NationStates Jolt Archive

B-80 "Wraith"
Airframe and Engines produced by WMD Inc of Mauiwowee


Type: Super-Sonic steath heavy bomber

Crew: 5, pilot, co-pilot, navigator, bombider, flight engineer

Models:
-Block 10 (Older weapons systems, can only drop unguided conventional and nucular weapons, mainly used as a trainer)
--Block 20 (Newest and greatest systems, compatible with any weapon in the Bradyistani Arsenal)

Engines:
-4 W.M.D., Inc. LRB -8010SC engines producing 42,500 lbs. of thrust each

Performance:
-Max Speed: Mach 1.2
--Climb Rate: 16,545ft/m
---Service Ceiling: Approx. 60000ft
---- Weight at empty: 280,500lbs
-----Max Takeoff: 490,500lbs
------AAR capible: Yes, all versions
-------Carrier Capible: No

Demensions:
-Length: 149 ft
--Height: 17 ft
---Wingspan: 140 ft

Arms:
-Roughly 40 to 50 thousand pounds of muitions stored in Internal weapon bays under the wings
--Nuclear, Conventional, and Precision weapons capible

Systems:
AN/APR-50
AN/AAB-1
AN/AAQ-7
AN/AAR-56
AN/AAT-2 (block 20 only)
AN/APX-108
AN/ARN-151
AN/ASB-9

Systems range from IFF units, Bombing equipment, navigation equipment, radios, missle warning and tracking units, and gudiance equipment.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/Aces21/ghoststealthbomber5ex.jpg


Price of B-80 Block 10: 505 million Per Unit

Price of B-80 Block 20: 605 million Per Unit

comments anybody? does it look good or bad? Feedback would be appricated

OOC: I'm not that known with aircraft, but I don't see anything wrong with it. but your Link to the pic's broken.
EDIT: now i compare it to the B-2 and B-1, your Engine thrust seems a bit on the high side.

OOC:
Bradyistan - good job! You fitted the plane out well. If you'd like some more views of the plane or a colored version, TG me with your e-mail address and info. on what you want and I'll e-mail you some additional pictures. Your price for the plane is a bit on the high side though. The U.S. only paid $20 Billion for 100 B1-Lancers. I'd drop it to around $300 - $400 milliion to attract more buyers.

Van Luxemburg - Yes, compared to a B1 or B2 the engine thrust is higher, but the plane is larger and weighs more as well and needs the additional power in order to fly.

OoC: I see it. Ignored that actually, and moved on to the thrust. excuse me.

Your engines are the problem. At 92,000 lbs you'll be having a huge IR signature. I would use maybe four 60,000 lbs or less. Also your empty weight should be more like around 200,000 lbs.

Your engines are the problem. At 92,000 lbs you'll be having a huge IR signature. I would use maybe four 60,000 lbs or less. Also your empty weight should be more like around 200,000 lbs.

Here are the stats of the plane as originally designed and prior to being "finished out" by Bradyistan's installation of weapon systems, etc.
Class: Stealth Bomber
Model Name: Ghost
Non-Variable Base Model Parameters:
Length: 149 ft.
Wingspan:140 ft
Powerplant:4 W.M.D., Inc. LRB -8010SC jet engines producing 42,500 lbs. of thrust each
Top Speed: Mach 1.2 (unladen)
Crew: 3 (5 recommended)
Max. Lift-off Weight: 498,000 lbs.
Potentially variable Base Model Parameters
Base Model Max Range: 8,100 miles (mid-air refuel capable for unlimited range)
Base Model Crew: 5
Base Model Ceiling: 68,000 ft.
Base Model Empty Weight: 208,000 lbs
Base Model External Hard Points: None
Base Model Interior (bomb) Bays: 4
Base Model Ordinance: 70,000 lbs
Base Model Construction: "Honeycombed," Plastisicized, Ceramic Titanium alloy w/ spent uranium cockpit and emergency fuel tank (1,000 mile max range supply) protection
VTOL: No
Carrier Capable: No
Thrust Vectoring: Parameters: None
Special Notes re: Stealth features: RAM (Radar Absorbing Material) stealth coating, Liquid Nitrogen cooled engine gas exhausts, 34 degree or less angles on all surfaces - In addition to the standard stealth features, such as RAM covering, lack of angled surfaces, heat shielding and liquid nitrogen cooled exhaust porting, and standard tri-angulated openings, etc. Our stealth planes use our patened ionized plasma technology to absorb and/or scatter incoming radar and enhance stealth capabilities. As you might expect, it is important that this technology not be disseminated outside your highest levels of government. On the Ghost bombers, the ionized plasma forms around the forward "winglets," the leading edges of the engine air intakes and the trailing edges of the tail rudders - the areas our testing identified as the ones most likely to return a positive radar signal. Our testing indicates that with standard radar, despite the size of the plane, the average radar signal return to an operator is about the same radar return he would receive had the radar picked up a return from something smaller than a hummingbird.

OOC:
Bradyistan - good job! You fitted the plane out well. If you'd like some more views of the plane or a colored version, TG me with your e-mail address and info. on what you want and I'll e-mail you some additional pictures. Your price for the plane is a bit on the high side though. The U.S. only paid $20 Billion for 100 B1-Lancers. I'd drop it to around $300 - $400 milliion to attract more buyers.

Van Luxemburg - Yes, compared to a B1 or B2 the engine thrust is higher, but the plane is larger and weighs more as well and needs the additional power in order to fly.
OOC: sorry, but you're absolutely incorrect with the thrust. The B-1B has a maximum takeoff weight of 477,000 lbs, only a bit shy of this aircraft, and a maximum speed of Mach 1.25. Its four engines only pull 30,780 lbs of thrust each with afterburner. The kind of thrust you're claiming should be for an aircraft at twice that weight, and the engines would have to be HUGE. Plus, that kind of thrust will produce an IR signature that's impossible to hide.

Additionally. I would not try to cool the engine exhaust with liquid nitrogen. Not only is that stuff going to be a serious vulnerability point to the aircraft, but it's going to cool the air too quickly, and that's liable to cause some serious technical problems with the operation of the engines. You don't want to cool the exhaust much beyond the temperature of the ambient air.

Supersonic and stealth also don't go hand in hand too well. The B-1B is stealthy (not stealth), but it's still got the RCS of a good-sized fighter. In order to have this capable of supersonic flight, you do have to sacrifice some stealth. It'll still be as detectable as a fighter with a decent amount of signature reduction (maybe F-16 with RAM), but it's not going to be that stealthy.

On the plasma stealth. It's been tested, and they didn't quite get it to work. Even the Russian designers admitted that a whole aircraft system could only be employed on a low-speed, high-altitude aircraft. The field cannot be generated to be stable around a large, high speed aircraft (it was found to dissipate too quickly), and if it makes any sudden maneuvers . . .
Plasma stealth also generates significant amounts of heat, and at night makes an aircraft very easy to see and track optically. Worst of all, it will interfere with most onboard sensors, with only EO (in the daytime at least) being able to reliably see through the field.

Thanks for all the imput guys.

The engines came with the airframe when I purchased the production rights. I wouldnt want to offend anyone at W.M.D. Inc. or officals at Mauiwowee, so Bradyistani R&D guys decided to leave them in. We would only begin engine overhauls if we were givin permission from Mauiwowee, and even if permission was givin, a signifigant price increase would come with the new engines. Im no mechanical expert, but 2000 new jet engines sounds like it would cost a couple kidneys. That being said, CSJ brings up great points about the RCS of the frame with said engines. So as of now, B-80s shall be using 2 of the W.M.D. Inc engines. If permission is granted by Mauiwowee to use Bradyistani engines overhauls will begin.

Concerning the RCS of the B-80:

I know using supersonic and stealth in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Anything supersonic will still have a moderately large cross section, but with the aid of RAM on the B-80 the RCS is much much smaller then it would be without it. On a radar scope the B-80 looks similar to a F-15 with a decent amount of RAM. Couple that with a high altitude, supersonic bomber package and your enemy wont know what hit them unit your crew is already out of harms way.

Im not going to say anything about plasma stealth because I dont know enough about it currently and dont have the time to research it.


Prices have been some what reduced for now, but if engine overhauls occur they might go up again.

Design-a-Plane will be providing you with new engine plans and revising the engines itself - YOu will not be charged for the new engine design (OOC: My error, I read the engine stats I used incorrectly and attributed the total thrust produced to a single engine) You can replace the engines with your own if you wish, however, we are rush delivering info. on the new W.M.D., Inc. LRB -8010SC engines that deliver 42,500 lbs. of thrust each.

As to the cooling - the system does not inject liquid nitrogen into the exhaust gases to cool it. Rather it acts like a super Air Conditioner which vents the exhaust gases through a chamber that is using liquid nitrogen as a refrigerant.

Note that the plasma provides stealth capabilities for only a very small part of the plane, not the entire plane.

OOC: more later, I've got to get to a class.

New engines have been emplimented.

BUMP

OOC: The idea about plasma stealth was released by a Russian research group in 1999. In concept, it's completely feasible, and they "claimed" to have a "third-generation" generator weighing only 100 kg and that they could soon export first and second generation units. 4 years later, with no sign of any such system beyond the claim (which was met with a great degree of skepticism), they came out and admitted that they could not create a plasma field around the exterior of a combat aircraft, as interaction with the airflow caused it to dissipate too much. However, they could do an interior plasma screen to cover up components like the large radar dish in the Su-35 (which is a major contributing factor to its huge RCS).
A plasma field is possible, but would require a very high altitude, low speed aircraft (U-2/TR-1 comes to mind). It has not been advanced to the point of being a practical tool of war, and may very well never be. It's one of those great concept vs reality clashes.

Main Reference:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread89869/pg1

good design mainly, though it does remind me alot of the XB-70 Valkyrie

OOC: The idea about plasma stealth was released by a Russian research group in 1999. In concept, it's completely feasible, and they "claimed" to have a "third-generation" generator weighing only 100 kg and that they could soon export first and second generation units. 4 years later, with no sign of any such system beyond the claim (which was met with a great degree of skepticism), they came out and admitted that they could not create a plasma field around the exterior of a combat aircraft, as interaction with the airflow caused it to dissipate too much. However, they could do an interior plasma screen to cover up components like the large radar dish in the Su-35 (which is a major contributing factor to its huge RCS).
A plasma field is possible, but would require a very high altitude, low speed aircraft (U-2/TR-1 comes to mind). It has not been advanced to the point of being a practical tool of war, and may very well never be. It's one of those great concept vs reality clashes.

Main Reference:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread89869/pg1

I read that article and several others as I thought about the use of plasma stealth. What I came away with was the idea that plasma stealth could be used to cover "areas" of a plane, but not the entire plane itself. If it could cover a radar dish, why not the leading edge of engine air intakes or other areas of a "regular stealth" aircraft that affect the RCS in a negative way - take a B2 Spirit and add plasma to those areas on the plane that are most likely to give a bad RCS was my idea. Don't try to cover the whole plane, just certain points. Thats what I have done.

Also, I understand and agree with your earlier point re: plasma and supersonic speed - you'll "outfly" your plasma and it's generation capabilities. The plane, as designed has a top speed of Mach 1.2 - i.e. cut and run speed. However, only an idiot pilot is going to be traveling at cut and run speed on a bomb run. Just because it can go that fast doesn't mean it will. My Mazda RX-8 can go 125++ mph, I've never gone above a speed less than that (I plead the 5th on the actual speed I've driven at :D ). Mach 1.2 is for "get the hell out of here" mode. Otherwise, you'll be using standard bomb run speeds of 6-800 mph or so and this plane does fly at high altitudes.

So, that said, at 60,000 feet or so at 700 mph, do you have a problem with the idea of effective radar absorbing plasma fields covering the plane's winglets, leading edges of the air intakes and trailing edge of the tail? We'renot talking about a large area, just something along the lines of the soviet's radar dish.

Also, as to it not being done - much of the stealth tech on U.S. stealth planes is highly classified and there is speculation that F-22A Raptors and/or B2 Spirits use a limited form of some plasma tech in ways similar to what I"m describing. Further is the possibility that the new F-35 JSF craft might use some form of plasma tech. This info. is sourced by me from a recent History Channel show on "the history of stealth." that I watched on Monday or Tues. of this week and that got me thinking about an researching the idea.

If you've really studied plasma tech too, you'll know there is an issue of a detectable ion trail in all possibility - I make no claim as to how that might be dealt with also there is the issue of rotating radar frequencies which would require matching changes in the plasma field's energy level to keep it truly functional.

Anyway, just my thoughts now. I do appreciate your input CSJ, it is helping me design better stuff.

OK, your turn.

OOC: I'm not entirely sure on what the speed limitations are, as I can only get a generic "low-speed, high altitude." However, 700 mph @ 60,000 ft is better than Mach 1, and that is most certainly too fast. Given the manner it's been talked about I would suspect that for any external component, it would be limited to, at best, Mach 0.75 (<500 mph), possibly a bit slower. And still, I was given the impression that even with a low-speed, high-altitude aircraft, maintaining the field with be extremely difficult, though possible. Also, the area protected will be an issue as well. The larger the area, the greater the difficulties with the field. And either way, it will increase the chances of IR and EO detection, which are becoming more and more common these days.
I'm also sure if a limited plasma field would have that much of an effect. The plasma screen only works on the Su-35 radar because the area in front is the area that has to be exposed. They can put RAM around the rest to prevent it from having trouble.

I see plasma technology as mostly helping with internal components that would otherwise have to be detectable 100% of the time, such as the big radar dishes.

bump,

Anyone wanna buy a couple?