NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

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.

Basically what I am doing is making a 4.5 generation fighter. Here is the full story:

The year is 2008. My 5th generation fighter project is running with delays and we can reasonably expect it to enter service in 2020. Meanwhile my existing 4th generation fleet is aging to obsolescence. However, a lot of the 5th generation equipment, avionics, radar etc. are complete or nearing completion and are being tested on a number of modified 4th generation frames to prototype them. This gives me access to what basically amounts to a number of 4.5 gen prototypes. So I have decided to take these and mass produce them. I'd basically be building the equivalent of a Su-35 (compared to Su-27) but from scratch with new airframes using all the modern latest and greatest materials, avionics and other equipment and end up with a rather modern 4.5gen fighter jet that looks like my old 4th gen but is actually brand new. And I'd use them to replace my old air force. Than, when and if my 5th generation fighters come along I can supplement the 4.5s with them in smaller numbers. I can get the 4.5 into production by early 2009 and service by 2010.I see many advantages to this approach none the least of which is establishing infrastructure for 5th gen production later on, working out teething issues with new electronic equipment, materials etc, smaller training costs, smaller production costs than if I had waited and built a bunch of 5th gens.

This is exactly what I want to do.

Like Silent Eagle but built from scratch.

And stuff.

EDIT: So I'll have something like a lo-mid-high arrangement, think F-CK-1 -> MiG-29 (up to MiG-35) -> F-15E (up to F-15SE)

Basically I want everything to be two-seat and two-engine. I've already made up my mind.

Gen 4.5, compared to Gen 4, is to add supermaneuverability (or at least increase maneuverability) through 2D TV (and possibly canards) ; + AESA ; it is also to feature improved, integrated avionics. Gen 5 is to add stealth features like modified form, special materials and CWB (conformal weapons bay) ; also, it is to feature 3D TV and be fully supermaneuverable w/o needing canards ; + advanced avionics. Gen 6 (which is somewhat like Gen 5 only starting later) is to feature full supercruise (so with significant fuel+weapons for significant time).

[Purpelia]

This is exactly what I want to do.

Like Silent Eagle but built from scratch.

And stuff.

Basically what I have in mind is to build a set of new airframes to old specifications but using composite materials and the latest and greatest electronics and stuff. So the aircraft would externally look exactly alike but actually be brand new on the inside. And it would be designed for comparability with 5th gen tech as it comes along.

[Rich and Corporations]

This is exactly what I want to do.

Like Silent Eagle but built from scratch.

And stuff.

Basically what I have in mind is to build a set of new airframes to old specifications but using composite materials and the latest and greatest electronics and stuff. So the aircraft would externally look exactly alike but actually be brand new on the inside. And it would be designed for comparability with 5th gen tech as it comes along.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR612z2.html

Basically read that.

Resulted in the F-2, which was supposed to be a joint US-Japanese program but quickly fell apart and the Japanese fighter quickly became very complex due to composites.

[Valburn]

Basically what I have in mind is to build a set of new airframes to old specifications but using composite materials and the latest and greatest electronics and stuff. So the aircraft would externally look exactly alike but actually be brand new on the inside. And it would be designed for comparability with 5th gen tech as it comes along.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR612z2.html

Basically read that.

Resulted in the F-2, which was supposed to be a joint US-Japanese program but quickly fell apart and the Japanese fighter quickly became very complex due to composites.

The problem is you can't simply change a part from a metal to a composite. Boeing learned this the hard way with the 787.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

F-117 and MiG-31 weapons load (weight) ??

[Tule]

Basically what I have in mind is to build a set of new airframes to old specifications but using composite materials and the latest and greatest electronics and stuff. So the aircraft would externally look exactly alike but actually be brand new on the inside. And it would be designed for comparability with 5th gen tech as it comes along.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR612z2.html

Basically read that.

Resulted in the F-2, which was supposed to be a joint US-Japanese program but quickly fell apart and the Japanese fighter quickly became very complex due to composites.

1) Obtain economical F-16 fighter
2) Redesign it and Rebuild it from gimmicky composites.
3) Obtain insanely expensive fighter marginally better than the F-16.
4) ?????
5) DEFICIT!

[Valburn]

F-117 and MiG-31 weapons load (weight) ??

looks to be about 4,500-5,000 for the F-117 based it carrying a pair of GBU-10's.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

OK, supposing you have a need for a large tactical multirole, think interceptor/interdictor (essentially speed + range oriented), what would be the best route? F-111A + F-111B or MiG-31 and an interdictor variant, say MiG-31BM possibly modified a bit?

One is an interdictor, the other is an interceptor ; so far I don't really see conflicting design requirements so I'll go with MiG-31 / MiG-31BM ?

[The United Colonies of Earth]

1.If you have SABREs which run on LH, why bother with plasma engines powered by a fusion reactor, which will likely use Hydrogen. Sure plasma engines will give you good specific impulse, but they don't enough thrust to weight ratio greater than 1, which renders them useless until you get into space. SSTOs also shouldn't be used to go anywhere other than LEO unless you have a LOL-drive such as GCNR, Orion or NSWR powering them because of the fact that half their delta-v is used just to get into orbit.

2.As for the hull, tungsten is heavy, tungsten is extremely dense. Building the whole hull out of a tungsten alloy is going to give your hull a ridiculous amount of extra mass.

3.For armament, for the hard points, I'd reconsider having them as external, and for the laser turrets, I don't think the wing is the best location for them, nor do I think you need 6 on your wings. A twin laser turret under the nose is likewise not a good idea. A twin turret isn't exactly something you should go for. Two weaker lasers hitting next to each other will likely not do as much damage as one much more powerful laser concentrating all of its power on one location. Plus it doubles the amount of optics you'll need.

Bolded numbers added by me.
1.I was aiming for the plasma engines as a way to get around in space without using the SABREs, those being used for both getting into orbit and for in-atmosphere, although now that you mention it, I suppose I could eliminate the plasma engines.
Will I need to replace them with jet engines to get around in-atmosphere? I was originally hoping to use these fighters as a replacement for both space-only and jet fighters; but if a good spaceplane which is intended to be both atmospherically and exoatmospherically flight-capable isn't possible, or is simply terribly difficult to build and/or maintain I suppose I could just use this fighter solely for space combat but still have them be ground-launch capable.
2. I didn't really factor that in, although I suppose I should have; that's going to require me to carry a lot more fuel. Shall I go for a titanium-vanadium alloy? Or just titanium?
3. Should I place the turrets that were on the wings on the fuselage? I put them there to protect the fighter against rear attacks and make it able to attack enemies in any direction without turning. Although I guess a turret or some turrets elsewhere might not work just as good...they'll all be single-barrel with higher power as well, including the nose turret- but that shouldn't be there either, I guess.

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.

For your reading pleasure http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php

I'll read it when I get home. Thanks.

[Imperializt Russia]

I think you should abandon titanium as a concept and stick with what we know works:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/ref ... cture.html
Aluminium and composites.

[The Corparation]

1.If you have SABREs which run on LH, why bother with plasma engines powered by a fusion reactor, which will likely use Hydrogen. Sure plasma engines will give you good specific impulse, but they don't enough thrust to weight ratio greater than 1, which renders them useless until you get into space. SSTOs also shouldn't be used to go anywhere other than LEO unless you have a LOL-drive such as GCNR, Orion or NSWR powering them because of the fact that half their delta-v is used just to get into orbit.

2.As for the hull, tungsten is heavy, tungsten is extremely dense. Building the whole hull out of a tungsten alloy is going to give your hull a ridiculous amount of extra mass.

3.For armament, for the hard points, I'd reconsider having them as external, and for the laser turrets, I don't think the wing is the best location for them, nor do I think you need 6 on your wings. A twin laser turret under the nose is likewise not a good idea. A twin turret isn't exactly something you should go for. Two weaker lasers hitting next to each other will likely not do as much damage as one much more powerful laser concentrating all of its power on one location. Plus it doubles the amount of optics you'll need.

Bolded numbers added by me.
1.I was aiming for the plasma engines as a way to get around in space without using the SABREs, those being used for both getting into orbit and for in-atmosphere, although now that you mention it, I suppose I could eliminate the plasma engines.
Will I need to replace them with jet engines to get around in-atmosphere? I was originally hoping to use these fighters as a replacement for both space-only and jet fighters; but if a good spaceplane which is intended to be both atmospherically and exoatmospherically flight-capable isn't possible, or is simply terribly difficult to build and/or maintain I suppose I could just use this fighter solely for space combat but still have them be ground-launch capable.
2. I didn't really factor that in, although I suppose I should have; that's going to require me to carry a lot more fuel. Shall I go for a titanium-vanadium alloy? Or just titanium?
3. Should I place the turrets that were on the wings on the fuselage? I put them there to protect the fighter against rear attacks and make it able to attack enemies in any direction without turning. Although I guess a turret or some turrets elsewhere might not work just as good...they'll all be single-barrel with higher power as well, including the nose turret- but that shouldn't be there either, I guess.

1)If you have SABREs you don't need jet enginges to get around in the atmosphere, because the SABREs function like jet engines while at the speed and altitude where you would use jet engines. That's how a spacecraft with them is supposed to takeoff. As for using them as a replacement for jet fighters, what's needed for a good spaceplane does not really overlap much with a normal fighter jet. There's just so many things a space plane needs that would be detrimental to air combat. As for a spaceplane for space combat, there's nothing to wrong with using one for orbital combat, just don't expect sending it off to crush the dastardly Martian's in their own cities.
2) Of course you could always carry more fuel. But then you have the mass of that fuel you need to carry. So need more fuel to lift that fuel. And herein lies the problem, it's not a matter of just carrying more fuel, its cutting down on mass. Your airframe and hull will likely be made up of materials like Titanium, Aluminum or carbon fiber rather than heavy things like tungsten.
3) Location of the laser turrets should be based on a few things, however the number it carries should be rooted in the tech level and environment you intend to operate it in. Since that determines the number of lasers you have, it also should have an impact on how you place them. Personally I think space warships should aim to cover the full celestial sphere with the least amount of lasers, or at the very least as much as possible. That's not to say you can't have more lasers or have gaps in coverage that you can fix via changing your orientation, but I've always felt that when it comes to space weapons.

In other news this has inspired me to make my own space fighter design. It will be an interceptor designed for combat, as well as other missions in LEO. Probably not going to go beyond a mockup or a protype IC.

[Purpelia]

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR612z2.html

Basically read that.

Resulted in the F-2, which was supposed to be a joint US-Japanese program but quickly fell apart and the Japanese fighter quickly became very complex due to composites.

The problem is you can't simply change a part from a metal to a composite. Boeing learned this the hard way with the 787.

Yea I know. But basically IC I'd have years of research already invested in these things as they are being used to extensively prototype stuff for my 5th gen.

[Imperializt Russia]

I posted this on NSD in the hope of sparking a touch of debate - a debate on semiconductor physics. Or applications. Or such.

It's a little too specialist really, especially given how low-activity it is at the moment, so I figured I'd port it here to see if anyone has any particular opinions.

1) one of the doctors at my university is waiting for the outcome of a European Union research grant into nitride-based semiconductors. I intend to ask him at some point about his research and what he hopes to get out of this study, but when it was explained before it was essentially that many semiconductor materials have been discovered "by accident" in his words, and that nitride-based rare-earth semiconductors (which potentially have a low environmental impact and good properties) are relatively unexplored.
I was wondering if anyone on NSD had any real opinions into novel semiconductor technologies.

2) as many of you may or may not recall, I roleplay as a post-Soviet alternate history Russia which is more of a trope than an "alt-history". However I'd like to play it more true to role. I've played it before as a weird sort of "enlightened" country that westernised heavily after the fall of the Soviets, in its politics, its economy and its technology. In typical :ns: fashion, it quickly became more technologically advanced than the US today, by about 2000.
Obviously that level of change from the days of the Soviets is ludicrous, but how much might it take for a country with Russia's prior level of technological advancement, particularly in the area of semiconductors, to get to a level nearer that of the US? How possible could it be?
What factors could be nuanced to influence their development nearer to American and western concepts?

[Triplebaconation]

Seems like it's time for my "Concise Guide to Designing Space Fighters."

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.

If it's such a vivid shade of red, it should be pretty easy to spot.

Nuclear submarines are relatively noisy. While you may well detect an enemy (or defecting) sub, its survival lies in being able to sit deep, likely out of weapon range, and stay there, potentially to the limit of its endurance.

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?

In some fields, it feels as though it might well do

*science nitpick - technically speaking, science does change. One could argue that changes to scientific understanding has improved the range of artillery.

One could argue all sorts of truisms. It's certainly true that a triple-barreled 15" railroad gun designed in 1865 would be inferior in a number of ways to a triple-barreled 15" railroad gun designed in 1945.

The point was relatively simple. Just because something is physically possible doesn't make it realistic.

[Inyourfaceistan]

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.

So by the time Irbis-E detects F-22 the aircraft will be well within AIM-120 range and approaching AIM-9X range.

And the F-22 won't get "pwned by R-37M"...

[Valburn]

The problem is you can't simply change a part from a metal to a composite. Boeing learned this the hard way with the 787.

Yea I know. But basically IC I'd have years of research already invested in these things as they are being used to extensively prototype stuff for my 5th gen.

It's not a question of how good your composites are, but rather the issue of working composites into an existing design. It's not insurmountable, but it's not going to be easy.

[The Akasha Colony]

I posted this on NSD in the hope of sparking a touch of debate - a debate on semiconductor physics. Or applications. Or such.

It's a little too specialist really, especially given how low-activity it is at the moment, so I figured I'd port it here to see if anyone has any particular opinions.

1) one of the doctors at my university is waiting for the outcome of a European Union research grant into nitride-based semiconductors. I intend to ask him at some point about his research and what he hopes to get out of this study, but when it was explained before it was essentially that many semiconductor materials have been discovered "by accident" in his words, and that nitride-based rare-earth semiconductors (which potentially have a low environmental impact and good properties) are relatively unexplored.
I was wondering if anyone on NSD had any real opinions into novel semiconductor technologies.

Gallium nitride has been increasingly popular for applications such as radar T/R modules since they allow much greater power levels with less waste heat, potentially allowing for significant increases in radar range within a given installation.

2) as many of you may or may not recall, I roleplay as a post-Soviet alternate history Russia which is more of a trope than an "alt-history". However I'd like to play it more true to role. I've played it before as a weird sort of "enlightened" country that westernised heavily after the fall of the Soviets, in its politics, its economy and its technology. In typical :ns: fashion, it quickly became more technologically advanced than the US today, by about 2000.
Obviously that level of change from the days of the Soviets is ludicrous, but how much might it take for a country with Russia's prior level of technological advancement, particularly in the area of semiconductors, to get to a level nearer that of the US? How possible could it be?
What factors could be nuanced to influence their development nearer to American and western concepts?

In the short run, importing as much technology as you can get your hands on. Probably send people to try to study or intern at those other countries as well. Some kind of government investment in the sector would be helpful. The goal is to not fall into the "copying" trap, since while it lets you close large technological gaps, it doesn't quite foster the mindset needed to actually develop new technologies if the establishment is too used to just grabbing someone else's work and copying it. Alternatively, you could also get them to just give you technology by offering low labor costs and a reasonably skilled labor force, as China and Taiwan have done to get a ton of semconductor foundries built by American companies to supply their needs.

[Aelarus]

I fee like crying about dead tech the US doesn't use because of the collapse of Mr. Red.

First:
Liquid propellant for tank cannons. Yes? No?
Great file for reference.

[The Kievan People]

Carlos's chart notwithstanding some of the Ibris-E marketing literature actually claimed the 0.01m was representative of the F-22.

[New Vihenia]

Gallium nitride has been increasingly popular for applications such as radar T/R modules since they allow much greater power levels with less waste heat, potentially allowing for significant increases in radar range within a given installation.

Really ? As far as i know, no GaN TR modules reach PAE (Power Added Efficiency) of 50% Especially for high power applications. Heat flux is sure high for this.

Carlos's chart notwithstanding some of the Ibris-E marketing literature actually claimed the 0.01m was representative of the F-22.

From side maybe. One of my Yefim Gordon book have claims that lowest RCS manned aircraft can achieve is 0.3 m.

I don't believe those claims too many incosistencies within those, that 0.0001 sqm in other hand (that metal marble thing) Is more realistic. The fact it the reinvestation on VHF band radar and even with that L-band radar installed inside Flanker's leading edge device shows it.

[Purpelia]

Yea I know. But basically IC I'd have years of research already invested in these things as they are being used to extensively prototype stuff for my 5th gen.

It's not a question of how good your composites are, but rather the issue of working composites into an existing design. It's not insurmountable, but it's not going to be easy.

I am aware of this. That's why I set things up the way I did. I basically don't have just the composites and the design but actual airframes that were designed as test bodies for said composites and the like. So a lot of work has gone into figuring out just how all things are supposed to work.

[The Corparation]

:unsure: Seems like it's time for my "Concise Guide to Designing Space Fighters."

I wouldn't mind reading it. I mean I've probably seen it in the past, but not for a long while.

[North Arkana]

So... would the fact a country is mostly countryside have a major effect on the effectiveness of an EMP device detonating in the low- to mid-atmosphere? I was under the impression it would still wreck a country's infrastructure. Of course, there's also the issue that my opponent apparently has a "perfect" anti-missile defense system capable of intercepting every sub-launched ballistic missile i shot at him.

[Roski]

So... would the fact a country is mostly countryside have a major effect on the effectiveness of an EMP device detonating in the low- to mid-atmosphere? I was under the impression it would still wreck a country's infrastructure. Of course, there's also the issue that my opponent apparently has a "perfect" anti-missile defense system capable of intercepting every sub-launched ballistic missile i shot at him.

Sounds like you need to leave that RP

[North Arkana]

So... would the fact a country is mostly countryside have a major effect on the effectiveness of an EMP device detonating in the low- to mid-atmosphere? I was under the impression it would still wreck a country's infrastructure. Of course, there's also the issue that my opponent apparently has a "perfect" anti-missile defense system capable of intercepting every sub-launched ballistic missile i shot at him.

Sounds like you need to leave that RP

I might... I'm wondering if anyone else has had similar experiences with a nations named Heco.