NationStates Jolt Archive

I don;t mean to gripe here but look, I;ve been surfing these forums for a little while and I've noticed that There's a facination with launching B-2 Bombers off of Nimitz class and other Air Craft Carriers that would be unable to launch a B-2.
This is wrong and impractical for three reasons.
1) They're too heavy. An Aircraft Carrier launches aircraft by turning into the wind, accelerating and using mechaical catapults to get the aircraft moving at take off velocity in as short a space as possible. for something the size and weight of a fully loaded B-2 (the only useful kind) the head wind would have to be to fast for air launch operations to take place or the catapult would have to take up most of the available length of the flight deck.
2) They're too big. To put it simply in a Nimitz or similiar sized Aircraft carrier, there is not enough space to fit more than five or six B-2s, even using folding wings this number is only raised to around twelve or so, and that would be all the carrier could carry. also, the elevators from the hangars to the fliht decks are simply not large enough to take a B-2, which is again to heavy to be lifted and is to wide even with folded wings.
3) Too long ranged. Seriously why would you WANT to carrier base a B-2, they have intercontinental range, there's no practical reason to launch a B-2 from a carrier, if your too far away you can refuel them in the air and 'to avoid defences' is a stupid reason to stick them in a carrier there's no defenses you can avoid by sticking a strategic bomber on an aircraft carrier that a carrier more reasonably outfitted with normal fighter bombers couldn't pound into dust, and then you'd have a fighter bomber wing in theater you could use for I don't know, killing your enemies or something.

in short, in order to launch a B-2 from an aircraft carrier would require either a massive modification to the B-2 after which it will be unrecognizeable as such (your better off designing your own stealthy strategic bomber) or a massive modification to the carrier, after which you will have spent billions of dollars and received a platform from which to launch Intercontinental bombers, your taxpayers would be proud

amen to the above

i second that

I agree, there would be no way at all to launch a B-2 from a carrier, and like you said it can travel the world from a land base and get back. :headbang:

then why do so many people insist on bringing carriers into a war zone with B-2's on board? it's insane

Indeed. If you want them like that that bad, put floaters on the bottom, let it take off from the ocean.

B-2s off of aircraft carriers? Wow the level of intelligence here has peaked.

Indeed. If you want them like that that bad, put floaters on the bottom, let it take off from the ocean.

Good idea. But what about the stealth tech? It would be totally useless then, unless you have a way of hiding the floaters... :confused:

You don't need floaters. The B-2 can strike anywhere in the world with its range. All it needs is a little gas in the air. It's far cheaper to have a KC-10 than a floating B-2.

Good idea. But what about the stealth tech? It would be totally useless then, unless you have a way of hiding the floaters... :confused:

The floaters could be detachable. As they came in for a landing, they would either need to land somewhere else, or land on a special carrier, which would feature a crane to place them back on the floaters. It would just be a wide ship, not meant to hold more than one plane at a time.

Lay, in the real world, yes. In NS, with huge distances, no.

If it's that far away that a B-2 can't reach it with mid-air refueling then you should have no concern. It's too far away to maintain supply lines and if you are being attacked by that enemy it works to the inverse. It would be impossible for them too to uphold their own supply lines. Therein, I still don't see it as necessary. If it's THAT far away just make a conventional ICBM or something. Cheaper and less risk.

The Empire of a Thousand Alliances has nominated a speaker to give a response to the topic at hand:

Man, people are launching B-2's of Nimitz class carriers? Pfft, what fools.

First off, B-2's are ludicrisly expensive to develop, and nobodys going to be handing out designs thats for sure, and are equally expensive to simply build!! You'd have to have a very good economy to start throwing B-2's into the card game. Second, as everybodys been stating, its impossible to do so. Simply imossible.

It would be a lot better either to aquire enough alliances to adaquitly say you flew your bomber from your nearest base over to the enemy and bombed them, whith the help of some refuelers (which require almost no resources to modify from some old jet liner from the commercial sector), the B2 in reality reguarly flies around the world, or you could simply develop another stealth carrier launched aircraft that would be smaller, carry less weapons, but would be equally stealthy, less expensive, carrier launchable, and you could mass them a bit more. It would require the same resources as the B2 for development, and you'd get about 3 of them for the price of a single B2 (although they'd do about a quarter the maximum damage each).

In fact, I am going to nominate that we use the new F/A-29 Carrier Launched Advanced Stealth Fighter-Bomber, or CLASFB. This is a small aircraft about the size of a Nighthawk sepcificly designed to take on and off carriers, but would carry about twice as much armament, the expenses for development I mentioned earlier, and it carries technology a bit more advanced than the B2 itself, given it was developed a while after the B2 was introduced.

Seriously people, the F/A-29 CLASFB. Use it instead of flying B-2's of carriers, please!!

Come to think of it, it'd be cheaper just developing the F/A-22 (which is a stealth fighterbomber) into a carrier based aircraft.

3) Too long ranged. Seriously why would you WANT to carrier base a B-2, they have intercontinental range, there's no practical reason to launch a B-2 from a carrier

Unless you acknowledge that NS continents are much, much bigger than real ones, of course.

Or you don't want to go through the hassle of securing a land base for them, for that matter.

The Empire of a Thousand Alliances has chosen a speaker to talk on their behalf:

Come to think of it, it'd be cheaper just developing the F/A-22 (which is a stealth fighterbomber) into a carrier based aircraft.

The F/A-22 is not fully stealty. The B-2 has the radar profile of a sparrow, but the F/A-22 is pretty big. I mean, its reduced, but it isnt the size of a small bird, ya know? Plus, its more of a fighter than it is bomber, and I dont think It'll be making any heavy duty bomb runs like the B-2 does...

You'll want my F/A-29 CLASFB, trust me..

Indeed. If you want them like that that bad, put floaters on the bottom, let it take off from the ocean.

Though the thought of a B-2 lifting off in such a fashion is quite hilarious, I suspect salt water would be bad for the anti-radar coating.

Just use this:
EA-220 Joint Tactical Bomber (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=288404)
aka
A-12 Avenger II (http://www.habu2.net/a12/avenger2.htm)

Who exactly is it that uses, or tries to use B-2's off aircraft carriers anyway?
I've seen people ask about it but never saw anyone actualy try to use it...

[OOC: I agree with you if we're talking about RL Earth, but I think NS Earth (and I'm not counting the 30,000 other Earths out there) is supposed to be many times larger than RL Earth, so it may be possible that a B-2's target is so far out of range that it might need to be launched from a carrier.

Also, there are "supercarriers" in some navies that make a Nimitz-class look like the Cavour.]

[OOC: I agree with you if we're talking about RL Earth, but I think NS Earth (and I'm not counting the 30,000 other Earths out there) is supposed to be many times larger than RL Earth, so it may be possible that a B-2's target is so far out of range that it might need to be launched from a carrier.

Also, there are "supercarriers" in some navies that make a Nimitz-class look like the Cavour.]

It doesn't really matter. The size and weight of a B-2 make it impossible to launch from a carrier. If you're going to put all that effort into it, why not just air-refuel it and/or use cruise missiles?

It gets worse, there is someone tryign to launch U2s from a carrier...

Techincally some NS nations could oeprate B2s sucessfully from naval assets, but then those assets would be the likes of the OMP Joint Mobile Offshore Bases (JMOBs) with actually have proper 2-3km runways...

I'm just thinking out loud here...

What if you build some aircraft carriers that are completely flat on top, and place them in front of each other, so close that they touch.. Stem against stern.. How would that work?

It gets worse, there is someone tryign to launch U2s from a carrier...

Techincally some NS nations could oeprate B2s sucessfully from naval assets, but then those assets would be the likes of the OMP Joint Mobile Offshore Bases (JMOBs) with actually have proper 2-3km runways...


damn right sue us for trying stuff you might find stupid it doesnt matter if you can do it better some other way i dont care how you would do this is how im doing it!!! If i want to launch a U2 off a carrier and i find a way to do IM DOING IT

It doesn't really matter. The size and weight of a B-2 make it impossible to launch from a carrier. If you're going to put all that effort into it, why not just air-refuel it and/or use cruise missiles?If you're trying to use a stealth bomber to launch bombing runs in a country, having an in-flight replenisher may compromise its ability to stay stealthy as I don't think those in-flight refuelers can be stealthy at all.

Number two, cruise missiles can be 1) detected or 2) shot down by a good missile system.

I'm not advocating using a B2 from an aircraft carrier, but perhaps the larger NS carriers might be able to launch a smaller bomber from their runways.

It gets worse, there is someone tryign to launch U2s from a carrier...

In the age of UAVs and satellites, where would you find a U2? An antique dealer?

If you're trying to use a stealth bomber to launch bombing runs in a country, having an in-flight replenisher may compromise its ability to stay stealthy as I don't think those in-flight refuelers can be stealthy at all.

Number two, cruise missiles can be 1) detected or 2) shot down by a good missile system.

I'm not advocating using a B2 from an aircraft carrier, but perhaps the larger NS carriers might be able to launch a smaller bomber from their runways.


OOC: smaller bombers: there was the famous (though relatively useless) Dolittle raid. launching bomber from a carrier is a daring (insane) tatic you wont be able to land back on the carrier, but the plane can be refeuled after the mission when your more concerned with leaving than being steathy so it could be carrier based and land at land.

In the age of UAVs and satellites, where would you find a U2? An antique dealer?

um right, but dont tell me recon planes are useless and "dead" technology the U2 may be old but the light frame was what made it appel

um right, but dont tell me recon planes are useless and "dead" technology the U2 may be old but the light frame was what made it appel

The Wings are incredibly long and too weak to take the loads of being launched off a carrier.

The Empire of a Thousand Alliances has chosen a speaker to talk on their behalf:

Just use this:
EA-220 Joint Tactical Bomber (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=288404)
aka
A-12 Avenger II (http://www.habu2.net/a12/avenger2.htm)

Who exactly is it that uses, or tries to use B-2's off aircraft carriers anyway?
I've seen people ask about it but never saw anyone actualy try to use it...


That would do exellently. Please, dont bother with B-2's, there heavily ovverated, and actually getting somewhat old compared to this stuff. If it nearby, use the B-2's intercontinental stratigic value, but other than that please just scrap the idea of it....

U-2's are exaclty the same. Why not use an SR-71?! That thing can surely reach anywere in NS-land and can't be brought down...

Light frames are also a big problem if you intend to use them on an aircraft carrier. Planes built for deployment from aircraft carriers must have stronger frames to withstand the stresses of the landings.

The Wings are incredibly long and too weak to take the loads of being launched off a carrier.

well made it with hinged wings......but im still trying to find a way about the tower...... could have the wings fold out at one point AFTER it passes the tower...and if im overhauling the frame to overcome the stress than the light weight thing comes into place..but the U2 will flex i could have like a couple launches before the landing gear gets trashed for new

well made it with hinged wings......but im still trying to find a way about the tower...... could have the wings fold out at one point AFTER it passes the tower

No, that is not possible, the U-2 needs wheels that fall off when it takes off just to support the wings on take off. Plus its light frame could take neither the landing forces nor the forces from the catapult. If you folded the wing up during the takeoff run it would unbalance the plane and cause it to flip.

Well, the fact that U-2s and SR-71s are very hard (not impossible) to brought down is pretty restricted to RL only, though you still have to remember Gary Powers and the U-2s that are flown from Taiwan in the 60es, and the fact that there has been instances of SR-71 intercepts by MiG-25s and MiG-31s in the 80es where the plane would be brought down by multiple AAM shots if the pilots decides to open fire. Even with older long-range SAMs like the SA-5/S-200 can work effectively against high altitude aircraft, though you'd still need manned interceptors for something like the SR-71.

With the B-2, keep in mind that you'd still need to store it somewhere, and the only way would be put it on the deck, which means that you'd still need more smaller fighters be put into the hanger. The C-130 carrier landing is a fact, but another fact is that the C-130 was intended to be a regional Carrier Onboard Delivery aircraft where it would take off and go(thus was unsuitable to be actually stored on the carrier), and that a C-130 landing on the carrier when there's a busy air operation would be pretty impractical.

No, that is not possible, the U-2 needs wheels that fall off when it takes off just to support the wings on take off. Plus its light frame could take neither the landing forces nor the forces from the catapult. If you folded the wing up during the takeoff run it would unbalance the plane and cause it to flip.

fine you've broken me....back to the drawing board for a high flying recon jet, carrier based

2) They're too big. To put it simply in a Nimitz or similiar sized Aircraft carrier, there is not enough space to fit more than five or six B-2s, even using folding wings this number is only raised to around twelve or so, and that would be all the carrier could carry. also, the elevators from the hangars to the fliht decks are simply not large enough to take a B-2, which is again to heavy to be lifted and is to wide even with folded wings.


1) I agree with you. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say B2's are pretty much worthless. But that's me.


2) You do realise you just said "Well, we can ONLY put america's entire compliment of B-2's on one carrier. How worthless is that?"

B-2s r just too uber expensive to be blasted out of the air or laying at the bottom of the ocean after your mother carrier gets sunk, than your have near 100 billion $ worth of ship and plane on the sea floor

Well, the fact that U-2s and SR-71s are very hard (not impossible) to brought down is pretty restricted to RL only, though you still have to remember Gary Powers and the U-2s that are flown from Taiwan in the 60es, and the fact that there has been instances of SR-71 intercepts by MiG-25s and MiG-31s in the 80es where the plane would be brought down by multiple AAM shots if the pilots decides to open fire. Even with older long-range SAMs like the SA-5/S-200 can work effectively against high altitude aircraft, though you'd still need manned interceptors for something like the SR-71.

With the B-2, keep in mind that you'd still need to store it somewhere, and the only way would be put it on the deck, which means that you'd still need more smaller fighters be put into the hanger. The C-130 carrier landing is a fact, but another fact is that the C-130 was intended to be a regional Carrier Onboard Delivery aircraft where it would take off and go(thus was unsuitable to be actually stored on the carrier), and that a C-130 landing on the carrier when there's a busy air operation would be pretty impractical.

Apparently the SR-71 was intercepted on a regualr basis by MiG-25s (and later on MiG-31s) who were carefully vectored in to an altitude of eaxctly 63,000ft and precisely 1.6nm behind (optimal zone for missile launch). Even when not on full intercept orders soviet aircraft regualrly followed the SR-71's course from about 35km to port on its return journey, heck they even got soem very good photos of the "Sledge"

Just use this:
EA-220 Joint Tactical Bomber (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=288404)
aka
A-12 Avenger II (http://www.habu2.net/a12/avenger2.htm)

Who exactly is it that uses, or tries to use B-2's off aircraft carriers anyway?
I've seen people ask about it but never saw anyone actualy try to use it...
Do you really need to ask? It's Hataria. I remember trying to point this out to him before with absolutely no result... :rolleyes:
Seriosly, you don't need the B-2, you could cram a far bigger number of regular aircraft onboard without them, than you ever could with them. Personally I'd rather use a supercarriers loadout of FA-18E's then those B-2's..And dont even get me started on trying to take off in a B-52 (!) from a carrier. That is just silly..

Good point.

I already am disliked by some of my regular RPers becouse I ginore thier B-2s and B-52s launched from aircraft carriers. I myself designned an aircraft carrier that is massive to launch B-2s for a client at my StoreFront, but I will usually launch them from thier own airforce base, not no ship. And the floaty idea is good. Have an additional modification for the floaties to retract somehow into the wing and have it come back out and self inflate. Nice idea, and a normal Repair Vessel with some modifications could crane one up and repair it if damaged and to refuel it (if it can't take off and in-flight refuel).

An other problem of mine is that people have thier Diesel-Electric powered ships run all over the world and in thier fleet's information no word of supply ships that can carry fuel, some don't even include food or munitions.

The Empire of a Thousand Alliances has chosen a speaker to reply to the topic at hand:

This is quite ironic. We have a suprising clash of A-12 aircraft! Somebody mentioned the A-12 JSB Avenger II, but I was about to bring up the A-12 Blackbird! Hahahahaha, somebody messssssed up naming the JSB XD oooh and both planes were developed by lockheed how ironic...

Anyway, what I was going to say, was that SR-71s were practicly invunrable, and very little technology can pose a significant threat to the SR-71, and btw a Foxbat wouldnt be able to hold 1.6 nm behind an SR-71 for long at all. Still, its possible for a few foxbats to pop off a few shots, and if there lucky, hit a Blackbird - however, this is just the SR-71. Come full time combat, the A-12 may pose a solution to this. The A-12 is an armed versian of the SR-71, and was of course very secret, hence A-12 probably didnt get written into very many records, hence somebody accidently named another plane the A-12. Anyway, the A-12 was a SR-71 with an advanced radar system and missiles. This hot mamma could easily detect and bring down planes with a hundred mile range, and with modern technology I wouldnt be surpised at all if that could be doubled. In this fasion, no MiGs could get at any decent altitude /speed coming in front of the plane, and there wouldnt be a chance in hell that if they could make a firing position from behind the A-12 given the thing travels so insanly fast. Unless a new Mach 3+ mig was developed, this technique would render the A-12 invunrable to manned interception. And if your going to develop a new uberfast mig, than it shouldnt be at all hard to develop a new uber-uberfast scramjet recon plane.

Also, a U-2 is not ever going to be able to depart itself from a carrier without the help of a crane. Well, it could just fly of the edge and fall into the sea, which would be a pretty funny video if the pilot was fine, but thats just stupid.

If it's so damn far away, why not just place a refueling plane or three on the carrier, so that when the B2 comes from it's land base, it can refuel. thus increasing its range and keeping away from the problem of landing on the carrier.

The A-12 is an armed versian of the SR-71, and was of course very secret, hence A-12 probably didnt get written into very many records, hence somebody accidently named another plane the A-12. Anyway, the A-12 was a SR-71 with an advanced radar system and missiles.

And was axed because it was a stupid idea, the fuel it used was horrifyly expensive and SAM tech had overtaken stupidfastaircrafttech, hence the axing of [among others] the B-70 program.

However, do keep in mind that the B-70 was intended to be a nuclear platform, and the reason they cancelled it of course is the fact that an ICBM warhead is virtually undefeatable with the technology present in the 50s and early 60es (though ABM systems like the Soviet A-135 that they put near Moscow and the American Safeguard was not intended to defeat mass ICBM attacks). The B-52 was also never intended to really conduct a lot of conventional bombing, and its conventional role was finally used when they needed the coventional bombing capability in the Vietnam War. Personally I think that if the B-70 ever came into life, it would be a pretty good high speed, precision bombing platform today (though installing dumb bombs on an aircraft of such high speed is just useless).

About the SR-71 however, you don't need to follow it for one hundred miles without doing anything, what you need is a carefully planned, coordinated multi-AAM attack from multiple and ideal positions when the SR-71 decides to violate your border. The last issue of Air Forces Monthly had an interesting article on some cases of SR-71 interceptions. The MiG-31s would often typically catch on with the SR-71 over some distance before it actually sees (they did achieve visual sighting at high altitudes) that the SR-71 is in international airspace and breaks off the "attack" and return to base.

However, do keep in mind that the B-70 was intended to be a nuclear platform, and the reason they cancelled it of course is the fact that an ICBM warhead is virtually undefeatable with the technology present in the 50s and early 60es

Well, that, cost and noise grounds and the fact that some tit crashed an F-104 into the primary testbed.

2) You do realise you just said "Well, we can ONLY put america's entire compliment of B-2's on one carrier. How worthless is that?"

actually, the US's stock of B-2's is around twenty or so, but even sticking twenty of the suckers on a carrier is worthless, you'd have to have another carrier for fighters and if even a single missile got through whatever defenses you have and smacked the top of your carrier, youd lose petty much all of the B-2's n that carrier, any that weren't outright destroyed would lose stealth from shrapnel damage and the dexk wouldn't be able to support filight ops anyway you would have hauled 40 billion dollars worth of useless crap into an area so mind bogglingly far away that a B-2 couldn't reach it refueled from your nearest base.

If you're trying to use a stealth bomber to launch bombing runs in a country, having an in-flight replenisher may compromise its ability to stay stealthy as I don't think those in-flight refuelers can be stealthy at all.

Number two, cruise missiles can be 1) detected or 2) shot down by a good missile system.

I'm not advocating using a B2 from an aircraft carrier, but perhaps the larger NS carriers might be able to launch a smaller bomber from their runways.

A few points here:

1) Its true that refuelling tankers cannot be stealthy (due to the refuelling equipment). However, in-flight refuelling wouldn't compromise the ability of the B-2 to remain stealthy, as you'd refuel it outside enemy territory before and after it had performed its mission.

2) Its true, current cruise missiles such as the AGM-86C CALCM and the BGM-109 Tomahawk LAM can indeed be detected and shot down (IF the system is good enough to track and shoot down fast-moving targets flying at around 200ft). However, this ignores the possibility of stealth. The RAF's Storm Shadow stand-off missile is stealthy, and it would not be difficult to make a stealth cruise missile.

3) To those criticising the use of U-2s off of carriers. Unlike the B-2, a U-2 can be launched and recovered from an aircraft carrier. The CIA trialled it in the 1960s. It can be done, but it is very difficult and requires the flight deck of the carrier to be cleared for every launch/recovery.

However, do keep in mind that the B-70 was intended to be a nuclear platform, and the reason they cancelled it of course is the fact that an ICBM warhead is virtually undefeatable with the technology present in the 50s and early 60es (though ABM systems like the Soviet A-135 that they put near Moscow and the American Safeguard was not intended to defeat mass ICBM attacks). The B-52 was also never intended to really conduct a lot of conventional bombing, and its conventional role was finally used when they needed the coventional bombing capability in the Vietnam War. Personally I think that if the B-70 ever came into life, it would be a pretty good high speed, precision bombing platform today (though installing dumb bombs on an aircraft of such high speed is just useless).

About the SR-71 however, you don't need to follow it for one hundred miles without doing anything, what you need is a carefully planned, coordinated multi-AAM attack from multiple and ideal positions when the SR-71 decides to violate your border. The last issue of Air Forces Monthly had an interesting article on some cases of SR-71 interceptions. The MiG-31s would often typically catch on with the SR-71 over some distance before it actually sees (they did achieve visual sighting at high altitudes) that the SR-71 is in international airspace and breaks off the "attack" and return to base.

Good to see i'm not the only reader of that rahter interesting magazine :)

If it's so damn far away, why not just place a refueling plane or three on the carrier, so that when the B2 comes from it's land base, it can refuel. thus increasing its range and keeping away from the problem of landing on the carrier.
The problem is that only land-based tankers can even come close to topping off a B-2, which carries some 200,000 lbs of fuel. It would take 2-3 KC-130s to haul enough (80,000+ lbs each), or up to a dozen dedicated naval tankers (KA-6D, KA-35, KA-18, etc). I don't want to even touch on the US's currently Naval tanker assets. Lets just say that it would take the entire combined tanker assets currently found on two Nimitz carriers to do the job.
Of course, problem 2: All above tanker aircraft use the hose and drogue method. The B-2 uses the boon and receptacle, which is more efficient for large volume transfers. Thus, they'd all have to be heavily modified just to be capable of transfering a drop, and that would make them useless for supporting other carrier aircraft.

End result: stick to land-based aviation. Those big tankers can operate a few thousand miles from base anyway. A single KC-10A can top off a B-2 while over 2500 miles from its base, and is capable of doing so even further away through aerial refueling.

Good to see i'm not the only reader of that rahter interesting magazine :)

I read AFM too. Fantastic magazine!

A few points here:

1) Its true that refuelling tankers cannot be stealthy (due to the refuelling equipment). However, in-flight refuelling wouldn't compromise the ability of the B-2 to remain stealthy, as you'd refuel it outside enemy territory before and after it had performed its mission.

2) Its true, current cruise missiles such as the AGM-86C CALCM and the BGM-109 Tomahawk LAM can indeed be detected and shot down (IF the system is good enough to track and shoot down fast-moving targets flying at around 200ft). However, this ignores the possibility of stealth. The RAF's Storm Shadow stand-off missile is stealthy, and it would not be difficult to make a stealth cruise missile.

3) To those criticising the use of U-2s off of carriers. Unlike the B-2, a U-2 can be launched and recovered from an aircraft carrier. The CIA trialled it in the 1960s. It can be done, but it is very difficult and requires the flight deck of the carrier to be cleared for every launch/recovery.




U2 REDEMPTION

Ratheia is amused especially by Hataria, for he once placed B-52's on his carriers. Almost 40 of them.

We find this amusing to the highest degree.

The Empire of a Thousand Alliances has chosen a speaker on the matter:

Hahahaha, B-52's?! Sure, maybe in PIECES XD

Hmm, well I still have hopes for the A-12 Armed Blackbird. Yea, it may be a biatch to fuel and maintain, but when you've got radar that can track planes up all the way to the horizion and missiles that by now probably have a range of 200 miles, then by god I'd certainly pay extra money for gas to get a hold of that mofu.

Plus, SAMs have to be enourmas to hit this thing, nearly the size of ICBMs. This means that if you have a 'Star Wars' ICBM defense, say, satilite armed with LaZorZ, you can thus destroy the missiles and keep your blackbirds unscathed ;) I think it would work exellently.

Also, the XB-70 definatly owned until "some tit crashed his F-104 into the testbed". Then again, it may have been a supersonic bomber, but it didn't have the insane utterly unmatched speed of the SR-71, which proved to be so effective in its defense.

Ratheia is amused especially by Hataria, for he once placed B-52's on his carriers. Almost 40 of them.

We find this amusing to the highest degree.
Yea..makes one wonder just how big he makes them. The B-52 needs something like 2.5 km of runway to take off (conservative estimate), and is utterly impossible to catapult airborne, so try to imagine just how big a carrier you'd need for even trying to take off in a one. Let alone carry 40..

Something along the lines of this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=375436) I would imagine.

:eek:
Whoa!! Well someone had to do it..But I really can't see that thing ever being that practical, even on the ns battlefield..

Well if you read the fine print its a civillian run "ship". Not particulary meant for the battlefield, although it has some armaments, they are for self-defense.

A chosen representative of a Thousand Alliances has decided to reply to the matter:

Oh my, that would be so easy to sink that thing XD oh and how expensive to... that thing must cost half a billion dollars at least!!

A few points here:

1) Its true that refuelling tankers cannot be stealthy (due to the refuelling equipment). However, in-flight refuelling wouldn't compromise the ability of the B-2 to remain stealthy, as you'd refuel it outside enemy territory before and after it had performed its mission.

2) Its true, current cruise missiles such as the AGM-86C CALCM and the BGM-109 Tomahawk LAM can indeed be detected and shot down (IF the system is good enough to track and shoot down fast-moving targets flying at around 200ft). However, this ignores the possibility of stealth. The RAF's Storm Shadow stand-off missile is stealthy, and it would not be difficult to make a stealth cruise missile.

3) To those criticising the use of U-2s off of carriers. Unlike the B-2, a U-2 can be launched and recovered from an aircraft carrier. The CIA trialled it in the 1960s. It can be done, but it is very difficult and requires the flight deck of the carrier to be cleared for every launch/recovery.

Storm shadow/Scalp EG only have a range of 250km, however. Once could load up a special light stealth bomber to fire them, or use Rafale's though.

A chosen representative of a Thousand Alliances has decided to reply to the matter:

Oh my, that would be so easy to sink that thing XD oh and how expensive to... that thing must cost half a billion dollars at least!!

half a billion? more likely half a Trillion dolars, and it's so gigantic it could stay a float long after taking enough damage to sink any conventional ship, unless it was built stupidly, like a one compartment water line or something equally un intelligent

Has post-modern (~2020) tech totally died? Look at the aircraft from United Elias, New Empire, and Sileetris. I don't know why you guys are so strict modern tech, half the post modern aircraft blow these ideas out of the water, plus they're cooler.

half a billion? more likely half a Trillion dolars, and it's so gigantic it could stay a float long after taking enough damage to sink any conventional ship, unless it was built stupidly, like a one compartment water line or something equally un intelligent


it looks like it would just snap in half in a storm :p

The Empire of a Thousand Alliances has chosen a representative to speak on the matter

It would be moderatly plausible if each small section of the the thing floated, and they easily attached and disatached. Therefor, if the thing split, or broke, or anything like that, it would all just float and you'd just get a tugboat to put it back together. And if theres a big bombhole in say two of the peices, you could just stratch them and make it a bit smaller till you can add some more peices from the factory. Heh, that wouldnt be to bad...

But just the idea of such a massive sinking brings so much pain in those who owned it, and so much ..erm.. power-ish-ness in those who sunk it!

And I dont think it would be that expensive either.. I mean, it doesnt really use much incredibly expensive material, or rare metals.. well, if you make it out of aluminum it can get pretty pricy, but hey.. its a pretty nice platform.

yeah i was looking at a few floating airports from someones store front but.....blew all my budget for like a week on carriers :mad:

Hmm, well I still have hopes for the A-12 Armed Blackbird. Yea, it may be a biatch to fuel and maintain, but when you've got radar that can track planes up all the way to the horizion and missiles that by now probably have a range of 200 miles, then by god I'd certainly pay extra money for gas to get a hold of that mofu.

The SR-71 Blackbird was developed from the "A-12" (actually the YF-12A Advanced Supersonic Technology Manned Interceptor programme for NASA/USAF), which was then dropped because it failed the tests.

Sorry, but its been tried, and it didn't work.

And that floating runway, hah. Its cool, but somehow I don't think it would actually stay in one piece.

Also, the XB-70 definatly owned until "some tit crashed his F-104 into the testbed". Then again, it may have been a supersonic bomber, but it didn't have the insane utterly unmatched speed of the SR-71, which proved to be so effective in its defense.

Mach 3 versus Mach 3, look it up. And no, 'not deploying over dense belts of SAMs' was what proved effective in the SR-71's defence, until it was axed on cost grounds, largely because satellites could do the same [or similiar] job better for cheaper. And with the modern advent of UAVs, deploying a manned aircraft to do the same job [and one rendered obsolete by advances in SAM design] is just silly.

If it hadn't been written off purely because of the accident the B-70 would have been cancelled because of the budget-burning 'zip' fuel it used.

Storm shadow/Scalp EG only have a range of 250km, however. Once could load up a special light stealth bomber to fire them, or use Rafale's though.

I know, hence why I refer to it as a stand-off missile rather than a cruise missile. I merely use it as an example of how you can make missiles stealthy, and how it would therefore be possible to make a stealthy cruise missile.

While we're discussing Scalp EG, the GBAF (my air force) uses Storm Shadow. The Scalp EG, while still the same basic missile as the Storm Shadow, has been said to be inferior by some in the industry due to certain modifications that the French AF insisted on doing to it to cut costs.

As for aircraft to deliver it, my GBAF uses Typhoon F.2s and Tornado GR.4s to carry Storm Shadow, although it could theoretically be carried by the F-117A Nighthawk or the F-35 JSF if one required a stealthier platform. I certainly wouldn't use the Rafale. There are too many problems with that aircraft (e.g. the fact that the avionics and computer systems are 10 years out of date according to the French AF), plus it just isn't as good as the Typhoon or the Gripen.

Re: XB-70 Cancellation

The B-70 bomber program had been cancelled over a year before the two prototypes had even been built. They were merely used for high-altitude high-speed testing purposes, and were withdrawn following the F-104 accident on cost grounds.

Re: Blackbird:

The A-12 was the original CIA/USAF reconnaissance aircraft. It was developed into the YF-12 for tests as to its suitability as a high-altitude, high-speed interceptor, and also into the SR-71, which was a twin-seat reconnaissance aircraft that featured many improvements over the basic A-12.

I know, hence why I refer to it as a stand-off missile rather than a cruise missile. I merely use it as an example of how you can make missiles stealthy, and how it would therefore be possible to make a stealthy cruise missile.

While we're discussing Scalp EG, the GBAF (my air force) uses Storm Shadow. The Scalp EG, while still the same basic missile as the Storm Shadow, has been said to be inferior by some in the industry due to certain modifications that the French AF insisted on doing to it to cut costs.

As for aircraft to deliver it, my GBAF uses Typhoon F.2s and Tornado GR.4s to carry Storm Shadow, although it could theoretically be carried by the F-117A Nighthawk or the F-35 JSF if one required a stealthier platform. I certainly wouldn't use the Rafale. There are too many problems with that aircraft (e.g. the fact that the avionics and computer systems are 10 years out of date according to the French AF), plus it just isn't as good as the Typhoon or the Gripen.

Re: XB-70 Cancellation

The B-70 bomber program had been cancelled over a year before the two prototypes had even been built. They were merely used for high-altitude high-speed testing purposes, and were withdrawn following the F-104 accident on cost grounds.

Re: Blackbird:

The A-12 was the original CIA/USAF reconnaissance aircraft. It was developed into the YF-12 for tests as to its suitability as a high-altitude, high-speed interceptor, and also into the SR-71, which was a twin-seat reconnaissance aircraft that featured many improvements over the basic A-12.

Most aircraft have 10 year old, or older ones. The newer versions can be made with new ones, the good thing about NS is we have all the time to modernize.

Most aircraft have 10 year old, or older ones. The newer versions can be made with new ones, the good thing about NS is we have all the time to modernize.

In RL, most aircraft are continually modified. Most F-15s and F-16s (both 30+ year old designs) don't have avionics systems as old as 10 years due to continual block upgrades. A lot of the delays to Typhoon (apart from the ones caused by the Germans pissing about) were caused by the avionics being upgraded. The problem with Rafale is that its computers HAVEN'T been updated, which has caused a massive war of words between Dassault and the French AF over who's responsibility it is to do it. the French AF say Dassault should have done it, and Dassault say the French AF should do it because its their fault the aircraft is late (budget reasons being at fault there).

I do understand what you're saying though. At least on here we don't have to worry about continual software upgrades etc.

Has post-modern (~2020) tech totally died? Look at the aircraft from United Elias, New Empire, and Sileetris. I don't know why you guys are so strict modern tech, half the post modern aircraft blow these ideas out of the water, plus they're cooler.

I'm post modern, right now most of my equpment is coming from my (Rl) friend Mondoth cause I don't have the population or budget for most of my ideas, He's got the B-5 wraith and B-7 banshee both strateic bombers, the B-5 is a stealth, mach 3 bomber with large payload and absolutely huge range and ceiling (15,00 miles un refueled and 70,000 feet or so) and then the B-7 is a RAMJET bomber, medium payload, insance range and ceiling with a speed that tops out at around Mach 6 or 7

I think these are better than the B-2 or B-52 any day.

I'm post modern, right now most of my equpment is coming from my (Rl) friend Mondoth cause I don't have the population or budget for most of my ideas, He's got the B-5 wraith and B-7 banshee both strateic bombers, the B-5 is a stealth, mach 3 bomber with large payload and absolutely huge range and ceiling (15,00 miles un refueled and 70,000 feet or so) and then the B-7 is a RAMJET bomber, medium payload, insance range and ceiling with a speed that tops out at around Mach 6 or 7

I think these are better than the B-2 or B-52 any day.

If its Mach 6/7, then its probably a very sleek, small bomber, which uses speed, and a low- capacity to achieve missions.

Such speeds really arent nessecary. A cruise missile with scramjet could do the same job I use a small, wing-body shaped bomber with scramjets, that tops speed at about mach 3. It carries a large payload, with internal bays and external hardpoints. Its not hard to detect, but it can reach the enemy quick, fire 30 Scalp EG's, maybe fire a few Meteor's or Mica's and chaff, and leave.

Floating B-2's and Airports :rolleyes:


Uhhh....hey dude I just sunk your mutli-billion dollar airplane.
Uhhh....hey dude I just sunk your airport.

Sunk being the keywords there....

Well, sinking MOBs is difficult, but those floating airports I recall seeing somewhere don't need any assistance to sink. With how cheap they are, the first large aircraft that lands on one will do the job quite nicely . . .


As for those bombers
Mach 6/7 is better served by scramjets. Due to the nature of the mechanism, ramjets don't work too well at hypersonic speeds. Even if you have an airframe that can, the engines simply won't operate at that speed. That's the reason for a general cap of ~Mach 5 for ramjets.
I also wouldn't use scramjets on anything cruising below Mach 5, or ramjets on anything below Mach 3. Just too inefficient, and lesser engines will work better. If you want a high speed dash, very big high-bypass turbofans, or rocket boosters would serve better. Also, with the relative inefficiency of such high-speed cruising (they're more efficient than other engine types for that speed, that doesn't exactly make them efficient), such long ranges are going to mean incredibly huge aircraft with very small (relatively) payloads. The vast majority of the payload will need to be for fuel. Even post-modern tech can't escape that.
As stated previously, it's FAR more cost-effective to mount long-range hypersonic missiles on a conventional bomber than to have a hypersonic bomber. And considering how much the hypersonic aircraft would have to slow down to deploy any munitions effectively, such an aircraft isn't quite as survivable a platform as many think.

The other thing: high speed = large turning radius. That might not sound like much of an issue, but if you want to be careful who you overfly, that's going to be a serious limiting factor for hypersonic aircraft.

Well, sinking MOBs is difficult, but those floating airports I recall seeing somewhere don't need any assistance to sink. With how cheap they are, the first large aircraft that lands on one will do the job quite nicely . . .


As for those bombers
Mach 6/7 is better served by scramjets. Due to the nature of the mechanism, ramjets don't work too well at hypersonic speeds. Even if you have an airframe that can, the engines simply won't operate at that speed. That's the reason for a general cap of ~Mach 5 for ramjets.
I also wouldn't use scramjets on anything cruising below Mach 5, or ramjets on anything below Mach 3. Just too inefficient, and lesser engines will work better. If you want a high speed dash, very big high-bypass turbofans, or rocket boosters would serve better. Also, with the relative inefficiency of such high-speed cruising (they're more efficient than other engine types for that speed, that doesn't exactly make them efficient), such long ranges are going to mean incredibly huge aircraft with very small (relatively) payloads. The vast majority of the payload will need to be for fuel. Even post-modern tech can't escape that.
As stated previously, it's FAR more cost-effective to mount long-range hypersonic missiles on a conventional bomber than to have a hypersonic bomber. And considering how much the hypersonic aircraft would have to slow down to deploy any munitions effectively, such an aircraft isn't quite as survivable a platform as many think.

The other thing: high speed = large turning radius. That might not sound like much of an issue, but if you want to be careful who you overfly, that's going to be a serious limiting factor for hypersonic aircraft.


Hence why I stick to conventional aircraft and use Hyper Sonic missiles

The B-7 (like I said, not my design, I'm just using what I know about the particular design and the technology involved, with any luck Mondoth, who really owns the design will come by and correct me) is about the same size as a B-2, uses two Methane injecting turbo jets as starters for the RAMJET and due to some crazy new design (knowing mondoth as I do its probably well researched and at least plausible) that makes it highly aerodynamic, plus light contsruction, it can accelerate to just under mach six (confirmed by designer) and carries about 20,000 lbs of ordinance, it is unmaned and piloted by satelitte (however you spell it) so no pilot to take up space for life supports, acceleration cushioning and the like

Here's what I know about RAMJETS;
RAMJETS are reliable, relatively efficient engines for low TransHypersonic speeds. a single unit able to propel a strategic bomber fully loaded at maximum speed would be about the same size and use about about as much fuel as six conventional jets (an estimate) in the next fifty years a RAMJET with similiar thrust is expected to be built at about half the size (also an estimate)
SCRAMJETS are larger and require more fuel for a speed that given the proposed use is excessive
a bomber with suitable electronics can accurately drop suitable guided ordinance from as high and as fast as it wants to
at about 3600 Knots and pushing 80 miles above sealevel, you don't more than likely don't have to violate anybodies air space to bomb them, at that speed and altitude you could drop a bomb 10 or so miles away (horizontally) from your target (maybe more, my physics needs a little dustoff and I can't remember the Knots to FPS conversion)
anyway, the amount and types of ordinance that can be delivered is quite an advantage over a standoff missile and the flexibilty offered (it can always drop altitude and cut in the jets for tight turns not sure how stealthy it is) is superior to a cruise missile
of course, i could be totally wrong, its not my design

The B-7 (like I said, not my design, I'm just using what I know about the particular design and the technology involved, with any luck Mondoth, who really owns the design will come by and correct me) is about the same size as a B-2, uses two Methane injecting turbo jets as starters for the RAMJET and due to some crazy new design (knowing mondoth as I do its probably well researched and at least plausible) that makes it highly aerodynamic, plus light contsruction, it can accelerate to just under mach six (confirmed by designer) and carries about 20,000 lbs of ordinance, it is unmaned and piloted by satelitte (however you spell it) so no pilot to take up space for life supports, acceleration cushioning and the like

Here's what I know about RAMJETS;
RAMJETS are reliable, relatively efficient engines for low TransHypersonic speeds. a single unit able to propel a strategic bomber fully loaded at maximum speed would be about the same size and use about about as much fuel as six conventional jets (an estimate) in the next fifty years a RAMJET with similiar thrust is expected to be built at about half the size (also an estimate)
SCRAMJETS are larger and require more fuel for a speed that given the proposed use is excessive
a bomber with suitable electronics can accurately drop suitable guided ordinance from as high and as fast as it wants to
at about 3600 Knots and pushing 80 miles above sealevel, you don't more than likely don't have to violate anybodies air space to bomb them, at that speed and altitude you could drop a bomb 10 or so miles away (horizontally) from your target (maybe more, my physics needs a little dustoff and I can't remember the Knots to FPS conversion)
anyway, the amount and types of ordinance that can be delivered is quite an advantage over a standoff missile and the flexibilty offered (it can always drop altitude and cut in the jets for tight turns not sure how stealthy it is) is superior to a cruise missile
of course, i could be totally wrong, its not my design
1) With the stated range, speed, and payload, the bomber should be closer in weight to a C-5 (840,000 lbs) than a B-2 (375,000 lbs). The fuel in particular is going to have to be a huge amount. A 10% increase in fuel does not accommodate a 500% increase in speed and a 100+% increase in range, regardless of engine.

2) The issue with ramjets is that they have to slow air to subsonic speeds as it passes the inlet (using shockwaves). Now, this is fine for speeds up to Mach 4-5, but after that, problems begin to arise due to the disruption of the air flow by the shockwaves, and ramjets become very inefficient. Scramjets work by not slowing the air down, thus eliminating the problems at hypersonic speeds. As I said, the airframe is irrelevent, it's an inherant weakness in the design of the engine itself that causes the limitation.

3) I'm not talking about accuracy loss at high speeds, though that's a serious problem as well. The problem is safely and effectively ejecting the ordnance from the aircraft. If you can tell me of a good method of doing so, I'm willing to listen, but I'm having some difficulty on that part.

4) The aircraft cannot perform tight turns at such high speed. The airframe would be incapable of handling it, and you wouldn't have control surfaces that could pull that off anyway. Missile airframes are more capable of handling such stresses, so in that area, they're more flexible, not less.

5) You may think drop-and-drift tactics will work, but you fail to consider that the plane travelling at Mach 6 will be in enemy airspace less than 11 seconds after the bombing point. Heck, at Mach 6, it won't pull even a 90-degree turn that quickly, and will thus most likely fly right into enemy airspace.

There are certain aircraft that just won't fly off of or land on the small airstrip of a comparatively small supercarrier. Like the B-2. I haven't noticed this myself, but at least this problem is easily rectified; the B-2's range is sufficient with a few tankers to fly anywhere.

1) With the stated range, speed, and payload, the bomber should be closer in weight to a C-5 (840,000 lbs) than a B-2 (375,000 lbs). The fuel in particular is going to have to be a huge amount. A 10% increase in fuel does not accommodate a 500% increase in speed and a 100+% increase in range, regardless of engine.

2) The issue with ramjets is that they have to slow air to subsonic speeds as it passes the inlet (using shockwaves). Now, this is fine for speeds up to Mach 4-5, but after that, problems begin to arise due to the disruption of the air flow by the shockwaves, and ramjets become very inefficient. Scramjets work by not slowing the air down, thus eliminating the problems at hypersonic speeds. As I said, the airframe is irrelevent, it's an inherant weakness in the design of the engine itself that causes the limitation.

3) I'm not talking about accuracy loss at high speeds, though that's a serious problem as well. The problem is safely and effectively ejecting the ordnance from the aircraft. If you can tell me of a good method of doing so, I'm willing to listen, but I'm having some difficulty on that part.

4) The aircraft cannot perform tight turns at such high speed. The airframe would be incapable of handling it, and you wouldn't have control surfaces that could pull that off anyway. Missile airframes are more capable of handling such stresses, so in that area, they're more flexible, not less.

5) You may think drop-and-drift tactics will work, but you fail to consider that the plane travelling at Mach 6 will be in enemy airspace less than 11 seconds after the bombing point. Heck, at Mach 6, it won't pull even a 90-degree turn that quickly, and will thus most likely fly right into enemy airspace.

maybe I was misinformed, any way, for points 3-5 i have the following statement;
inertia, the bombs won't magically slow down once they're no longer attached to the aircrafdt, they will continue at whatever speed they were going at in the plane, its just like a conventional jet bomber ion that regard, I can't se any dificulties with the dropping of the ordinance
like I said, drop altitude and speed and cut in the conventional jets for tight maneuvers, and if i really wanted to i could turn the whole aircraft into a control surface for high velocity maneuvers

just conjecture, I have to talk to my designer and check his numbers, probably making stuff up on the job again, glad i caught it before a major conflict erupted

maybe I was misinformed, any way, for points 3-5 i have the following statement;
inertia, the bombs won't magically slow down once they're no longer attached to the aircrafdt, they will continue at whatever speed they were going at in the plane, its just like a conventional jet bomber ion that regard, I can't se any dificulties with the dropping of the ordinance
like I said, drop altitude and speed and cut in the conventional jets for tight maneuvers, and if i really wanted to i could turn the whole aircraft into a control surface for high velocity maneuvers

just conjecture, I have to talk to my designer and check his numbers, probably making stuff up on the job again, glad i caught it before a major conflict erupted

Its the disruption to the airflow of the aircraft that is dangerous. The bombs don't slow down, but opening the weapons-bay disrupts the airflow over the aircraft's fuselage and can cause serious aerodynamic problems at high speeds.

good point, I have had all the designers that worked on the B-7 project shot. that should teach em