has the J-20 and FC-31, India has the AMCA, Iran has the Qaher 313, Pakistan has the Azm Program, Turkey has the TFX, and the EU, Sweden, and Japan are studying 5th Generation technologies and aircraft. So going to a so-called "cheaper workhorse" is simply not practical. The only thing that it will accomplish is to replace aging, near obsolete aircraft from the 1970s with a modern but equally obsolete aircraft. The modern battlefield will be one rife with drones, integrated air defense systems, and 5th-generation fighters. Against that backdrop, a Gen-4.5 aircraft like a modernized F-15 or F-16 or a so-called "5th Gen minus" aircraft like the concept F-36.

At the end of the day, the F-35 isn't going away. It is also not looking like its procurement will be cut, since the US military still plans on 1,763 F-35A, 353 F-35B, and 340 F-35C. This also doesn't consider foreign buyers, which adds another 861 aircraft being sold to 12 countries.

Having a PPT or being developed doesn't mean it can be successful.LCA in India was developed in 1983 and designed by Dassault company. Almost all the important parts are imported. It was only recently put into service. Pakistan, Iran and Japan have no experience in designing their own Third Generation Fighters.The F-35 plan destroyed Europe's ability to independently design fighters. If these countries start to study now, they may not be able to produce results when the F-35 retires.The United States has begun to reduce orders for the F-35..But it's for the next generation of fighters, using fast iterative technology, similar to the F-100 to F-110,frequent iterations to continuously apply new technologies.

[Gallia-]

I don't know how popular Popular Mechanics is on this thread, but url=https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a35865601/f-36-kingsnake-air-force-next-fighter-jet-concept/]here's and interesting article I read this morning.[/url]

Is anything going to come of this? Should anything come of this? Or is it just a pipe dream/money hole/another 4.5 generation fighter that will never actually fight?

hello F-16XL

launch it out of iowa battleship vls silos

the iowa battleship has big trimaran sponsons that house the MARAUDER particle beam point defense (instead of the plasma cannon trash tubes/septic tank) and railgun batteries to defend against hypersonic brahmos 2

railguns shell chinese sandbars from 200 miles away while marines in wigs assault the beaches from 150 miles away

this is the proper kyle mizokami article

[Hinachi]

Due to seas getting louder and submarines getting quieter, the detection range of passive sonar has fallen, while active sonar has benefited from the development of multi-static sonar. Therefore, the relative usefulness of active sonar compared to passive sonar for anti-submarine warfare has significantly increased.

In view of that, in this paper Thyssenkrupp's Tom Avsic explores the potential for a 'stealth' submarine to use shaping and coatings to reduce the reflection of sound in a similar vein to stealth aircraft. He finds that coating a single-hulled submarine can significantly reduce the reflection of sound at mid-frequency, while shaping can significantly reduce reflection at both low and mid-frequencies. Moreover, by reflecting vertically, shaping can reduce the range that reflected sound can be transmitted and thereby also benefit against multi-static sonar.

Would it make sense for submarines today to be designed for 'stealth' against active sonar? I think this could also increase the survivability of submarines against active sonar homing torpedoes.

[Gallia-]

The Nazis seemed to think so and I guess it's natural for a company descended from Krupp to revisit the ideas of Hitlerism. Right now SURTASS LFA seems to give surface units a good ability to find submarines in deep ocean, though. Who knows how well it would work but it's probably worth a shot since there's no obvious ability to hide from SURTASS LFA if you're attempting to attack a CVBG or something in deep water.

[Miku the Based]

Due to seas getting louder

Source?

ideas of hitlerism

What? Did I miss the active radar deflection and concealment from Mein Kampf or something?

[Cossack Peoples]

Due to seas getting louder

Source?

Quick Google search

[Miku the Based]

Source?

Quick Google search

Very Loud Snapping shrimp

Lol, the perfect weapon tovarish.

[Gallia-]

Due to seas getting louder

Source?

ideas of hitlerism

What? Did I miss the active radar deflection and concealment from Mein Kampf or something?

The Nazi Kriegsmarine invented a design for a sonar stealth shaped Type 29.

[New Vihenia]

and active sonar actually add to the Sea's "loudness" can kill whales too.

I'm curious however if Bi-static/Multistatic system with non cooperative transmitter such as your enemy's own Active sonar would work. So the submarine would carry maybe a smaller underwater drones which act as the "receiver". There is limit however namely the underwater communication.. this put hard limit on the baseline distance or separation between the drones and its carrier by maybe 1 Km at best.

[Gallia-]

I think the "LFA kills whales" is a total meme.

[Austrasien]

Would it make sense for submarines today to be designed for 'stealth' against active sonar? I think this could also increase the survivability of submarines against active sonar homing torpedoes.

Seems promising for non-nuclear boats. Nuclear submarines, which go faster, would need to consider the potential downsides of added drag (more engine power/noise for a given speed, more flow noise). Probably. On the other hand, active sonar is less effective in shallow water which are the prime hunting grounds for non-nuclear boats. So the benefits may be marginal depending on where the sub in question is expected to fight.

[Miku the Based]

What? Did I miss the active radar deflection and concealment from Mein Kampf or something?

The Nazi Kriegsmarine invented a design for a sonar stealth shaped Type 29.

So how does hitlerism come into play here? Did Hitler come up with that idea or something?

[Gallia-]

Would it make sense for submarines today to be designed for 'stealth' against active sonar? I think this could also increase the survivability of submarines against active sonar homing torpedoes.

Seems promising for non-nuclear boats. Nuclear submarines, which go faster, would need to consider the potential downsides of added drag (more engine power/noise for a given speed, more flow noise). Probably. On the other hand, active sonar is less effective in shallow water which are the prime hunting grounds for non-nuclear boats. So the benefits may be marginal depending on where the sub in question is expected to fight.

It seems more beneficial for nukes since they can get potentially closer to SURTASS LFA if I read it correctly? Diesels should probably be more afraid of like idk blue-green LIDAR satellites or something seeing them I guess.

I guess you could build artificial reefs by sinking old ships near naval chokepoints tho and just have non-nukes float around there and hide amongst the boring sea debris.

[Miku the Based]

Now that we're on the topic of submarines. Why don't we use the concept of the Dyson bladeless fan and use it underwater? Why do we still use screws as propellers? It wouldn't create that whooping sound and it would be a continuous hum instead.
Edit: a continuous hum would be higher pitch/frequency which may not show up on a passive sonar since it's not looking for those sounds. Apparently it's lower effeciency, but so is electric engines and That's why they still use hybrids mostly for subs that stay in the water longer then those all electric ones.

[New Visayan Islands]

Now that we're on the topic of submarines. Why don't we use the concept of the Dyson bladeless fan and use it underwater? Why do we still use screws as propellers? It wouldn't create that whooping sound and it would be a continuous hum instead.
Edit: a continuous hum would be higher pitch/frequency which may not show up on a passive sonar since it's not looking for those sounds. Apparently it's lower effeciency, but so is electric engines and That's why they still use hybrids mostly for subs that stay in the water longer then those all electric ones.

I understood that reference.

That being said, I do not imagine it to be any practical (or cost-effective) for submarine propulsion.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Because we found something quieter.

[Austrasien]

It seems more beneficial for nukes since they can get potentially closer to SURTASS LFA if I read it correctly?

I suppose it should though the paper does not discuss 100-500hz. LFA wavelengths are long enough I am not sure how much impact hull shape will have on them. LFAs performance is already very dependent on aspect angle because the wavelengths (3-15 meters) are approaching the width of the hull and nose/tail on scattering is very weak.

So the main practical effect on LFA might be restricting the range of angles at which it can detect the target, even more, more side.

Maybe IDK.