NationStates Jolt Archive

0_o

blah!!!!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/grunt74/NS1/AAD.gif
well theres 6 AIM-57 Super Phoenix Missiles, 12 AIM-9X Sidewinders, a huge ass radar and a FLIR system
u can drop it out the back of a C-5 and it auto inflates.
If the ballon is puunctured by the enemy a parachute deploys and it floats safely to the ground so u can use it again
and the skin of the ballon is reflective/semi-clear so u cant see it too good from a distance :P plus u can link the radras together to have a massive AWACs system....
price: $12 million each.


buy it !!!

OOC: Looks rather pointless to me... How does it fire or anything?

computers

Meh. It's feasible.

Bit too expensive for me...

To answer your question, yes you are mad, why not just use ground launched weapons? it would be cheaper, and also, they can be moved to safety quickly, with your new type you cannot move it so quickly(i should suppose). It could be quite problematic(if its defending an airbase it could actually hide enemy aircraft and not destroy them, if all the missiles are used that is)

Thats just my (constructive i hope)m critisisms, fesable yes, practical, not so much.

less flight time to the target, less chance of evasion,
more accurate, it can go above the clouds blah

is there any way for it to control its movement? I would recomend some sort of small propeller, because if not then it may be able to be dropped where you want it, but the wind will just blow it away to some random location.

thats the beatuy of it, they move with the wind, so they are always in a dif spot and u cant track them

when they fly right into Enemy territory and are shot down, or they fly into Civilian Airspace and colide with a plane, or they jsut get blown over the middle of the Arctic... you need to be able to control them somehow otherwise they are useless.

Useless. They'll just get blown out to sea and never seen again.

no... you just put them over you're territory inland...

the altiude is controllable, and if your worried about losing them just tether them to eachother and the ground

hmmm, intersting offer... but my nation has already delovepd orbital weapons platforms

You're all crazy, with my Info-Tech economy, I have developed my own space ship designs, and my "orbital armegedan" keeps me protected from nearly all threats... besides, about 10,000 Defiant Class Starships really make more sense... and I would be way old enough to use all that in 1 day = 1 ns year... unlike most of you...

By the way, you could always buy my F-14E Hyper Tomcat, which fits into Modern Tech...

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=378142

Check it out, the standard costs $40,000,000, and there are many upgrades...

Good idea PD. Why didn't I think of that? It clearly has a pair of propellers on its tiny computerised gondola, and is perfect for surprise attacks on airbases. Imagine it: Hover above an enemy airfield out of radar range, target, shoot down their aircraft as they take off.

<ADVERTISEMENT.
Hey thanks you can um try not advertising on my thread or Ill advertise on yours
I'd appreicate it if you would delete that.



btw this is for defense not offense!! and its not orbital!!!

OOC: (best is 10)

Usability: 1 (the base is largely defended by lasers with ranges greater then missiles, but these are targets and need to be reloaded, nevertheless it is a defensive weapon, or a horriblely stupid offensive one.)
Creative: 7 (floating AA is cool)
Feasible: 5 (its like a smart kill-balloon)
Functionablity: 9 (more radar! and missiles! and lower chance of escape!)
Cost: 10 (very expensive but realistic costs for mass production)
Controlablity: 3 (air currents need to be controlled, need a tether, countless calculations on preventing them from colliding and drifting into each other even when restricted by tethers.)


Interesting....Since Archangel's base is nearing completion we feel that a large amount of flying Anti-air forces which don't add to the weight and would drift around it with hooks so that on radar there would be one HUGE blip and thousands of little tiny ones and quite possibly hide the movements of thousands of launching planes should we need to defend it. Since the size of the base is going to be huge we wish to order 20,000 of them. The total comes to $240 billion.

Good idea PD. Why didn't I think of that? It clearly has a pair of propellers on its tiny computerised gondola, and is perfect for surprise attacks on airbases. Imagine it: Hover above an enemy airfield out of radar range, target, shoot down their aircraft as they take off.

Uh...you forgetting one thing...what airbase doesn't have a few SAM sites or Patriots or RPGs or even lasers to defend it from other air attacks!? It would get shot down by a stinger missile or anything else, even bullets could destroy it, its a defensive weapon.

:D order confirmed
ooc:
on ure " usability 1",

a laser with a range greater than 200 miles?? (which is the range of the phoenix missle) they dont exist.... lasers are a close in weapons system at best....

Uh...you forgetting one thing...what airbase doesn't have a few SAM sites or Patriots or RPGs or even lasers to defend it from other air attacks!? It would get shot down by a stinger missile or anything else, even bullets could destroy it, its a defensive weapon.
stingers do not have the range to reach one of these also if your going to shoot it dow your going to have to avoid the 12 sidewinders, but yes it is a defensive weapon only and should not be used as an offensive system

:D order confirmed
ooc:
on ure " usability 1",

a laser with a range greater than 200 miles?? (which is the range of the phoenix missle) they dont exist.... lasers are a close in weapons system at best....
The Phoenix has a range of about 100 miles... I doubt it could do 200.

And on the 'hover out of radar range'... At an airfield, that's something like 200 miles. You're not gonna be able to hit the airfield from that far away.

If its floating in the air above a battlefield, or even a border, ground based rockets, or even guns could easily put it out of commission, I mean its a sitting duck, especially with that gigantic radar. All an enemy would have to do is lock a SAM onto the huge amount of radiation coming from the balloon and *boom*, no more flaoting air defense unit. It would be better to link it up to ground based radar systems, but it wold still be very vulnerable.

:D order confirmed
ooc:
on ure " usability 1",

a laser with a range greater than 200 miles?? (which is the range of the phoenix missle) they dont exist.... lasers are a close in weapons system at best....

Oh, my lasers have a kill up to 160 miles at best, I can power them to reach the moon though, but the systems would burn up from the resistance and overheating. Most lasers are only 1-2 miles for destroying missles. 200 miles on a missile, nice! I may consider buying more soon.

About the stinger, you are right if it way above, but if its low flying, like under 400 feet to slip in under radar I think for sure a stinger missile will be able to have the range to take it out. How else would is sneak in going so slow and being such a BRIGHT dot on radar systems, though nice touch on it having almost no thermal signature, no big signs of heat will come from it and it will be hard to detect that way.

The Phoenix has a range of about 100 miles... I doubt it could do 200.

And on the 'hover out of radar range'... At an airfield, that's something like 200 miles. You're not gonna be able to hit the airfield from that far away.

I haven't checked to see if he has enough fuel in them to power it since I haven't checked the missiles completely over, but the 100 miles is pretty good, I guess. Matching my 160 mile massive laser is just not easy and after that point it will be too weak to focus on the point to make a kill. Think a laser with a big flexible lens powered by a computer to focus it on the spot of the target to maximize effect and range of the laser, otherwise it would be impossible to get that range with my current systems.

its 200, the real range is classified, the listed rage is 115 but it really goes 200 miles

its 200, the real range is classified, the listed rage is 115 but it really goes 200 miles

Nice contradiction.

It's classified. But I still know that it is 200 miles.

If its floating in the air above a battlefield, or even a border, ground based rockets, or even guns could easily put it out of commission, I mean its a sitting duck, especially with that gigantic radar. All an enemy would have to do is lock a SAM onto the huge amount of radiation coming from the balloon and *boom*, no more flaoting air defense unit. It would be better to link it up to ground based radar systems, but it wold still be very vulnerable.
why the hell are you gonna deploy my air defense in the range of the enemy sams, when you deploy this you have ground based sams under it anyway

AND THIS IS NOT FOR ATTACKING AIRBASES ITS FOR DEFENSE!

Nice contradiction.

It's classified. But I still know that it is 200 miles.
its a "super phoenix" that i made then

its 200, the real range is classified, the listed rage is 115 but it really goes 200 miles
Have any proof? Every analyst and author speculates it's going 150 miles at most, and even then, is running on fumes and momentum. 200 miles puts it at the very limit of the Tomcat's radarm if not beyond it, too.

We'll never really know now that it's out of service (Only time fired in anger was against a helicopter in first gulf war, and it missed.)

its a "super phoenix" that i made then

That's fine then.

:)

you search around youll find reports saying its range is anywhere from 184km to 250km, if you look at anything official youll always see "in excess of 100 nautical miles" or something to that affect, becasue they dont realese the actual range for obvious reasons, however the point is moot, using my crack team of engineers and the speeded up ns timeframe, i have created the 200 mile ranged super phoenix aam :)

0_o

blah!!!!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/grunt74/NS1/AAD.gif
well theres 6 AIM-57 Super Phoenix Missiles, 12 AIM-9X Sidewinders, a huge ass radar and a FLIR system
u can drop it out the back of a C-5 and it auto inflates.
If the ballon is puunctured by the enemy a parachute deploys and it floats safely to the ground so u can use it again
and the skin of the ballon is reflective/semi-clear so u cant see it too good from a distance :P plus u can link the radras together to have a massive AWACs system....
price: $12 million each.


buy it !!!

This is a perfect example of why International Incidents is a pock on the face of Nationstates. This thread is rife with spelling mistakes and bad grammar. Why the hell would a nations release a press statement be complete with emoticons? This thread sucks.

An interesting concept. We are not in need of such a platform, but it is something to keep in mind.

-Lord Tarkin, Secretary of Defense

This is a perfect example of why International Incidents is a pock on the face of Nationstates. This thread is rife with spelling mistakes and bad grammar. Why the hell would a nation release a press statement complete with emoticons? This thread sucks.

I can concur.

This is a perfect example of why International Incidents is a pock on the face of Nationstates. This thread is rife with spelling mistakes and bad grammar. Why the hell would a nation release a press statement complete with emoticons? This thread sucks.
go fornicate with yourself

-official press release from the government


>added Auman to ignore list

Well, frankly I would call any RL weapons designers stupid if they ever release classified data.

However, you must take it into account that an AAM's range is a variable, not a stationary number, as the range entirely depends on the engine of the missile and its seeker, depending on what target you are engaging, what altitude you are shooting the missile from, what speed you are shooting the missile from, and the flight path of the targeted enemy aircraft and the friendly aircraft shooting the missile. Head-on engagements with two aircraft flying at similar altitudes will typically yield a better result and range, since you are actually having the enemy aircraft come to the missile at a high speed. On the contrary, if the enemy aircraft is fast but is flying higher than the shooter aircraft and is flying away (aka requiring a tail engagement), then the missile will have much less success, as now the MISSILE is flying towards the enemy fighter aircraft, and as the missile will struggle to chase the enemy fighter as it have to climb a lot to reach the enemy fighter's altitude, it will be much easier to evade by maneuvering.

Take the AA-12/R-77 for example, while its range is commonly described as around 50km, its estimated range in a head-on engagement is much longer than an scenario where the enemy aircraft is flying higher than the shooter aircraft and is flying away from the shooter aircraft.

Another factor to take into consideration is the speed of the launching aircraft. Generally for medium to long range missiles, a slow platform is NOT a good thing, and that's why you aren't going to see AMRAAM-carrying helicopters engaging high flying bombers successfully. As the missile-carrying aircraft flies faster, once the missile is released, the inital speed of the missile will also be much faster, which means that the missile will have a longer range overall and much more success against maneuvering targets. This is also one of the reason as to why faster aircraft are preferred for engaging critical enemy aircraft (such as large bombers), where not only subsonic platforms are more ineffective in BVR missile engagements, but also that it will not be able to chase the enemy aircraft once it expends its missiles. This is also why a modified AAM fired from the ground will have a lot of difficulty in achieving the range of the air-launched version, as you'd need a lot of power to boost it from the ground moving at zero kph.

However, it should be interesting to note that while it is still possible to achieve an AAM shot from long ranges, the AAM's rocket or whatever motor will only burn for a short amount of time. The rest of the flight path is completely unpowered as the missile would be essentially gliding, and it will take a great speed hit when it is engaging a small, fast, and maneuverable target as it will bleed off A LOT of energy when it turns (which is one of the reasons why the Phoenix is only intended to engage bombers and large cruise missiles in a conventional war with the Soviet Union, although it has used with some success in the Iran-Iraq war by Iranian F-14As at MEDIUM ranges against Iraqi fighters, which didn't really take too much evasive action once the missile is close in - yes, the Phoenix has been shot in anger a lot of times). This is also why that in actuality you aren't going to shoot the AIM-9X from 20km with a lot of success, as the small missile's motor burns out VERY fast.

But of course, unless you are somehow going to fit a lot of power in the balloon to carry a powerful computer and radar, you aren't really going to be able to guide the radar unless you use something like an AWACS, which IS vulnerable to enemy air attacks, assuming that the opponent takes many factors into consideration to pull off the attack successfully.

In conclusion, this balloon platform is a very interesting idea at least, but IMHO it won't serve that good as a long range missile carrier, as it would be very easy for enemy aircraft to evade these missiles at longer ranges. However, if coupled with good computer and fire control and datalinking systems, this could serve well as somewhat a "point defense" platform, in which it would be able to shoot down enemy aircraft close in. But in conclusion, you are NOT going to achieve a 200 miles (approx. 322km!) range by shooting it from a virtually non-moving balloon, as the missile would not only have a much lower range from this kind of platform, but also that the balloon would be completely unable to "chase" the enemy aircraft nor move into a good position to fire its missiles at the enemy aircraft (and this EXCLUDES other factors involving its seeker, as stealthy aircraft would also contribute in reducing the range of this missile). Consequently, BVR missile firing doesn't just involve missiles, and when you are engaging fighters, your pilots are going to need the same amount of judgement that they need in close in dogfights.

(Cookies for Omz!)

It's an intersting idea, but I personally think that a SAM would be better than a floating system. Because of drift caused by wind it would be too hard to cordinate fire from several baloons and the tethers that would prevent drift would create hazards for friendly aircraft. Also maintaining them would prove difficult if tethers sre not used because you would have to burst the baloon and recover the gindola and pray no one is under it, rig some kind of system for recovery using other aircraft, or have maintainence workers hang out of helicopters and work while hoping the winds don't pick up. And what if one were shot down over enemy territory and recovered by the enemy? Your adversaries would have a defence system to use against you and your allies. It's a good idea but it has a few holes.

Ahhh...Omz222. Militaryphotos.net has taught you well.

Ahhh...Omz222. Militaryphotos.net has taught you well.
Well, it is not militaryphotos.net as to where I got much of my knowledge about aircraft-related stuff, but I do admit that a very few other forums, especially when there are a lot of actual experts on the matter of aerospace engineering and air combat tactics (in some cases there are former military members too), are tremendously helpful sources :P , as other websites could be even more helpful (if you know where to look).
However, the info is not very surpising as well, as some additional research concluded that in some medium-ranged missiles the average max range in a head-on engagement at higher altitudes can actually double or even triple the max range in a tail chase engagement at low altitudes.

its a super phoenix, plus there already is a huge honking radar dish in the top of the ballon, and when you link them all together u got a freaking radio telescope 10 times more powerful than the dish on an E-3 AWACS
and youre 12 so dont try to educate me with your regergitated google diploma

"ooo i might be interested in buying this technology in the near future"

- Spoken By Lord Thomas II on behalf of The Pallawish Nation

and youre 12 so dont try to educate me with your regergitated google diploma
Well, you have to consider that one numerical figure from over a year ago doesn't mean much, and the information I've brought up are researched facts collected over my months of going through research materials (far from searching on google and browsing websites, but also listening from the experts on this matter), mind you, but it is up to you if you'd like to face the facts or not regarding the range of your missile, or if you'd take the suggestion or not.

Oh well, we are all learners trying to make up a realistic weapon in a fictional world anyways. Up to you. Though it'd be certainly more realistic if you'd at least reduce the range.

.... I dont try to make realistic weapons, I make cool weapons, and i fixed the error, its an impoved, bigger phoenix missile with more fuel thus longer range