NationStates Jolt Archive

NLS-1 Stingray

http://www.vussp.com/nationstates/nls-1.jpg

Specifications
Primary Contractor- Credonian Defense Systems Corporation
Primary Function- Orbital Bomber

Configuration- SSTO (Single Stage To Orbit)
Total Length- 34 ft.
Height- 6 ft.
Propulsion System: 1 SCRAMJET Engine and a General Electric F-118-GE-100 engines
Guidance System- Inertial, GPS
Deployment- Above Ground Launch Silo
Range- Between 25,000 km and unlimited
Load- Three Warheads: Mk 75C
Celiling: 350 miles (1,120 km)
Velocity- Mach 20+
Warhead Yield- 5 Megatons (Thermonuclear)
Accuracy- 98% direct hits
Launch Preparation Time- 45 minutes
Special Features: ~Classified TOP SECRET~

Description
This spacecraft/aircraft is unsual in its make up. It uses a deltawing shape giving it its steath capabilities. It is powered by a General Electric F-118-GE-100 engine placed above the SCRAMJET engine, the craft's main propulsion engine. Due to this combination of engine systems, the Stingray can serve as an aircraft flying along an atmospheric flight path, it can serve as a missile, flying along a ballistic flight path, or it can serve as an orbiter, in which it can stay up in orbit for however long, drop its missiles, and reenter safly, landing on its own power at home to be rearmed with more warheads. This concept will hopefully lower the costs for nuclear arsenals, allowing for more of these craft to be made and reused over and over.

The warheads carries are Mk 75C, 5 megaton warheads which can be preprogrammed to strike a specific target, or can be programmed in flight to strike a target. The warheads are jettisoned from inside the weapons bay. The warhead also has stealth capabilities and also a limited fuel supply to fine tune its reentry path before it begins the reentry process.

No more information can or will be released on this system at this time.

Price: NOT FOR SALE AT THIS TIME

ALLIANCE NOTICE: This weapon is not for sale, however, any ally that would like some will be given some (no more than 10 per nation and no puppets), but by accepting it, you are signing a legal and binding deal that you will NOT give this weapon to any nation and you will NOT release any details on it that Credonia deems as classified.

Also, if any updates are made to the disign, only the original 10 will be upgraded, unless you buy them when they are released. Once a new version is created, the previous version will go up for sale.

If you would like this system, place your order here.

Bump

[OOC: I'm guessing this follows along the line of the Hypersoar, only larger, and it doesn't skip, instead just flies really, really, high?]

OOC: Actually its a modified version of the X-50 aircraft...or is the X-49....well in any case, its an X plane, but yes i suppose it does hold some similarities to the Hypersoar, except, it has no solid rocket booster system. And yes, no skipping...flying and orbiting only :-D

So I'd like ten, care to giftwrap them?

Liberal Robenia is interested in signing a contract.

Official Response To Liberal Robenia

"Credonia has noted your nation's interest in our newest weapon system, however, at this time, the NLS-1 Stingray in its current form is not for sale and will not be given or sold to any nation that is not an ally of Credonia. The design of an export version is currently in the works, however, it will not be made available in the immediate future. We will promptly notify your government when the export version is made available."

Mitchell A. Ferguson
Secretary of Defense
Department of Defense
United States of Credonia

*Encrypted* Official Response To Dumpsterdam


"It is well within Credonia's intentions to honor its advertised deal with your nation, however, due to the level of hostilities that your nation faces and the threat of invasion by hostile nations against our allies, we must respectfully decline to ship them to you until hostilities die down. Should your enemies get word that Dumpsterdam has recieved offensive nuclear stealth technology, we fear that a nuclear stand-off will occur, resulting in the death of thousands and even millions of innocent men, women, and children. We will notify your government when they are ready to be shipped. I hope you understand the circumstances in which we are taking such temporary actions. Also, please be aware, Credonian military forces are still enroute to your nation for your nation's defense. ETA: 14.3 hours."

Mitchell A. Ferguson
Secretary of Defense
Department of Defense
United States of Credonia

bump

Orbital, eh? Perfect target for SDI systems...

OOC: is this modern tech or near-future?

OOC: is this modern tech or near-future?

OOC: Look at the propulsion and guidance specs. Its kinda self-evident/self-explanatory

Orbital, eh? Perfect target for SDI systems...

umm..not quite...its a stealth craft ;-) Cant target something you cant see!

OOC: Look at the propulsion and guidance specs. Its kinda self-evident/self-explanatory

No its not, near-future can use pretty much the same stuff as modern in places.

Though the Republic of Ancient Terra does not believe that we possess sufficiently binding relations with Credonia in order to allow for the acquisition of such a system, we are intrigued by the design and would appreciate it if the honorable contractors at Credonian Defense Systems Corporation (CDSC) would contact us when the NLS-1 is available on the international market. We assure you, we would pay quite well to acquire such a design.

Good day,

~Lord Admiral Yamato Ishida, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs~
~Major General Sango Kariudo, Commanding Officer, Terran Space Command~

umm..not quite...its a stealth craft ;-) Cant target something you cant see!Hate to burst your bubble, but a Mach 20 craft is not stealthy. The heat from the engines/ atmospheric friction alone will make it show up on everything even remotely resembling infrared, to name just one example.

Furthermore, in NS, you're not dealing with Iraqi/ Yugoslavian crap. You're dealing with nations that have technological capacities quite comparable/ superior to your own. Which means that stealth as a useful feature is severely, errr... Pointless.

Oh, and trying to have stealthy materials (IRL meant to survive high subsonic/ low supersonic velocities/ resulting friction/ heat) survive Mach 20+ sounds, errr... Hard?

[OOC: Unfortunately Credonia, he's right. Although friction won't be as bad as it could be since this will only reach anywhere near Mach 20 in the upper atmosphere which is considerably thinner, the IR signature from a Mach 20+ SCRAMjet engine would be massive to say the least, and impossible to obscure.]

Terra wishes to restate its desire for such a vehicle despite its technical limitations, if for no reason other than as a PR tool.

Looks very similar to something that was designed a couple years back by Project Omega.

OOC: True...it's not stealthy if used to launch the vehicle into space, but it is outfitted for normal flight as an atmospheric aircraft, thus, that is where the stealthy capabilities come into play, which it has the ability to both fly inside the atmosphere or fly in orbit. The mode of delivery is at the user's discression.

EDIT: See, im not completly dumb!

[OOC: But if you use it for atmospheric flight you'd be lucky to get Mach 3, and a SCRAMjet wouldn't work at that kind of low speed. Nor would a RAMjet. I agree though that the ability to choose is useful, and this wouldnt be an easy opponent, although personally I'd rather just use a missile.

@Whitter: What is "Project Omega"?

OOC: Top speed all depends on the type of engine you use and the overall weight of the aircraft. It's possible and my design uses such engines to ensure that that is possible. Missiles are great, if you want to alert the entire world thta you are launching nuclear warheads at someone or something. The NLS-1 Stingray is an attempted "fix" to that "problem". More versions of the NLS will be released as more reseach and testing is done. For now, this is the perfect step in the right direction. Dont ya agree? :-D

[OOC: No. A missile is a smaller, faster and more expendable than a plane. THey are simply better. Why do you think people no longer use planes as nuclear launch vehicles?

And no, you can't get anywhere near that kind of speed at ground level, unless you want your plane to melt, lose bits that aren't securely fastened to the engines or not be able to turn.]

OOC: Top speed all depends on the type of engine you use and the overall weight of the aircraft. It's possible and my design uses such engines to ensure that that is possible. Missiles are great, if you want to alert the entire world thta you are launching nuclear warheads at someone or something. The NLS-1 Stingray is an attempted "fix" to that "problem". More versions of the NLS will be released as more reseach and testing is done. For now, this is the perfect step in the right direction. Dont ya agree? :-D

The satellites that detect a missile launch will also detect this.
Also when you drop the bombs from orbital velocity, they will need to reenter the atmosphere, just like the warheads from a missile. They'll still be visible, and anyone who can shoot down warheads from a ballistic missile will have little trouble shooting down bombs from your plane.
What you've come up with is a reusable ICBM, which sounds good in theory, but are you actually going to have the chance to reuse it after the inevitable counterstrike? My advice would be to use it as a reconnaisance platform, or even as a satellite launch platform, rather than as a bomber.

The satellites that detect a missile launch will also detect this.
Also when you drop the bombs from orbital velocity, they will need to reenter the atmosphere, just like the warheads from a missile. They'll still be visible, and anyone who can shoot down warheads from a ballistic missile will have little trouble shooting down bombs from your plane.
OOC: Well, although this deals with nukes, with conventional weapons it's not only the IR signature that is a problem, but also the friction. While nuclear warheads' shielding is pretty much the outer part of the warhead, if dropped from a high altitude, conventional bombs would just get destroyed by friction rather than getting anywhere (this is why the Soviets had special heat-shielded bombs for their MiG-25 reconaissance-bombers variants, but then it would also add extra weight with the heat shieldings).

umm..not quite...its a stealth craft ;-) Cant target something you cant see!

Don't be stupid. Scramjets are very easy to detect due to their propulsion system.

Don't be stupid. Scramjets are very easy to detect due to their propulsion system.

I wasnt talking about SCRAMJETS. Ive studied rocket propulsion systems for years. As it was pointed out earlier, anything that gives off a heat signature can be detected...now, as for jet engines, they can still be detected too but it would be a lot harder to detect them if the aircraft has an adequate and effective steathy design.

So if, as you admit yourself, the sub-orbital SCRAMjet design is too easy to detect, what is it for?

I wasnt talking about SCRAMJETS. Ive studied rocket propulsion systems for years. As it was pointed out earlier, anything that gives off a heat signature can be detected...now, as for jet engines, they can still be detected too but it would be a lot harder to detect them if the aircraft has an adequate and effective steathy design.

Except, when this craft is in it's suborbital trajectory, it'd be using it's SCRAMjet, thus it could be detected by a blind man in a fur coat.

:rolleyes:

So if, as you admit yourself, the sub-orbital SCRAMjet design is too easy to detect, what is it for?

As was stated, the spacecraft is a dual mode nuclear delivery system, REUSABLE, and far less costly than gigantic ICBM systems. It has built-in stealth characteristics for nations who wish to use it within the earth's atmosphere, stealthily which is what the jet engine is for. Now, the SCRAMJET is used for nations who wish to have a reusable nuclear delivery system. Now the advantage of it being able to orbit and reenter and be used again is the fact that just because something is launched into space, doesnt mean the world would know what exactly is being launched into space unless the launch facilities for the NLS-1 Stingray were known. So as far as any other nation would be concerned, it could be a "routine" launch of a satellite, when instead its a space-plane carrying nuclear warheads. It would be a bit hard to acertain whether or not it is an actual missile or not if it goes into orbit and stays there in that exact same orbit. Do you not agree?

Also, this is just a first model in a series of many in the NLS program. There will be tweaks and major modifications that will make this weapon nearly nearly totally stealthy. Of course, the technology involved would take years to develop. This is an ongoing project as was invisioned by the Credonian Defense Systems Corporation when it was first designed. So before you downplay and dismiss the stealthy functionality and operability of this weapon system, imagine what could be achieved if the perfect mix of techonlogies was incorporated into it.

The NLS-1 Stingray is nothing but a work in progress and a positive step forward towards a truly stealthy SSTO space-plane

OOC: Well, aside from the concerns I still have with this, one of my biggest concerns is probably this:

It has built-in stealth characteristics for nations who wish to use it within the earth's atmosphere, stealthily which is what the jet engine is for.

The descriptions you came up with for your weapon system does mention "stealth" a lot of times, but the question is, how is it achieved? RAM is less than being really useful for something that wull undergo a lot of heat caused by friction, and the true fact is that with a scramjet engine, no matter how you work hard at it, you just cannot greatly reduce the heat signature of an object flying at a supersonic or hypersonic speed, given the propulsion system used, and the heat generated by the friction (unless somehow by your definition a scramjet is not a "jet engine"). Stating that stealthy designs could be added on this may be good and well, but you just can't expect to make an object flying at supersonic-hypersonic speeds "stealthy" (aka drastically reduce its radar and IR signatures) in terms of both radar and IR signatures (note that the two are still quite different), unless of course you provide reasons and explain how your system to work to provide the weapon with "stealth".

[OOC: Although he did say that this wasn't like the Hypersoar, if it does enter space for a while, the heat is actually theoritically supposed to radiate into space. However, this probably wouldn't be the case for this aircraft since it's flight path is more or less linear, and doesn't follow the 'air breathing' skipping idea of the HyperSoar. However, should Credonia wish to, he could always switch his aircraft into a 'HyperSoar' mode.]

Meh, the radar systems I have from Sileetris can detect this thing even if it has stealth features, so I'm not particularly worried.

OOC: In space, keep in mind that it would still be detected by large, specialized radar systems when it's in orbit, while various ASAT weapon systems could still be used to destroy it (for example, a killsat, kill vehicle, or one of those kinetic-kill ASAT missiles). In terms of stealth, both ascent (since you'll need a lot of power to climb up) and descent (reentry = a lot of heat) are the risky areas. In conclusion, this thing, like the Mach 3+ supersonic bombers in NS, could use its speed, its ceiling, and its climb performance to essentially "outrun" systems such as surface-to-air missiles and interceptor aircraft; however, the possibility of making it stealthy is very slim. But that doesn't mean that being stealthy is a necessarity either, as stealth is just one (though very effective) method of circumventing and evading (note how I did not state "run into") enemy air defence systems.

[OOC: Well of course, a teal-esque infra-red array on a sattelite would pick this up in a jiffy, especially concerning how fast NationStates technology has evolved. I doubt that the system could outrun a 'modern' surface to air missile anyways - at least one specializing against these types of aircraft. Hell, if a SCRAMjet bomber can fly at Mach 6+, so can a missile, which is smaller, and more aerodynamic. Personally, I think that the days of strategic nuclear delivery systems, such as heavy bombers, are past. But then again, I am one of the proponents of not using nuclear weapons in NS role plays. Meh.]

OOC: Ok, i think i can see where you guys are getting a tad bit mixed up and confused with the stealth stuff. The spacecraft has TWO different propulsion systems, which work independently of each other, altho the SCRAMJET requires some degree of initial speed before it can be used as it should. There is the SCRAMJET engine which is used for the orbital launches and astmospheric flight altitude boosts to suborbit and orbit altitude.

The second propulsion system and the most common is a simple conventional jet engine. This system works much like the propulsion systems onboard a B-2 Spirit of F-117A Nighthawk, therefore the prospects for steath while flying int he atmosphere is more than feasable, its already been done, with the B-2 being the prime example. Now, the jet engines are situated to the side of the SCRAMJET engine which is located in the center-aft between the jet engines which are cased

OOC: Keep in mind that both are still jet engines, thus requiring air to operate (though the scramjet also operates exclusively on supersonic airflow only). At very high altitudes (where air molecules are much more spread around), you would have a very hard time in trying to boost your aircraft due to the lack of such airflow, and that's why another concern is how you would be able to get this into orbit without the use of a rocket (or anything else that does not require an external source of oxygen).

With turbofans, you are still going to have a heat signature, though it depends on whether you have the afterburner on or not. Supercruise is a possibility to reduce the risk of a huge IR signature, but then it would require you to have an airframe design that does not have too much drag. In addition, by flying at a high speed (it doesn't matter whether you are using the turbofan or scramjet), you are going to have a lot of friction between the airframe and the air, thus causing heat buildups. And this is one of the reasons why the B-2 and the F-117, both subsonic aircraft, can retain their IR signature at a minimum level.

[OOC: The point is that at the velocities you're description puts whether you're using turbojets or SCRAMjet engines doesn't matter. The heat produced, even if you have extensive infra-red supressants on the engines, would be easily caught by infra-red sensors, and teal infra-red sensors on sattelites. Moreover, depending on the strength of modern RADARs it really matters what kind of RAM you use. Regardless, the velocity gives the stealth away.]

OOC: Well, either way, the idea is still feasable. There are, undoubtedly, some challenges that must be overcome, but it all of that can be taken care of through the redesign of the aircraft, and the engine and propulsion systems. The NLS-1 is just the first step towards a more "perfect" system. Perhaps a couple of you guys would be willing to work with me on a second version that covers some of the concerns you have listed since they are all quite relevant and true.

As was stated, the spacecraft is a dual mode nuclear delivery system, REUSABLE, and far less costly than gigantic ICBM systems.HINT: Stealth costs money. No way a stealthy orbiter is cheaper than an ICBM. Keep in mind that the thing that makes an ICBM expensive is, well, the fuel it needs to et into orbit. Now, seeing your thing... Orbital... It suffers the same problem, and even worse, with stealth materials surviving the ludicrous heat, the price is boosted up by orders of magnitude.

HINT: Stealth costs money. No way a stealthy orbiter is cheaper than an ICBM. Keep in mind that the thing that makes an ICBM expensive is, well, the fuel it needs to et into orbit. Now, seeing your thing... Orbital... It suffers the same problem, and even worse, with stealth materials surviving the ludicrous heat, the price is boosted up by orders of magnitude.

Well, we're talking in terms of modern day, readily available stealth technologies of TODAY. The NLS series isnt just a vehicle that will use the technologies of today. It is a vehicle that will revolutionize (realistically) stealth technology on a large scale (i guess the NLS will eventually turn into a slightly post-modern type vehicle, but the emphasis is on the stealth and the capabilities of the stealth system utilizing current propulsion technologies).

EDIT: Now if its the cost of fuel that your worried about as well, then thats not a problem. It is cost effective and uses FAR LESS fuel than any ICBM does. Its possible. Just look at the X-34. It too is a SSTO, except its a space shuttle. No boosters...able to get into space using its single Aerospike engine. Thats fuel-cost effective.

Using the X-34 to prove the feasibility of this contraption may not be the best idea, given that the X-34 never even got off the ground under it's own power.

That, and when you can use a propulsion system using less fuel, you can use it for your ICBMs as well.

And, to make it even better, your postmodern stealth isn't for free. This results in a non-stealth ICBM equipped with a comparable propulsion system being vastly cheaper.

Oh, and I'm generally weary of 'Cheap into orbit and back!' claims. I recall NASA claiming something like that with regards to the space shuttle. Guess what? They miscalculated.

Now, the only advantage this thing would have would be harder interception. Of course, the problem is quite simple: If it goes ito orbit, it will be seen, due to heat and the likes. As such, SDI/ NMD stuffs will have a chance to kill it. And since its stealth would be pointless, it would be cost inefficient.

If it stays at reasonably slow velocities, inside the troposphere, it can use it stealth as an advantage (Personally, I doubt that an opponent with SDI capacities, or more generally, with your ground to orbit capacities (Remember, NS: Lots of potential opponents on your level) would have a backwater radar/ whatever detection that would allow the stealth to be hugely effective, though), unfortunately the thing would (Again) be cost inefficient due to all the low orbit applications.

Now, two options: 1. You're actually RPing your R&D as being slightly insane, which makes the project, well, stupid but shiny. No problems, really *Peers at his 'tanks'* In fact, very neat.

2. You want something that's actually reasonably cost effective and useful. In this case, I would suggest that you start two projects, one being a stealth specialised version, for low altitudes and velocities, the other being the orbiter.

Amusingly enough, this would actually reduce maintenance costs (And, more importantly, time), as the two things would be vastly less complex than your one, huge... Shinyness.

Once again, those are some good ideas. Ideas in which the CDSC will take into consideration (option 2), however, until then, the CDSC will continue to test and attempt to refine this vehicle until it is either found to be too cost ineffective, or totally unfeasable on all levels, at which time we will abandon that idea and move on to others.

OOC: Shildonia, the X-34 was never test launched. In fact, the extent of its testing was limited to gliding and landing, if im not mistaken, until NASA shut the program down a couple years ago (I forget the exact reason behind it).

[OOC: A few things here...

1) All else being equal, an ICBM will always require much less fuel than a bomber (note that the plane you cite is a fairly recent project, which was cancelled due to lack of funds - US ICBMs were designed in the 70s and built in large numbers). This is simply because an ICBM needs to carry an engine, fuel, warhead, computer and guidance. A bomber needs to carry engine, fuel, computer, guidance, crew, large wings, oxygen, food, water, ejector seats, redundancy systems (unless you have crew who dont mind flying in something that goes down in one hit) and pressure control systems.

2) You don't need to reuse an ICBM. Once you've dropped a bomb, your country will have been nuked too. Even if there is something left of your civilisation, any runway large enough to land this will most likely have been destroyed anyway. Add to this the fact that a Mach 20 anything will create HUGE amounts of heat, and that heat has to go somewhere. If it radiates into space, you're detected in seconds. If it is (somehow) retained, your plane will melt.

The SCRAMjet version is, therefore, fairly useless. The turbojet version looks useful as a conventional heavy bomber, but why spend the extra money for the useless sub-orbital capability?

I like my W5 Trailblazer better. 300 troops anywhere in the world in a maximum of 20 minutes. Uses hypersoar technology.

I need to update it though. It goes so fast someone might think its a missiles. And shoot it down with their antiICBM stuff.

I like my W5 Trailblazer better. 300 troops anywhere in the world in a maximum of 20 minutes. Uses hypersoar technology.
That's a completely different plane. This is a bomber, you have a transport. That's like saying a submarine design is better than cruiser design... they're just different types.

OOC: Shildonia, the X-34 was never test launched. In fact, the extent of its testing was limited to gliding and landing, if im not mistaken, until NASA shut the program down a couple years ago (I forget the exact reason behind it).

That was my point. It never flew, therefore using it to prove the validity of this system is somewhat pointless. There's never been a SSTO, much less a reusable one.

The reason the X 34 was shut down was not that it didn't work, but because it costed more than what even the US could afford.
The X 33 on the other hand was the one that failed most of its tests.
I am talking prototype testing.

1) All else being equal, an ICBM will always require much less fuel than a bomber (note that the plane you cite is a fairly recent project, which was cancelled due to lack of funds - US ICBMs were designed in the 70s and built in large numbers). This is simply because an ICBM needs to carry an engine, fuel, warhead, computer and guidance. A bomber needs to carry engine, fuel, computer, guidance, crew, large wings, oxygen, food, water, ejector seats, redundancy systems (unless you have crew who dont mind flying in something that goes down in one hit) and pressure control systems.

Seeing the measurements Credonia mentioned in his first post, I don't think this thing needs to carry crew, oxygen, food, water, ejector seats, redundancy systems and pressure control systems, simply because it is a drone, not a manned plane. Think, reusable missile with independent warheads, Pluto-Style (http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html). Less shiny, though, due to the sad lack of a nuclear reactor (Which EVERY vehicle needs, as far as I am concerned. Gotta love the radioactive hellhole that is my nation).

I like my W5 Trailblazer better. 300 troops anywhere in the world in a maximum of 20 minutes. Uses hypersoar technology.Of course you're the aerospace engineering genius that takes care of all the various problems in such a project, and I'm sure NASA or the USA have already knocked on your doors, craving your advice.

I mean, I'm sure that you did all the math, and materials engineering, and god-knows-what involved in developing something like that (While ignoring limitations like, say, the need of suitable airfields, upkeep costs and the likes), for you surely didn't just read a few rather vague and semi-serious popular science/ technology articles, followed by pulling stuff out of your ass. I mean, nobody would ever do that and then have the ludicrously oversized ego needed to claim that some imaginary, made-up piece of equipment used in a role-playing game was actually superior to the made-up pieces of equipment others use.

After all, such would be a pretty laughable and indeed even ludicrous attempt at sounding big in a game that requires mutual consent and respect, and surely nobody would be stupid enough to do that, no?

Seeing the measurements Credonia mentioned in his first post, I don't think this thing needs to carry crew, oxygen, food, water, ejector seats, redundancy systems and pressure control systems, simply because it is a drone, not a manned plane. Think, reusable missile with independent warheads, Pluto-Style (http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html). Less shiny, though, due to the sad lack of a nuclear reactor (Which EVERY vehicle needs, as far as I am concerned. Gotta love the radioactive hellhole that is my nation).
Oh now excellent! Now it can be knocked out of the air by a comms jammer =).

Seeing the measurements Credonia mentioned in his first post, I don't think this thing needs to carry crew, oxygen, food, water, ejector seats, redundancy systems and pressure control systems, simply because it is a drone, not a manned plane. Think, reusable missile with independent warheads, Pluto-Style (http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html). Less shiny, though, due to the sad lack of a nuclear reactor (Which EVERY vehicle needs, as far as I am concerned. Gotta love the radioactive hellhole that is my nation).

Of course you're the aerospace engineering genius that takes care of all the various problems in such a project, and I'm sure NASA or the USA have already knocked on your doors, craving your advice.

I mean, I'm sure that you did all the math, and materials engineering, and god-knows-what involved in developing something like that (While ignoring limitations like, say, the need of suitable airfields, upkeep costs and the likes), for you surely didn't just read a few rather vague and semi-serious popular science/ technology articles, followed by pulling stuff out of your ass. I mean, nobody would ever do that and then have the ludicrously oversized ego needed to claim that some imaginary, made-up piece of equipment used in a role-playing game was actually superior to the made-up pieces of equipment others use.

After all, such would be a pretty laughable and indeed even ludicrous attempt at sounding big in a game that requires mutual consent and respect, and surely nobody would be stupid enough to do that, no?

Well, actually I did it get off the NASA site. How'd you know? Course when one says they're stuff is better than someone else's its a matter of opinion. But of course you wouldn't know that since you are against people having freedom to express their opinions.

Oh now excellent! Now it can be knocked out of the air by a comms jammer =).Naw. Sufficient preprogrammed routines should allow it to operate without further control from the ground. And since all this thing is supposed to do is to deliver bombs onto a fixed target... Easy enough to do.

Naw. Sufficient preprogrammed routines should allow it to operate without further control from the ground. And since all this thing is supposed to do is to deliver bombs onto a fixed target... Easy enough to do.
[OOC: Well considering the massive casualties sustained by RL SUVs used for standard flight reconnaisance I would say you are overestimating a little bit. Maybe in an FT setting it could work. And nuclear reactors in planes? Again, FT.]

Fifties Tech (http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html), you mean, surely? Just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it is impossible.

And please note that the drone in question (Credonia's) is supersonic, and, as I'm sure you will realise, intercepting a supersonic plane with some mild AI-programming (Say, what you can find in friggin Flightsimulator Games, upscaled a little by way of somewhat more excessive military budgets instead of annoyingly poor game programming budgets) is a little harder than intercepting a poor subsonic SUV.

And while I'm at it, I am interpreting Credonia's previous posts as this thing being decidedly postmodern.

Which reminds me. What exactly is your point when you say 'Again, Futuretech.'? I this is FT, well... Where's your problem? I have yet to see a single MT claim in this thread.

PS: The nuclear reactor in a plane thing would be, uh... Not Credonia's (And this thread is, after all, about his stuff). It would be above link (Again, fifties. I dunno... You're playing 1000 B.C. for the fifties to be FT?)), it would be mine (Or Eurusea's. I believe they have nuclear planes, too). And I am decidedly SciFi (Not FT. SciFi. Nobody is FT, as nobody knows what FT will be like. Could be an apocalyptic future, with FT being neolithic technologies + stuff salvaged from broken, fuelless cars).

[OOC: What you linked to was basically some kind of space ship, not a plane. Nations right now have trouble designing nuclear reactors to get into ships, putting reactors is planes is somewhat stupid and wasteful to say the least, if it is actually possible (if it hasn't been built or tested or even been fully designed I don't see that as conclusive proof).

This isn't future tech. Credonia is a modern tech nation, so 2020s at most. And when I say casualties sustained by SUVs, I don't mean from enemy fire, I mean they crashed into things. I should also note that flight sims, despite their pretty graphics, aren't actually real, do not simulate RL weather systems and (since the environment is built into the same program as the plane) does not simulate at all how a plane guidance system would work beyond the asthaetic.

Oh, and take your semantics elsewhere. I don't actually give a damn if you want to deliberately pretend not to understand what I mean by "FT" when it is clearly obvious. Now, since Credonia seems to have left this thread, I shall take my leave.]

What you linked to was basically some kind of space ship, not a plane.Uh... A Mach 3 Dronebomber flying below an altitude of 1000 metres is a spaceship for you?

... I'm speechless.

This isn't future tech. Credonia is a modern tech nation, so 2020s at most.Ummm... Modern means modern, as in now. 2020 will be modern in 2020, but not a day earlier. And aside from Credonia being free to change this (Really, zero advancements over the course of IC years sound odd, to me). Besides... If you're accepting 2020 as modern tech... *Peers at IT developments over the past 15 years* You shouldn't have the slightest problem accepting dogfighting dronefighters beating human pilots in 100 of 100 cases.

Uhuh, whatever. I really dont have the energy or the will to argue with you. I dont see you on these forums very much at all, which probably accounts for your having a different and somewhat pedantic interpretation of certain terms (especially when our views of them dont agree). I should also point out that the SUVs we have IRL aren't even internally guided, they're remotely guided. Now, if you want to RP in a world where in 15 years we'll have nuclear everything and robots the fight wars for us (maybe cold fusion too while we're at it?), then you go and have fun but *looks back on the past 15 years* somehow I doubt it.

Now that I've cleared that up, I really am leaving this thread (there's no point in arguing with me anymore).

cold fusion IS theoretically, at least, possible.. just improbable. as far as robots and nuclear planes and the like.. not very feasable, nor necessary. a nuclear reactor in an airplane is a bit....superfluous. unless you are talking a great hulking machine that stays ouside the atmosphere and travels through space. but that is technology far beyond "modern" and i know this has nothing to do with the topic, but when i read this for the first time last night, drunk, all i could picture in my head when i read the phrase "subsonic (or was it supersonic?) SUVs" was a Chevy Tahoe hurtling through the air.... anyways, as has been stated quite a few times now, this craft is only a first stage prototype. with a little work, and a few more added braincells, this has the possibility of becoming something quite good. i for example have considered something similar, though on a different scale as a cargo craft, that can deliver anywhere on or off the planet ( within certain limitations, of course ) but, you don't have to listen to me, i'm just a noob who doesn't know much....yet

cold fusion IS theoretically, at least, possible.. just improbable. as far as robots and nuclear planes and the like.. not very feasable, nor necessary. a nuclear reactor in an airplane is a bit....superfluous. unless you are talking a great hulking machine that stays ouside the atmosphere and travels through space. but that is technology far beyond "modern" and i know this has nothing to do with the topic, but when i read this for the first time last night, drunk, all i could picture in my head when i read the phrase "subsonic (or was it supersonic?) SUVs" was a Chevy Tahoe hurtling through the air.... anyways, as has been stated quite a few times now, this craft is only a first stage prototype. with a little work, and a few more added braincells, this has the possibility of becoming something quite good. i for example have considered something similar, though on a different scale as a cargo craft, that can deliver anywhere on or off the planet ( within certain limitations, of course ) but, you don't have to listen to me, i'm just a noob who doesn't know much....yet

Cold fusion is not possible, and it is entirely likely that the first people to claim they achieved it have created a hoax. It has never been reproduced in laboratory conditions.

Cold fusion is not possible, and it is entirely likely that the first people to claim they achieved it have created a hoax. It has never been reproduced in laboratory conditions.
[OOC: Just going to agree with this quickly, because it bugs me. 'Hot' fusion is possible, and happens in the sun. It has also been reproduced in experiments... just not for very long. 'Cold Fusion' has no real evidence to back it up, and has never been achieved in a reproducable experiment. Therefore I view hot fusion as PMT (as the problem is practical, not theoretical) whereas cold fusion is FT (as the problem is theoretical aswel, not just practical).]

YAY! I'm having the last word ^_^
I dont see you on these forums very much at all, which probably accounts for your having a different and somewhat pedantic interpretation of certain terms (especially when our views of them dont agree).*Peers at his postcount* Well... If you say so...

I should also point out that the SUVs we have IRL aren't even internally guided, they're remotely guided.Well, I think I might have to concede this particular part.

At least partially.

Now, if you want to RP in a world where in 15 years we'll have nuclear everything and robots the fight wars for us Uh-Oh... Little problem. This is about Credonia's thing. What you mentioned is what I am doing, and I sure as hell don't claim that the stuff I have is possible within the next fifteen years.

Some bits I guess will be. Others wont, and again others are so blatantly physics-raping that they're far out of the field for the next few billion years.

But then again, I suppose that you should try to argue Credonias postmodernity, not my freely admitted wankiness, no?