Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Glorious Arstotzka

17 (16%)

Glorious Moskurg

13 (12.3%)

Ingloriously Didn't Play

76 (71.7%)

Total Members Voted: 106

[Kashyyk]

Everyone is banking on the idea that this will give an aerial advantage, which should limit our weaknesses in all our fronts.

[RAM]

I really want a national effort ship. There seems to be just the one front, and something truly ludicrous would still be viable. Like 30cm multiple-charge gattling* guns and a field-drydock for destroyers under a catamaran with a giant airfield with every surface and installation rotating to remain level and the airstrips on hoists to remain level and at a fixed altitude...

[evictedSaint]

Everyone is banking on the idea that this will give an aerial advantage, which should limit our weaknesses in all our fronts.

I'm just having doubts, and wondering if maybe proxy fuses would be a better idea.  Theyd help out on ground, certainly...man, that revision credit is really hurting.

[Powder Miner]

The radar plane being National Effort is an unspeakable waste, and we need that radar in the air in one way (decomplexifying) or another (dropping oil cost to drop the plane a category of expense)

[NUKE9.13]

Yeah, the whole point of the design was to get airborne radar. The radar-bearing version being a National Effort makes it nearly useless. And Sensei has indicated that our loss of air superiority was the main reason we lost last turn.

Yes, there are other things that need doing, but is it not always thus?

[evictedSaint]

Eh, the success of the VVF got me excited, is all.  Ive fallen into the trap of thinking that maybe we might be able to win, now that our average rolls are creeping back up into the low 40%'s.

[RAM]

If we reduce the oil-codt of the engine, what else can we use the engine on?

[helmacon]

We have developed a lot of things that are deployed air to ground (or air to sea) so having uncontested aerial superiority should have a large effect on all fronts.

[ConscriptFive]

If we're going all-in on an air superiority fighter to counter an [expensive] high-altitude bomber and to tip the scales in common Lightning vs. Spearhead-C dogfights, so the aging Haast and Reckless Effect can get back to work, [Very Expensive] ain't going to cut it.

(5) aT-J30-Q: QuakeIV, evictedSaint, Powder Miner, McHuman, NUKE9.13, ConscriptFive

If you really want an airborne radar, maybe the next design should be a Reckless Effect airframe converted into an early AWACS?

[stabbymcstabstab]

(6) aT-J30-Q: QuakeIV, evictedSaint, Powder Miner, McHuman, NUKE9.13, ConscriptFive, Stabby

I'll vote for a early AWACS next turn since we could use that to also coordinate attacks on shipping and fleets.

[Sensei]

aT-J30-Q

A variant of the freshly-designed aT-J30 engines.  Makes greater use of fuel-efficient designs, allowing it to capitalize on the kerosene/hydrazine fuel blend, as well as optimizing exhaust ports for afterburner use.  This redesign allows the aT-J30-Q to burn at the same thrust as the aT-J30 at a greater efficiency, dropping the overall cost of the VV Frightening by 2 Oil, since it has two engines 1 Oil.

This variant is named after the remarkably brilliant Professor Gottfried Q. Wolfram IV of Leipzig University, who spearheaded the new design.

Very Hard: 1
aT-J30-Q: Maintaining performance while reducing fuel use is an incredibly hard task, but even for merely reducing fuel use the aT-J30-Q fails to meet expectations. After Leipzig-based consultant Gottfried Q. Wolfram left the project, claiming an engineer had horribly insulted his family, Forenian engineers were only able to cobble together a half-completed version of the project which runs on plain kerosene to reduce fuel costs and even omits afterburners to save fuel. With the altered fuel blend, the engines are prone to flameouts at low speed (which in the two-engine design invariably leads to a dangerous flat spin). VV-Frightening-Q Variant: [6 Ore, 5 Oil]

[ConscriptFive]

With the altered fuel blend, the engines are prone to flameouts at low speed (which in the two-engine design invariably leads to a dangerous flat spin). VV-Frightening-Q Variant: [6 Ore, 5 Oil]

What does it say about me that 30 years later I'm still not entirely over Goose's death?  #Only80sKidsWillRemember

[helmacon]

oh right. A 1. Of course.


(at least it still *kinda* worked)

[Madman198237]

Well, the flameout-prone version should still be capable of boom-and-zoom runs, missile-carrying missions, or bomber intercepts. The more expensive version can handle whatever dogfighting we need.

[helmacon]

Use the more expensive for the non radar versions, the less expensive for our radar units.

They just keep moving fast to maintain a breadth of information.