NationStates Jolt Archive


Secret IC: Sarzonia Developing SZ-22 'Olympic' advanced long range bomber

Sarzonia
31-10-2005, 22:57
SZ-22 ‘Olympic’ advanced long range bomber

Background With the rollout of three new aircraft, including the SZ-19 ‘Predator’ interceptor, the SZ-20 ‘Valkyrie’ advanced strike fighter, and the SZ-21 ‘Coronet’ air superiority fighter, the Incorporated Sarzonian Air Force realised their need to take on an expanded role in Sarzonian military doctrine and began to recast their aspirations to serve as an additional arm of the Department of Defence’s power projection capabilities. The ISAF contacted the engineers at the Avalon Aerospace Corporation about constructing a next generation bomber that brings similar avionics and speed upgrades over the venerable SZ-4 ‘Warbird’ long range bomber. Following extensive research and evaluation, the Avalon Aerospace Corporation designed the SZ-22 ‘Olympic’ advanced bomber.

Propulsion Fully aware that the increased bulk that a long-range bomber would preclude the Olympic from being as fast or as agile as a fighter, engineers chose to place emphasis on improving its avionics in comparison with other bombers in service throughout the world. Taking some inspiration from the ancient B1B long range bomber that once served the former United States of America, the Olympic employs four Avalon Aerospace Corporation T-9000 Pulse Detonation/Turbofan Hybrid engines, providing a combined thrust of 250,000 pounds. The Olympic has been built with a sturdy titanium honeycomb frame with spectra and biosteel backing to provide some protection against 12.7 mm shells and weapon splinters. Despite the bulk required for a heavy payload and for greater emphasis in protection, the Olympic can travel at a maximum speed of Mach 2.5 with a supercruise velocity of Mach 1.75.

Combat Capabilities The Olympic’s 12 internal hard points have been designed to reduce radar and IR signatures and aerodynamic drag created by externalised weapons bays. Radar absorbent materials have also liberally been applied to further reduce an enemy’s ability to detect the aircraft. Like the other next generation aircraft designed by AAC, the Olympic has been painted medium gray to allow it to fool the naked eye. The Olympic’s delta wing configuration has also been adopted to enhance maneuverability and stealth. In addition to a combat load weight of roughly 60,000 pounds, the Olympic also carries two 32 mm ETC chain guns, as adopted on the Valkyrie with a 1,800 rpm rate of fire. The guns allow the bomber to use them as a last-ditch dogfighting measure, though its size and bulk make it ineffective as a pure dogfighter. Its weapons bay contains room for 12 115 kg ‘Robin’ small diametre bombs and eight 1000 lb air-to-surface munitions. Also provided for self-defence are four extra-long range air-to-air missiles, the ‘Warp’ ELAAM, designed originally for the Valkyrie, have speeds of Mach 5.5 and are guided by a radar feed from the firing plane, the same way the Asteroid ELRAAM the Warp is based upon is. However, the Warp has been modified to include advanced heat-seeking technology and GPS-based target acquisition software to make spoofing more difficult. The ‘Yellow Jacket’ mini-SAM that has served the Incorporated Sarzonian Navy extraordinarily well has been adapted for use aerially. The resulting missile, the Apollo mini-AAM can serve as a last ditch, extremely short-ranged anti-aircraft or anti-missile missile, though it is largely considered a desperation tactic and is believed to be largely ineffective.

Avionics With a focus on pinpoint accuracy in munitions delivery, Avalon Aerospace Corporation took a close look at their other next generation designs and incorporated many of the targeting features that are standard. Namely, features that include an AHDS-1 Helmet Mounted HUD System, which allows for the pilots of the aircraft to simply look at the target to achieve a lock and a SCS-1 Mobile Super Computer System, which gives the aircraft nearly unmatched processing power. Control capabilities of the Olympic are among the best for aircraft in its class through use of the FBW-1029B Advanced Fly By Optics system.

Electronics For the Olympic to be a significant upgrade on the SZ-4 Warbird and compete with the world’s elite aircraft, designers realised they needed to have electronics that allow it to keep up with the latest advances in technology. To do that, they have adopted a phased array for air-to-ground detection, an APG-120 Advanced LIDAR/LADAR Receiver, and the IRTS-1 Infrared Scanning System. Such allows the aircraft to target buildings, personnel, and fortified positions from the air. The radar system can be adapted to use a phased array for air-to-air operations.

Specifications
Name: SZ-22 ‘Olympic’ advanced long range bomber
Manufacturer: Avalon Aerospace Corporation
Maximum Speed: Mach 2.5 (Mach 1.75 supercruise)
Protection: 9.6 mm biosteel; 10 mm titanium honeycomb
Armament: 1 x 32 mm ETC chaingun mounted internally in the fuselage.
Four ELRAAM bay slots
Six SRAAM bay slots
Total bay space: 45,750 kg
Twelve strike pylons
Total Pylons: 25,500 kg
Range: 2,850 km
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 250,060 kg
Length: 68.8 m
Wingspan: 70.2 m
Operational Ceiling: 32,700 m
Price: $225 million
NOTE: Sale will be subject to extensive background search into the prospective purchasing nation. Production rights will be available only to close allies.

OOC note: The last two aircraft names I used were World War II-inspired (Coronet for Phase II of the American invasion of Japan and Olympic for Phase I of said invasion).
Space Union
31-10-2005, 23:19
Nice :) Nowhere as large as other bombers that are being put out *cough* B-300D *cough* but I'm guessing that this is based off your own doctrine.

Overall nice plane. :) But I would say you should make this bigger. It is afterall even smaller than the B-1B.
Sarzonia
31-10-2005, 23:32
OOC: Actually, the B1B is 147 feet long. This is 225.7 feet long. Wingspans are 137 feet for the B1B and 230.3 feet for the Olympic.
Space Union
31-10-2005, 23:42
OOC: Actually, the B1B is 147 feet long. This is 225.7 feet long. Wingspans are 137 feet for the B1B and 230.3 feet for the Olympic.

In terms of weight and payload, no the B-1B is.
Sarzonia
31-10-2005, 23:53
That's been revised now... but you didn't specify payload. :p
Pushka
01-11-2005, 00:24
Hey Sarz do you have like a storefront?
Sarzonia
01-11-2005, 15:12
Hey Sarz do you have like a storefront?I do (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=365142). I'm thinking of doing a version 2.0 of the storefront with my new designs and my helicopters leading the way.
Sarzonia
01-11-2005, 19:04
*stats modified*
Sarzonia
04-11-2005, 17:31
*bump*
Sarzonia
05-11-2005, 00:53
*removed Millimetric Wave Radar and replaced with phased array*
Pushka
05-11-2005, 02:57
Do you have a naval storefront?
Space Union
05-11-2005, 03:01
Do you have a naval storefront?

Your talking about Portland Iron Works, which is what made him famous throughout the NS world as a leading naval expert? ;) Yes he does.
Madnestan
05-11-2005, 03:02
The speed seems incredible... But I will not argue about it, as I relly know very little about this stuff. Overall, it looks nice.
Sarzonia
05-11-2005, 07:07
[OOC: Thanks. The speed's fast, but I designed it with four engines with enough thrust to move a bomber a bit larger than a B-1B at speeds that were a bit faster. Its intent is to be a fast, maneuverable bomber that can deliver a large payload (sort of in the same vein as the B-1B).]
Sarzonia
05-11-2005, 17:13
*bump*
Axis Nova
05-11-2005, 17:16
Why use an ETC chaingun? Higher muzzle velocities arn't really needed as you arn't fighting aircraft with tons and tons of armor-- IMO a simple caseless weapon would serve you just as well. :)
Sarzonia
05-11-2005, 17:24
OOC: Simple logistics issue. My other aircraft in this series use the same kind of gun and I'm very much against caseless ammo.
Praetonia
05-11-2005, 17:27
Increased muzzle velocity = increased range = increased distance of engagement. It's useful, just not for the same reason as it is useful for anti-tank weapons. Caseless ammo is also good though.
Axis Nova
05-11-2005, 17:39
Fair enough. Though, as a bomber, it's kinda in trouble if it gets in a dogfight situation anyways. :)

Might I suggest adding a Metal Storm array to the rear to whack things that invade it's personal space?
Praetonia
05-11-2005, 17:49
I agree, mounting a fixed cannon in a bomber is kind of pointless, but that isnt a problem with the ETC system so meh. Metal storm is an ok system, but since you have to load the rounds into the barrel you either have low ammo capacity or bad accuracy because they wont have much barrel to travel down, and the massive RoFs are kind of superfluous.
Axis Nova
05-11-2005, 18:06
I agree, mounting a fixed cannon in a bomber is kind of pointless, but that isnt a problem with the ETC system so meh. Metal storm is an ok system, but since you have to load the rounds into the barrel you either have low ammo capacity or bad accuracy because they wont have much barrel to travel down, and the massive RoFs are kind of superfluous.

The idea for an array is to basically put multiple barrels in-- 6-8 might be good for this purpose.

Also remember the firing rate is also -variable-... the system can fire them as fast or as slow as you need 'em to fire.
Praetonia
05-11-2005, 18:47
The idea for an array is to basically put multiple barrels in-- 6-8 might be good for this purpose.
That would solve the reload problems but not the barrel length problems.

Also remember the firing rate is also -variable-... the system can fire them as fast or as slow as you need 'em to fire.
True, but what's the point if you're going to use a fire rate achieveable by normal gatling guns when you have contend with reload and accuracy problems?
The Macabees
05-11-2005, 18:50
[OOC: An ETC gun also means higher recoil because of that higher muzzle velocity, because of the force being put into each round, meaning you're going to have a slower rate of fire. So, you're trading off velocity for range and power, both of which aren't really necessary when dealing with aircraft and missiles.]
Praetonia
05-11-2005, 22:15
[OOC: Not really. 30mm chaincannons have equally high RoF to 7.62mm chainguns, despite clearly having larger recoil.]
The Macabees
05-11-2005, 22:25
[OOC: Not really. 30mm chaincannons have equally high RoF to 7.62mm chainguns, despite clearly having larger recoil.]

[OOC: Because they are placed on objects of higher mass, so they can take the recoil. But a 30mm ETC chaingun will suffer a slower rate of fire, as compared to a standard 30mm chaingun.]
Praetonia
05-11-2005, 22:41
[OOC: Because they are placed on objects of higher mass, so they can take the recoil. But a 30mm ETC chaingun will suffer a slower rate of fire, as compared to a standard 30mm chaingun.]
This has a mass of over 250 tonnes...
The Macabees
05-11-2005, 22:49
This has a mass of over 250 tonnes...

[OOC: Assuming a maximum take off weight this would weigh 275 short tons [US tons], and 246 long tons [UK]. However, as opposed to putting this on a ship, the center of mass for specific objects, such as this CIWS is completely different. For example, on the A-10 the gun is mounted with little ability to traverse, meaning the recoil is being distributed it within the entire mass of the center body of the aircraft. On this aircraft the guns are able to turn, meaning they are partially detached from the body of the aircraft, meaning the force of the recoil is not distributed amongst all 246 tons, it's distributed into a small fraction of that, which with the recoild of a 30mm, and ETC at that, will be more widedly felt, than the Avenger on a A-10, or CIWS gun on a ship which has the entire mass of the huge gun operator to distribute force on.]
Praetonia
05-11-2005, 22:58
[OOC: The Apache, which weighs 8 tonnes loaded (tonnes = long tons), mounts a 30mm cannon, so assuming that the recoil of the 32mm ETC chaincannon is applied to only 3.2% of the mass of the aircraft it should be able to take the recoil (since the Apache presumably does not have an airframe which can only just take the recoil of the gun but presumably, like most aircraft, has safety margins). However, I would have thought that even in a turret mount the recoil would be transferred to more than 3.2% of the total mass.]
The Macabees
05-11-2005, 23:06
[OOC: The Apache, which weighs 8 tonnes loaded (tonnes = long tons), mounts a 30mm cannon, so assuming that the recoil of the 32mm ETC chaincannon is applied to only 3.2% of the mass of the aircraft it should be able to take the recoil (since the Apache presumably does not have an airframe which can only just take the recoil of the gun but presumably, like most aircraft, has safety margins). However, I would have thought that even in a turret mount the recoil would be transferred to more than 3.2% of the total mass.]

[OOC: But again, on the Apache, the guns are stablelized within a unidirection turret mount, as opposed to a gun that can turn quite a bit [180 to 360 degrees, no?], meaning either the entire mount is going to have to swivel, which will add a lot of weight to this aircraft in all the wrong parts, and this aircraft will lose any fluid mechanics it once had [depending on where these guns are placed they can interrupt the airflow], or the gun will be be supported on its own, meaning all the recoil is sent down the support bars holding the gun, which will mean the gun will be torn off from the turret mount holding the support bars. Furthermore, what about the added mechanics of working the ETC? The larger propellant needed, the larger rear 'box', lacking a better term, to the seperate barrels, et cetera. It's just not profitable to have an ETC chaingun on an aircraft, and it will never be.]
Praetonia
05-11-2005, 23:27
[OOC: The description of Sarz's aircraft doesnt say that the gun can swivel. Indeed, it implies that the gun is fixed forwards. And of course guns are routinely torn off of apaches, Eurofighters etc... I dont really see what you're getting at there at all. The AC-130 even fires a 105mm howitzer from a plane considerably lighter than this and out of the side of the plane as well rather than head on. In addition, the assertion that a small increase in logistical effort required is going to scupper the entire system and outweigh the enhanced combat performance is just untrue.]
The Macabees
05-11-2005, 23:39
[OOC: Umm, then if they're unidirectional what good are they going to do as close-in weapon systems? The missile would have to line up perfectly with the gun, as opposed to the gun lining up with the missile. As for the Howitzer, fortunately, the design of the gun eliminates much of the recoil, but that comes through the design, and techniques for howitzers to absorb much of the force.]
Praetonia
06-11-2005, 00:04
[OOC: None. Not on the Olympic anyway. The ones on my bomber are designed to be so, but that uses 25mm guns rather than 35mm guns, and mounts them in sunken turrets... With regards to the AC-130, it is also armed with a similarly mounted 40mm autocannon. It's perfectly possible to mount high-recoil weapons on aircraft.]
Willink
06-11-2005, 00:15
Wow Sarz, nice, really fast, and carries a good payload, good job.
The Macabees
06-11-2005, 00:34
[OOC: None. Not on the Olympic anyway. The ones on my bomber are designed to be so, but that uses 25mm guns rather than 35mm guns, and mounts them in sunken turrets... With regards to the AC-130, it is also armed with a similarly mounted 40mm autocannon. It's perfectly possible to mount high-recoil weapons on aircraft.]


[OOC: Again, the purpose and design are completely different! It's a fire suppression cannon, not a rapid fire gatling chaingun. Sarz designed it as close-in weapon systems.]
Praetonia
06-11-2005, 11:44
[OOC: Again, the purpose and design are completely different! It's a fire suppression cannon, not a rapid fire gatling chaingun. Sarz designed it as close-in weapon systems.]
[OOC: It also fires a lighter shell, isnt mounted side-on and is mounted on an aircraft that weighs more than 3 times as much. And I dont think he did, with regards to the CIWS thing. If you read the description it's fixed, so completely useless as a CIWS gun, and he says in the description it's designed to be used like a fighter's cannon in dogfighting, which I think is an extremely dubious tactic to use with a bomber, but that's what he wrote.]
The Macabees
06-11-2005, 19:01
[OOC: It also fires a lighter shell, isnt mounted side-on and is mounted on an aircraft that weighs more than 3 times as much. And I dont think he did, with regards to the CIWS thing. If you read the description it's fixed, so completely useless as a CIWS gun, and he says in the description it's designed to be used like a fighter's cannon in dogfighting, which I think is an extremely dubious tactic to use with a bomber, but that's what he wrote.]


[OOC: We're actually moving away from the focus here. The AC-130's 105mm and 40mm isn't designed to fire let's say around 1800 rounds a minute, as he claims in his write-up; it's designed to fire 1 round per let's say thirty seconds. That makes a big difference in terms of recoil. Indeed, the 30mm Avenger on the A-10 probably has more recoil than the 105mm howitzer, because it's builing up force after every shot, and this would only be multiplied by the fact that this is an ETC gun. So, you're facing the same force as the Avenger on the A-10 Thunderbolt. Now, the force isn't really the proble, it's the effectiveness of these guns. In light of all this, it can be deducted that these guns are worthless, and are just extra money and extraneous armaments that shouldn't be on this bomber anyways. Regardless, a 32mm ETC gun will have a smaller rate of fire than a standard 30mm chaingun; indeed, it's evident in his write-up. He gets 1800 rpm, an Avenger gets 3600rpm with uranium rounds, that could easily amount to around 4000rpm using standard rounds. So, that was the argument in the beginning, not if the bomber could take the force of the two chain guns.]
Sarzonia
06-11-2005, 19:13
OOC: While I don't mind the occasional discussion and debate about various military technologies, the focus of this should be this particular bomber, not on the relative merits of one of the weapons employed by it. Perhaps this debate should be handled via TG?
The Macabees
06-11-2005, 19:20
OOC: While I don't mind the occasional discussion and debate about various military technologies, the focus of this should be this particular bomber, not on the relative merits of one of the weapons employed by it. Perhaps this debate should be handled via TG?


[OOC: Nah, I'll just stop altogether. :p ]