NationStates

If you have decent space industry, it can be more cost efficient to just drop big rocks on someone anyways. Bonus: no radioactive fallout. An object of sufficient mass will also prove very resistant to most conventional weapons.

Licana wrote:

The Corparation wrote:Mostly the idea is that it would be able to move faster then a missile sub an attack and have it less easily be tracked and thus be better able to evade. That, and it would fly within the nation and be escorted by fighters. (Or I could go lulzy and give it Air to air missiles) The MIRvs would due to size limitations be of a smaller size then those of slbms but they'd be designed for more precision strikes against enemy command centers. IT also wouldn't replace subs but would serve alongside them. Wouldn't field more then a few dozen carriers (20-50) each with a single missile. Their advantage would be their ability to move across the country and away from possible targets quickly and on short notice.

Aircraft will almost always be easier to track than a submarine. The problem is that, unless you plan to keep a few of these airborne at all times, it really wouldn't have any particular use, and if you do then you waste tons of fuel to keep them in the air (not to mention maintenance and other costs). Even if you did, an enemy probably could track and intercept these missile carriers (at least, much easier than they could a sub) before or immediately after an attack.

They would be flying deep within Corparate airspace so if they managed to get fighters in that far then they've probably reached air superiority. Yes they'd be massive fuel hogs but they'd only be airborne if an attack was believed to be be incoming. Most would sit ready on the flight line with crews taking shifts on duty to take off if a launch is detected, then launch. Again its not the most practical idea and wouldn't see much use. The main advantage they'd have is that it in order to track them the enemy would have to penetrate deep within our airspace. They'd have fighter escorts (Or carry their own medium-long range air to air missiles.) The enemy would have to get to them before they could shoot them down, and by that time, they'd of launched. They way I see is that they'd enter limited service and then be grounded most of the time due to lack of funding for the program, then eventually mothballed. Possibly be taken out of storage for a minor conflict or two.

You'd have a very, very short window to take off in the event of an attack, and even then you have to get far enough away from the blast zone to not get taken down by it. Your main advantage also severely restricts their mobility, increasing the chances that they could be taken out by a nuclear strike (whole point of first-strike capacity is to destroy the other guy's delivery systems first, then rape the rest of their nation) You'd be much, much better off designing/building new ballistic missile submarines for retaliatory strike capacity.

Licana wrote:You'd have a very, very short window to take off in the event of an attack, and even then you have to get far enough away from the blast zone to not get taken down by it. Your main advantage also severely restricts their mobility, increasing the chances that they could be taken out by a nuclear strike (whole point of first-strike capacity is to destroy the other guy's delivery systems first, then rape the rest of their nation) You'd be much, much better off designing/building new ballistic missile submarines for retaliatory strike capacity.

Like I said these aren't going to see much use. Most of my second strike is subs and remote isolated groups of silos with a few missiles.

I never knew this thread existed until 2 minutes ago so I wish to lay down an idea that has been bugging me for quite some time.
(if the mods allow someone to reply instead of closing it down for good)
reference: Project pluto
what if we could create a single engine that both creates the ram effect at the front of the engine and utilise the same engine principles of Project Pluto?
the resulting engine could in fact power the aircraft for months AND accelerate it from a stand still without rocket assisted boosters.

The problem with Project Pluto is that it's not shielded, so it will spew radiation wherever it goes. Not exactly something you want in one of your aircraft.

Axis Nova wrote:The problem with Project Pluto is that it's not shielded, so it will spew radiation wherever it goes. Not exactly something you want in one of your aircraft.

That's not a disadvantage, really.

Axis Nova wrote:The problem with Project Pluto is that it's not shielded, so it will spew radiation wherever it goes. Not exactly something you want in one of your aircraft.

true, but then again the project was cut short before the scientists devised a way to counter the radioactive exhaust and find a material light enough to shield the engines properly
now what those materials may be is unknown since the US, to my knowledge, has yet to publicise the results of its experiments in aircraft shielding and the consequences of the exhaust

The Soviet Technocracy wrote:That's not a disadvantage, really.

.. wait, how so?

Golomun wrote:

The Soviet Technocracy wrote:That's not a disadvantage, really.

:twisted:.. wait, how so?

Because you're not going to be having a manned crew in such a aircraft. SLAM was a UCAV. It was also going to use booster rockets to accelerate itself up to proper launch speed and altitude.

Even then, by the time SLAM was canceled, they were already looking into closed cycle nuclear engines, and it's possible they would have used one on SLAM, but an open cycle is fine too.

Considering SLAM would have demolished pretty much everything in it's path (Mach 3 + 900 feet = everything dies), salting the land wouldn't have done much more harm tbh.

The Soviet Technocracy wrote:

Golomun wrote: .. wait, how so?

Because you're not going to be having a manned crew in such a aircraft. SLAM was a UCAV. It was also going to use booster rockets to accelerate itself up to proper launch speed and altitude.

Even then, by the time SLAM was canceled, they were already looking into closed cycle nuclear engines, and it's possible they would have used one on SLAM, but an open cycle is fine too.

Considering SLAM would have demolished pretty much everything in it's path (Mach 3 + 900 feet = everything dies), salting the land wouldn't have done much more harm tbh.

Not to mention the fact that it was going to be dropping nuclear bombs the whole way.

better reference: http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html

Still, again, proper reactor shielding could negate the exhaust effects and protect the pilot of an aircraft; although the cockpit would have to be shielded no matter what.
I know boosters would have to be used in modern times, but in post modern times, could we use a secondary engine, powered by the same reactor, for acceleration to the proper speed for the ram effect to occur?
I know NASA has produced an Ion and plasma based engine's for space travel, how would we combine a NRJ engine with an Ion engine so as to not use boosters nor expensive fossil fuels?

Golomun wrote:better reference: http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html

Still, again, proper reactor shielding could negate the exhaust effects and protect the pilot of an aircraft; although the cockpit would have to be shielded no matter what.
I know boosters would have to be used in modern times, but in post modern times, could we use a secondary engine, powered by the same reactor, for acceleration to the proper speed for the ram effect to occur?
I know NASA has produced an Ion and plasma based engine's for space travel, how would we combine a NRJ engine with an Ion engine so as to not use boosters nor expensive fossil fuels?

You can't use an ion engine in atmo, they just don't give any amount of usable thrust. Only reason they work well in space is there's no drag and even then it takes a good time to get up to speed.

The Corparation wrote:

Golomun wrote:better reference: http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html

Still, again, proper reactor shielding could negate the exhaust effects and protect the pilot of an aircraft; although the cockpit would have to be shielded no matter what.
I know boosters would have to be used in modern times, but in post modern times, could we use a secondary engine, powered by the same reactor, for acceleration to the proper speed for the ram effect to occur?
I know NASA has produced an Ion and plasma based engine's for space travel, how would we combine a NRJ engine with an Ion engine so as to not use boosters nor expensive fossil fuels?

You can't use an ion engine in atmo, they just don't give any amount of usable thrust. Only reason they work well in space is there's no drag and even then it takes a good time to get up to speed.

right.. so what would you suggest in order to make a Nuclear Ram jet fighter craft feasible?

Golomun wrote:

The Corparation wrote:You can't use an ion engine in atmo, they just don't give any amount of usable thrust. Only reason they work well in space is there's no drag and even then it takes a good time to get up to speed.

right.. so what would you suggest in order to make a Nuclear Ram jet fighter craft feasible?

Rocket thrusters for takeoff is probably the best bet. Or you could try and get a nuclear variable cycle engine going, something like a P&W J58 only nuclear powered.

The Corparation wrote:

Golomun wrote:right.. so what would you suggest in order to make a Nuclear Ram jet fighter craft feasible?

Rocket thrusters for takeoff is probably the best bet. Or you could try and get a nuclear variable cycle engine going, something like a P&W J58 only nuclear powered.

the very engine used on the SR-71.. how would that work exactly? I mean a nuclear j58 engine?

It's definitely possible to build an aircraft powered by a closed cycle nuclear ramjet, but I don't see it being much use except as a strategic bomber or possibly a high altitude recon plane. A fighter, definitely not-- anything with one of those whacked on is going to be pretty big.

Golomun wrote:

The Corparation wrote:Rocket thrusters for takeoff is probably the best bet. Or you could try and get a nuclear variable cycle engine going, something like a P&W J58 only nuclear powered.

the very engine used on the SR-71.. how would that work exactly? I mean a nuclear j58 engine?

Same way the J58 would, the inner bit being a nuclear powered turbojet, and having an inlet and means to control airlfow like the j58. Simple really. but it would have to be gigantic to carry it. The only time the US flew a reactor, we used a Peacemaker, they're one of the largest combat aircraft ever built.

The Corparation wrote:

The Soviet Technocracy wrote:
Because you're not going to be having a manned crew in such a aircraft. SLAM was a UCAV. It was also going to use booster rockets to accelerate itself up to proper launch speed and altitude.

Even then, by the time SLAM was canceled, they were already looking into closed cycle nuclear engines, and it's possible they would have used one on SLAM, but an open cycle is fine too.

Considering SLAM would have demolished pretty much everything in it's path (Mach 3 + 900 feet = everything dies), salting the land wouldn't have done much more harm tbh.

Not to mention the fact that it was going to be dropping nuclear bombs the whole way.

Hence:

SLAM was a UCAV.

Axis Nova wrote:It's definitely possible to build an aircraft powered by a closed cycle nuclear ramjet, but I don't see it being much use except as a strategic bomber or possibly a high altitude recon plane. A fighter, definitely not-- anything with one of those whacked on is going to be pretty big.

Most def tbh

A nuclear powered, closed cycle bomber would be legit as fuck, but expensive, too.

The Soviet Technocracy wrote:

Golomun wrote: .. wait, how so?

Because you're not going to be having a manned crew in such a aircraft. SLAM was a UCAV. It was also going to use booster rockets to accelerate itself up to proper launch speed and altitude.

Even then, by the time SLAM was canceled, they were already looking into closed cycle nuclear engines, and it's possible they would have used one on SLAM, but an open cycle is fine too.

Considering SLAM would have demolished pretty much everything in it's path (Mach 3 + 900 feet = everything dies), salting the land wouldn't have done much more harm tbh.

So how about weaponizing that principle? Just build a low fast drone to fly over enemy ranks?

Well, keep in mind that most people are going to react poorly to you essentially nuking their troops.

I have a question on PMT, I have dabbled a tad in MT, but prefer the PMT genre, my question to PMT players is this, what general year and tech level do you consider it. I see it as anything 20-120 years from now. Space stuff is moot as an MT nation that really wanted it could have colonised the solar system in the 60's with orion drives [before any arguing, the only reason we didn't build them was treaties with the russians.], so as PMT I would assume that space is a major part.

I see PMT genre as things like ghost in the shell, apple seed, heavy gear, armored trooper votoms, even battlestar galactica, cyber punk, Early Bolo books, Aliens [early] Blade runner and the like. Is this accurate to most people? I know that having FTL is not always a part of it, though when it is in PMT genre it tends to be slow as heck, or basically hard to use. I am just really curious as to the accepted tech levels and tree's of PMT on NS by most of its players.

Its usually grouped in to MT, and I am pretty sure MT players would balk at hover tanks, heavy gears, power armour and massive AI controlled tanks, and space war ships that though STL [normally anyways] are still better then what MT nation's could pull off. Also transat fighters, super dreadnought sized ships. Laser carrying tanks that shoot down airplanes and the like. So what tech level do you PMT players normally see it as.

Tannelorn wrote:I have a question on PMT, I have dabbled a tad in MT, but prefer the PMT genre, my question to PMT players is this, what general year and tech level do you consider it. I see it as anything 20-120 years from now. Space stuff is moot as an MT nation that really wanted it could have colonised the solar system in the 60's with orion drives [before any arguing, the only reason we didn't build them was treaties with the russians.], so as PMT I would assume that space is a major part.

I see PMT genre as things like ghost in the shell, apple seed, heavy gear, armored trooper votoms, even battlestar galactica, cyber punk, Early Bolo books, Aliens [early] Blade runner and the like. Is this accurate to most people? I know that having FTL is not always a part of it, though when it is in PMT genre it tends to be slow as heck, or basically hard to use. I am just really curious as to the accepted tech levels and tree's of PMT on NS by most of its players.

Its usually grouped in to MT, and I am pretty sure MT players would balk at hover tanks, heavy gears, power armour and massive AI controlled tanks, and space war ships that though STL [normally anyways] are still better then what MT nation's could pull off. Also transat fighters, super dreadnought sized ships. Laser carrying tanks that shoot down airplanes and the like. So what tech level do you PMT players normally see it as.

Geernally FT is within the next hundred years or so. Good PMT uses technology that's on the drawing board. Things like space drives and FTL are generally FT as we have no way of doing any of that at present time. Flying spaceships like you're thinkingof are all FT, we literally have no idea how any of that stuff would work in RL. AI I'm a bit iffy on, power armor I'm fine with seeing as they've working prototypes now and will be able to move under their own power within the next decade or so, (Plus we had a working one back in the 60s so we should be farther ahead in that respect.)

Technically an MT society could easily have jupiter colonies. Orion wasn't just a theory, it actually worked. They were going to build one and use it to go to the moon, one trip, permanent base. Look up the orion project..it will make you cry and rage against stupid cowardly governments.

It was ended because of an arms in space treaty..and thus we lost our only chance to expand in to the solar system. The modern ones like VASHRAM are a pitiful joke. The reason I ask is that I do play FT and FT itself is like...a thousand years in the future as the average at least. I remember reading MT allowed things that are in service now.

Also I made an MT nation that had power armour and AHSCA and blimps, as my people had an alt history and it didn't go over so well heh.

Tannelorn wrote:Technically an MT society could easily have jupiter colonies. Orion wasn't just a theory, it actually worked. They were going to build one and use it to go to the moon, one trip, permanent base. Look up the orion project..it will make you cry and rage against stupid cowardly governments.

It was ended because of an arms in space treaty..and thus we lost our only chance to expand in to the solar system. The modern ones like VASHRAM are a pitiful joke. The reason I ask is that I do play FT and FT itself is like...a thousand years in the future as the average at least. I remember reading MT allowed things that are in service now.

Also I made an MT nation that had power armour and AHSCA and blimps, as my people had an alt history and it didn't go over so well heh.

I'm not talking about Orions I'm talking about spacecraft without practical means of propulsion or navigation, ones that fly or sail through space like a ship or plane rather then use careful controlled bursts of acceleration to switch into carfeully calculate orbits to coast towards you destination, then using controlled burst of acceleration to stop.

AS for power armor in MT, PA is something that while it could of been developed more by now, lacks a practical means of power that would make it feasible for use in battle. For MT if you're going to use PA try and restrict it to doing heavy lifting of cargo and munitions. Something where its limited battery life won't matter or where you could keep it on a tether.

Really practical combat PA is PMT imo.