NationStates Jolt Archive

DMG Military Industries is looking to design a new high speed bomber and needs a partner to help finance and design it.

What are the planned specs? And will it be MT, PMT, or FT?

Nebarri Prime will help finance and design it

Sky Capt:
It will be MT

Bradyistan will help by financing and supplying test pilots when the aircraft reaches prototype stages.

Ooc: Ok.

Bradyistan:
Thank You

SkyCapt:
So far the basic specs are
Maximum Speed: Mach 2-3
Cruising Speed: Mach 1.6
Range: Intercontinental (Long Range)
Payload: 80,000+ lbs either Nuclear, Conventional, or Precisions
Stealth: Undecided

let me know what you think of these basic specs...

what about cieling(sp?)

undecided as of now... prolly around 60,000 ft

[OOC: You're not going to get a bomber with a payload of 80,000 lbs to fly at Mach 2 or 3, without some sort of SCRAMjet engine, which of course presents it's own problems - for one, SCRAMjet doesn't work in the lower atmosphere because the air is too thick. It is to say, they haven't gotten a SCRAMjet aircraft to either take off, or to land. Consequently, you're going to have to reduce your payload, or you're going to have to reduce your speed. Regardless, speed is really a necessity, as much as payload is - well, that's in my own tactical doctrine. Ok, I'll go away now.]

255070625 wishes to supply watever accomodations your scientists will need as well as a location for the development of this aircraft.

[OOC: You're not going to get a bomber with a payload of 80,000 lbs to fly at Mach 2 or 3, without some sort of SCRAMjet engine, which of course presents it's own problems - for one, SCRAMjet doesn't work in the lower atmosphere because the air is too thick. It is to say, they haven't gotten a SCRAMjet aircraft to either take off, or to land. Consequently, you're going to have to reduce your payload, or you're going to have to reduce your speed. Regardless, speed is really a necessity, as much as payload is - well, that's in my own tactical doctrine. Ok, I'll go away now.]

Not exactly. He can get a Mach 3 with that. He just needs powerful enough engines. Most bombers in NS can produce over 80,000 lbs of thrust per engine. He can use weaker engines rated at 60,000 lbs of thrust per engine and still get the job done.

Also don't use SCRAMjet. Those things are horrible unless your trying to go hypersonic. They are a real gas guzzlers. They consumer more than they are worth.

Thank you for the input Space Union - and if you have any more, it would be greatly appreciated.

OOC: here is a pic i once use for a Bomber like craft

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/sonic_cruiser/sonic_cruiser_04.jpg

Not exactly. He can get a Mach 3 with that. He just needs powerful enough engines. Most bombers in NS can produce over 80,000 lbs of thrust per engine. He can use weaker engines rated at 60,000 lbs of thrust per engine and still get the job done.

Also don't use SCRAMjet. Those things are horrible unless your trying to go hypersonic. They are a real gas guzzlers. They consumer more than they are worth.


[OOC: Well, most bombers in NS have turbofans that produce over 80,000 lbs of thrust because most designers don't understand squat about engines, and especially about turboprops or turbojets or turbofans.

In fact, if you're turboprop is producing around 80,000 lbs of thrust you're chewing more gas than a SCRAMjet engine would, which contrary to what you think, aren't that bad when consuming on board gasoline - especially since they carry at least twice the load of a normal engine. Regardless, you don't want to use a SCRAMjet engine on an aircraft anyways.

Most modern engineers are focusing away from producing more thrust, because more thrust needs more fuel, and the engine would weight two times as much, increasing drag. So, it's the common, the larger, not better. Right now they're focusing on fuel conservation systems, including chaning the turbofan's blade system, which has come out with the turboprop experimentation. ]

I like the pic... although it sort of looks like an airliner because of the little windows... but it will do.

[OOC: You're not going to get a bomber with a payload of 80,000 lbs to fly at Mach 2 or 3, without some sort of SCRAMjet engine, which of course presents it's own problems - for one, SCRAMjet doesn't work in the lower atmosphere because the air is too thick. It is to say, they haven't gotten a SCRAMjet aircraft to either take off, or to land. Consequently, you're going to have to reduce your payload, or you're going to have to reduce your speed. Regardless, speed is really a necessity, as much as payload is - well, that's in my own tactical doctrine. Ok, I'll go away now.]

Im not a expert on jets and stuff but couldnt you fit the bombar with a SCRAMjet engine and a small engine for taking off and manuvering in low altitudes?

Im not a expert on jets and stuff but couldnt you fit the bombar with a SCRAMjet engine and a small engine for taking off and manuvering in low altitudes?

That is an answer, but that requires two engines with seperate mechanics. You would probably use a single, large, engine on the tail of the bomber, or just under, to accelerate the aircraft so that it can take off and rise in altitude to the required height for a SCRAMjet engine to work.

However, that just subtracts from the idea of SCRAMjet, because you would still need an oxygen chamber for the main engine, and you would still need a seperate fuel supply for that, and that, indeed, would be gas guzzler.

The only bomber I have with a SCRAMjet engine is my Naram Sin, and that's designed to be refueld by air, and it does eat gas like an SUV (metaphor, it actually sucks more).

So, in short, it wouldn't be cost effective.

Here is a design I used. I dug around in the old files and found this Bomber that never was put into service. It could be an airframe you could work from.


B-70B Valkyrie II (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=438054)

Let me know if you need some prototypes for testing.


-Hawdawg

OOC: :eek: i forgot about the XB-70! it would make a very good craft though we would need better engines for the 80K bomb load

I have examined the bomber and it is decent, however it has a much smaller payload then necessary.

I will take 1 bomber to test - thank you

Actually, it is indeed possible for a Mach 2+ bomber to have more than 80,000lbs in its payload, just depending on its design. The B-1B for example, could haul much more than that if it's not for the arms reduction treaties (which prohibited external carriage of weapons), and it's speed reduction is primarily the result of efforts to reduce its RCS. It is indeed possible to have engines of very high thrust, but depends on what aircraft it is on. Larger engines, as said, eats up a lot of fuel, and takes up a lot of space, which will make carriage on smaller aircraft impossible. On larger aircraft, this problem is reduced, and large-thrust engines are indeed possible.

[OOC: Of what I've studies of thurst in physics, is that for the aircraft to successfully take off it would need more thrust than weight, in a healthy proportion. However, the engines required to give a thrust of 80,000lbs, would mean that the aircraft would have to be lower it's 80,000 lb weapon weight expectation, and the fact that the engines giving that thrust themselves weight tons a piece doesn't exactly help.

The largest turbofans I know of produce somewhere around 43,000 lbf. I for one, even if it was possible, wouldn't suggest putting engines with 80,000 lbs of thrust. It just doesn't seem cost effective, or really smart, to me.]

I still need a partner to design and help finance the bomber....

I still need a partner to design and help finance the bomber....

Nebarri Prime will help design the bomber and donates 1 trillion (from Government waist) to the project

any money left over will go back to Nebarri Prime

OOC: by Design you mean what? i don't know what i will have to do...

We offer you access to an Imperial miltary labortary as well as an test site for the planes. Also we wish to give you our patented new released for this fighter TGK-180 missle.

TGK-180 Capablities:
1. Able to reach Mach 4.
2. Can travel up to 16 miles.
3. 120 pound high explosive uranium enriched warhead.
4. It is heat seeking as well.

To: Nebarri Prime

By design I mean all of the specs and making sure they work.
Thank you for the financing.

To: The Scandinvans
Thank you for your missile and labratory

<bump>

[OOC: Of what I've studies of thurst in physics, is that for the aircraft to successfully take off it would need more thrust than weight, in a healthy proportion. However, the engines required to give a thrust of 80,000lbs, would mean that the aircraft would have to be lower it's 80,000 lb weapon weight expectation, and the fact that the engines giving that thrust themselves weight tons a piece doesn't exactly help.

The largest turbofans I know of produce somewhere around 43,000 lbf. I for one, even if it was possible, wouldn't suggest putting engines with 80,000 lbs of thrust. It just doesn't seem cost effective, or really smart, to me.]

Well if you mean that the thrust has to be more than the weight to take off then I have to say your wrong. Yes there has to be a minimum thrust:weight ratio, but if we look at the SR-71, it's thrust/weight ratio is 0.382:1.

Also it is possible to make over 80,000 lbs. Of course you can't use a turbofan, but the use of PDE could do that and not be a gas guzzler because it theoratically has an efficiency of 50%, more than any other engine including turbofans.

OOC: I wouldn't be surprised if some military designers are cruising the forums for new ideas. We certainly are full of them.

OOC: Macabee, the GE-1 0something or other can produce 115,000 lbs of thrust and then some! It is probably gas guzzling, but it can do it...

Space Union:

Here's the lesson on thrust from Wikipedia; or at least the essential part for this discussion:


An aircraft generates forward thrust when the spinning propellers blow air, or eject expanding gases from a jet engine to the back of the aircraft. The forward thrust is proportional to the (mass of the air) multiplied by (average velocity of the airstream).

Similarly, a ship generates forward thrust (or reverse thrust) when the propellers are turned to accelerate water backwards (or forwards). The resulting thrust pushes the ship in the equal and opposite direction to the sum of the momentum change in the water flowing through the propeller.

A rocket (and all mass attached to it) is propelled forward by a thrust force equal to, and opposite of, the time-rate of momentum change experienced by the exhaust mass accelerating out from the combustion chamber through the rocket nozzle. This is the exhaust velocity with respect to the rocket, times the time-rate at which the mass is expelled. Of course, for a launch the thrust at lift-off should be more than the weight, and with a fair margin, because a "slow launch" would be very inefficient.


Illior:

Unfortunately, that engnes was created for a civilian aircraft, and it's being tested currently on the Boeing 747. The take off weight of a Boeing 747 is much lighter than a bomber designed to be about 1 and 1/2 the size of it, with an additional 80,000 lbs of weight worth of munitions, at two times the expected altitude of the 747, with more weight coming from the crew and all expected electronics.

If you were to use this engine I wouldn't expect it to cover more than the range from Lisbon to Warsaw without a substantial fuel supply, which would make it weigh even more.

So, for the case of NationStates, where distances exceed the distance from New York to Beijing, over Europe, I don't think this bomber would be extremely beneficial, especially since it wouldn't be able to take off from an aircraft carrier. Of course, for short range, heavy duty, bombings, I guess this bomber would be perfect.

Space Union:

Here's the lesson on thrust from Wikipedia; or at least the essential part for this discussion:


An aircraft generates forward thrust when the spinning propellers blow air, or eject expanding gases from a jet engine to the back of the aircraft. The forward thrust is proportional to the (mass of the air) multiplied by (average velocity of the airstream).

Similarly, a ship generates forward thrust (or reverse thrust) when the propellers are turned to accelerate water backwards (or forwards). The resulting thrust pushes the ship in the equal and opposite direction to the sum of the momentum change in the water flowing through the propeller.

A rocket (and all mass attached to it) is propelled forward by a thrust force equal to, and opposite of, the time-rate of momentum change experienced by the exhaust mass accelerating out from the combustion chamber through the rocket nozzle. This is the exhaust velocity with respect to the rocket, times the time-rate at which the mass is expelled. Of course, for a launch the thrust at lift-off should be more than the weight, and with a fair margin, because a "slow launch" would be very inefficient.


Illior:

Unfortunately, that engnes was created for a civilian aircraft, and it's being tested currently on the Boeing 747. The take off weight of a Boeing 747 is much lighter than a bomber designed to be about 1 and 1/2 the size of it, with an additional 80,000 lbs of weight worth of munitions, at two times the expected altitude of the 747, with more weight coming from the crew and all expected electronics.

If you were to use this engine I wouldn't expect it to cover more than the range from Lisbon to Warsaw without a substantial fuel supply, which would make it weigh even more.

So, for the case of NationStates, where distances exceed the distance from New York to Beijing, over Europe, I don't think this bomber would be extremely beneficial, especially since it wouldn't be able to take off from an aircraft carrier. Of course, for short range, heavy duty, bombings, I guess this bomber would be perfect.

The key word is efficient. Yes I never said that an aircraft with a thrust lower than it's weight would be efficient. I'm just saying that it can take-off. Look at the SR-71, from my experience it was able to take-off and then break Mach 3.

Fuel capacity isn't that big of a deal anymore. With NS, air forces have a huge complement of oil tankers that will refuel the aircraft and double it's range. It's not a problem anymore.

Okay lets consider this debate closed and instead tell me which engines to use, how much thrust they would create, what speed it could reach, and the fuel use...

Thanks

Macabee, true, very true, but I was just pointing that out, and of course, you are right. It is a commercial aircraft engine.

bump

One more thing, sorry DMG, but I have to refute the claim that PDE engines are a good choice for a bomber.

The single largest problem with the PDE engine is that the PDE, currently, has not found a way to start a detonation early without making the energy imput practical for an engine.

Practically, they would look for a Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition (DDT), however, they can't find a tube long enough that makes it practical and less drag imposing on an aircraft.

Consequently, using a PDE on this aircraft is going to increase drag, and decrease effeciency.

-------------

What I would use to make this baby fly is a propfan type system, also known as an ultra-high bypass engine. It's designed to offer the power of a turbufan, but with extreme fuel efficiency, and is what I'm using in my current bomber project.

However, be careful, props have the problem of encountering increased drag at higher velocities, but you can subsidize that by adding more blades to the prop.

Crew: 4 (Pilot, Co-Pilot, Weapons Officer, Navigation Officer)
Engines: 6 GE-138 max thrust per engine 41,300 lbs.
Length: 172 feet 2 inches
Height: 35 feet 3 inches
Wingspan: 178 feet
Wing Area: 731 sq. ft.
Unloaded Weight: 210,685 lbs.
Loaded Weight: 330,835 lbs.
Maximum Loaded Weight: 570,900 lbs.
Maximum Speed: Mach 2.7
Cruising Speed: Mach 1.8
Range: 4324 miles
Bomb Load: 80,000 lbs.
Radar Cross Section: ???
Armament: Nuclear, Conventional, or Precision
Ceiling: 64,800 feet
Cost: ???
Cost of Development: ???

These are the basic specs so far... as i know many of them will probably be up for debate, feel free to give advice. Also where the ??? are please give your ideas on what they would be...

<bump>

<bump>

So what exactly does the air frame look like?


If weve decided that Bradyistani AirFrames Inc. can start making prototypes and send them to the nations testing

One more thing, sorry DMG, but I have to refute the claim that PDE engines are a good choice for a bomber.

The single largest problem with the PDE engine is that the PDE, currently, has not found a way to start a detonation early without making the energy imput practical for an engine.

Practically, they would look for a Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition (DDT), however, they can't find a tube long enough that makes it practical and less drag imposing on an aircraft.

Consequently, using a PDE on this aircraft is going to increase drag, and decrease effeciency.

-------------

What I would use to make this baby fly is a propfan type system, also known as an ultra-high bypass engine. It's designed to offer the power of a turbufan, but with extreme fuel efficiency, and is what I'm using in my current bomber project.

However, be careful, props have the problem of encountering increased drag at higher velocities, but you can subsidize that by adding more blades to the prop.

Quite a few aircrafts use PDE in NS. Soviet Bloc, Omz222, and I (Mish-11 and F-76) use PDE on some of our aircrafts.

I wouldn't say it is impratical to use them. Considering the NS technology is a decade ahead of real-world technology, I think PDE is very workable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did some research on that, and it won't fit his objective. From what I see a propfan is just a turbofan with propeller and fan combined that isn't ducted inside the engine.

They are relatively nosy compared to other aircrafts and they suffer the same issues as propeller aircrafts do (though cut by sweeping of the propeller similar to sweeping of the wings) as they have a speed limit and can't break the sound barrier.

Also adding propellers might solve the issue but it also brings others. Adding propellers causes the engine to use up more power at a lower rotational speed. Not only that but that adding blades makes the propeller harder to balance and maintain. And another problem is that at some point through the forward speed of the plane combined with the rotational speed of the propeller will once again result in wave drag problems. (The last point could be solved with sweeping of the propeller so don't worry about that).

Well then he's stuck with a normal turbofan, becuase I would consider PDEs post-modern technology, unless someone can explain to me how they jumped ten years and solved the problem of the PDE - I don't care if the PDE will be solved within ten years in the real world, but I need to know how, or simply, it doesn't work.

Technically, a 100% effective fusion reactor is due to work in the future - well, we can say that because we jump ahead, I can use fusion reactors on my tanks, because perhaps, due to so technological miracle, they'll work.

Consequently, PDEs fall under PMT, where it can't really be explained, and thus, it isn't a modern tech weapon.

Well then he's stuck with a normal turbofan, becuase I would consider PDEs post-modern technology, unless someone can explain to me how they jumped ten years and solved the problem of the PDE - I don't care if the PDE will be solved within ten years in the real world, but I need to know how, or simply, it doesn't work.

Technically, a 100% effective fusion reactor is due to work in the future - well, we can say that because we jump ahead, I can use fusion reactors on my tanks, because perhaps, due to so technological miracle, they'll work.

Consequently, PDEs fall under PMT, where it can't really be explained, and thus, it isn't a modern tech weapon.

Well considering that the there are problems with railgun and ETC technology that don't allow for them to be used on tanks yet, then you must not accept them either. I'm just saying that we won't be seeing some of the technologies currently employed, for 5 to 10 years. Who knows they might figure out how to fix it tomorrow.

I'll work with you and since I can do CAD, you can design your own - here is a very rough idea of what I can do. See also the thread for my Stryker aircraft and the rebel bomber in the Earth V international incident thread, etc.

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/778/new69gr.jpg

Well considering that the there are problems with railgun and ETC technology that don't allow for them to be used on tanks yet, then you must not accept them either. I'm just saying that we won't be seeing some of the technologies currently employed, for 5 to 10 years. Who knows they might figure out how to fix it tomorrow.


Exactly, rail guns are considered extreme post-modern tech; that's why my navy no longer employs them. ETC guns do not have the same visible problems that a rail gun or a PDE engine has, so it's a different case.

Guy just look at the specs and tell me what to change... (MT doesn't necessarily mean technology in use this is exact second, it means around this time period. Otherwise we couldn't invent anything new or better than exists...)

Here is the image I have right now... (decal is just to show it is mine as of now)

DMG Bomber (http://community.webshots.com/myphotos?action=showPhoto&albumID=437235242&photoID=437235681&security=FAbQeJ)

you are going to have to login to see it....

Here is the image I have right now... (decal is just to show it is mine as of now)

DMG Bomber (http://community.webshots.com/myphotos?action=showPhoto&albumID=437235242&photoID=437235681&security=FAbQeJ)

You should use photobucket.com. It's free.

The Macabees:

An ETC gun has also problems that don't allow it to be used on Real-life MBTs. It is heavier and can only be used a couple of times before wearing out. Not only that but they require a huge power supply that can't be delivered today by any powerplant that could fit inside of a real-life MBT. In NS we obviously have overcome these problems.

Might I suggest the GE-136 line of engines for your bomber. It generates a max dry thrust of 39,000 lbs. and is all the rage at GE right now. It powers the new JSF and my buddy at GE is real high on this poweplant. He says the fuel economy/power of this engine is perfect for mating with high speed airframes.


My two cents.

-Hawdawg

Might I suggest the GE-136 line of engines for your bomber. It generates a max dry thrust of 39,000 lbs. and is all the rage at GE right now. It powers the new JSF and my buddy at GE is real high on this poweplant. He says the fuel economy/power of this engine is perfect for mating with high speed airframes.


My two cents.

-Hawdawg

That's not going to cut it for a heavy bomber like he's talking about. That is fine for a fighter aircraft but it won't work for a big aircrafts.

Might I suggest the GE-136 line of engines for your bomber. It generates a max dry thrust of 39,000 lbs. and is all the rage at GE right now. It powers the new JSF and my buddy at GE is real high on this poweplant. He says the fuel economy/power of this engine is perfect for mating with high speed airframes.


My two cents.

-Hawdawg

No, for a big, heavy bomber like is contemplated, something like GE's engine for the Boeing 777 aircraft with 127,000 lbs. of thrust is what is needed.
Here's a bomber I designed:
NNN:
Following on the heals of the succesful Swamper Aircraft, Norleans released photos and specs on their new high speed, high altitude, strategic bomber. Dubbed the Rebel. Specs and photos are below.
Primary Function: Long-range, multi-role, heavy bomber
Builder: Norleans Air, Inc.
Power Plant: Two Rolls Royce B777-RR-105 ramjet engines with afterburners
Thrust: 110,500+ pounds with afterburner, per engine
Length: 154 feet
Wingspan: 151 feet extended forward, 90 feet swept aft
Height: 38 feet
Weight: Empty, approximately 240,000 pounds
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 498,000 pounds
Max Speed: Mach 2.3 (at 20,000 feet, unladen, with afterburners)
Optimal Operations: 65,000 feet at Mach 1.2
Range: 8,500 miles (unlimited with mid-air refuels)
Ceiling: 79,000 feet
Crew: 4
Payload: 75,000 lbs
Systems:
1. LIDAR Doppler Pulse Radar
2. Radar Jamming systems
3. Flares (heat seaking missiles) and metalic chaff (radar guided missiles)
4. Six 30 mm Vulcan cannons (2 rear mount)
5. GPS targeting and locational systems
6. Infra-red display capability
7. Two under wing hardpoints (rotational with 8 missiles each) in conjunction with dual (front and real) fuselage munitions/bomb bays
8. Computer augmented defensive targeting and firing capabilities
Stealth Capable: No
Carrier Capability: None
Construction: Honeycombed, titanium reinforced aluminum alloy
Cost: $223 Million/each

Top View
http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/4073/rebelbomber10ho.jpg

Side view
http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/1928/rebelbombersideview8rx.jpg

Undercarriage view
http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/8765/rebelbomberundercarriage8rr.jpg

That's not going to cut it for a heavy bomber like he's talking about. That is fine for a fighter aircraft but it won't work for a big aircrafts.

I have six of these units on the B-70B Valkyrie II and they perform very well. I was assuming he was planning on using more than two engines on this plane. If he wants to use two engines then most certainly he will have to look at the behemoth 777 or Airbus engines that GE designed.

-Hawdawg

If you read the spec on the page 4, I am using 6 GE-138 which give 41,300 lbs of thrust each. (GE-138 is the next generation after GE-136, especially developed for this bomber)

Bomber Picture (http://photobucket.com/albums/b360/DMG2005/?action=view&current=DMGBomber.jpg)

If you read the spec on the page 4, I am using 6 GE-138 which give 41,300 lbs of thrust each. (GE-138 is the next generation after GE-136, especially developed for this bomber)

Bomber Picture (http://photobucket.com/albums/b360/DMG2005/?action=view&current=DMGBomber.jpg)

I'm not sure how your going to get range with that. Considering that your bomber has to be heavier than 192,000 lbs just empty and then you have to add all the fuel and then you have to add the 80,000 lbs of armenant, you'll find that just 6 might not do the job and get a decent range. Instead Why don't you use something that is in the 60,000 lbs per thrust class. That will do it. Also since your payload is near the B-1B (internal 75,000 lbs not including 59,000 lbs on hardpoint), you should just scale up the B-1B in terms of weight and thrust.

Mauiwowee


If DMG decides to not use the airframe you made in CAD, I would love to buy it from you to design a medium to long range bomber

TG me about it or something

Mauiwowee


If DMG decides to not use the airframe you made in CAD, I would love to buy it from you to design a medium to long range bomber

TG me about it or something

I sent you a TG

I'm not sure how your going to get range with that. Considering that your bomber has to be heavier than 192,000 lbs just empty and then you have to add all the fuel and then you have to add the 80,000 lbs of armenant, you'll find that just 6 might not do the job and get a decent range. Instead Why don't you use something that is in the 60,000 lbs per thrust class. That will do it. Also since your payload is near the B-1B (internal 75,000 lbs not including 59,000 lbs on hardpoint), you should just scale up the B-1B in terms of weight and thrust.

What engines do you suggest then...?

OOC: :eek: i forgot about the XB-70! it would make a very good craft though we would need better engines for the 80K bomb load

[Um, the engines on the B-70 were already ridiculously powerful; you're talking plants that would have used boron-based high-energy fuels instead of hydrocarbons had the program been carried through to completion. In fact, it was utterly dependant on that program and could not have met it's range goals without them. The XB-70 would not make a very good craft; while it was certainly pretty, it's a big, unstealthy monster that's easy to intercept with 1960s technology, used too much cutting-edge technology for it's own good [Thomas S. Gates, Secretary of Defense during the last 2 years of the Eisenhower Administration, said explicitly that the B-70 program was hampered from the start by technical problems stemming from the "use of metal and components . . . still in the research stage."] and used fuel that would have been horrendously and probably unafforably expensive. The development of the ICBM and the surface-to-air missile were the end of the ultrafast aircraft projects, and rightly so.]

OOC: I know that is was unstealthy and that 1960 SAMs could take it out and i know it was expensive. i guess i didn't go into much detail on what i ment. would you like me to tell you, or would you like me to just shut up and save server space?

To: All nations involved
From: Mar'Ki Ticron
CEO of DMG Military Industries
Subject: Top secret

Thank you all for your help on the new supersonic heavy bomber. We have completed it and all of the kinks have been worked out.

Also thank you for the funding required to finish this aircraft.

So are you going to post the stats so nations funding the aircraft know what theyre producing?

I already did on page 3, also they are on DMG Military Industries (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=440478) and the new bomber thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9546417#post9546417)