I don't think I need anti-aircraft rounds to kill civilians.
Although its a thought.
Advertisement
by Roski » Mon Dec 15, 2014 8:18 pm
by Nirvash Type TheEND » Mon Dec 15, 2014 8:19 pm
by Roski » Mon Dec 15, 2014 8:21 pm
by The High Tatras » Mon Dec 15, 2014 8:54 pm
by Laywenrania » Mon Dec 15, 2014 9:24 pm
The High Tatras wrote:Does anyone happen to have a chart showing the composition of a typical Red Army/ RKKA rifle division during the WW2 era? That would be immensely useful to me.
Nachmere wrote:Tanks are tough bastards.
Gallia- wrote: And I'm emotionally attached to large, cuddly, wide Objects.
by The High Tatras » Mon Dec 15, 2014 9:46 pm
by Laywenrania » Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:32 pm
Nachmere wrote:Tanks are tough bastards.
Gallia- wrote: And I'm emotionally attached to large, cuddly, wide Objects.
by Atomic Utopia » Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:41 pm
by Gallan Systems » Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:42 pm
by Mitheldalond » Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:42 pm
San-Silvacian wrote:F-20s aren't bad aircraft.
However trying to apply them as comparable to the F-16? Yeah thats where it kind of ends.
The F-16 beat out the F-20 because it promised better overall performance, better electronics, and had a better prospect of being adaptable to upgrade packages in the future.
The F-20 isn't bad, however for a first-world army with everything from carriers and such, you are much, much better off trying for something else.
Uh, I was talking about it in comparison to the FA-50 and Hal Tejas, not the F-16.The Akasha Colony wrote:What? It has half the payload of an F-16, a shorter combat radius, and rather significant hardpoint restrictions. Its engine is only slightly more than half as powerful. The F-20's two M39s together also put out only half the rate of fire as the F-16's single M61, and the smaller airframe has less space for better avionics.Mitheldalond wrote:Because the F-20 is lighter, faster, more agile, can climb much faster, has a longer range, a higher service ceiling, a better thrust to weigh ratio, twice as many guns, about the same bomb and missile load, performance characteristics comparable to an F-16, and is cheaper. Well, the Tiger II is cheaper (estimated at about $20-25 million today), so that would probably put the F-20 in the $30 million range with the other two.
Inyourfaceistan wrote:Mitheldalond wrote:Because the F-20 is lighter, faster, more agile, can climb much faster, has a longer range, a higher service ceiling, a better thrust to weigh ratio, twice as many guns, about the same bomb and missile load, performance characteristics comparable to an F-16, and is cheaper. Well, the Tiger II is cheaper (estimated at about $20-25 million today), so that would probably put the F-20 in the $30 million range with the other two.
And possibly best of all? It was originally conceived as a carrier capable fighter. Which I had forgotten until now. Remember all those F-4s, A-7s, and F-8s I had? Yeah, they no longer exist (or they're piled up in a warehouse somewhere). The F-20 is now the main fighter aircraft of both my Navy and Air Force. They're smaller and lighter than Crusaders/Corsair IIs (theyre actually lighter than the Skyraider, believe it or not), so every carrier in my navy can carry them comfortably.
The only real problem they have is the hardpoint arrangement. Because of how low the F-20 is and the positioning of its landing gear, the wing hardpoints are right near the end of the wings, which limits them to a maximum load of 1,000 pounds each. Which is rather inconvenient since they can't carry Harpoons, most cruise missiles, or even 2000 pound bombs. The centerline hardpoint can take the weight, but a single Harpoon or bomb is rather underwhelming. Particularly for a naval fighter that will be expected to engage enemy surface vessels with anti-ship missiles.
Fortunately, there is a solution. The Naval Strike Missile is light enough to be carried on the Tigersharks' wing pylons, has a sufficiently long range, and can be used against both ships and ground targets.
You of all people I would expect to use F-35's. Especially because you are so apparently Navy-oriented, and have this desire for everything to do multiple jobs...
Inyourfaceistan wrote:Grand Britannia wrote:
Motorcycles with twin miniguns.
Tactical Golf Carts with 105mm cannons. Thoughts?
BTW, I'm not looking for reasons why I shouldn't or wouldn't put 105mm cannons on gold carts, just whether I physically could or not.
Anyways on a serious note, what does everyone make of Russia's claim that Irbis-E can track and engage F-22 "beyond visual range" (I don't know what number exactly as I can't find a solid source)
by Yukonastan » Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:44 pm
Inyourfaceistan wrote:Grand Britannia wrote:
Motorcycles with twin miniguns.
Tactical Golf Carts with 105mm cannons. Thoughts?
BTW, I'm not looking for reasons why I shouldn't or wouldn't put 105mm cannons on gold carts, just whether I physically could or not.
Anyways on a serious note, what does everyone make of Russia's claim that Irbis-E can track and engage F-22 "beyond visual range" (I don't know what number exactly as I can't find a solid source)
by Imperializt Russia » Tue Dec 16, 2014 2:08 am
Atomic Utopia wrote:Also, what would be the best way to find a rouge nuclear powered submarine if you do not know it's destination or goals? The reason I ask is because I have an RP idea and would like to know before hand what would be realistic.
Questers wrote:if the range of artillery is limited by physics, then why has the range of artillery increased exponentially? does natural science just change as time goes along in your world?Roski wrote:Markmen also have to take into account physics, as well as every form of military exercise, you need to be able to work in a way that is within physics.
Gibet wrote:Hmm, so it wouldn't be out of the question to operate the gun as part of a larger network of defensive positions along a border, or beyond a beachhead? Like a fixed emplacement?
And an entire engineering division? I hadn't thought about all the work necessary! And a few battalions of security personnel does sound like a good idea.
Looking back now, it would seem a bit redundant to fix the AA to the gun platform. Certainly makes for bad coverage. :/
The Red Star Union wrote:I heard somewhere that once a ship is soooooo long, waves will snap it in 2. Does anyone acutally know what said length is? Just curious.
Roski wrote:hay guise.
miniguns on jeeps, to be used as a mass slaughter vehicle.
Discuss, specifically the feasiblity of a jeep holding up to 3600+ RPM
Korva wrote:It has been done before IRL but generally a HMG or GPMG is more sensible.
Austrasien wrote:Inyourfaceistan wrote:Anyways on a serious note, what does everyone make of Russia's claim that Irbis-E can track and engage F-22 "beyond visual range" (I don't know what number exactly as I can't find a solid source)
Marketing gimmick. They are actually referring to the range it can track a target with an RCS of 0.01 square meters, which is about a hundred times too large.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by The Akasha Colony » Tue Dec 16, 2014 2:39 am
Imperializt Russia wrote:According to Carlo Kopp's charts that he hosts on APA, the Irbis-E is similarly capable (in terms of detection range) in its search mode to ground-based radar systems - a 0.01 RCS target at ~50nmi.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker- ... ocId773196
(Image)
Nearer 0.0001 RCS, this search range drops to ~30nmi, similar to ground-based radars - which is approximately 50km.
I'm going to assume 50 kilometres is a smidgen outside visual range.
by Purpelia » Tue Dec 16, 2014 2:44 am
The Akasha Colony wrote:Imperializt Russia wrote:According to Carlo Kopp's charts that he hosts on APA, the Irbis-E is similarly capable (in terms of detection range) in its search mode to ground-based radar systems - a 0.01 RCS target at ~50nmi.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker- ... ocId773196
(Image)
Nearer 0.0001 RCS, this search range drops to ~30nmi, similar to ground-based radars - which is approximately 50km.
I'm going to assume 50 kilometres is a smidgen outside visual range.
The scaling on the chart indicates only ~17 nmi as the upper bound for Irbis-E, and less than 15 nmi for the lower bound. That'd be 31.5 km at the most, within the head-on range of SRAAMs like AIM-9X or AIM-132.
by New Vihenia » Tue Dec 16, 2014 3:26 am
by Purpelia » Tue Dec 16, 2014 3:27 am
New Vihenia wrote:Well, convenient method to do that "scaling" Actually exist... Why resort on such inconvenient and kinda pointless "chart scaling"
by DnalweN acilbupeR » Tue Dec 16, 2014 4:27 am
Mitheldalond wrote:
So it was. Good grief I love this aircraft. I honestly don't get how nobody wanted an aircraft that provides the capabilities of an F-16 at a fraction its cost.DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
y u no hal tejas?
Because the F-20 is lighter, faster, more agile, can climb much faster, has a longer range, a higher service ceiling, a better thrust to weigh ratio, twice as many guns, about the same bomb and missile load, performance characteristics comparable to an F-16, and is cheaper. Well, the Tiger II is cheaper (estimated at about $20-25 million today), so that would probably put the F-20 in the $30 million range with the other two.
And possibly best of all? It was originally conceived as a carrier capable fighter. Which I had forgotten until now. Remember all those F-4s, A-7s, and F-8s I had? Yeah, they no longer exist (or they're piled up in a warehouse somewhere). The F-20 is now the main fighter aircraft of both my Navy and Air Force. They're smaller and lighter than Crusaders/Corsair IIs (theyre actually lighter than the Skyraider, believe it or not), so every carrier in my navy can carry them comfortably.
The only real problem they have is the hardpoint arrangement. Because of how low the F-20 is and the positioning of its landing gear, the wing hardpoints are right near the end of the wings, which limits them to a maximum load of 1,000 pounds each. Which is rather inconvenient since they can't carry Harpoons, most cruise missiles, or even 2000 pound bombs. The centerline hardpoint can take the weight, but a single Harpoon or bomb is rather underwhelming. Particularly for a naval fighter that will be expected to engage enemy surface vessels with anti-ship missiles.
Fortunately, there is a solution. The Naval Strike Missile is light enough to be carried on the Tigersharks' wing pylons, has a sufficiently long range, and can be used against both ships and ground targets.
The Emerald Dawn wrote:I award you no points, and have sent people to make sure your parents refrain from further breeding.
Lyttenburgh wrote:all this is a damning enough evidence to proove you of being an edgy butthurt 'murican teenager with the sole agenda of prooving to the uncaring bitch Web, that "You Have A Point!"
Lyttenburgh wrote:Either that, or, you were gang-raped by commi-nazi russian Spetznaz kill team, who then painted all walls in your house in hammer and sickles, and then viped their asses with the stars and stripes banner in your yard. That's the only logical explanation.
by DnalweN acilbupeR » Tue Dec 16, 2014 4:39 am
The Emerald Dawn wrote:I award you no points, and have sent people to make sure your parents refrain from further breeding.
Lyttenburgh wrote:all this is a damning enough evidence to proove you of being an edgy butthurt 'murican teenager with the sole agenda of prooving to the uncaring bitch Web, that "You Have A Point!"
Lyttenburgh wrote:Either that, or, you were gang-raped by commi-nazi russian Spetznaz kill team, who then painted all walls in your house in hammer and sickles, and then viped their asses with the stars and stripes banner in your yard. That's the only logical explanation.
by The Akasha Colony » Tue Dec 16, 2014 4:45 am
Purpelia wrote:New Vihenia wrote:Well, convenient method to do that "scaling" Actually exist... Why resort on such inconvenient and kinda pointless "chart scaling"
Because my knowledge of the mathematics involved in actually knowing how these systems work is basically 0 where as my skills with MS paint and a calculator are fairly refined.
This said, cockpit glass comes in many colors. Which one do you prefer? I can't decide any more and basically want to see what you people think.
by Purpelia » Tue Dec 16, 2014 4:49 am
The Akasha Colony wrote:Purpelia wrote:Because my knowledge of the mathematics involved in actually knowing how these systems work is basically 0 where as my skills with MS paint and a calculator are fairly refined.
This said, cockpit glass comes in many colors. Which one do you prefer? I can't decide any more and basically want to see what you people think.
Whatever color provides greatest optical clarity, which would be as close to clear as possible. The gold tinting on the F-22 isn't for show though, it's to reduce radar penetration into the cockpit and thus reduce RCS. Some electronic attack aircraft also have this tinting, as it shields the crew from the high output of their onboard EW equipment.
by The Akasha Colony » Tue Dec 16, 2014 4:56 am
Purpelia wrote:Oh. So it actually has a function. I guess I have to use that than as it sounds good.
by Purpelia » Tue Dec 16, 2014 5:03 am
The Akasha Colony wrote:Purpelia wrote:Oh. So it actually has a function. I guess I have to use that than as it sounds good.
It's evidently pretty maintenance intensive to maintain though, since at least for older aircraft it's a tinted coating on the interior rather than integrated into the glass itself. It could only be washed with water (chemicals could damage the tinting), which made it time-consuming to fully clean without residual streaks. However, on the F-16 the effect of the tinting contributed to a 15% reduction in RCS. I don't know if the F-22 solved any of these issues with the legacy tinting though.
by The United Colonies of Earth » Tue Dec 16, 2014 6:55 am
by The Corparation » Tue Dec 16, 2014 8:46 am
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by Valburn » Tue Dec 16, 2014 9:05 am
The United Colonies of Earth wrote:I'm planning to have a spaceplane equipped with something very much like the Reaction Engines Sabre engine as a spacelaunch booster, with some kind of plasma engine for space travel as my nation's main fighter. There would be four or six of the former engines attached (2-3 per wing) and two plasma engines, either powered by small fusion reactors or something else. At least one of the two sets would have to be able to maneuver around.
Is this the place to discuss it? And if it is, would it be effective at getting the thing off the ground, into space, and, well, elsewhere? Unfortunately, I don't have all the specs right now, but I'm getting an idea of it as I go along.
The hull's made of a titanium, vanadium and tungsten alloy, and there are two hardpoints, one per wing, for missiles. There are three twin laser turrets on each wing, capable of rotating 180 degrees in at least one axis, and a single twin laser cannon below the cockpit. I'm thinking that it might look like a cross between a GA-TL1 Longsword and an F35 Lightning II.
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Onekawa-Nukanor, The Union of Socialist-Soviet Republics
Advertisement