Advertisement
by Vitaphone Racing » Sat Dec 28, 2013 11:23 pm
Parhe wrote:Guess what, maybe you don't know what it is like to be Asian.
by Pharthan » Sat Dec 28, 2013 11:26 pm
Vitaphone Racing wrote:There already is a CAS aircraft designed to not carry a gun and carry more missiles. It's called the F-35, or the F-16 or the F-15E or basically any other multirole aircraft in existence ever.
inb4 someone says "but they all have guns!" because I know it's going to happen.
HALCYON ARMS STOREFRONT
by Oaledonia » Sat Dec 28, 2013 11:34 pm
The Corparation wrote: I've read that if the fun is removed for maintenance.
The lovable PMT nation of hugs and chibi! Now with 75% more Hanyū!
Oaledonian wiki | Decoli Defense | Embassy | OAF Military InfoUnder construction
*POLITICALLY CONTENTIOUS STATEMENTS INTENSIFY*
by Horizont » Sat Dec 28, 2013 11:56 pm
by San-Silvacian » Sun Dec 29, 2013 12:00 am
Pharthan wrote:Vitaphone Racing wrote:There already is a CAS aircraft designed to not carry a gun and carry more missiles. It's called the F-35, or the F-16 or the F-15E or basically any other multirole aircraft in existence ever.
inb4 someone says "but they all have guns!" because I know it's going to happen.
but they all have guns!Because 20mm cannons are wonderful for killing tanks!
I think he's looking for a bit of a slower aircraft, more like a beefed up COIN, rather than a multi-role, though those would do the job.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Sun Dec 29, 2013 12:02 am
Horizont wrote:So, I took the tornado and made it heavier, thus giving it the capacity to carry more weapons but also decreasing its TW ratio and maneuverability. Therefore, I'm classing it as a strike aircraft (something like a bomber) rather than a multirole fighter.
Good move? Bad? What situations would it be most useful in?
by Pharthan » Sun Dec 29, 2013 12:06 am
Yeah, 2/3s of that was sarcasm. I'd also avoid JDAMs for tanks, unless they were proving resistant to anything smaller.San-Silvacian wrote:
20mm guns aren't good against tanks, but 12 JDAMs make wonderful anti-anything weapons.
HALCYON ARMS STOREFRONT
by San-Silvacian » Sun Dec 29, 2013 12:08 am
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Horizont wrote:So, I took the tornado and made it heavier, thus giving it the capacity to carry more weapons but also decreasing its TW ratio and maneuverability. Therefore, I'm classing it as a strike aircraft (something like a bomber) rather than a multirole fighter.
Good move? Bad? What situations would it be most useful in?
Way ahead of you.
In other newsies I see I'm not the only one adhering to tank-plinking. *high-fives San*
by Val Nube » Sun Dec 29, 2013 12:49 am
Spirit of Hope wrote:So I've been toying with the idea of stripping out the 30mm gun from the A-10, and making it carry more missiles. Think thats workable or should I just do a new design from the ground up?
by Imperializt Russia » Sun Dec 29, 2013 4:36 am
Oaledonia wrote:Pharthan wrote:
Dalek.
The Mig-21's wings start notably behind the cockpit. Your goal is to try to center your Center-Of-Lift with Center-of-Mass; much of your weight is going to be your engine. Your current wing configuration starts more forward than that of the Mig-21.
With Fly-By-Wire, this is less of a concern, as you can have computers compensate, but it does mean you're going to have trouble with diving.
More importantly, who had the time to make an entire Wikipedia page for a Dalek?
Spirit of Hope wrote:Right about what I thought. Well now I just have to design a CAS missile craft that is heavily armored. Fun! Maybe I can make it cute and ugly at the same time like the A-10 itself.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Purpelia » Sun Dec 29, 2013 4:57 am
by Vitaphone Racing » Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:55 am
Purpelia wrote:Random question time. How useful would a He-111 style twin engine bomber be if it were powered by a pair of Napier Sabers? The intended year of introduction is late 1943 - early 1944 as a replacement for the original 111. The intended service period is until somewhere in 1950-52 when it gets swapped out for a jet.
Also, how do you guys feel about the IL-40?
Parhe wrote:Guess what, maybe you don't know what it is like to be Asian.
by Purpelia » Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:15 am
Vitaphone Racing wrote:Will they even fit? Even if they did... seems like a lot of wasted power.
It was one big fuck up. A good example of why thinking things through and proper testing time is required when designing aircraft.
by Morrdh » Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:15 am
Horizont wrote:So, I took the tornado and made it heavier, thus giving it the capacity to carry more weapons but also decreasing its TW ratio and maneuverability. Therefore, I'm classing it as a strike aircraft (something like a bomber) rather than a multirole fighter.
Good move? Bad? What situations would it be most useful in?
by Horizont » Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:17 am
Morrdh wrote:Horizont wrote:So, I took the tornado and made it heavier, thus giving it the capacity to carry more weapons but also decreasing its TW ratio and maneuverability. Therefore, I'm classing it as a strike aircraft (something like a bomber) rather than a multirole fighter.
Good move? Bad? What situations would it be most useful in?
Why not just use an updated Buccaneer?
I mean I've heard about some Tornados that flew out from Scotland, refuelled by a pair of Buccs in the North Sea, did a bombing exercise in Germany as the Buccs loitered off Norway and flew back to Scotland being refuelled by the Buccs for a second time. Somebody had a look at things and found out that not only could the Buccs have refuelled the Tornados both times that they could've also gone to Germany with 'em.
Though the Buccs would one-up the Tornados during the First Gulf War by getting the RAF's only aircraft kill during that conflict.
by Morrdh » Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:23 am
Horizont wrote:Morrdh wrote:
Why not just use an updated Buccaneer?
I mean I've heard about some Tornados that flew out from Scotland, refuelled by a pair of Buccs in the North Sea, did a bombing exercise in Germany as the Buccs loitered off Norway and flew back to Scotland being refuelled by the Buccs for a second time. Somebody had a look at things and found out that not only could the Buccs have refuelled the Tornados both times that they could've also gone to Germany with 'em.
Though the Buccs would one-up the Tornados during the First Gulf War by getting the RAF's only aircraft kill during that conflict.
Oh, it's not meant to be anti-air. It's mostly for quick, precise ground strikes.
by Vitaphone Racing » Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:24 am
Purpelia wrote:Vitaphone Racing wrote:Will they even fit? Even if they did... seems like a lot of wasted power.
They most definitively would not fit into a real He-111. But I was imagining an aircraft along the same general lines (twin engined tactical bomber) and for the same general role (medium range tactical bombing).
It was one big fuck up. A good example of why thinking things through and proper testing time is required when designing aircraft.
There is that... true. But I was asking more about the general concept of the aircraft after it had been finished to a state where it was basically adopted. As in, is the Il-40 - final edition, production grade or a similar aircraft a good idea for the period?
Parhe wrote:Guess what, maybe you don't know what it is like to be Asian.
by Horizont » Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:27 am
Morrdh wrote:Horizont wrote:
Oh, it's not meant to be anti-air. It's mostly for quick, precise ground strikes.
The Buccaneer was a strike aircraft/bomber.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Buccaneer
by Purpelia » Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:31 am
Vitaphone Racing wrote:Okay, I'm going to leave this in the "yes but why?" basket because it seems like a strange concept. If you're liking German WW2 aircraft, why not consider something like the Arado Ar234? Or if it has to be from an earlier period, why not a more successful platform like the Ju-88?
It was a good concept, not that it was a unique one or anything, but seriously it's hard to extract anything good from the Il-40 project. Nobody has much idea how the latest versions of the aircraft flew to my knowledge as the program was cut short prematurely.
by Imperializt Russia » Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:57 am
Horizont wrote:Morrdh wrote:
The Buccaneer was a strike aircraft/bomber.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Buccaneer
Eh; mine seems faster, which gives it better survivability.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Imperializt Russia » Sun Dec 29, 2013 9:00 am
Morrdh wrote:Horizont wrote:So, I took the tornado and made it heavier, thus giving it the capacity to carry more weapons but also decreasing its TW ratio and maneuverability. Therefore, I'm classing it as a strike aircraft (something like a bomber) rather than a multirole fighter.
Good move? Bad? What situations would it be most useful in?
Why not just use an updated Buccaneer?
I mean I've heard about some Tornados that flew out from Scotland, refuelled by a pair of Buccs in the North Sea, did a bombing exercise in Germany as the Buccs loitered off Norway and flew back to Scotland being refuelled by the Buccs for a second time. Somebody had a look at things and found out that not only could the Buccs have refuelled the Tornados both times that they could've also gone to Germany with 'em.
Though the Buccs would one-up the Tornados during the First Gulf War by getting the RAF's only aircraft kill during that conflict.
A Nasty Surprise (Retard Defence)
On one of the early Red Flag exercises a Buccaneer was intercepted by a particularly determined F5 pilot. The F5 hung on at low-level trying to get a ‘shot off’. The Buccaneer pilot decided to scare him off and dropped a practice bomb. Seeing something fall off the aircraft, the F5 broke off the attack. Subsequent analysis of the video showed that if the practice bomb had been a 1000 pound retard bomb, the F5 would have been blown out of the sky.
A 1000 pound bomb ejects debris and blast up to one thousand feet into the sky. A low-level pursuer would pass directly through this at significant risk of damage to airframe and engines. Even if the aircraft was undamaged the pilot would be rather reluctant to continue for a second helping.
It became standard practice for Buccaneers to carry four retard bombs in the bomb bay for air defence. This was called ‘Retard Defence’. This had the added advantage that these weapons could be used if additional ‘Targets of Opportunity’ were spotted on a mission.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Transnapastain » Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:15 am
Spirit of Hope wrote:Right about what I thought. Well now I just have to design a CAS missile craft that is heavily armored. Fun! Maybe I can make it cute and ugly at the same time like the A-10 itself.
by Spirit of Hope » Sun Dec 29, 2013 11:35 am
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Novo Portugal » Sun Dec 29, 2013 11:41 am
by Spirit of Hope » Sun Dec 29, 2013 11:47 am
Novo Portugal wrote:I don't know anything about Aircrafts, is this one good ?
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Cades, Free Norfolk City, Posadist Republic of poker
Advertisement