NationStates Jolt Archive

Headline: World in Awe: Sileetris Unveils New "Airship" Technology!

Once again on the forefront of technology, Sileetris is proud to introduce possibly the largest jump in warfare vehicles since the invention of internal combustion ground vehicles; the aptly named airship. Based on the forgotten Channel Wing technology, the airships of Sileetris generate almost as much lift as helicopters, without the cumbersome propellers. Added to this, the body itself is a lifting body design, essentially accomplishing the same thing as a flying wing, but with more internal space. Powered by the recently invented Bubble Fusion(although technically doable with nuclear power) airships can stay aloft as long as is needed, providing the permanence of naval power with the speed of air power. With armaments comparable to a naval ship, but speed comparable to a cargo plane, an airship can provide a fast reaction force powerful enough to overwhelm all defenses. But certainly such a large flying object would provide a fantastic target? Of course, but that is easily overcome by its fantastic countermeasure sytems. A radar jammer with unheard of power provides a blanket of concealment that is practically impenetrable. Buckler antimissle units dot the hull, ready to launch barrages of guided 20mm shells at anything that approaches. The best part about the airships for those with logistics in mind is their STOL capability; they can land in shorter distances than many heavy cargo planes! Imagine leading a country armed with merely average weapons confronted with a day of warning to combat the full power of a navy, without being able to use a navy of your own(because hey, how many cruise missles are designed to take on aerial targets?)! Airships will provide commanders of the near-future an amazing option; a quick strike with a navy!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SAN-02 Arsenal Airship
Crew: 350
Max Speed: 370mph/595kph
Min Speed: 50mph/80kph
Landing Distance: 1,214 ft/370 meters
Powerplant: 5 Bubble Fusion Reactors developing 240mW per
Range: Crew Supplies for 4 months
Armament:
264 Cruise Missile Tubes(for various purposes, capable of carrying nuclear cruise missiles)
280 Air to Air Missiles(kill anything that flies)
2 18 Inch Naval Guns(blowing up things you wouldn't want to waste missiles on)
20 80mm Gas-Gun Repeating Cannons(extremely high velocity guns, deliver 1/3rd more kinetic damage than Abrams 120mm, fire 225 rpm)
20 20mm Gas-Gun Repeating Cannons(extremely high velocity guns, fire 900rpm)
27 Buckler Anti-Missile Point Defense Units(anti-missile and aircraft that somehow get as close)
CounterMeasures:
Buckler Anti-Missile Point Defense
Chaff
Flares
IR torches
Antenna Burnout Radar
Radar System:
HSCDEADGR with Crystal Encoding
Over the horizon range capable of seeing almost a quarter of the world away
Each turret has an active holographic radar unit with Crystal Encoding
Comprehensive Jamming system capable of overpowering many of the largest land based radars
Special:
Largest Aircraft ever built, largest STOL, largest lifting body design.
3 Refueling Booms
Scary as hell!
Price Per Unit: $10 Billion
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(ooc: Muahaha Questions, Comments? Channel Wings are a forgotten aviation marvel that allows a simple U-shaped wing with an engine in the middle to generate amazing amounts of lift, they really exist. If you don't recognize bubble fusion, you can opt to replace it with nuclear reactors similar to those on submarines. The cargo and carrier versions are coming soon!)

OOC: This is like my nation's secret project "Victory" flying battleship, though i had idea of using Viktor Schauberger's repulsin style levitator engines combined with hydrogen powered pulsejet engines. Ofcourse it's mad idea, but "Victory" wasn't really designed with practicality in mind.

This is roughly comparable to Terra's Whale King Superheavy Bombers

http://photobucket.com/albums/v91/LilGekko/?action=view&current=WhaleKing-Reinforced.png

Dimensions?

(Wow, I thought this was Raysia)

nice too bad my vencance super fortress out guns and flies this

240mW? each from 5 ? that's only 1.2W! You're entire airship isn't even as powerful as a 60W lightbulb!

(ooc: I think he meant Megawatts, lol.

The stats for the Whale King are still being revised, but she's currently powered by a series of Quantum Nucleonic Reactors.)

ooc: very nice but what tech are you?)

Chardonay notes that this is a AIRCRAFT, not an airship, which is a very different thing. Chardonay is currently the premier NS designer and exporter of zeppelins.

a stealth blimp, what about visual? my super subs deliver the same power, speed, and stealth underwater away from watching eyes. The armed repblic of Survo will gladly suply all nations cheap and better weapons.

I'm going to be the first one to say it...It'll never work.

Whenever someone tries to break the mould...or at last tap into a rarely used mold, a bunch of noobs jump in and state their opinions, oblivious to the knowledge that noone cares...good work, Sileetris.

EDIT: Except for Cax however, he is just an experienced pesisimist :)

EDIT: Except for Cax however, he is just an experienced pesisimist :)
Pessimism is better than optimism, as your life is a succession of events in which you are either proved right or you have a pleasant suprise.

well, not a bad concept except for the whole it being done before, except slightly different (IE Victory class star destroyer,just uses more advanced weapons and is space worthy)

Good show!

(ooc: I think he meant Megawatts, lol.

The stats for the Whale King are still being revised, but she's currently powered by a series of Quantum Nucleonic Reactors.)

Well, someone update him on the metric nomlecature...... "m" (small 'm') is "milli" which denotes 1/1000th sic 240mW = .24W... and "M" (big 'M') is "mega" which denotes 1,000,000, sic 240MW = 240,000,000 W

Torsg: Not a bad idea, but having a depleatable fuel source like that would limit its loiter time.

Ancient and Holy Terra: Well not quite that big, but a bit more feasible under my tech setting....

_Taiwan: dimensions are as follows
135m long
110m wide
38m high(body)
62m high(top of rear fin)

Sephrioth: Very nice, tell someone who cares and is in your tech setting(read: munchkin tech)

Tekania: *sarcasm*Ahh my mistake, I meant thats how many amps it generates, we overcome the power problems by using fantastically high voltages!*sarcasm* Its in megawatts, forgive me people, for I live in the only country dumb enough to use the english standard system...

USSNA: Post-modern(present-2020) but the way NS works things get done a lot faster, such as bubble fusion....

Survo: Yes very nice, a submarine, lemme guess, it just zips around in its happy cavitation bubble, generating no noise with its rockets or turbines, and leaps out onto land when it needs to attack inland targets with conventional guns...... Visual stealth is unnecessary when nothing they can bring to bear matches the power of this; anti-aircraft artillery can be easily spotted and dispatched, and large artillery can't be aimed effectively.

Cax: Will you be the first to give a reason why? I'm not an optimist by a long shot, but looking back at all the people who have been pessimistic and wrong about science you'll find you're on the losing side, hows that for pessimism?

Kriegorgrad: Yay, a positive response!

Jitano: Hey, luckily I'll be dead before those become Post-Modern tech!

Sileetris: Could you comment more on survivability? Is there any armour?

_Taiwan: Most of its durability comes from the difficulty in mounting an effective attack against it; laying an ambush of any size appreciable enough to take it down would be a large allocation of resources, and would be easy to spot an avoid as well. But even with an engine disabled it can limp away at a low speed; it can also fly on only 3 reactors. The armor is a blend of hard polymers and titanium that protects from fire of up to 40mm. The underside is particularly well protected with an empty buffer layer between armors. The entire ship has air-locking compartments with extremely advanced fire control systems. Nevermind the fact that it has 20 turreted guns capable of taking out a tank in one shot....

As one of the professional NS tech skeptics, I don't really have enough information to make a judgement, but I would like to know how heavy it is, how many actual jet turbines it has, whether it has any vertical ducted fans, and how on earth you managed to get a stall speed that low.

Chardonay: No jet engines whatsoever, no ducted fans, all the work is done by the Channel Wings on the sides, which generate static lift comparable to a helicopter, also explaining the low stall speed. As for how heavy it is, I couldn't venture an accurate guess, but I know how to proportion the lifting surfaces and I made sure it has enough power. Look up Channel Wings, that will start to explain a lot.

Alright, i did a bit of research... MAN are they hard to find. It's a fascinating concept that bears more thought, but I do have some concerns.

1 You still need a propulsion source... fusion engines don't suck air. You need a turbofan engine somewhere.

2 My research shows that Custer Channel wings require that the engines be in nacelles on the wingtips, a very vulnerable position, not in the center like you say.

3 The aircraft will be horribly vulnerable to both standard and anti aircraft artillery. Anything that big that flies slow high so slowly (and by high, I mean above treetop level) is simply asking to recieve 155mm shells.

4 It would be horribly vulnerable to missiles: SAMs, ATGMs, AAMs and ARMs. This is the danger of any large heavier than air vehicle, any damage at all is virtually too much, and the engines are the weak point. Heat seaking missiles will not be fooled by your jamming, and ARMs will actually home in on the jamming. And those missiles are far to small and fast for standard point defence to engage.

5 Sitting duck for tanks. While your vehicle may carry heavy AT cannon, it's velocity means it will be less accurate compared to a hull down tank, and I defy anyone to armor any aircraft against a 120mm HEAT shell.

1. Fusion provides the electricity for the electric motors that run the props.

2. You are sort of right, it requires the propellers to be in a U-shaped channel in the wings. I never said they were in the center, the reactors are in the center of the fuselage, the props are outboard(is my MSCavePaint rendering really that bad :()

3. With proper recon support, AA sites can be spotted before they are in range, and this thing packs weapons that can destroy them before they can see it.

4. Heatseekers have nearly no target, like nuclear reactors aboard submarines, there aren't any external heat dissipation areas of remarkable strength. ARMs can't lock on to the default radar(HSCDEADGR) employed on this, so they have to wait for us to employ jamming. The point defense guns are anything but standard; the large turrets have 20mm guns that use guided ammo, and they have a fantastic range because of their high velocity, and the strictly point defense guns use 20mm guided as well; there isn't a single angle of attack that can be taken that doesn't have at least 5 guns coverage.

5. Assuming the tanks see it before it sees them, and are in range. The AT guns on this pack serious range, combined with the altitude of the thing, so they can fire on tanks long before they get within range.
~~~~~

Basically, this thing has weapons with naval reach, so just like a battleship it can get a picture of something miles and miles away and blow it up before it can respond.

(ooc: I'd just like to add that my Whale King bombers are not intended as far future tech, and actually operate in much the same realm as aircraft such as the F-35 or other very near-future aircraft. The Quantum Nucleonic Reactor system already exists, and may be tested on a Global Hawk very soon. Actually, the most technologically advanced thing aboard my aircraft is its structure, which needed to be heavily reinforce to prevent the wings from snapping off, or the aircraft from cracking in half under its own weight. The only other specially-designed tech aboard are the engines, which were built out of necessity, as no current turbofans are powerful enough to lift this baby into the air.

That said, I doubt I'll ever use them. I got bored during the summer and decided to draw it in Paint. Very nice aircraft, however...I like the assortment of missiles aboard.)

(Could you elaborate more on guided ammo?)

1 Alright, I didn't realize it was propeller driven. Knowing how many individual motors there are would be nice.

2. No, but you confuse the term 'power source' and 'propulsion source/engine/motor" In most aircraft, they are one and the same, this one, however, the power source and the propulsion source are seperated... I didn't understand that at first.

3. Most theatre air defence systems have ranges of perhaps 400km and are mobile. While you may have a sensor suite capable of looking over the horizon for aircraft at extreme ranges (we disagreed on the feasibility of your radar earlier =) ) it is not going to be able to pick up stationary targets. The radar is incapable of finding anything that stays still or moves slowly, and even a quickly moving ground vehicle would be lost in the ground clutter.

4. to the contrary, heatseakers have a very good target... the motors that drive the propellers. And yes, ARMs certanly can lock on to HSCDEADGR with no real problem... ARMs just go towards the largest radiating source they see,
which in this case would be your airplane.

As for the point defence, the problem is that the guns can't track quickly enough, the ranges are too short for them to effectively engage, and the guided ammunition needs to home in on SOMETHING... a laser pulse? I defy you to keep a laser centered on a LOSAT missile going at 4000m/s. Further, point defence guns really need a stable gun platform... propeller driven planes aren't really that stable.

5.I have every confidence that the tanks will be able to see a 130m long flying vehicle well above tree level before it see's a 9m long MBT.

10 billion.. a bit cheap for New technology and it being top of the line with all this stuff. I mean...godmod?

eh future tech sorry im present.

Huh? $10bn is several times the cost of a Nimitz...

Nimitzs don't fly. A B-2 costs about 1 billion, and this is far more sophisticated.

Well airships aren't exactly that high-tech,

Heavier than air ones with 5 nuclear reactors, multiple VLS cells, a futuretech radar system, multipul anti tank and anti aircraft guns, and enough consumables for 4 months are.

_Taiwan: Guided ammo uses a pivoting nose to change the aerodynamic properties of the bullet, which then cause it to turn. It is guided to its target by a variety of means or is preprogrammed on firing. Guided ammo is being researched today and is feasible by post-modern standards.
~~~~~
Chardonay:
1. As the diagram shows, there are 4.... Don't give me crap about them breaking down, obviously there are backups.

2. Yeah, it is kinda weird, but under these circumstances it is the only way of doing it.

3.+5. Obviously these things need support craft to fly ahead and scout, the big radar it carries can only do so much.

4. Heatseekers will not have a good target because the motors are electric, they would honestly get a better target out of a Spitfire.

No, ARMs can't lock on to HSCDEADGR because it bounces its signals, the ARMs can only see where the signal bounced from, not where it originated.

The point of using guided ammo is not having to get an exact lined up shot to shoot stuff down(the countermeasure units have multiple barrels facing different directions), and keeping a laser on something isn't a problem; missiles don't have the intelligence or maneuverability to dodge gunfire, and we certainly have the available computing power to predict their course, so we can just preprogram the bullets, this also happens to be a very stable firing platform, because even though it is prop driven, it is way too large to be noticably vibrated. Also, you'll notice its very difficult to fire a LOSAT missile at an aircraft, this thing is big, but it is still rather fast...

5. Once again remember that we are packing naval grade weapons here, so as long as we have someone go out and spot the tanks for us, we won't even need to make visual contact.
~~~~~
War Child: Besides the power source(which can be switched anyway) this technology is all easily in the post-modern range.
~~~~~
Praetonia: Exactly, $10 billion ain't cheap. It is signifigantly below what we could charge for these, but we would never sell any if we put the price any higher.
~~~~~
Chardonay: The B-2 is fantastically overpriced, considering it isn't even the first stealth plane out there. The fact that a single airplane can cost more than a destroyer, which packs more powerful electronics, more weapon systems, requires far more materials, and takes longer to build means the plane has some serious inflation behind it. The corporation that makes them is obviously using their status as sole constructor to jack up the cost. This is different because we aren't so much concerned with profits as we are with reputation, and like I said above, if we raised the cost any more, no one would buy any.

Welcome to the club, Sileetris. Axis Nova will be pleased to provide you with our own airship designs if you wish.

(OOC: You never responded to all those TGs I sent you a long time ago :mad: )

Axis Nova

OOC: The B-2 also uses far more exotic and specialized equipment and materials than a destroyer. The production run was also severely cut, increasing the overall unit cost dramatically. Do a little research before you slander a company.

I wasn't going to say anything about them breaking down... I'm not THAT cheap =)

Heatseakers lock onto the hottest thing they see, or something with a specific heat profile. While it would be hard to get them to lock onto the airship, it would certainly be possible.

HSCDEADGR bounces signals, i know. We've argued about HSCDEADGR before.. However, the signals have to come from somewhere. There needs to be an active emmitter, otherwise you aren't bouncing signals, you're just listening. And an ARM would home in on that active emmitter.

Keeping a laser on it would be a problem... you can only track the laser so quickly... and preprogramming wouldn't work because natural buffitting, changes in wind direction, irregularities in the fuel, and evasive manouvers on the part of the airship would all cause the missile to move somewhat evasively. Guided ammo is far better at killing missiles than normal ammo, but it's not a godsend.

And yes, I know there would be problems using LOSATs... but considering tanks can score kills on aircraft manouvering at speeds up to 600km/h with SABOTs, I don't think it will be insurmountable.

Axis Nova: Ohhhh shi------- I knew something was wrong...... I'll have the designs ready in a hurry, I've already made the Recon version you wanted, when I finish I'll post a thread so I can attach the pictures I got................................................................................................. .......................................... Dam I'm in trouble....................................................

Autonomous City-states: Just telling the truth though, the B-2 is overpriced so it isn't a great comparison vehicle.

Chardonay: Well, I would never go as far as saying it would be impossible to get a lock on one, although heatseekers don't worry me too much, since they are close-range weapons, and getting close to something with 260 AtA missiles is difficult at best.

HSCDEADGR does use an active emitter, it just isn't facing the target. Special software(complex I may add) would have to be developed to allow ARMs to find the weak signal coming from leakage at the emitter.

Another strength in the system lies in the fact that it won't be using just one gun and sensor, there are many guns capable of engaging a missile at any given time. That said, natural buffetting and wind direction are facts of life, and the missile has to deal with them as well, fuel irregularities won't mean crap unless they actually cause the missile to change direction because it won't slow down with all its momentum, and dear god I would love to see something as big as one of these airships taking evasive maneuvers..... Really though, one missile vs. 1000 bullets is an easy matchup.

(Also, I've added some additional conventional countermeasures, which I thought everyone would assume were in place, such as chaff, flares, IR torches, and antenna frying radar guns)

THey wouldn't need special software to track it... because what direction does the radar actually illuminate?

It illuminates upward or downward at an angle, reflecting the signal. Its like shooting at someone whose image has been reflected by a series of mirrors.

But it's not going to be a tight beam, just like any targetting radar isn't exactly a tight beam. If an ARM can kill a SAM targetting radar from a direction it's not illuminating, I feel confident that it can hit a HSCDEADGR radar.

Thats assuming it can choose the correct signal to follow and can readjust for the signifigant encoding and shifting we employ, and was in range of the leakage, but in theory, yes they could. Like I said though, they would need software rewrites to accomodate for all the extra variables.

Just set it for broadband seaking, S band to milimetric, and set it to follow the strongest sources. That'll kill it.

It won't be the strongest source, the strongest parts of the beam are the bouncing parts, you'll be looking for a weak, leaked signal(which isn't necessarily the weakest). Its a needle in a haystack afair, just the needle isn't a different color.

The bouncing parts can't be any stronger than the emmitter, in fact, they'd have to be considerably less strong.

They are the strongest part you'll see, because the emitter isn't directly facing you, therefore all you'll see is the small amount of inherent leaked signal.

the emmitter is making 360 degree sweeps, correct? WHich means that maximum deflection from any ground based launcher would be considerably less than 90 degrees. There will be more than enough leakage.

Sweeps? What is this, air traffic control?...... The emitter is firing at very high and low angles to allow the signal to bounce. Unless you are above or below the craft and very close, you'll be seeing a bounced signal or the tiny amount that leaks and goes straight out from the plane.

Normal radar is a hallway with a flashlight shining down it. Run towards the light and you find the guy with the flashlight.

Think of the hallway now with mirrors in a zig zag. The person with the flashlight at the end of the hall shines it on one of the mirrors, and the light bounces from mirror to mirror all the way to you. If you head towards the light in any of the mirrors, you will bump into the wall. The only correct light source is the very faint one caused by the flashlight's imperfect focus, a tiny glimmer barely visible down the hallway.

Now imagine the hallway is totally mirrored, there are many flashlights of different colors and strengths at different angles, and it is so long that the glimmer is indistinguishable from the wall reflections.

(Also there is some crazy techno music playing and theres lots of E going around, omg this party rawks.)

How exactly does this radar system do that kind of bouncing?

Dude, you can detect radar even if it's not directly illuminating you. That's the entire idea of passive radar systems. Frankly, it's unlikely a bouncing beam will illuminate us either. And all radar does sweeps... are you saying that you don't have 360 degree coverage and someone could sneak up behind you?

Do you really need radar? I mean, you'll be able to see this thing coming from 30 miles away, more if you're in the air.

Damit, I'm getting tired of explaining the freaking radar system every time someone thinks they can disprove it; I've had this arguement many, many times...... And every single time, the other party has run out of arguements and said it would take a lot of computing power to calculate, which is established.

The radar bounces off the ground and the atmosphere similar to HAM radio.

You will be illuminated from many directions and not know which one is correct. Chasing anything but the tiny signal leak will lead you nowhere.

The radar does not do sweeps, it broadcasts in a fan shape upwards and downwards.
~~~~~
Cax: Well, if you wan't to guide anything you'll need radar. Visibility isn't so great as to allow you to accurately spot this thing 100% of the time, especially without binoculars or powerful cameras.

I understand exactly how it works, sleetris. We've had this discussion before. And you are ignoring my point that there is always significant leakage out the sides of any radar system... and that leakage will be higher intencity than the bounced illumination As you no doubt know, the intencity of the radiation is proportional to the cube of the distance from the emmitter. Even ignoring the fact that when the beams bounce they lose a lot of their energy, the distance that radiation has to travel is more than double the distance the leakage has to travel... so the bouncing beams will lose 8 times as much intensity as the leakage over any given distance.

And note, I'm not trying to disprove it. If you devote as much processing power as you say you do, and are a near future nation, then it's perfectly reasonable. What I am saying is that the emmitter can be detected on passive radar and can be tracked by ARMs.

I'll also agree that on a normal battlefield, assuming it uses it's naval missiles exclusively, it will be relatively immune. However, the large amount of secondary anti tank cannons that you've mounted on it makes me think it will be used in a close support role often... if it does, it will be horribly vulnerable. If it's not, then those massive guns serve no purpose and should be scrapped to save weight. You need to decide if you're making an assault ship or an arsenal ship.

I understand exactly how it works, sleetris. We've had this discussion before. And you are ignoring my point that there is always significant leakage out the sides of any radar system... and that leakage will be higher intencity than the bounced illumination As you no doubt know, the intencity of the radiation is proportional to the cube of the distance from the emmitter. Even ignoring the fact that when the beams bounce they lose a lot of their energy, the distance that radiation has to travel is more than double the distance the leakage has to travel... so the bouncing beams will lose 8 times as much intensity as the leakage over any given distance.

And note, I'm not trying to disprove it. If you devote as much processing power as you say you do, and are a near future nation, then it's perfectly reasonable. What I am saying is that the emmitter can be detected on passive radar and can be tracked by ARMs.

I'll also agree that on a normal battlefield, assuming it uses it's naval missiles exclusively, it will be relatively immune. However, the large amount of secondary anti tank cannons that you've mounted on it makes me think it will be used in a close support role often... if it does, it will be horribly vulnerable. If it's not, then those massive guns serve no purpose and should be scrapped to save weight. You need to decide if you're making an assault ship or an arsenal ship.

Well said, indeed.

I just realized that I can use cold plasma to cancel out leakage by leaving a pinhole exit from the transmitter, the reciever will be above the plasma layer. Huzzah.

The guns can be used for close support, and they do truely make it the most concentrated source of firepower possible in those circumstances, but their range allows them to be used at long ranges as well. They act like close defense guns only when they need to. This ship is designed for long range bombardment, but like a battleship it can defend itself up close.

ACS: Unless you actually have something to add, you end up looking like a yes-man, which is a bad image for a country to portray.....

Considering the 'pinhole' would restrict the power of the radar (which you can't really afford since it needs to be at least 8 times as powerful as a standard radar), reduces the area illuminated, and would need to consist of a circle all the way around the system (as you said, it broadcasts in a fan shape), no I don't think it would work.

I also wonder how you would detect things that are already under the insident beam... but I suppose short range standard radar could take care of that.


I'm not denying it's a powerful combat system, I just think you're trying to make it fit too many roles. True, a battleship is designed to provide close range support... but it's also designed to TAKE it, and this vehicle would not be able to take heavy gunfire. If I were you, I'd remove the heavy cannon, add more VLS tubes, and make damn sure it stayed well out to sea or behind my lines, it's simply too valuable asset to even think of risking in a close support role. America doesn't mount AAMs on AWACs platforms. The best defence for something like this is to not get shot at, because if it trades body blows with a tank platoon at short range (and I'm REALLY interested in how you get that much KE from a 80mm cannon, and how you intend to take the recoil from the 15 inch guns) it will lose. The 80mm's rate of fire is absolutely rediculous. We have a quickfiring 75mm that can manage a five shot burst in 1 second, but then it takes a full 5 seconds to change the magazine... and penetration is less than normal because the strain the recoil puts on the cannon housing and ammunition feed forced us to reduce the powder charge.

I'm sorry sleetris, I don't mean to be nitpicky or to attack your creation... But anyone who creates a supersystem and denies it's vulnerabilities is simply asking for skepticism. I, for one, cheerfuly admit that my zeppelins are slow and vulnerable to litterally everything. My tanks are expencive and prone to breakdowns and computer glitches. My basic fighter defence system, which seems impervious at first, falls appart if heavy jamming is applied. My ships are noisy and show up easily on passive sonar. Hell, all of my systems rely on communications systems that can be jammed, tapped, or used to locate us (with difficulty). In a recent exercise with an ally, one of my officers caused a NBC alert because it turned out he was alergic to the fumes generated by our burning tanks, and another officer lead her armored regiment into a bog despite GPS assisted maps. And yet, I would say that my army is one of the best equipped, most technologically advanced, and best LEAD moderntech armies in nationstates. Not largest... but unit for unit, one of the best. You need to realize that everything has weaknesses and not try to paper over them with technobable. It's the weaknesses that make an army or system unique, along with it's strengths.

ACS: Unless you actually have something to add, you end up looking like a yes-man, which is a bad image for a country to portray.....

I did have something to add... that Chardonay covered the issues very well, IMHO, and that I agree. I think you portray the image that you are not open to criticism and you choose to ignore that which doesn't fit into your preconceptions.

The end effect of having the pinholes would make the system resemble a metal hemisphere with hundreds of tiny holes drilled in it at precise angles(one hemisphere on top, one below, with misc electronics between). The power taken away from the radar isn't part of the useful beam, so it's no big loss, nevermind the sheer amount of electricity we have to spare in this case from all the reactors....

Hey, if they're that close, something is wrong anyway :).

It isn't for close support, its supposed to provide the power of naval artillery to support things from a distance, while maintaining maneuverability impossible for a navy. If it is engaged in close combat, something was planned very wrong, but it technically has the firepower to out-shoot many things close-in anyway.

The 15 inch gun's recoil should be of no consquence, considering a C-130 can fire 105mm guns just fine, and this airship could crush a C-130 like a beer can.

The 80mm guns aren't conventional weapons, they are called gas-guns for a reason. A piston compresses hydrogen extremely quickly, which is then ignited and used to propel the bullet. Because of the incredibly high pressure, the projectile travels at almost the speed of sound in hydrogen. The pressure forces the piston back(which absorbs a lot of the recoil), the gas and projectile are replaced, and the process starts again. Because of the cycling nature of the piston, along with it's recoil absorption, the weapon can operate at very high speeds, mimicing an internal combustion engine to a degree... Obviously, it requires special cooling devices and lubrication, along with a great deal of electricity to power the solenoid that pushes the piston forward, but in it's well monitored environment these things are an acceptable trade for the performance it delivers. (This is roughly based on gas-guns in real life, which are used to test materials for high-speed impacts, a good deal has been changed, but compressed hydrogen will get you some serious speed)

ACS: I know thats what you meant, but if you aren't going to actually add anything to the discussion or interact with it, you basically are just inflating your post count by being a cheerleader..... But I am really open for criticism, and I'm shocked you'd say I ignore stuff, because I really try to answer everything as best I can. The idea of all of this is to see if I left anything out during planning, and to develop detail behind the systems I use.

ACS: I know thats what you meant, but if you aren't going to actually add anything to the discussion or interact with it, you basically are just inflating your post count by being a cheerleader.....

I was waiting to see what your response would be to his argument and I simply wanted to indicate my agreement with it. I think it's silly that you're making such a fuss over the fact that I said that I agree with Chardonay. Maybe you are open to criticism... but drawing attention to something so minor that has absolutely nothing to do with the technical merits of your system gives the image that you aren't and that you are diverting away from the main argument. Unless you weren't just trying to dismiss my comment. Otherwise, why say anything?

But I am really open for criticism, and I'm shocked you'd say I ignore stuff, because I really try to answer everything as best I can. The idea of all of this is to see if I left anything out during planning, and to develop detail behind the systems I use.

I don't think you've ready addressed Chardonay's arguments. I think you've just talked past them. Perhaps "ignore" was too strong a word.

I do have two questions of my own about the channel wings, however. How do you address the issue of long-term structural fatigue due to vibrations from the close arrangement of the wing and props? How do you address channel drag at speeds over 305 mph?

Alright. While the pinhole system may reduce the amount of leakage, you aren't using lasers and there will still be leaks. Not to mention that using plasma to shieled it will greatly increase your IR signature. And what wavelength is it? yopu need an antena at least as long as the wavelength of the radar, and by encolsing it in plasma you're effectively shortening it way down.(BTW, we may be arguing at cross purposess... I'm talking about passive detection at, say 200 km and an ARM launch at about 50km... we'd still need to get pretty close. On the other hand, I treat your claim that you can see a quarter of the way around the world as the worst kind of godmod... the radar would need to be powerful enough that the incident beams could boil water, and you would have to have detailed knowledge of the weather on the other side of the globe)

There are fundimental differences between a 155mm gun and a 460mm shell... you're going to need gun crews with poweder bags... and if firing an 15 inch gun causes a 20 000 ton monitor to shudder and plunge, I'd hate to see what firing an 18 inch gun will do to your aircraft.

Ok, I did some research on gas guns... fascinating concept... for fixed artillery. There are some problems with what you've described. It's VERY different from real gas guns, so I don't have anything to base this on, but... the hydrogen will spontaniously combust before it's reached the pressure you want. Thats one of the problems with hydrogen, it combusts on a moments notice. Also, when the hydrogen combusts and pushes the piston backwards, you're going to have it filling the massive cavity that it was compressed from... this expansion in both directions will indeed make it recoilless... it will also mean that the muzzel velocity is more than halved as the expanding gas is lost to the rear chamber. You will then need to vaccum out all of the air and water (because hydrogen and oxygen combust to form water) on the inside of the breach, put another 80mm shell in the breach, and refill it with oxygen and hydrogen... I believe that the current rate of fire for modern gas guns is 1 round every two hours.

Autonomous City-states: I responded to your remark because I like to be thorough..... I believe that I have responded properly to Chardonay's arguements so far, none of my original designs had signifigant problems, but there were many grey areas that lead people to show skepticism until they were clarified. As for the vibration problems etc., remember that the original Channel Wings were built using civilian grade materials in an outdated era; this is 2015 and we have the latest material sciences to use.

Chardonay: Its shielded with cold plasma(look it up) which won't make an IR difference. Actually, the antenna can still be full sized because the plasma-pinhole dome is merely a casing to it. HSCDEADGR was based on over the horizon radar, commonly used to track storms far out to sea. Being a more powerful system, and with powerful computers interpreting the results, it should be possible to spot aircraft at similar ranges.

20,000 tons?? You must have your figures wrong, because the only monitor I know is supposed to be 987 tons.... A C-130's landing weight is 65 tons, by comparison, but there are other circumstances involved with the situation. Also, the airship is very, very large. (Btw, the 2 guns are only there for menial tasks that cruise missiles aren't worth, like firing on minefields or cratering roads)

You fail to take into account the disparity in size between the bore of the barrel and the bore of the piston, along with the weight of the projectile and the weight of the piston. Even as it combusts, the hydrogen is crushed by the momentum of the piston, so no matter what it will reach the high pressure we need. The piston is still on its forward stroke by the time the bullet has been exposed to pressure. At this point I should also mention that the barrel and the piston are joined only by a pin-valve behind the bullet, so restocking the bullet is very simple. As long as the inside of the piston is hydrophobically coated, it should be easy to suck the water vapor away, possibly with the help of a counter piston. Putting new hydrogen in isn't difficult because it is basically like fuel injection. The residual water does make it run rough after a while, but running it for a while is unnecessary in most cases anyway. (You know burning gasoline releases water too, right?)

Axis Nova's Lucifer-class, our current largest front-line combat unit (soon slated for a Tier III refit), weighs 3,537,200 metric tons...

OTH "backscatter" radar requires massive arrays and precise site positioning to be effective. I'd also like to know how the circulating plasma of any kind around a radar antenna doesn't cause any interference.

Also, you didn't answer my question about the channel drag, which is a real effect and a noted problem. You are dramatically increasing the size of the channel wings and the aerodynamics will not necessarily be the same as with a smaller wing. I would expect drag to significantly increase past low subsonic speeds.

ACS: With the sizeable antennas and huge amount of computers, it shouldn't be a problem in 2015(the existing big OTH radars are pretty old btw). Its cold plasma(look it up), it isn't emitting large amounts of random radiation etc. like the stuff in the sun, it absorbs radio frequencies and it really doesn't have to be circulating(never said it was).

Thats why its maximum speed is 370mph; it won't go any faster. At that point, drag overtakes power to the point where you would be losing speed by trying to make the props larger.

ACS: With the sizeable antennas and huge amount of computers, it shouldn't be a problem in 2015(the existing big OTH radars are pretty old btw). Its cold plasma(look it up), it isn't emitting large amounts of random radiation etc. like the stuff in the sun, it absorbs radio frequencies and it really doesn't have to be circulating(never said it was).

If it absorbs radio frequencies, how does the radar penetrate the screen? Can you supply a link to this "cold plasma?" If it isn't circulating, how is it generated and/or sustained in its state? Just telling me to "look it up" is a deflection of my questions. If you can't explain it well enough yourself, you should have your references handy.

Thats why its maximum speed is 370mph; it won't go any faster. At that point, drag overtakes power to the point where you would be losing speed by trying to make the props larger.

I thought channel drag became a problem as early on as at 305 mph, though. As large as this airframe is, I'd be honestly surprised if you could accelerate it much more than to that vicinity.

With an airframe that size, it's easy to just load up on ducted fan engines. Their slight inefficiency is more than compensated for by the fact that being electrically powered, fuel is not an issue for them.

*sigh* its called google, first result: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/cold_plasma_000724.html
It explains it so well I feel it would have been faster if you had just taken some initiative and looked it up yourself, rather than having me waste my time explaining it here.

Anyway........Radar gets out through pinholes, hence the references to pinholes in all these posts.

Yes, channel drag becomes a problem at around 305, but we have enough horsepower to get to 370, past that we couldn't pack enough power generation systems to maintain efficiency(like at lower speeds when another reactor would be useless).

*sigh* its called google, first result: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/cold_plasma_000724.html
It explains it so well I feel it would have been faster if you had just taken some initiative and looked it up yourself, rather than having me waste my time explaining it here.

It's called defending your own ideas. Your condescension is probably your biggest shortcoming. If you think it's a waste of time to explain what processes you use and you expect other people to recreate your research (which is a waste of their time), then you have no business posting your ideas and asking for critiques.

I could have looked it up quite easily, yes. However, looking up a website does not in and of itself explain what YOUR interpretation of it is. Rather than supporting your own ideas with sources and explaining how you apply them, it's as if you expect them to explain themselves. That sort of arrogance is unacceptable from a scientific point-of-view.

Anyway........Radar gets out through pinholes, hence the references to pinholes in all these posts.

Unless you're talking about millimetric-wave radar (which would be unsuitable for backscatter-type radar), it's not getting out through pinholes. You would need aperatures as big as the radar waves themselves.

Yes, channel drag becomes a problem at around 305, but we have enough horsepower to get to 370, past that we couldn't pack enough power generation systems to maintain efficiency(like at lower speeds when another reactor would be useless).

Fair enough.

If you had to explain stuff as many times as I have, you'd be pretty ticked off too. The idea is I've already done my research, and am presenting my results, if you see something wrong with them it is your business to reasearch the flaws. When you come to me without a clue of what I'm talking about, but say I'm wrong, I feel obligated to tell you to do your homework. If you have a question about plasma, you should do your best to understand it before posing it on someone else, because we'll think you are too lazy to figure it out yourself. I've actually said how I apply them, you not understanding the basics behind it is not my fault or responsibility. You can't present a problem without knowing why its a problem.

^ Pick your poison

Radar waves are really long, not wide, they can pass through very narrow spaces without hitting the edges(which also explains how they can fail to rebound off small objects).

If you had to explain stuff as many times as I have, you'd be pretty ticked off too. The idea is I've already done my research, and am presenting my results, if you see something wrong with them it is your business to reasearch the flaws. When you come to me without a clue of what I'm talking about, but say I'm wrong, I feel obligated to tell you to do your homework. If you have a question about plasma, you should do your best to understand it before posing it on someone else, because we'll think you are too lazy to figure it out yourself. I've actually said how I apply them, you not understanding the basics behind it is not my fault or responsibility. You can't present a problem without knowing why its a problem.

And therein lies the falsity of your assumption. Just because I asked you to back up what you say, that doesn't mean that I "don't have a clue about what you're talking about." I worked in a NASA lab where magnetoplasma drives are under development for one of my college internships. Your attitude is your problem moreso than your designs. I certainly don't expect other people to do my research for me. Whenever possible, I'm prepared to link them to my sources. That said, answer the damn question (which you've avoided doing this entire time).

Radar waves are really long, not wide, they can pass through very narrow spaces without hitting the edges(which also explains how they can fail to rebound off small objects).

Actually, while radar is distinguished by its frequency/wavelength, the amplitude can be very important for what you're trying to do. For example, look at the apertures for the AN/FPS-118 Over-The-Horizon-Backscatter (OTH-B) Radar.

Subarray Apertures 304, 224,167,123, 92, 68 m
Receive Array Aperture 1519, 1013, 506 m
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/an-fps-118.htm

This isn't exactly small. Also, the receiver is not in the same location as the emitter.

Sorry about the confusion about the monitors... I read that they had the displacement of relatively heavy cruisers, and I was thinking modern/NS instead of WWII. The Roberts Class Monitor, a WWII ship, had a displacement of about 8000 tons, crew of 400, maximum speed of 12.5 knots, and was only armed with 2 15" guns and 24 AA guns, and the recoil of those guns was almost more than they could take. Rethink that armament.

Frankly, if you don't want people critiquing what you post... DON'T EXPLICITLY ASK FOR THEIR OPINIONS! If you do, you need to be willing to defend it.

Since radar gets returns off objects that are approximately as big as their wavelength, I find it difficult to uinderstand how you could get the equivelent of an S-band radar through a pin hole with the kind of amplitude you'd need for a return from the other side of the world.

Also, while cold plasma wouldn't appear on IR scanners (I'm sorry, I should have remembered that; Chardonay actually uses plasma stealth in some of our missile systems) it is luminous, which means optical sensors would be able to detect the vehicle.

Regarding the gas gun, I neglected nothing. I assumed, however, that you were going to try to minimize weight. It will work if you make the piston big enough and have simply massive capacitors to power piston... but you'd almost be better off using a railgun. You WILL practically need a railgun to accelerate the piston. And as for the energy of combustion of the fuel... to EQUAL a very low estimate of the energy of a M1's shell, you'd need approximately 3000 liters of stp oxygen and hydrogen fuel. Mind you, this is very fast and dirty, and I was using the kinetic energy of the shell as it exits the barrel... practically, you'd need much more fuel than that.

Given rough calculations concerning the mass of the reactors, the mass of the cannon, the secondary weaponry, and the VLS tubes, I estimate your aircraft is going to weigh more than 10 000 tons... Admittedly, they're really rough, basically looking at the masses of various ships that carry similar systems... admitedly, ships use heavier construction... on the other hand, they don't need a lifting body and the massive motors required to deliver that much thrust. Regarldess, good luck finding an airfield that can accept it. Might actually be better to make it a flying boat.

I got to say sleetris, though you have addressed some of the issues, you haven't dealt with many of the main ones, and your attitude is horrendous. If you don't want us to debate this, then tell us that 'We figured out a way to solve these problems... but the answers are classified.' I'll cordially ignore it, and we'll never RP together. If you don't do that, however, please don't assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a moron who's trying to attack you personally. Despite what you may believe, there are serious technical problems with the solutions you've put forward.

ACS: Whats to stop me from using synthetic aperture calculations? I can use larger antennas for the long range stuff anyway, HSCDEADGR can remain the middle range system where passive radar immunity becomes critical.

Chardonay: Alright, I'll drop the 15 inchers, I was thinking about the armament on NS stuff without considering how ridiculously large it is.

I've decided just to use a different antenna for the long range stuff, because there is nothing they could do to me at those ranges anyway. But I'd also like to point out that when I said pinhole, I didn't literally mean a hole the size of a pin, I was making a comparison to the effect of light passing through a pinhole...

You won't see the cold plasma, it isn't exposed to open view. As for optical sensors detecting this thing, I think it goes without saying that it is easy enough as it is....

Its just a big solenoid, hell the piston could be a natural magnet to reduce power consumption further, there is a big difference in accelerating stuff to several times the speed of sound as opposed to several hundred mph. I'm well aware that it requires large amounts of fuel, the good thing is we can generate as much hydrogen as we need as we go instead of carrying massive magazines of explosive shells or using railguns which are horribly unreliable. We get the added benefit of low recoil and a high firing rate. Also, why would you calculate at stp?

That is a little high, but a pretty good estimate. The VLS cells weigh a lot less though because they are more like aircraft launched cruise missiles than naval ones. I only need an airfield in my country that can accept it, because it doesn't need to land anywhere else.

Also, you and ACS seem to think I care about what you think of my attitude. I never asked for a critique on it, so you're just giving me one for the hell of it. I could say I hate you and ACS's attitude towards me because you are trying to be social policy control freaks. But I don't, because I'm not trying to attack your character. I told you and ACS to look up cold plasma because I felt it was self-explanatory, it says in the first google result that it absorbs radar waves, which is what I said it was used for. I was presenting an arguement and apparantly I did it so wrong so as to warrant a backlash.

Please compile a list of unanswered questions.

Using a different radar for long range is an excelent idea, especially since nothing will be able to strike at the vehicle from further than about 400km (unless someone does something really perverted with long range SSMs...). unfortunately, middle range passive systems will be able to track the long range radar.

The main problem I have with using pinholes is that, as I understand it, HSCDEADGR needs to get a lot of land illuminated to have the required scattering effect. Using tight beams in the radar system limits the area illuminated, and would restrict the amount of sky the system can see at a time. Either the angle of the insident beams would need to be near vertical in order to get enough coverage (in which case the power of the beam would drop so quickly that virtually no radiation would reach the appropriate range), you would need to have a shallow angle of incidence and accept the fact that it's basically going to only be a tripwire and useless for identification and targeting, or you would need so many beams coming in at so many angles that the effect of hiding the radar behind a cold plasma shield (I never thought of actually containing the cold plasma within the body of the aircraft... a good idea) would be negated. In any case, I believe that there would be enough radiation for detection within 100km-200km of the vehicle. This is well within the maximum range of the aircraft's missiles, so standoff attacks would still be possible. Pinpointing the location would only be possible within, say, 75km of the vehicle, and accurate targetting of ARMs at, say 30km.

I'm glad you decided to drop the heavy guns... that was my main problem all the way through. Though I don't like the radar, if its effectiveness is curtailed and you accept the obcene amount of power it would require (and accept that ARMs would be able to target it at relatively short range, say, 30km) then I don't have any major objections, other than that it's an obcenely large aircraft =) I think the money would be better spent on other things, but it's a bit like a doujin... massive with a 'presence', but only useful in certain circomstances.

I'm still not happy about the gas guns... not that they aren't possible, but about the performence you're claiming. The rate of fire is simply too high... mechanically, it would be almost impossible to load the shells, charge up the capacitors, refill the hydrogen, and fire in less than a third of a second. considering modern ones take about 2 hours to do the same thing.. Not to mention the stresses on the airframe and gun itself. I'll even accept the high muzzle velocity, especially since you've agreed that it would need a massive piston - almost anything's possible if you make it big enough - but the ROF is rediculous. A railgun, though unreliable I admit, would be so much lighter that it would be worth the dangers... especially since you would do away with the hydrogen manufacturing equipment, the piston, and the fuel tanks. Though there's a difference between accelerating something to mach 5 and a couple of hundred mph, given that the piston would be so BIG there wouldn't be that much of a difference in power requirements. And I calculated at STP because I wasn't sure what pressure you'd pump the gas in at, and because I'm lazy.

Using aircraft launched cruise missiles makes me feel even better about this. Much lighter and more reasonable. I still think you should leave off the secondary armament , but that's up to you. Also, you should seriously consider making it a flying boat... you wouldn't need to rely on those runways and you could reload it away from your base. 200 cruise missiles get used up very quickly in NS wars.

You asked for a critique off the aircraft in the first post when you said 'comments? questions?" This is merely an extended inquiry into the way the thing works. ANd we aren't trying to be social policy control freaks, we're military design control freaks. In order to keep moderntech nations on a fairly level playing field, open dialogue about weapon systems is nessisary, otherwise you run into people who claim that using massive antimatter warheads from space is modern tech. Antimatter has been made before, and there are satalites. Why not combine the two? The dialogue that we're having now makes sure that no one abuses the NS system to make something that's completely invulnerable. I have no problem with you simply telling us about cold plasma... that was reasonable. What's not reasonable are snarky paranthetical remarks like "(you know that gasoline makes water too, right?)" I'm not a complete idiot...

I'm working on the list of questions, but I need to go to supper... yom kippur.

(Argh hurricane knocked out my cable.....hope your Yom Kippur went better than my weekend :()

Middle range systems won't be able to track it for a number of reasons, like antenna size, and the range of results created by bounced signals.

100-200km is fine with me, no point getting fine detail out past that.

Yeah, basically a lot of it is the morale effect, but it is a bit more flexible than the Doujin(have you seen that thing's turning radius?)

Lets take this point by point:
Loading the shell: The shell isn't in contact with the pressurized area until it is fired, and there is no case to eject. Very simple mechanism=very high speeds.
Charging Capacitors: No capacitors, its a solenoid, not a railgun.
Refill the hydrogen: Simply pump it in, this is helped by the vacuum created by the exiting exhaust. It's like a big internal combustion engine.
Stresses: The airframe doesn't feel much because much of the recoil is cancelled(and it wouldn't mind regardless, because it has been established that if a C-130 can hold a big conventional gun...well you get the idea...). The gun itself does go through a lot of stress, but there isn't much you can do about that, and we don't mind very often; if its fired 1 shot at a time it isn't a big deal, and we have no reason to hose most stuff down with the full rate.
Supporting equipment: We already need hydrogen manufacturing equipment for the reactors, might as well kill two birds with one stone. The piston takes up space just like the capacitors on a railgun would. The fuel tanks(we have a way of storing hydrogen densely(involves binding it in hydrocarbons while not in use)) replace the additional space used by conventional powders.
Acceleration: Already answered by being a solenoid(different power usage than a railgun).
...Adding to that, I could install a spring behind the piston so it gets a little extra bounce to recover from the firing push.

Making it a flying boat adds all sorts of problems in designing it, especially regarding the lifting body design I need to give it some degree of efficiency when moving forward. I realise the missiles could be used up quickly, but I put the guns on so I could use them as long range artillery. Also, just in case it comes up, while it has supplies for 4 months, I would never deploy it for that long(at least in front area fighting).

Fair enough. I only said the thing about gasoline because it seemed like you were going to say the water in the cylinder was a unique and large problem, I was afraid you were about to logically disprove internal combustion engines.

*sigh* I remember... back in the day... I used to have airships... freaking cool airships... people bought hundreds of them... everything from floating destroyers to floating supercarriers!

And then one day, while creating a new model, I did the calculations (which I always do :P), and WHOOPS! I realized this whole time I was off by not one, but TWO decimal places... and I was CRUSHED! as were many of my customers! I almost decided to fib and pretend I never did the math... but I just couldn't bring myself to it :(

I haven't actually read much of this thread, but I'll skim it and see if it's even -possible-... if it is, EXCELLENT! If it isn't... *sigh* join the freaking club ;)

My most famous airship:

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/carrier.jpg

Ahh... the Sky base... good times ;)

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rsig1.jpg (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=351198)

Sileetris, if you want to chat about such airships, TG me and I'll get you my SN ;)

Uhh... I can't find it... but... uhh... what the frak holds this thing in the air? And what tech level is this?

Ahh yes Raysia I remember your blimps, I was one of the people that bitched about them in fact...... Anyway...........They are held up by lift induced by the channel wings on their sides. Basically, lift is generated by the speed of the air over the wing, not the speed of the wing through the air, so if you have a properly placed engine in a channel shaped tube you generate as much lift as if you were moving much faster than you are. This is real technology and is post-modern.

Also! To prevent confusion, I've decided to call these vessels Skyships, rather than airships.

:shock: holy crap, that is cool... see, this is why I want to be an aerospace engineer ;)

For some reason, i overlooked that possibility... I knew about wind tunnels, and how planes can fly in there with only the air moving around them... but something about your idea just seemed like pulling yourself up by the shoelaces... or like putting a big fan on a sailboat and pointing it at the sails to get it to move (would THAT work as well??)

Sileetris is just better at designing things than I am. My airships are all either gigantic flying wings, or flying bricks that heave themselves through the air through sheer brute force :(

Raysia: Nope, that sailboat thing still wouldn't work, sorry :P.

axis Nova: Actually thats a common misconception about my stuff. I excel at finding little odd bits of technology and applying them to greater things, in this case, larger things.

Largest Aircraft ever built, largest STOL, largest lifting body design.

dimensions are as follows
135m long
110m wide
38m high(body)
62m high(top of rear fin)
scoff, hardly.
The Trojan Mk2 is larger.

To clarify, that means largest heavier-than-air aircraft. Although Axis Nova does have larger......

To clarify, that means largest heavier-than-air aircraft. Although Axis Nova does have larger......
The Trojan Mk2 is a Rigid, heavier than air Airship. stats at my store

The one in your signature doesn't seem to have them, link?

well ill be dammned its not there anymore wtf

god dman all the stats for my 4 airshisp are gone
mayb cuz they were on the bottm and got cut off?

that sucks

heres the pic of the trojan mk1
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/grunt74/NS1/trojan1.gif
dont know what happen... i have work to do :(