NationStates Jolt Archive


NEW REC-1 Sabertooth Fighter Bomber UNVEILED!!

-Rome-
24-05-2007, 22:54
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb274/romanengineercorps/f1.jpg
This fighter was designed by the REC (Roman Engineering Corps) as a replacement for the F-16, F-15 Eagle, and F/A-22 for front line service. While they were found to be good bombers/fighters and adequate against sky cycles and power armors, they were at a disadvantage when compared to other fighter designs of the post-modern period. The Sabertooth is a totally different animal. The fighter is fast, well armed, however unlike it's ancestors, it is capable of vertical take offs and landings. The aircraft is one of the most advanced aircraft operated in the Roman Arsenal and has many advantages over other fighter designs. In engagements, enemies have found the combination of stealth, speed, and firepower to be a lethal combination.

The Aircraft itself looks like a combination of the F-14 Tomcat, F-15 Eagle, and F-22 Raptor. The aircraft has features of each aircraft but is slightly larger than any of them. All weapons are within ordinance bays to increase stealth. The fighter has two large ordnance bays under the aircrafts main body and smaller bays on either side. The lower bays carry normal ordnance but the side bays are designed to fit a standard REC Hard Point Ordnance. A common payload for one of the small bays is a towed decoy pod. The fighter has small stabilizers near the cockpit and the cockpit itself is designed for two crew members. The ejection system simply ejects the pilot and seats. The seats will act as floatation devices. The body has also been designed to improve the aircraft's stealth and has VTOL (Vertical Takeoff and Landing) capabilities. VTOL thrusters have been integrated as part of the engine as well as several other thrusters throughout the fighter. The aircraft has twin main engines and they have variable exhaust. The engines have secondary intakes on top and they are used on the ground for taxiing to prevent FOD (Foreign Objects and Debris) from entering the turbines. The main intakes are closed during that time. The fighter uses a triple redundant fly by wire system for the flight controls, has variable geometry (sweep) wings with 12 degrees maximum variable swept wings, and is very maneuverable as a result. A set of schematics is on the bottom of this post.

There are two different versions of this fighter that built. The first is the export model. The body of this version is partially stealthy but is not as effective as the full version of the fighter.

The second version is used only by the Roman Air Force and their trusted allies. Only a small number of fighters have been sold to a select few nations under the agreement that the company would neither sell nor copy the fighter design. It uses a special engine that has a much higher thrust output than the standard engine. It also has a stealth system fairly similar to the F/A-22. Lastly, the full version of the fighter has a better fire control system than the standard version.

Vehicle Type: Twin Engine Fighter-Bomber
Crew: Two (Pilot/Radar and Sensor/Weapon Operator)
Driving on Ground (Taxiing): Only possible for take offs and landings as well as for parking and storage. Speed is 40 mph (64 kph) when traveling and not on take off or landing.
Flying: Standard version; the thrust system allows the plane to go from hover to Mach 2 (1,483 mph/2,386.5 kmph) and has a maximum altitude of 55,000 feet
REC special version; can hover and go up to a maximum speed of Mach 3.5 (2,595.1 mph/4,176.4 kph). Its cruise speed is up to Mach 1.5 (1,112.1 mph/ 1,789.8 kph) and has a maximum altitude is about 30 Miles (158,400 feet/ 48,280 m).
Rate of Climb: 70,000 fpm
Range: Standard Version can fly about 9,715 nautical miles above cruising speed and indefinitely at cruising speed (cruise is half of maximum) for the standard version. The REC special edition fighter can go over 12,000 nautical miles (Pilot endurance in all models will generally prevent operations of longer than 12 hours).
Length: 75 feet (22.8 meters)
Wingspan: 65 feet (19.8 meters)
Height: 16 feet (4.9 meters)
Weight: 23 tons (20.9 metric tons)
Max Weight: 50 tons
Max Angle of Attack: 65 degrees
Power Source: Two (2) RECE-5E High Efficiency Super Cruise Engines w. 40,000 lbs of thrust, Should have an average lifespan of 20 years.
In-Flight Refuel Capable: Yes
Cargo: Minimal (Storage for small equipment). Does not include hard points and ordnance bay. Main Ordnance bay, of emptied of ordnance can carry up to 8,000 lbs (3,628.7 kg) of cargo.
Weapons: Two (2) REC-2000 Rail Guns: The pilot has two copies of the NG-202 as forward firing guns. They are set up like the NG-202 on the Samson power armor with a greater rate of fire. The guns are controlled by the aircraft's pilot. The REC special version uses APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot) ammo that increases damage.
Belly Mounted Ordnance Bays (2): The fighter has two large bays in the main body that can carry a wide variety of different ordnance types. Ordnance types include missiles, torpedoes, and bombs. While depth charges can be carried, their limited utility means that torpedoes are carried in most ASW missions. Missile and bomb sizes may be mixed between different types of ordnance but an ordnance drop or launch must include the same type and size of ordnance. Ordnance may be carried at the rate of four short range missiles, four light bombs, two medium range missiles, or two medium bombs for one long range missile or heavy bomb. Both guided and unguided ordnance may be carried. An equivalent number of torpedoes or depth charges to the number of missiles and bombs may also be carried. Launching of ordnance is controlled by the weapons officer but the pilot has emergency controls. Payload: 32 short range missile or light bombs, 16 medium range missiles or medium bombs, or 8 long range missile or heavy bomb. Ordnance can be mixed and torpedoes and depth charges may be carried as well as missiles and bombs
Anti-Missile Chaff Dispenser
Other Features:
Internal Active Jamming Gear Radar: Range 500 miles (805 km).The Standard Version can identify and track up to 48 targets simultaneously and is also capable of Terrain Following for low altitude flight. With Combat & Targeting Computer, the standard version can fire missiles at up to twelve targets at the same time. The REC special version fighter can identify and track up to 96 targets simultaneously and is also capable of Terrain Following for low altitude flight. With Combat & Targeting Computer, the REC special version can fire missiles at up to twenty four targets at the same time. The weapons officer frees the pilot from controlling the missiles so he can retain his full attacks. VAS: Visual magnification that multiplies all images by about 300 times which allows visual identification and tracking of fighter sized objects out to 30 to 40 miles (48.3 km to 64.4 km). System has low light amplifications to allow for the systems use during night time conditions. FLIR: Forward Looking Infrared. Allows pilot to get visuals on targets at night. ESM: Radar Detector, Passively detects other radars being operated. Laser Navigational System: Allow flight at low altitude without use of Radar. Gives a map of the Terrain.
Market Cost: Standard Version; 50 million credits. REC and Allies Version is not for sale but is valued at about 100 million credits.
Cazelia
24-05-2007, 23:00
the empire of cazelia would like to by 20 sabertooth bombers
-Rome-
24-05-2007, 23:08
Response
Thank you for buying the REC-1 Sabertooth, as with all equipment purchased from -Rome- you will not be unsatisfied with it's results. Your total order cost comes to $700 million, and it shall arrive within a couple of weeks pending weather. Thank you again.
The Candrian Empire
24-05-2007, 23:13
good start. take it to the NS Draftroom (http://s13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom/) to fill in the holes.

as it stands, there is no:

radar range
specific radar details (operating frequency, phased array or not, etc)
details on the construction and materials
frame stress tolerances
any avionics equipment
hardpoint/bay maximum weights and dimensions
maximum total payload
net thrust
fuel weight
max takeoff weight
maximum combat weight
thrust/weight ratio
ferry range
information on in flight refueling
info on whether the cabin is pressurized or not
rate of climb
maximum angle of attack (w/wo software limits)

and some other things I can't recall.
-Rome-
24-05-2007, 23:46
good start. take it to the NS Draftroom (http://s13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom/) to fill in the holes.

as it stands, there is no:

radar range
specific radar details (operating frequency, phased array or not, etc)
details on the construction and materials
frame stress tolerances
any avionics equipment
hardpoint/bay maximum weights and dimensions
maximum total payload
net thrust
fuel weight
max takeoff weight
maximum combat weight
thrust/weight ratio
ferry range
information on in flight refueling
info on whether the cabin is pressurized or not
rate of climb
maximum angle of attack (w/wo software limits)

and some other things I can't recall.

Thanks for the suggestions, and I'll be sure to go to the NS Draft Room as well.
-Rome-
25-05-2007, 21:56
bump
Cazelia
25-05-2007, 21:59
Cazelia would like to purchase an additional 100 planes
The money will be wired within 2 days
The Phoenix Milita
25-05-2007, 22:19
This is a nice idea for a fighter, but I hope you are aware the Rail Guns make it post modern/ near future tech, and the price is very low for even PMT standards
also:
radar range
specific radar details (operating frequency, phased array or not, etc)<-don't need that
details on the construction and materials<-don't need that
frame stress tolerances <-don't need that
any avionics equipment<-don't need that
hardpoint/bay maximum weights and dimensions<-don't need that
maximum total payload<-don't need that
net thrust<-don't need that
fuel weight<-don't need that
max takeoff weight<-don't need that
maximum combat weight<-don't need that
thrust/weight ratio<-don't need that
ferry range<-don't need that
information on in flight refueling
info on whether the cabin is pressurized or not<-don't need that
rate of climb<-don't need that
maximum angle of attack (w/wo software limits)<-don't need that
Greal
25-05-2007, 22:44
The Greal government would like to buy 100 fighter bombers.
Clandonia Prime
25-05-2007, 22:51
This is a nice idea for a fighter, but I hope you are aware the Rail Guns make it post modern/ near future tech, and the price is very low for even PMT standards
also:
radar range
specific radar details (operating frequency, phased array or not, etc)<-don't need that
details on the construction and materials<-don't need that
frame stress tolerances <-don't need that
any avionics equipment<-don't need that
hardpoint/bay maximum weights and dimensions<-don't need that
maximum total payload<-don't need that
net thrust<-don't need that
fuel weight<-don't need that
max takeoff weight<-don't need that
maximum combat weight<-don't need that
thrust/weight ratio<-don't need that
ferry range<-don't need that
information on in flight refueling
info on whether the cabin is pressurized or not<-don't need that
rate of climb<-don't need that
maximum angle of attack (w/wo software limits)<-don't need that

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?

Is the place to be for design help, pop on IRC if you want a chat with some people as well who can help.
The Phoenix Milita
25-05-2007, 22:56
You really have no idea what you are talking about.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?

Is the place to be for design help, pop on IRC if you want a chat with some people as well who can help.

No, I know exactly what I'm talking about, you don't need any of those numbers to use the fighters in an rp. Hes not actually building them, please try to remember that this is "pretend". The Draftroom and the other Draftroom are the worst things that ever happened to NS desgin.
Clandonia Prime
25-05-2007, 22:58
No, I know exactly what I'm talking about, you don't need any of those numbers to use the fighters in an rp. Hes not actually building them, please try to remember that this is "pretend". The Draftroom and the other Draftroom are the worst things that ever happened to NS desgin.

Just because your designs were ridiculed so much that you left after a day and hold a grudge against people just because they criticised your design.
Democratic Colonies
25-05-2007, 23:45
OOC: Come on TPM, let's be reasonable here. Most of the information that you claim is unneeded is really quite important.


details on the construction and materials<-don't need that

Is the airframe constructed of high grade titanium and synthetics or low grade steel barely fit for a Cessna?

Is the material lightweight but fragile? Strong but heavy? Lightweight and strong but expensive?

frame stress tolerances <-don't need that

Does the plane go straight and steady, ready to tear apart if it engages in a 6-G turn? Or is it strongly built, ready to go through some 9-G forces at a moment's notice?

hardpoint/bay maximum weights and dimensions<-don't need that
maximum total payload<-don't need that
max takeoff weight<-don't need that
maximum combat weight<-don't need that

Can the plane carry a Tomahawk or Penguin missile, or is it limited to lighter and smaller munitions? Can it carry 4 JDAMs, or 8, or 2, or none at all?


net thrust<-don't need that
fuel weight<-don't need that
thrust/weight ratio<-don't need that

Is the plane going to be able to accelerate like a bat out of hell and climb straight up at a 90 degree angle? Or is it going to climb and accelerate like a sleepy whale, struggling with underpowered engines and an overweight airframe?

ferry range<-don't need that

Is this plane going to need mid-air refueling to make it to nation [x]? Or can it make it on its own? Does it have the legs to strike deep into enemy territory, or is it going to need vulnerable aerial tankers to assist it sometime during the mission?

rate of climb<-don't need that

Can this fighter perform combat actions like the egg maneuver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat#Design_features), using superior climb to out-position a foe, or is it more likely to be the victim of such a move?

These questions need answers, TPM, if the aircraft is going to be involved in a detailed combat RP. Some of these stats are more important then others, but if at all possible, they should all be determined as accurately and realistically as possible.
The Phoenix Milita
25-05-2007, 23:53
OOC:<snip>.
Most of that can be accomplished in a one line description such as: "The aircraft is highly maneuverable" or "The aircraft is faster and more powerful than the F-15"

The weapons capacity was already addressed. you don't need exact weight and dimensions, you can say that it can fit 3 sidewinder, then you can say hmm i have a missile that is a little wider than a sidewinder so i guess it can fit 2.

Long "stat block"s like this are ridiculous and ruin designs


Just because your designs were ridiculed so much that you left after a day and hold a grudge against people just because they criticised your design.

not what happened at all so :confused:
Democratic Colonies
26-05-2007, 00:14
Most of that can be accomplished in a one line description such as: "The aircraft is highly maneuverable" or "The aircraft is faster and more powerful than the F-15"

Let's say four nations are involved in an RP. They each have various aircraft involved that might become engaged in air to air combat. Let's say that with the various air forces' combinations of air superiority fighters and fighter-interceptors and fighter-bombers, there are eight types of aircraft involved. Let's say six of them feature "high maneuverability" and is "faster then the F-15."

Now, considering the above, let's say that some sort of high value target is attempting to escape via air - let's say it's the leader of a nation, or a plane full of anthrax, or a cargo liner containing the world's most delicious hamburgers; whatever. A squadron of one of each of the eight involved aircraft types is involved in a pursuit of the high value target. Which will be the one to actually reach it first? Will the high value target be escorted and defended by the aircraft of faction [a], who wish to protect it, or shot down defenseless by the aircraft of faction [b], who wish to destroy it? What happens to the president of the nation/the anthrax/the hamburgers?

Or, let's say there is another scenario. A Eurofighter Typhoon and a RandomNation DomesticFighter engage in a skirmish over international waters. Since both have been described as "highly maneuverable," which is actually more maneuverable? Which one is going to line up the killshot behind the enemy, and which one is going down in flames?

Also, you didn't address the importance of the thrust and range stats.

The weapons capacity was already addressed. you don't need exact weight and dimensions, you can say that it can fit 3 sidewinder, then you can say hmm i have a missile that is a little wider than a sidewinder so i guess it can fit 2.

Weight and space stats make things easier in the long run. 3 Sidewinders translate into how many Tomahawks? Or how many JDAMs? Or how many RandomNation DomesticMunitions? We can either go through all of our RPs guessing this kind of thing, or we can figure it out once and for all at the time of initial aircraft design, and take all the guesswork out of it.


Long "stat block"s like this are ridiculous and ruin designs


Well, I'd have to disagree with that. Stat blocks are the only way to really compare different aircraft in a concrete manner. To convert the situation into an automotive one, one can say that both the Ford Mustang GT and the Porsche 911 Turbo are "fast cars," but unless you want to break it down into guessed categories like "kinda fast," "fast," "faster," "really fast," and "really really fast," some actual numbers are going to have to come up at some point if a comparison is going to be made.
-Rome-
26-05-2007, 00:19
OOC: Can we PLEASE stop with the long quotes???
The Phoenix Milita
26-05-2007, 00:32
The one that is more maneuverable is the one in the hands of the more capable RP'er


Stat blocks should be short and sweet imo, no more than 12-14 fields
example=
Role:
Power plant:
Thrust(or Thrust-to-Weight Ratio):*
Length:*
Height:*
Maximum Takeoff Weight:*
Wingspan:*
Cruise Speed:*
Range:*
Ceiling:
Max Speed:
Crew:
Armament:
Countermeasures:
Price:

* = optional

You can put things like range and thrust if you want, but they aren't needed. For example on many of my bombers I put the range in the stat block and no mention of thrust in lbs or thrust to-weight, and when I do provide thrust info its for a fighters or interceptor and the range stat is not given.
Of course if someone is so inclined to give a bunch of useless stats, I say let them, but don't tell them they need to put all that extra crap into it.


I have snipped the long quote from my earlier post
The Candrian Empire
26-05-2007, 00:54
The one that is more maneuverable is the one in the hands of the more capable RP'er


And if they're both capable RP'ers?

If that's the case, you require concrete evidence for your fighter's capabilities.
-Rome-
26-05-2007, 00:58
OOC: Thank you all very much for using my thread as a host for your arguement haha jk But I try to respect everybody's opinion. To each his or her own you know? Weather you are a hardcore roleplayer or not I still try to try to find a median so that I can satisfy everybody...unless money is involved lol.
The Candrian Empire
26-05-2007, 01:07
sorry, man, but you have a good basis so far, and some of us don't want to see it dumbed down.
-Rome-
26-05-2007, 01:19
OOC: No no no its alright, thank you for your suggestions. But theres no need to insult other players on their aviation knowledge. Now I'm not saying any names, but I think we all know who has.
The Macabees
26-05-2007, 01:28
Most of that can be accomplished in a one line description such as: "The aircraft is highly maneuverable" or "The aircraft is faster and more powerful than the F-15".


You can put it like that, or you could also say why it's so and how. More details is more realistic, and more importantly it's much more interesting to read.

Long "stat block"s like this are ridiculous and ruin designs

Why?
-Rome-
26-05-2007, 02:12
Oh sweet jesus, can you all just STOP?? Wow I've never saw so much arguing over something so darn simple! Look, I'm going to make a NEW thread, in ANOTHER forum where this arguement belongs so you all can just stop WASTING my space, ok? Wow you all are going to give me a coronary thrombosis.