Pushing ahead, yes, but not too much. I'll vote against Epsilon, for example, once it's clear whether Delta can design whole planes.
My reason for that is simple - yes, it's important to be advanced in a single field, but not when you risk being behind in every other. Plus, synergy effects.
For example, if we chose to train them in building better guns (whether it's a catch-all terms catching small arms and cannons or just cannons), we can build better and lighter guns, which in turn means better armament for planes, tanks, infantry, artillery and fixed positions. Or, engines. Specialists are useful for designing tank, warships and plane engines.
Something similar (though not for technology, but for steel production needs) happened to the Japanese in WWII, where their tanks were outmatched once the US started using Shermans against them.
This strengthens our technology overall, and is even better when we use synergies like that. For example, imagine a plane using an older engine and two 15mm machine guns (but masterfully combined), or one using an engine with about double the power and two 20mm auto-cannons, but not that masterfully combined.
I'd rather take the latter, I must say.
I'd propose we generally should try to keep each specialist busy in his own field of expertise - but for now keep those expertises separate.
Maybe I should design a higher power MG. I might be able to get it stronger and smaller if it's purpose built for a plane.
I'd rather have a variant of the 15mm MG. You can probably eliminate some parts making it lighter, and increase firing speed as the air cooling's more effective when moving at 200km/h than when moving at two. (I'll probably make that 8.1) The question is how you want to build an MG that's more efficient almost across the bank while changing nothing and without a specialist team. That needs very, very lucky rolls. The higher rate of fire can be achieved (by better air cooling), and they're accurate already. Lightening them can be done, too. But bullet penetration/power will probably need a bigger bullet, and therefore calibre.
My view for planes is that we have an awesome fighter one that will last us several years without incident, and should rather concentrate on updating the engine first, then updating the armament all the while refitting the planes. This allows us to use the old ones, too, and once we have technology actually warranting a new plane (a new and powerful engine, at least) we design that.
Oh, for number 9: I had assumed that the planes would already have a radio integrated. Good question, though.
Edit: Additions to the edit (I hate the forum not notifying me of edits): That's a good plan, and as I've said requires a new engine before being effective. I am a fan of a multi-role design, though. You could, for example, build the fighter with two 20mm guns and then strap bombs on it in the field if you need close air support. Less capable than a purpose-built plane for both, but if you get twice as many for air combat at first, and then phase them to bombing once no longer necessary, you should still win. Remember - if you put mountings on a plane you can just as well let the bombs on the ground to be faster and more maneuverable for aerial combat.
Author
Topic: [Discussion] The Glorious Design Bureau of the People (Read 69563 times)