NationStates Jolt Archive

With the obvious demand for a cheap fighter, Attican Aerospace announces it's project to develop a fighter that costs less than $5,000,000, yet can outperform many of today's aircraft. The project will most likely take around a decade of development.

Godmod, unless you get a damn good explanation.

You could devaluate your currency to extremely low levels and slash wages to none.

Maybe it is a MiG-21 that can shoot down Cessnas and those 707s.

how is it a godmod if i am taking over 10 years to do it, starting now? Plus, the cost is the issue we are attempting to tackle. The problem becomes, what do you not use, what do you use? It might be totally impossible to reach our goal of $5,000,000, but we can try.

Hadnt though of that.


Give MiG-21 Su-27's radar and you have a good interceptor.

Hadnt though of that.


Give MiG-21 Su-27's radar and you have a good interceptor.
He said that it can outperform many aircrafts after all.

I'm assuming that these "aircrafts" are those propeller-driven civilian aircrafts and those WWI biplanes.

...

you guys cant read can you. $5,000,000 is the GOAL, that is what we are aiming for. How many aircraft have you seen that met their development goals?

How many aircraft have you seen that met their development goals?
Many.

but is many all? We are TRYING for $5,000,000, that doesn't mean thats what we are going to get. Attican Aerospace is spending $6,000,000,000 on the project itself.

but is many all? We are TRYING for $5,000,000, that doesn't mean thats what we are going to get. Attican Aerospace is spending $6,000,000,000 on the project itself.
If you know you ain't going to get it, then why even try it?

second omz222

we dont know we arent going to get it. We are just saying its a possibility that we are going to attempt to acheive. Our maximum cost before we scrap the project (cost being how much people will pay to buy) will be $16,000,000.

Several million dollars is still a lot to "dispose."

He means, a cheap high quality fighter. Something that you have no HUGE MAJOR problem getting rid of if it gets outdated, or blown up, ect...

He means, a cheap high quality fighter. Something that you have no HUGE MAJOR problem getting rid of if it gets outdated, or blown up, ect...

Cheap and high-quality are often mutually exclusive in aerospace technology.... certainly if he wants a fighter that can go toe-to-toe with 5th generation fighters and live.

ACS - would you rather risk losing a few $100,000,000 planes on a risky mission, or send a swarm of $10,000,000 disposable fighters?

ACS - would you rather risk losing a few $100,000,000 planes on a risky mission, or send a swarm of $10,000,000 disposable fighters?

No, I would design a few, high quality, high capability, survivable $100,000,000 planes and send those into battle. Not only are you losing a plane every time one of your "disposable" fighters goes down... you're losing a pilot, too.

Not everyone can afford 100 mill.

*yawns*

attican, you know i think you godmod.

*thinks back to LRR ship problem*
"i found an LRR battleship, and im using it"
"day old. and a HUGE GODMOD. LRR is a space nation any how"
'I...I...FOUND IT"
*runs off to godmod more*

ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, boy was that day fun.

Bumplords, your an idiot, stfu. noob.

Plus, I CLAIMED I found a battleship, you never even attampted to prove i had it! So stfu. noob.

Bumplords, your an idiot, stfu. noob.

Plus, I CLAIMED I found a battleship, you never even attampted to prove i had it! So stfu. noob.

(Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the most mature post ever!)

Bumplords, your an idiot, stfu. noob.

Plus, I CLAIMED I found a battleship, you never even attampted to prove i had it! So stfu. noob.
You have to RP the process extensively, not just claim that you actually just found it.

Yes, isn't it.

OMZ: I CLAIMED that I found it. For all you/they know, it was all propaganda.

Bumplords, your an idiot, stfu. noob.

Plus, I CLAIMED I found a battleship, you never even attampted to prove i had it! So stfu. noob.

(Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the most mature post ever!)
Agreed, lol

And what does this have to do with the AF-30?

And what does this have to do with the AF-30?
You started this by replying to Bumplord's post.

Yes, isn't it.

OMZ: I CLAIMED that I found it. For all you/they know, it was all propaganda.

Lets end this. I have discussed this umpteen times and gotten no where. Besides the fact that for all the good it was, the Schliessen was made out of cardboard.

Whatever, just continue the fighter discussion.

Bumplords, your an idiot, stfu. noob.

Plus, I CLAIMED I found a battleship, you never even attampted to prove i had it! So stfu. noob.


HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA. NOOB?NOOB?!

im 2 months older than you. cockish-noob.

ooc: bumplords is a noob. just ignore him in this thread, since he has NOTHING intelligent to say that pertains to the thread.


Ok, how about this. Not a disposable fighter, but somewhat of a median between cheap-ass and expensive-ass. Like the MiG-29, but modernized. I can get it to support thrust vectoring for quite cheap (the Titanium/Carbon alloy we use for the thrust vectoring plates cost $40 for the unit).

But the MiG-29 has an extremely short lifetime.

I'd rather spend $50 mil on a better 4th/5th generation fighter than spend $10-20 mil on a fighter that has only a 4000 hours lifetime.

no, we will be developing a new fighter. But its features will be similar to that of the MiG-29. But somewhat better.

OOC: Would you spend $140,000,000 on a top of the line fighter?

ooc: bumplords is a noob. just ignore him in this thread, since he has NOTHING intelligent to say that pertains to the thread.


Ok, how about this. Not a disposable fighter, but somewhat of a median between cheap-ass and expensive-ass. Like the MiG-29, but modernized. I can get it to support thrust vectoring for quite cheap (the Titanium/Carbon alloy we use for the thrust vectoring plates cost $40 for the unit).

attican empire
Founded: 24 Aug 2003

bumplords
founded: 21 june 2003.

im older than you.

i'll stop posting, just learn not to call people 2 months older than you n00bz

ooc: bumplords is a noob. just ignore him in this thread, since he has NOTHING intelligent to say that pertains to the thread.


Ok, how about this. Not a disposable fighter, but somewhat of a median between cheap-ass and expensive-ass. Like the MiG-29, but modernized. I can get it to support thrust vectoring for quite cheap (the Titanium/Carbon alloy we use for the thrust vectoring plates cost $40 for the unit).

That's what the Russian Air Force is doing right now. They're upgrading the Mig-29s to Mig-29 SMTs (sp?)

OOC: Bumplords, age does not equate to maturity or noobism. Just remember that.

OOC: Taiwan, how can the Russkis afford that? With the mob and all.

OOC: Taiwan, how can the Russkis afford that? With the mob and all.

OOC: Actually quite cheap to upgrade. Besides, the Russian economy has improved since 98, and Putin has increased military spending quite a bit compared with Yeltsin.

Well, we are working on a 5th Generation Light Fighter, pretty much. The AF-100 is a heavy fighter. It should cost less than $30,000,000, but still be effective in today's air forces.

We are working on a cheaper version of the X-1000 (the jet in the AF-100) that will also have less power. We do not know when it will be done.

OOC: Bumplords, age does not equate to maturity or noobism. Just remember that.

n00b-new person. you are newer than me, hence you are the n00b.

you also godmod.

Edited By Nation States Moderator

Anyways....


How about this.... a downgraded version of the X-1000 jet w/ Ti/C thrust vector plates, one machine gun mounted on the nose, 3 missile pylons (2 each)...

OOC: BTW, 8 billion of AAs budget goes to the AF-30, 8 billion goes to a secret bomber project called "Lance", and 2 billion is going to continued development of the AF-100.

You could try a MiG-25 with Su-27 radar and some avionics upgrades, and you migh, just MIGHT, make that goal.

You could try a MiG-25 with Su-27 radar and some avionics upgrades, and you migh, just MIGHT, make that goal.

He'd also probably have to update all of the electronics and power systems to support it...that's why the Israelis gave up on the russian aircraft that they captured or had--couldn't support modern western electronics decently.

BTW, while the F-22 costs between 80-120million/unit, most other modern aircraft are much cheaper.

And if you want $10-20m aircraft, try a UAV or UCAV...or a helicopter.

-----

Since I feel nice for some reason (j/k, to make up for any damage done above), look at the Israeli Lavi (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/lavi/Lavi.html) (being used by China, I've read) or the Kfir (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/kfir/Kfir.html). I'm not sure of the prices but I know that they're on the lower-end.

Try using a cheap solid fuel bolt in power source, like the ME-163 it'll get you up there and do it's job. and if you get the mix right, all it needs is to last 30 mins as an intercepter. just stack them on the border.

and unlike jets, ot should only take 20 mins and a few bolts and plugs to replace, unlike jets which need lots of expensive stripping and maintence to keep them going.

the cost of mass manufactured tubes of rocket propellent shouldn't come to more than the cost of JP fuel, the wear and depreciation of tanker trucks, warehouses are cheaper than underground tanks, less need to worry about smoking near them since they'll have a high flashpoint nad no fumes/vapors. no fiddly pipes to rupture between the tanks and engine, a chunk out of the fuel tube isn't as bad as an engine turning into shrapnel. not as much risk of explosions as the engine and the fuel are in the same place, rather than spread around like in the current....

Try it.

Edit: changing tthe fuel should be able to be shorter than 20 mins, in wartime try one person per bolt, each to undo one, another driving a forkifty thing to pull it out, a final one to slot a new one in, and the same first lot bolt it up... 5 mins or less...

It wont be designed to be an interceptor though. Thats the problem. Plus, 20 minutes NS is like 5 seconds RL.

then design a second fuel type which lasts longer, if at less thrust. the bolt in solid fuel concept is worth a try anyway. and 20 mins in NS is 20 mins in NS, RL doesn't come into it, if you're fighting a RP war in NS, then NS times are what counts. I've been in diplomatic threads spending a week in RL playing 40 mins of NS talk.

Time is the simplest thing.

OOC: BTW, 8 billion of AAs budget goes to the AF-30, 8 billion goes to a secret bomber project called "Lance", and 2 billion is going to continued development of the AF-100.

That has to come from military budget, and your entire budget is only 23,000,000,000. With this project costing 18,000,000,000 and the sea wall nearly 20,000,000,000, you are losing money VERY fast.

Since when is my budget only $23,000,000,000?

http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=Attican%20Empire&defenseprovided=1&defense=10&militarybudget=1

I have my ENTIRE budget in a spreadsheet. Do you want me to upload the latest?

Since when is my budget only $23,000,000,000?

http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=Attican%20Empire&defenseprovided=1&defense=10&militarybudget=1

I have my ENTIRE budget in a spreadsheet. Do you want me to upload the latest?

It was on the spreadsheet you told me to read yesterday. Even so, you wont be building very much for a while with this project and the defences. You should do what i do, stockpile resources, then spend a lot at once. I feel a large spending spree coming up (i.e. well in excess of 5 trillion, since i haven't bought anything in a long time, don't have a huge military to keep running, and don't build very much anyway.)

McLeod, here i part of yesterdays spreadsheet:


Total Maintenance Budget: $57,921,282,000.00

Gross Military Budget: $65,310,552,000.00

Total Military Budget: $7,389,270,000.00


Total Maintenence Budget is the cost of everything in my budget (including R&D and this project).

Gross Military Budget is how much money my Defense Ministry gets a year.

Total Military Budget is what is left over.

I added some stuff, so you might have confused it with Total?

BTW, here is my revised budget (I revise it every fiscal year):

http://pages.ripco.com/~antman87/military.xls

McLeod, here i part of yesterdays spreadsheet:


Total Maintenance Budget: $57,921,282,000.00

Gross Military Budget: $65,310,552,000.00

Total Military Budget: $7,389,270,000.00


Total Maintenence Budget is the cost of everything in my budget (including R&D and this project).

Gross Military Budget is how much money my Defense Ministry gets a year.

Total Military Budget is what is left over.

I added some stuff, so you might have confused it with Total?

Ah. Right. Well. (wanders off with chequebook in hand ready to purchase some serious hardware)

Bumplords is war-mongerer by my standards, that says a lotttt.


MiG-29SMT:
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH9810/FR9810g1.JPG

No, you idiot, the mainteneance is the reperation of units you have.

IT IS NOT FOR BUILDING.

FC, you idiot, I am not going to make TWO SEPARATE SPREADSHEETS BOUND BY A SINGLE DATABASE ON A SIMPLE PROBLEM OF SOMETHING NOT BEING MAINTENENCE.

In that case, back off with prices.

Military budget encorporates R&D, so your new fighters, wall development and Radar will have you out of cash, even in debt.

My budget does have R&D, no, i am not in debt. In fact, I still have a surplus. I modified my budget so instead of those 3 (THREE) things being part of the maintenence total, they are now OTHER... although they all subtract.

http://pages.ripco.com/~antman87/military.xls

'Attican Aerospace' encompasses aircraft research.

Once I saw a fokker triplane out-turn a p-40 warhawk in a simulated ACM at an airshow.
Of course the weapons you could hold on a a fokker triplane would never be enough to penatrate the p-40's armor... since the fokker could at best hold a single .50 cal with like 100 rounds.... :roll:

In that case you are godmodding, by making your own rules.

Keep to the rules and ways everyone else keeps to.

It is not realistic to have maintenance paying for R&D.

And the wall construction should come out of your military budget aswell, as it is a military installation, and you are not maintaining the wall, you are building it. :roll:

Read the budget, or i will call you an idiot again.




Research and Development:
Attican Aerospace $20,000,000,000.00

Construction:
Sea Defenses $20,000,000,000.00
Border Wall $7,000,000,000.00


Other Costs: $47,000,000,000.00

Total Maintenance Budget: $10,921,282,000.00


Hmm... I wonder what that OTHER COSTS might be.

you are an idiot!!

www.feetman.com (visit it, it rocks)

And all those, my friend DO NOT FIT YOUR BUDGET ACCORDING TO PIPIAN, THE OFFICIAL NS GDP CALCULATOR!!!

YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT MUCH MONEY!!!!

http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=Attican%20Empire&defenseprovided=1&defense=10&militarybudget=1

The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please try the following:

Click the Refresh button, or try again later.

If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.

To check your connection settings, click the Tools menu, and then click Internet Options. On the Connections tab, click Settings. The settings should match those provided by your local area network (LAN) administrator or Internet service provider (ISP).
If your Network Administrator has enabled it, Microsoft Windows can examine your network and automatically discover network connection settings.
If you would like Windows to try and discover them,
click Detect Network Settings
Some sites require 128-bit connection security. Click the Help menu and then click About Internet Explorer to determine what strength security you have installed.
If you are trying to reach a secure site, make sure your Security settings can support it. Click the Tools menu, and then click Internet Options. On the Advanced tab, scroll to the Security section and check settings for SSL 2.0, SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0, PCT 1.0.
Click the Back button to try another link.



Cannot find server or DNS Error
Internet Explorer


Attica -> http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=Attican%20Empire&defenseprovided=1&defense=5&militarybudget=1

The problem is, my defense budget is NOT 5%, its 10.

The problem is, my defense budget is NOT 5%, its 10. Yeah but if u put it at 5% it corrects for the inaccuracy of the calculator

... That is the stupidest reason I have ever heard. The only difference between 5% and 10% on that calculator is that 5% is half of 10%.


Also, If you think 10% is unrealistic, http://www.fas.org/man/docs/fy99/historical/091-094.htm . The US's predicted military budget for 2003 was 23%, it is actually higher in reality.

The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please try the following:

Click the Refresh button, or try again later.

If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.

To check your connection settings, click the Tools menu, and then click Internet Options. On the Connections tab, click Settings. The settings should match those provided by your local area network (LAN) administrator or Internet service provider (ISP).
If your Network Administrator has enabled it, Microsoft Windows can examine your network and automatically discover network connection settings.
If you would like Windows to try and discover them,
click Detect Network Settings
Some sites require 128-bit connection security. Click the Help menu and then click About Internet Explorer to determine what strength security you have installed.
If you are trying to reach a secure site, make sure your Security settings can support it. Click the Tools menu, and then click Internet Options. On the Advanced tab, scroll to the Security section and check settings for SSL 2.0, SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0, PCT 1.0.
Click the Back button to try another link.



Cannot find server or DNS Error
Internet Explorer


Attica -> http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=Attican%20Empire&defenseprovided=1&defense=5&militarybudget=1

damn

... That is the stupidest reason I have ever heard. The only difference between 5% and 10% on that calculator is that 5% is half of 10%.


Also, If you think 10% is unrealistic, http://www.fas.org/man/docs/fy99/historical/091-094.htm . The US's predicted military budget for 2003 was 23%, it is actually higher in reality.

The US military budget is only approximately 3.5% of GDP, though... that is the percentage your should be more concerned with.

And My military budget is 3.51% of my GDP, but I also have a higher tax rate than the US.

Bumplords, your an idiot, stfu. noob.

Plus, I CLAIMED I found a battleship, you never even attampted to prove i had it! So stfu. noob.

Unless I am mistaken, you are the noob here.

http://www.ilovewurstbrot.de/Promi_s/P1/George-W-Bush-Goes-Undercover-To-Find-Osama-P277.jpg

BUSHLADEN HAS SPOKEN!!!!!!!!!

And My military budget is 3.51% of my GDP, but I also have a higher tax rate than the US.

As long as you aren't spending more than approximately 4% of GDP on your military, it shouldn't adversely effect your economy. Now, if you spend vast amounts of money in other areas also... then you just might have a problem.

ACS - so for once, my budget is acceptable (Woot)?

... That is the stupidest reason I have ever heard. The only difference between 5% and 10% on that calculator is that 5% is half of 10%.


Also, If you think 10% is unrealistic, http://www.fas.org/man/docs/fy99/historical/091-094.htm . The US's predicted military budget for 2003 was 23%, it is actually higher in reality.

The US military budget is only approximately 3.5% of GDP, though... that is the percentage your should be more concerned with.

3.5 percent with which we coulda had a fully reusable space vehicle by 1973.

*Sigh*

Oh well. C'est la vie.

OOC: I agree with LRR... then again, our government is was more concerned with the Cold War then space exploration, the Space Shuttle itself was out of necessity, it is a PoS. They wanted to make something better, but did not receive the funding.

OOC: I agree with LRR... then again, our government is was more concerned with the Cold War then space exploration, the Space Shuttle itself was out of necessity, it is a PoS. They wanted to make something better, but did not receive the funding.

The Cold war- the most horrible, unnecessary conflict ever to aflict the 20th century. If only Gorby was born 30 years earlier and not purged. But anyways, the US and Russia should have gone arm in arm into space. Instead of competing, if we had shatred information and resources I be we would all be driving fuel cell cars with hydrogen mined from the moon.

OOC: I agree with LRR... then again, our government is was more concerned with the Cold War then space exploration, the Space Shuttle itself was out of necessity, it is a PoS. They wanted to make something better, but did not receive the funding.

The Cold war- the most horrible, unnecessary conflict ever to aflict the 20th century. If only Gorby was born 30 years earlier and not purged. But anyways, the US and Russia should have gone arm in arm into space. Instead of competing, if we had shatred information and resources I be we would all be driving fuel cell cars with hydrogen mined from the moon.

It was some idiot in nixon's budget office who decided to slash the "Reusable" from "Reusable launch vehicle."