NationStates Jolt Archive

The Imbrinium Royal Air force seeking a new supersonic aircraft to perform the functions of, Command and control of High speed fighters and bombers, Earlier warning platform , ECM & ECCM on bombing missions, and Stratigic Command & control functions.

The aircraft must have a cruise speed of at least mach 1 and a top speed of mach 2.

Must be able to mid air refuel and be able to stay aloft for at least 8 to 10 hours on a fully load tank of fuel.

And it also must have a internal bomb bay to deploy jamming and decoy cruise missiles.

If interested please contact the Ministery of the air force: Gen. Gioele Trevisani

Official Communique of the Confederacy of Kenavt
Military Message

Dear Aerospace Companies;

After the recent question posed by the Imbrinium Royal Air Force for a Command/Control aircraft in times of war for Air Force mobile control was posed, the Confederacy wondered the same thing. Any Command/Control aircraft that can at least somewhat meet the Imbrinium RAF's stringent standards will also be welcomed back in our capital of Poiuytrewq.

Signed,

Duke Andrew da Vincho
Premier

daily bump

Supersonic AWACs? With stealth?

Ummm... no?

Because:
1: Radar on = I'm shining a bajillion Kj flashlight (AEW radar) at night, any one with eyes (radar reciever) can see my light, and I may not see him if I don't pay careful attention.

2: Supersonic screams "Here I am, now die, motherfuckas!", plus it tends to rip most RAM coatings off... F-22 relies on Active Radar Cancelation (glorified jamming of wide-band search radars, because it's easy when your enemy is china).

stealth isn't a big deal if has it, it has it ,if it dont, it dont. awacs why not supersonic?

Will you settle for a normal AWACs if we paint flames on the side for you?

have normal awacs, and awacs may or may not be a good idea, mainly want it for the C&C and ECM,ECCM side of it

Aw, come on. How about if we throw in a free rear spoiler and vanity plates? It won't be supersonic, but it'll look that way.

lol maybe some spinner hub caps too

never thought i would get this much grief over a simple request for a plane.

never thought i would get this much grief over a simple request for a plane.

It's not the fact that it's a plane, it's that your asking for a supersonic stealthed AWACs - it doesn't really go.

Updated Thread no stealth, the ony reason i put it in there is because there is always someone with a stealth version of everything. I personally dont like stealth, i mean it has its place but if i'm going to bomb someone i want them to know it was me.

Updated Thread no stealth, the ony reason i put it in there is because there is always someone with a stealth version of everything. I personally dont like stealth, i mean it has its place but if i'm going to bomb someone i want them to know it was me.

I invite you to check out my E-5 Darkeye (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=561320) for a competitive bid. It's sister, the CV-30 Vogel, was already accepted by Falkasia as their medium lift combat aircraft.

I invite you to check out my E-5 Darkeye (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=561320) for a competitive bid. It's sister, the CV-30 Vogel, was already accepted by Falkasia as their medium lift combat aircraft.

To the draftroom (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?act=idx), Batman!

It wouldn't make a good AWACs due to lack of personel to track/guide intercepts and operate ECM simultaniously.

And automation gets a little too predictable and a little too unreliable for most people's liking.

But if all you need is an epic-fast moving skysweeping searcher /w/ halfway decent ECM, use a squadron of MiG-35 Foxhounds. For stuff lower to the ground the EF-111A filled that niche nicely until retirement.

To the draftroom (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?act=idx), Batman!

ooc: eh?

To the draftroom (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?act=idx), Batman!

{OOC: Really is getting annoying how that bull shit is getting pressed on so much. Half the shit in there, no matter how much praise it gets here either won't work in real life or is impractical. And that goes for Macabee too, yes I respect the work he puts in, and maybe he really is in the job he says he is, but if he's design was rock solid and actually usable (since it seeeemsss soo much better than the Abram) he would have got some attention for it. But eh. [/rant]}

I like the concept but not for this request. i will keep it in mind because we did just purchase 20 Shadow habor class LHDs and will need to equipment them.

I like the concept but not for this request. i will keep it in mind because we did just purchase 20 Shadow habor class LHDs and will need to equipment them.

Red Star would be happy to make modifications for an exported variant to include the specs requested.

Vladislav Tikhomirov,
VP, Red Star Research and Development

To: Vladislav Tikhomirov,
VP, Red Star Research and Development

From:Gen. Gioele Trevisani
Ministery of the Air Force

If you can make specs we will look at what was done and go from there. The Ministery of the Navy is interrested in the current version for purchase to beef up there troop carrying Fleet. Thank you

IRAF

To: Vladislav Tikhomirov,
VP, Red Star Research and Development

From:Gen. Gioele Trevisani
Ministery of the Air Force

If you can make specs we will look at what was done and go from there. The Ministery of the Navy is interrested in the current version for purchase to beef up there troop carrying Fleet. Thank you

IRAF

Office of VP of Research and Development
Red Star Industries, Osius City, CFUS
Vladislav Tikhomirov

While we cannot make changes to specs so soon without testing out the design revisions, I propose the utilization of our new J1000-X11 turbofans engines as our major design change. These provide the same thrust, yet with 50% more fuel efficiency. This would allow a reduction in the fuel tanks in order to accomodate the extra systems your nation requires. Let us know of any other systems or design changes you need and we will try to accomodate you.

To: Office of VP of Research and Development
Red Star Industries, Osius City, CFUS
Vladislav Tikhomirov

From:From:Gen. Gioele Trevisani
Ministery of the Air Force

With the upgrade and new specs for your plane we still have a few questions.
1. Will the new aircraft keep up with the B-1Rs at high speeds?

2.Will it need to be refueled more than our bombers, this would put unarmed support crews in danger?

3.Can it carry the needed equipment?

4.How reliable will they be?

5.Will the air frame hold up to round the clock operations?

To: Office of VP of Research and Development
Red Star Industries, Osius City, CFUS
Vladislav Tikhomirov

From:From:Gen. Gioele Trevisani
Ministery of the Air Force

With the upgrade and new specs for your plane we still have a few questions.
1. Will the new aircraft keep up with the B-1Rs at high speeds?

2.Will it need to be refueled more than our bombers, this would put unarmed support crews in danger?

3.Can it carry the needed equipment?

4.How reliable will they be?

5.Will the air frame hold up to round the clock operations?

Office of the VP, Research and Development
Red Star Industries, Osius City
Vladislav Tikhomirov

1.
The new engines would have the same power as the originally designed engines, so maximum thrust cannot be increased. The airframe was designed for near-sonic transit, and boasts an impressive 500 nmph. This is comperable to the top speed of the E-767.

2.
Fully loaded, the new design will be capable of flying 2000 nm without refueling, and given mission requirements, can remain on-station for up to six hours before refueling.

3.
A redesigned fuselage will add 30% more area, allowing the extra room for C2 equipment. The crew compliment will be upgraded from 3 (pilot, copilot, controller) to 5 (additional radar and combat controller). The added room will also make room for a launch platform for buoys and decoy cruise missiles. The cruise missiles will be a retrofitted AGM-86 ALCM.

4.
The E-5 was built originally as a replacement for the Maritime Forces E-2C Hawkeye to have a higher degree of survivability and deliver better performance.

5.
With refueling, mission life can exceed 13 hours on-station, though crew fatigue is a major factor. This is comperable with the E-767 AWACS.

daily bump

{OOC: Really is getting annoying how that bull shit is getting pressed on so much. Half the shit in there, no matter how much praise it gets here either won't work in real life or is impractical. And that goes for Macabee too, yes I respect the work he puts in, and maybe he really is in the job he says he is, but if he's design was rock solid and actually usable (since it seeeemsss soo much better than the Abram) he would have got some attention for it. But eh. [/rant]}

Care to explain why? Or just because we said one of you designs wouldn't work, you decided to go on a crusade to stop it? Or is it just that time of the month?

OOC: i'm guessing that last post doesnt have anything to do with me?

OOC: i'm guessing that last post doesnt have anything to do with me?

ooc: don't think so...looks like the other has his knickers in a knot...

OOC: Just get a handful of F-22's. They can do basically the same thing...

OOC: supersonic may be something you would want to reconsider. If you want an airborne C+C/awacs then you are going to want something that can hold all the computers needed for that work. So you are going to be looking at a converted airliner or aircraft big enough to hold the 10-30 people who will be controlling, coordinating and operating the equipment on this aircraft and the people on the ground. Next, as soon as you use a radar, you are telling everyone who has a detector where you are. Stealth goes out the window at that point...doubly so when you look at how big your aircraft has to be.

Next up, if you go supersonic you are burning an enormous amount of fuel to keep that behemoth flying that fast.

Now you may say, "What about something like a big SR-71?", well two things...first it was basically engines, a cockpit, a small bay for the spy package and the rest was a fuel tank. Second, when it was flying up high, the aircraft was a natural stealth design but the shockwave from it's flight reflected radio waves back and returned a return that was much larger than the craft itself would have been. There was no hiding a SR-71 going balls out at Mach 3 ad 180,000 feet. If you had a radar, you knew it was there.

The other large craft that was of an interesting supersonic designed was the Valkyrie. Unfortunately, it ate fuel like it was going out of style, had a massive shockwave, and a large radar return.

The only feasible supersonic aircraft would be like a converted Concorde. You'd be cramped for space and you'd be refueling twice to three times as often as your normal AWACs would (meaning they would be dropping out of supersonic quite frequently.), and at supersonic speeds your radar range would be cut down in it's usable return...but it would be possible.

If you want to stay realistically MT, you are looking at what is currently available; converted airliner bodies.

ooc: imbrinium, were those answers acceptable? also note that i'm currently adding into the e-5...i'll post the final version (E-5A/I) on here and @ my storefront

bump bump

The Nation States Draft Room would be the place to try and find this.
But I think it's nearly impossible to make at our present level of tech,
There are too many things which make this a crazy project for a nation to
build it.

But it would ROCK! ( if they did it )