NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Socialist States of Zvarinograd has begun research on an advanced attack aircraft that can carry a massive amount of guided anti-tank/anti-air missles, enough for a long continuous barrage, to destroy whole armor/air divisions in it's wake. Our researchers suggest a modification of the A-10 Thunderbolt II, with emphasis on better electronics (to cope with the large amount of guided missles in flight and not get confused, of course) and payload at the cost of it's traditional GAU-8 Avenger cannon.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10.gif
AZ-BB-A Guided Missle Barrage Aircraft

In addition, another team of researchers have begun work on a missle armed with low cost yet highly effective electronic jammers to disable and destroy SAM/AA installations and vehicles and give free reign (thus the monicker, "Freedom") for the infamous Arctic Airforce to initiate a massive air campaign.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/hellfire-line-3.gif
AZ-AGM-B "Freedom" SAM/AA Neutralizer

OOC:
My nation does not have a navy, as some of you might know. Instead my nation emphasizes airpower, in both numerical and technological superiority. Now this isn't perfect, as someone can just concentrate on SAM and AA, therefore my researchers will take a stab on that.

Any suggestions, comments or violent reactions?

OOC: Already been done (the B-1B mods), somewhere in Omz222's store.

OOC:
B-1C? I'd rather do my own, for production's sake. That and I need to fit my electronic warfare suite onto my version.

Im not sure on the idea of a bomber being in an Air to Air role.

Also, it would have limited air to surface capability.

OOC:
Limited? *cough* Emphasis of the project is to create something that will destroy whole armor divisions.

Oi. Oh well. Change of plan.

Well, bombers are fairly slow and sluggish. And tanks are on the ground, sometimes in valleys and beside forests. The attacker has to come in at the correct angle.

Also, without proper air support this thing is a sitting duck for Shilkas and Mobile Infrared SAM's. Hell, that thing is meat for the AA-3E I was selling a while ago.

OOC:
True. I'll have to have a high payload capacity modified A-10 then, GAU-8 Avenger removed. However, there is a reason why I assigned some of my researchers into an air-launched long range anti-SAM/AA unit missle though. ;)

They dont really work on optical and infrared though.

OOC:
You forgot, I can as easily install a miniature, low cost version of the AZ-T III ECM 7446, with an optical jammer. The missle would be fairly big but it would have to do. The flaw is that the pilot would have to be betting it all on one shot, he can't carry much of these things and still have a decent attack payload, or even have any other payload at that.

Still, it would need large air, ground and intel support every time one flew.

Acctually, I am after a decent ground attack aswell. The MA-14 is getting old.

I am currently making do with a fighter bomber (the F-32 which fought your Su-47 look-alike) as the A-10 is, shall we say, old.

We also have the problem of precision attacking tanks and infantry in forests, so our scientists are working on a jet-powered divebomber. It can carry around 6600 lbs. of bombs and go up to Mach 6. It has some stealth and cruises at 30,000 ft. at Mach 5 before diving at the target then pulling out. It relies on the enemy's not seeing it.

Although our nation places great emphasis on electronic warfare both on the ground and in the air and our existing HARM and ALARM missiles are perfectly suitable we are interested in your low cost Anti-Radiation
AZ-AGM-B for use on helicopters which currently lack this type of capability.

We actually have been researching the same thing and so far only a preliminary configuration has been agreed. Howver we are still looking for contarctors and partners to develop the guidance system,wrhead and propellant. Our suggestion is rather than duplicating these projcts in our respective nation, we merge them.

Preliminary Design of EAW-X27 Light Anti-Radiation missile
Approximate Launch Weight: 784 pounds

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/agm-119b-DNSC9204226_JPG.jpg

I agree with United Elias, and suggest that we combine our missile and plane projects to develop a high-quality anti-tank plane with compatible missiles.

We are a formerly secluded nation which has just begun sending diplomats out into the world.

OOC: We're a revived nation with 500 million, the first nation of the creator (me) of the Johnston Arms Corp.

We agree with United Elias, however, we would like to ask of Mapalgetia's intentions in our research projects. If it isn't too much to ask for.

OOC:
A mach 5-6 plane is possible, but for it to have a weapons arsenal, have enough manueverability to dive down and pull up, precision hit a target is ludicruous.

Ah, of course it is not too much. We merely would like to help in the design of the plane/missiles so that all involved parties could benefit. Of course, we are all right if you don't need another nation to help, but we would like to gain some valuable design experience.

Very well, you may participate.

OOC:
And I need some rest. Ciao.

ZV, I am sorry to crush your new idea, but there is a crucial flaw in your A-10 upgrade.

The A-10 is a short range, long speed aircraft. The aircraft you are looking for has to have long endurance for it to be able to take out a tank division.

You may have to look further for something new.

However, I wish to be part of any project that takes place.

One thing I tried before (terrible for anti-air fire) is using a dirigible or helicopter to effectively hover above a target and fire. It would have to have amazing anti-anti-air systems though, so it doesn't really work.

*remembers when one was shot down by the AEGIS cruiser it was bombarding*

So we're using my missile design?

Also for the CAS plane, you need somthing way more modern like this.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/future/f16-ucav-foas_001.jpg

Its an F-16 modification that was put forward for CLose Air Support

1 single aricraft for an entire armoured division (thats 200-500 odd tanks) might eb streatching it, but an A-10 with a brimestone missile/launcher complex on each pylon (if feasable) would be a nasty customer (proabaly upto about 30 missiles each targeting independently).

For light targets my APKWS2 (millimetric seeker head for rockets, i manufactur it in 55mm, 70mm, 2.75", and 81mm )with a decent millimetric wave fire control system would be very very nasty. If used with 70mm or 2.75" rockets then the A10 could carry 190 or so rounds likely not best against tanks (unless you use some sort of fancy top down warhead) but for anything lighter...

For light targets my APKWS2 (millimetric seeker head for rockets, i manufactur it in 55mm, 70mm, 2.75", and 81mm )with a decent millimetric wave fire control system would be very very nasty. If used with 70mm or 2.75" rockets then the A10 could carry 190 or so rounds likely not best against tanks (unless you use some sort of fancy top down warhead) but for anything lighter...

We are very interested in this idea since we are planning an EA-28 version with a longbow radar, only I would question how much armour a 70mm rocket can pierce.

The other possible option would be to use something like a shaped charge, only with a 360 degree explosion and put it between two tanks.

Here, concept:

Heres ma concept:

http://www.aircraftdesign.com/atf3.jpg

For light targets my APKWS2 (millimetric seeker head for rockets, i manufactur it in 55mm, 70mm, 2.75", and 81mm )with a decent millimetric wave fire control system would be very very nasty. If used with 70mm or 2.75" rockets then the A10 could carry 190 or so rounds likely not best against tanks (unless you use some sort of fancy top down warhead) but for anything lighter...

We are very interested in this idea since we are planning an EA-28 version with a longbow radar, only I would question how much armour a 70mm rocket can pierce.

The answer is not a lot using a unitary warhead but there has been talk about cargo rounds with AP fletechettes and other submuntions.

mainly i use them as a useful way of dealing withairdefense psotions and light armor. (the APKWS is a RL system that actually uses a laser seeker and is compatable with all the current US aircraft that use hydra 70 from the LAU-19 and LAU-7 pods but i though it would be far cooler to use millimetric targeting so you can launch nice big salvos at once.

If you are interested feel free to make me an offer.

bump for my concept.

Here, concept:

Heres ma concept:

http://www.aircraftdesign.com/atf3.jpg

nice idea, there's a picture somehwere as well.

I think you mean this:

http://www.aircraftdesign.com/atfpnt.jpg

And Model:

http://www.aircraftdesign.com/atf-me.jpg

Meh, i hate bumps.

just another diea, unoriginal but could be okay:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/x-32A_quote.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/x-32-c12-27786-4.jpg

I'll admit its a ridiculous looking plane.

Ugliest Ive seen for a while....

Nah, too unorigonal. Needs to stand out from what n00bs are selling on the street corner.

http://www.f5.dion.ne.jp/~mirage/message11/fb_22_1.jpg

[img]http://www.f5.dion.ne.jp/~mirage/message11/fb_22raptor.jpg

We also have the problem of precision attacking tanks and infantry in forests, so our scientists are working on a jet-powered divebomber. It can carry around 6600 lbs. of bombs and go up to Mach 6. It has some stealth and cruises at 30,000 ft. at Mach 5 before diving at the target then pulling out. It relies on the enemy's not seeing it.

Can you say suicide? Not to mention it would have to be powered by something other then conventional jet engines.

UE, you got youreslf a contestant.

Let battle of the concepts commence.

Or, the first 5 here:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/f22/f22-evolution.jpg

Aha!!!

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/f22/f22-natf.jpg

http://www.aircraftdesign.com/atf3.jpg

This looks promising, as far as payload goes. That assumption coming from "the bigger the plane, the more it can carry".

The answer is not a lot using a unitary warhead but there has been talk about cargo rounds with AP fletechettes and other submuntions.

Au contraire, if you were to have aluminum in a 1:1.25 proportion of TNT:RDX explosive and have fragmentation (HE/Fragmentation blast, used in later versions of the Hellfire), you would come up with a powerful (compared to it's size) warhead. Contrary to some, the warhead would not become FAE/TB type, as the ratio cancels out the brisance (shattering effect) reduction caused by the aluminum. Not sure if it's enough, but it's worth a try.

FAE/TB isn't the most powerful conventional warhead in the United States' arsenal. It's H6, a non-FAE/TB explosive that follows the formula above.

OOC:
Bumpelstilskin

The plane could also be helped by having semi-quiet engines and some stealth or strong countermeasures, so that the tanks wouldn't know it was close until it was on them. Of course, it would probably having to have a relatively strong armor on its bottom side, as it would be taking quite a bit of small arms and machine gun fire.

OOC:
The plane could also be helped by having semi-quiet engines and some stealth or strong countermeasures, so that the tanks wouldn't know it was close until it was on them.

Payload and stealth are two things that just won't mix well together. I prefer payload, my airforce logistics is sufficient to cover for it.

relatively strong armor on its bottom side, as it would be taking quite a bit of small arms and machine gun fire.

Tell me how to point a pistol to the sky and hit an aircraft going at supersonic speeds and I'll worship you.

Zvarinograd: i think he refers to the general tactic employed by all armed forces: if anyone sees a plane we all just blast away at it, not nessicarily to bring the plane down but to confuse the pilot.

Both the british and argintinian forces used this to great effect against planes on CAS missions, and if you have a look at the pics of A-10s post mission in the Iraq conflict you will see that eventually soemthing will hit if you put enough junk in the air.

Au contraire, if you were to have aluminum in a 1:1.25 proportion of TNT:RDX explosive and have fragmentation (HE/Fragmentation blast, used in later versions of the Hellfire), you would come up with a powerful (compared to it's size) warhead. Contrary to some, the warhead would not become FAE/TB type, as the ratio cancels out the brisance (shattering effect) reduction caused by the aluminum. Not sure if it's enough, but it's worth a try.


but even so would this be effective against MBT armor, i'm pretty sure the HE frag hellfire i used for special uses other than tank killing. An AT warhead could likely be biult if based on an anti tank bomblet from the JSOW or WCMD (no idea what size those are).

OOC:
We're experiencing bumper to bumper traffic...