Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Glorious Arstotzka

17 (16%)

Glorious Moskurg

13 (12.3%)

Ingloriously Didn't Play

76 (71.7%)

Total Members Voted: 106

[10ebbor10]

I think using wood is an incredibly bad idea for a modern heavy aircraft.  I know we want to cut costs, but it would be worth it to make it out of aluminumn instead. Wood is not nearly as strong, and the forces put on this plane by the rockets and weight will most assuredly damage a wooden frame.

The Germans did it with the Me 323. Plywood and fabric design, RATO take-off pods. Okay, not the braking rockets, but ours has the geodetic frame that should make it stronger.

Oh! My mistake.  That...is a big fucking plane.  It may be a better investment to do 3 turboprops per wing and still get the better speed.

My other points still stand, though.

Yup, it's big, but it has to be. Our engines are not powerfull enough to get the required payload in the air without them.

I'm hesitant to go turboprops, because those only flew in 1945, and my design aimed being fairly simple so that we could use the revision for something else.

The Salamander is pretty heavy; based on the BTR-80 but with Medium Armor instead of the Light Armor.  That would put it around 12-15 tons; the capacity needs to specify that it can carry a fully-loaded Salamander.  This would really help during landings, I think.

While I can see the use, I'm not certain we can gain that. Our current largest plane carries 4 tonnes. Going to 15 is a lot.

[somemildmanneredidiot]

1 "Narwhal" guided torpedo: RAM
4 UF-ATGM-41 'Saltseeker': evictedSaint, Stabby, Madman198237, 10ebbor10
0 Golden Salamander AFV:
0 Peregrine CAS with rockets:
0 Ranger improved escort destroyers with rockets:
0 Proximity fuse:
0 Overcompensator Mrk II coastal defence:
0 Maximum Effect aerial transport:
0 Sea Haul naval transport:
0 "Hunter" unoriginally named submarine:
3 Cavalier Class' Cruiser: Kashyyk, Taricus, NAV
0 Incompensation upgraded coatsal defence targeting and radar:
0 "Narwhal Ranger!" escort destroyer with rockets and bighuge torpedoes:
0 "Large Rock" Anti-radar bomb:
0 "Virgil" reckless radar:
2 UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant": NUKE9.13, SMMI

Now that I've voted, if you vote for it Ebbor and make the changes that eS wants, or a compromise, that's 4 votes which allows for Cruiser bypassing. Also something about turbofans? Would that help at all?

As a note, I want more and better ships, but we need the TC and advancing the Air in this method also helps with additional experience which will be necessary for most of the projects on the table.

[10ebbor10]

UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant" Model B

This enormous cargo plane used for strategic transport of resources as well as deployment of heavy vehicles. It uses a wooden geodetic airframe (as used on the HAFB) liberally reinforced with aluminum where useful. Power is provided by a new type of engine, the turboprop. Derived from our jet engines, it's expected that this design will not incur any problems. Each wing carries three of these powerful engines. The nose of this enormous plane can fold open, which combined with the rear cargo door allows loads of all sizes to be transported, with the target being the transport of a fully loaded Salamander, or 12 tonnes of material, whichever is heavier. A series of rocket engines mounted beneath the wings can be fired not only to allow the vehicle to take off on remarkably short runways, but also allowing it to land on those same runways. Rockets mounted in the nose can be ignited to forcibly slow the vehicle down and stop it near instantly. The plane can be defended through the installation of AC-18 turrets and machine guns, at a small weight penalty.

[evictedSaint]

Considering the Salamanders weight is never specified, saying "it can carry and airdrop a salamander" would be safe, I think.

Still think ATGM's are the better choice, though - I could vote for the Giant if we need to prevent a naval development from occuring, but I want to start down the track of guided missiles.

Hopefully people voting for the Cavalier will side with the ATGM, eventually; I'd rather put our cruiser out as a missile cruiser rather than a "cannon and armor" medium weight slugger.  If you're fighting above your weight class, it's best to bring a cruise missile.

[somemildmanneredidiot]

In essence, getting the Giant online will allow us to better combat their air force as well as protect our 300mms, which will severely limit their ability to make land fall, which will buy us more time to be able to go through the experimental phases of the ATGM and beyond.

[10ebbor10]

That's from the oil bonus right. That won't happen untill the turn after we design it though.

[Madman198237]

1 "Narwhal" guided torpedo: RAM
3 UF-ATGM-41 'Saltseeker': evictedSaint, Stabby, 10ebbor10
0 Golden Salamander AFV:
0 Peregrine CAS with rockets:
0 Ranger improved escort destroyers with rockets:
0 Proximity fuse:
0 Overcompensator Mrk II coastal defence:
0 Maximum Effect aerial transport:
0 Sea Haul naval transport:
0 "Hunter" unoriginally named submarine:
3 Cavalier Class' Cruiser: Kashyyk, Taricus, NAV
0 Incompensation upgraded coatsal defence targeting and radar:
0 "Narwhal Ranger!" escort destroyer with rockets and bighuge torpedoes:
0 "Large Rock" Anti-radar bomb:
0 "Virgil" reckless radar:
4 UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant": NUKE9.13, SMMI, Madman198237, Andrea

[10ebbor10]

1 "Narwhal" guided torpedo: RAM
2 UF-ATGM-41 'Saltseeker': evictedSaint, Stabby
0 Golden Salamander AFV:
0 Peregrine CAS with rockets:
0 Ranger improved escort destroyers with rockets:
0 Proximity fuse:
0 Overcompensator Mrk II coastal defence:
0 Maximum Effect aerial transport:
0 Sea Haul naval transport:
0 "Hunter" unoriginally named submarine:
3 Cavalier Class' Cruiser: Kashyyk, Taricus, NAV
0 Incompensation upgraded coatsal defence targeting and radar:
0 "Narwhal Ranger!" escort destroyer with rockets and bighuge torpedoes:
0 "Large Rock" Anti-radar bomb:
0 "Virgil" reckless radar:
4 UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant": NUKE9.13, SMMI, Madman198237 , 10ebbor10
0 UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant" Model B

[Madman198237]

1 "Narwhal" guided torpedo: RAM
2 UF-ATGM-41 'Saltseeker': evictedSaint, Stabby
0 Golden Salamander AFV:
0 Peregrine CAS with rockets:
0 Ranger improved escort destroyers with rockets:
0 Proximity fuse:
0 Overcompensator Mrk II coastal defence:
0 Maximum Effect aerial transport:
0 Sea Haul naval transport:
0 "Hunter" unoriginally named submarine:
3 Cavalier Class' Cruiser: Kashyyk, Taricus, NAV
0 Incompensation upgraded coatsal defence targeting and radar:
0 "Narwhal Ranger!" escort destroyer with rockets and bighuge torpedoes:
0 "Large Rock" Anti-radar bomb:
0 "Virgil" reckless radar:
5 UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant": NUKE9.13, SMMI, Madman198237, Andrea, 10ebbor10
0 UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant" Model B

[10ebbor10]

Okay, weird thing going on with the votes. We'll have to sort that out in a bit.

[Madman198237]

Got it, I think.

You posted right as I tried to modify a previous post to include Andrea's Discord vote.

And I quoted you.

I think.

And funny things happened.

[piratejoe]

1 "Narwhal" guided torpedo: RAM
2 UF-ATGM-41 'Saltseeker': evictedSaint, Stabby
0 Golden Salamander AFV:
0 Peregrine CAS with rockets:
0 Ranger improved escort destroyers with rockets:
0 Proximity fuse:
0 Overcompensator Mrk II coastal defence:
0 Maximum Effect aerial transport:
0 Sea Haul naval transport:
0 "Hunter" unoriginally named submarine:
3 Cavalier Class' Cruiser: Kashyyk, Taricus, NAV
0 Incompensation upgraded coatsal defence targeting and radar:
0 "Narwhal Ranger!" escort destroyer with rockets and bighuge torpedoes:
0 "Large Rock" Anti-radar bomb:
0 "Virgil" reckless radar:
6 UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant": NUKE9.13, SMMI, Madman198237, Andrea, 10ebbor10, Piratejoe
0 UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant" Model B

Joseph Izz Stalling, Ace pilot and on the side a design engineer wonders how his first design ever got so far....Regardless, he is quite happy about it.

[somemildmanneredidiot]

1 "Narwhal" guided torpedo: RAM
1 UF-ATGM-41 'Saltseeker': Stabby
0 Golden Salamander AFV:
0 Peregrine CAS with rockets:
0 Ranger improved escort destroyers with rockets:
0 Proximity fuse:
0 Overcompensator Mrk II coastal defence:
0 Maximum Effect aerial transport:
0 Sea Haul naval transport:
0 "Hunter" unoriginally named submarine:
3 Cavalier Class' Cruiser: Kashyyk, Taricus, NAV
0 Incompensation upgraded coatsal defence targeting and radar:
0 "Narwhal Ranger!" escort destroyer with rockets and bighuge torpedoes:
0 "Large Rock" Anti-radar bomb:
0 "Virgil" reckless radar:
2 UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant": 10ebbor10, piratejoe
5 UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant" Model B Nuke, Andrea, Madman, evictedSaint, SMMI

Vote changes for Nuke, Andrea, Madman, and eS with their consent.

[10ebbor10]

1 "Narwhal" guided torpedo: RAM
1 UF-ATGM-41 'Saltseeker': Stabby
0 Golden Salamander AFV:
0 Peregrine CAS with rockets:
0 Ranger improved escort destroyers with rockets:
0 Proximity fuse:
0 Overcompensator Mrk II coastal defence:
0 Maximum Effect aerial transport:
0 Sea Haul naval transport:
0 "Hunter" unoriginally named submarine:
3 Cavalier Class' Cruiser: Kashyyk, Taricus, NAV
0 Incompensation upgraded coatsal defence targeting and radar:
0 "Narwhal Ranger!" escort destroyer with rockets and bighuge torpedoes:
0 "Large Rock" Anti-radar bomb:
0 "Virgil" reckless radar:
1 UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant": , piratejoe
6 UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant" Model B Nuke, Andrea, Madman, evictedSaint, SMMI, 10ebbor10

Guess I'll follow.

[NAV]

I legitimately dont understand why people think the cruiser is a bad idea.

Our only naval force is our carriers. Our carriers are defenseless against their destroyers and buccaneers. The cruiser would defend our carrier from their destroyers and buccaneers, allowing them to actually launch all their planes, and allowing our planes to actually focus on their battleships and carriers. The cruiser would dramatically enhance our air force at sea by allowing them to do their job.

It's not a battleship. It's support and defense for our aircraft, so we can have our aircraft get in the sky and focus on the real problems.