Print

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

[Wizgrot]

eS, if our rocket artillery gets banned, what would the consequences be for the USA and Russia, both of which have used rocket artillery in combat extensively? What about the smaller countries which have bought similar systems from the superpowers and used them on war?

When you bring a weapon to court, do you need to specify before hand the Articles breached or can you just say whatever about any transgression? Case in point, how they intend bringing up arguments from other Articles despite the session being about the fifth one?

[Taricus]

Xi-53b Xìnlài de-series Turbine Engines (3): Thanik, Taricus, Wizgrot

[Jilladilla]

Let's do this.

Xi-53b Xìnlài de-series Turbine Engines (4): Thanik, Taricus, Wizgrot, Jilladilla

[Draxis]

"I believe that this case rests entirely on the definition of 'fixed-wing aircraft' presented in Protocol V. Fixed-wing aircraft are defined as 'air-borne vehicles which use stationary wing planes as their primary method of generating lift for offensive military purposes'. It is clear that this does definition does not apply to our rockets, and thus they are not controlled under the letter of the treaty. Furthermore, the use of fin stabilization increases the precision of these weapons, and is therefore positively in line with the spirit of Protocol V.

"First, the rockets take off under their own power, and only then do the fins extend. Clearly then the fins are not then necessary for flight, but rather for control - no different, might I add, than the rudders on any buoyant airship or naval vessel. Are those craft to be considered fixed-wing aircraft? Second, the fin placement is symmetrical and the projectiles spin rapidly in flight. Therefore, over the course of a single revolution, any "lift" theoretically provided by the an individual fin will average out to zero - thus if aerodynamic lift were the primary means of flight, the rockets would not fly as they would not generate any.

Third, the physical behavior of the rockets in flight demonstrates plainly that they are not fixed-wing aircraft - that is, without constant upward thrust from the motor, the rockets cannot remain in the air. This can be tested by firing one horizontally and seeing that it drops towards the ground on a powered ballistic trajectory rather than being "lifted" by the fins; by removing the fins from a rocket and observing that they the device still potentially flies as far given a set launch angle, simply with a less regular course; or by launching one and observing its behavior after losing power, when it will will behave like any artillery shell rather than gliding like a form which generates lift would.

"For these reasons, and the others advanced by my colleagues, it is patently obvious that our fin-stabilized rockets are not fixed-wing aircraft under the definition outlined in Protocol V or any other reasonable definition."

I think this incorporates the best points others brought up, as well as some others, but I'm open to improvements/suggestions.

I'm not comfortable voting for the Xi-53b as presented because of the bit on non-engine improvements to the walker. Seems like those being so different from the other priorities of the design will increase the difficulty. The Nogranians just did the same thing in its own design proposal. Given the dicepool we really don't need that.

[Thanik]

"I believe that this case rests entirely on the definition of 'fixed-wing aircraft' presented in Protocol V. Fixed-wing aircraft are defined as 'air-borne vehicles which use stationary wing planes as their primary method of generating lift for offensive military purposes'. It is clear that this does definition does not apply to our rockets, and thus they are not controlled under the letter of the treaty. Furthermore, the use of fin stabilization increases the precision of these weapons, and is therefore positively in line with the spirit of Protocol V.

"First, the rockets take off under their own power, and only then do the fins extend. Clearly then the fins are not then necessary for propulsion, but rather for control - no different, might I add, than the rudders on any buoyant airship or naval vessel. Second, the fin placement is symmetrical and the projectiles spin rapidly in flight. Therefore, over the course of a single revolution, any "lift" theoretically provided by the an individual fin will average out to zero - thus if aerodynamic lift were the primary means of suspension, the rockets would not fly as they would not generate any. Third, the physical behavior of the rockets in flight demonstrates plainly that they are not fixed-wing aircraft - that is, without constant upward thrust from the motor, the rockets cannot remain in the air. This can be tested by firing one horizontally and seeing that it drops towards the ground on a powered ballistic trajectory rather than being "lifted" by the fins, or by removing the fins from a rocket and observing that they the device still potentially flies as far given a set launch angle, simply with a less regular course.

"For these reasons, and the others advanced by my colleagues, it is patently obvious that our fin-stabilized rockets are not fixed-wing aircraft under the definition outlined in Protocol V or any other reasonable definition."

I think this incorporates the best points others brought up, as well as some others, but I'm open to improvements/suggestions.

I'm not comfortable voting for the Xi-53b as presented because of the bit on non-engine improvements to the walker. Seems like those being so different from the other priorities of the design will increase the difficulty. The Nogranians just did the same thing in its own design proposal. Given the dicepool we really don't need that.

I think your proposal is, indeed, a marvelous piece of work. Good job Draxis!

On the design incorporating non-engine improvements on the walker - note this is a design. It's doing something a revision would do regularly, and the improvements done to the walker are secondary in priority to actually getting the powerplant upgraded and into the various stuff. Given that, and the fact it's going to be much easier than the revision, I have strong reasons to believe that - as stated - it will be Normal in difficulty.

[RAM]

Types of winged aircraft:
Fixed-wing: Derives lift from wings moving through air as the vehicle moves through air.
Rotary-wing: Derives lift from wings moving through the air in a spinning motion independent of the aircraft.
Ornithopter: Derives lift from wing-air motion due to flapping.

"Fixed-wing" refers not to static planes, many fixed-wings could be folded for storage, it refers to interactions with the air to produce lift. Our rockets do not derive "lift" at all, they just thrust away from the ground fast enough to stay up long enough to reach their destination. There are no wings on our design, there is no lift-generating surface. The principals by which it stays aloft are no different than those of a bullet, it simply shoots itself continuously instead of just initially. Perhaps the most damning thing of all is what happens when it exhausts its fuel. A pilot can attempt to glide a fixed-wing aircraft, with a rocket this is impossible. "Wings" create lift due to air-flow and pressure. There are no wings here, they are called "fins" and anyone with a background in aerodynamics can tell you that they have completely different specifications and fins serve to prevent unintended harm.

This protocol was put in place to address the horrific slaughter of civilians seen by heavy bombers and "area bombing" against large numbers of ground forces. Some tragic examples proved that aircraft and bomb could not always be separated. This protocol exists to address the fact that fixed-wing aircraft can efficiently carry very large payloads over very long distances and then drop them for massive and indiscriminate devastation. Our rocket is a projectile weapon, just like any other artillery. Perhaps a protocol should exist to restrain artillery, but such is not addressed today, today we are scratching our heads and asking why a self-propelled shell is being called an aeroplane.

Our adversaries have built their own military aircraft, they know wings. They are also keen studies of foreign warfare, they are well versed in the events that inspired these protocols and why an artillery shell is not subject to this protocol. One is only left to stare in disbelief as to what their intentions are in bringing such an obviously illegitimate case before this council. Do they simply wish to waste our efforts here instead of defending our homeland? Or is it something more sinister? Perhaps they seek to manipulate this council. Perhaps they have their own plans to build some bloated rocket, flying over battlefields belligerently spewing ordnance onto the ground below, or maybe they have some arrangement of fins that result in a wing, whatever their plans, it seems more likely that they seek to lead the council into a ruling that would make whatever insidious vulgarities they intend more difficult to prosecute. I cannot claim to know the manners of such malignant minds, I know only that such a blatantly flimsy attack smells of subterfuge...

[Rockeater]

"I believe that this case rests entirely on the definition of 'fixed-wing aircraft' presented in Protocol V. Fixed-wing aircraft are defined as 'air-borne vehicles which use stationary wing planes as their primary method of generating lift for offensive military purposes'. It is clear that this does definition does not apply to our rockets, and thus they are not controlled under the letter of the treaty. Furthermore, the use of fin stabilization increases the precision of these weapons, and is therefore positively in line with the spirit of Protocol V.

"First, the rockets take off under their own power, and only then do the fins extend. Clearly then the fins are not then necessary for flight, but rather for control - no different, might I add, than the rudders on any buoyant airship or naval vessel. Second, the fin placement is symmetrical and the projectiles spin rapidly in flight. Therefore, over the course of a single revolution, any "lift" theoretically provided by the an individual fin will average out to zero - thus if aerodynamic lift were the primary means of suspension, the rockets would not fly as they would not generate any.

Third, the physical behavior of the rockets in flight demonstrates plainly that they are not fixed-wing aircraft - that is, without constant upward thrust from the motor, the rockets cannot remain in the air. This can be tested by firing one horizontally and seeing that it drops towards the ground on a powered ballistic trajectory rather than being "lifted" by the fins; by removing the fins from a rocket and observing that they the device still potentially flies as far given a set launch angle, simply with a less regular course; or by launching one and observing its behavior after losing power, when it will will behave like any artillery shell rather than gliding like a form which generates lift would.

"For these reasons, and the others advanced by my colleagues, it is patently obvious that our fin-stabilized rockets are not fixed-wing aircraft under the definition outlined in Protocol V or any other reasonable definition."

I think this incorporates the best points others brought up, as well as some others, but I'm open to improvements/suggestions.

I'm not comfortable voting for the Xi-53b as presented because of the bit on non-engine improvements to the walker. Seems like those being so different from the other priorities of the design will increase the difficulty. The Nogranians just did the same thing in its own design proposal. Given the dicepool we really don't need that.

The last two lines are a bit odd, I think the text is juged alone.

[Rockeater]

Xi-53b Xìnlài de-series Turbine Engines (4): Thanik, Taricus, Wizgrot,Rockeater

[Wizgrot]

eS our rocket artillery isn´t equiped with a fire-all system, right? Every rocket is activated on their own by pressing the corresponding button at the  console?

[evictedSaint]

eS our rocket artillery isn´t equiped with a fire-all system, right? Every rocket is activated on their own by pressing the corresponding button at the  console?

correct

[evictedSaint]

Xi-53b Xìnlài de-series Turbine Engines
The successful Xinlai de series turbine engine is further worked on to increase it's fuel efficiency by as much as originally planned. By incorporating reheating, the simple-cycle efficiencies of our gas turbine is expected to increase further by another 50-60%, which in conjunction with the combined-cycle engine already uses, the intercooler and the heat exchanger, should lead to an engine at least 300% more powerful than the Type-52b from which it originated originally (compared to the 160% increase the intercooler and regenerator bring on their own). A simple tuned pipe-type muffler (tuned pipe exhaust - also basically an aero turbine muffler) is also added to reduce noise levels, where-in the pipe has a resonant frequency of operation, and when the engine is operating at that speed, the muffler causes a timed partial vacuum at the engine's exhaust port, helping the engine vent exhaust gasses. The net result is a boost of power at that operating speed due to the engine breathing better, a couple of percent worth of fuel efficiency, as well as producing less overall noise.

The net result is cheaper, more powerful engines for all our military vehicles, with the work going to the Xīwàng Kèzhì, Piāoqiè guānsī, Qi-Chu, Dogbite and Yāngē. Priorities for each vehicle:

1. Qi-Chu -> Replace the Type-52b engines with a Xi-53b Xinlai de-series engine.
2. Piāoqiè guānsī -> Replace the current powerplant with a Xi-53b Xinlai de-series engine.
       2.1(!) Armor is to be increased to Medium on the hull and Light on the legs.
             2.1.1 Work is to be done on making the vehicle capable of omnidirectional traversal (meaning it can turn and move at the same time)
3. Xīwàng Kèzhì -> Upgrade to the Xi-53b Xinlai de-series engine.
4. Yange -> Improve current turboshafts via experience from Xi-53b Xinlai de-series engines.
5. Dogbite  -> Replace the current powerplant with a Xi-53b Xinlai de-series engine.

The more indented the priority, the lower it is (as it is with a lower number). Engines are to be listed as X53XLAII-A / L / N. Naming convention retained from Xi-53. A set of popular joke phrases is to be spray painted onto the hull of various vehicles, including the following from the wildly popular Tondeshe Mūbingusutōrī, Fist of the Red Star:

Zhǔnbèi nǐ de pìgu - Prepare your ass
> Said in a dramatic manner as the protagonist prepares his eye lasers and fires, blasting the antagonist into the ground in a devastating fashion.
Nǐ yǐjīng xiāoshīle - You are already obliterated
> Said as the protagonist finishes bitch slapping one of his comrades so as to break them of thoughts of failure and get their head back in the game.

Normal Difficulty: 5
The Xi-53b Xìnlài de-series Turbine Engines is about as cutting-edge as we can make it.  The engine features reheating, intercoolers, heat exchangers, and a partial-vacuum muffler.  The fuel efficiency makes this engine terribly useful, meaning that it requires less oil to operate than its predecessor. 

We spend the rest of our time integrating this new engine into our equipment.  The Qi-Chu requires a bit of restructuring to fit the new single engine, but we manage.  The Qi-Chu no longer features the large vertical air intake that limited the main armament's range of motion, and the single efficient engine means the Oil cost drops by 2.  The Qi-Chu is still unarmored, but the lower cost means we will see more of them on the battlefield in the future.  Troop capacity is nearly doubled.

Swapping the diesel engine on the Piāoqiè guānsī and oil-fired engines on the Dogbite are a little too complex to pull off in a single un-dedicated design, sadly, and no changes are made to them this turn.

The Xīwàng Kèzhì accepts the new engine gladly, and drops by 1 Oil.

The Yange likewise accepts new up-sized Xi-53b turbine engines, and drops by 1 Oil.

[Thanik]

Following this momentous occasion, I'd like to recommend going for a revision that primarily targets our tank - but also our artillery, navy and anything using our current cannon in general. I present the following:

Xi-53 Li-Jiǎo Guàiwù Tank-Walker TB-53-01 & Xi-53 Qīngsuàn 75 mm L/60 Duìzhì gun (Alternatively the General Tank-Walker+Cannon Revision)
The first part of this revision is the tank's new cannon. Nogranian deployment of heavy armor, aircraft and longer-range guns has created a need for artillery better than the venerable, yet outdated Sunrise. Our rocket artillery is great for bombardment, the army requires a conventional gun capable of longer ranges and anti-armor roles. Therefore, a proposal was developed for a high-velocity 75mm gun which should be able to provide more accurate and powerful fire out to a longer range than the existing 50mm in the form of the Xi-53 Qīngsuàn 75 mm L/60 Duìzhì gun, featuring a larger bore and a lengthened and reinforced breech which allows for increased powder charges. Field carriages are modified to allow high-elevation fire, and the increased barrel length, as well as the lengthened cartridge, allow for a high velocity cannon, while a pepper-pot muzzle brake is intended to provide a recoil reduction and thus reduce the stroke of the gun after firing - which is useful in both armored vehicles and mobile artillery. The end result is a cannon complementing the Tondeshe People's Army with a weapon capable of taking on both direct and indirect fire roles, practically replacing the Sunrise on the field.

The second part, of course, is directed at the Piāoqiè guānsī, intended to become the Xi-53 Li-Jiǎo Guàiwù following a limited number of modifications. Firstly, the powerplant is replaced with a X53XLAII-LJG1 turboshaft engine intended to reduce the space necessary to accommodate the engine, as it generates more power per tonne than the Piaoqie's diesel-powered internal combustion engine, shaving some weight off the vehicle in the process, as well as improving the tank's overall mobility both due to the aforementioned weight reduction, as well as the more powerful powerplant driving it. The legs' armor is increased to match the hull's, bringing it up to Light and extending leg-shields as to provide cover for troops in the field, while work is also done as to allow the vehicle to both turn and move forwards at the same time. The end result should be covered in Light armor all-round, armed with a much more capable armament for anti-tank duties, as well as much more mobile, offsetting it's lower armor thickness compared to the enemy's Rhino.

If possible a timed-fuse HE shell will be developed for use against ships and aircraft, but that is considered a lower priority than the rest of the revision and should be ignored should it in any way infringe on the below mentioned priorities.

Priority List:
1. Develop the Xi-53 Qīngsuàn 75 mm L/60 Duìzhì gun
2. Replace the Piāoqiè guānsī's powerplant with a Xinlai B-series X53XLAII-LJG1 turboshaft.
3. Up-armor the legs to match the hull in terms of armor thickness.
    3.1 Develop active steering during navigation so as to increase the craft's mobility.
4. Develop timed-fuse HE shells.

Estimated Difficulty: Hard
-> Present engine, just needs to be fitted. (If nothing else, will improve mobility by a lot, and it'll possibly deduce an oil due to the much higher efficiency / ore due to the lessened weight, or even both, though I'm doubtful of the latter outcome)
-> Armoring is only done on the legs, which is considered Easy.
-> Developing a cannon only 50% larger in bore size than the Sunrise, and making the barrel longer isn't considered worth any additional difficulty, really. If you can make a tube, making a somewhat longer tube is assumed to be trivial.
-> Steering and timed-fuse shells are assumed to add Normal difficulty to the design, which in turn, brings it up to Hard. Both are low priorities compared to the rest of the above features.

Revisions:
General Tank-Walker+Cannon Revision (1): Thanik

[Taricus]

Revisions:
General Tank-Walker+Cannon Revision (2): Thanik, Taricus

[Rockeater]

Revisions:
General Tank-Walker+Cannon Revision (3): Thanik, Taricus,Rockeater

[Pavellius]

Revisions:
General Tank-Walker+Cannon Revision (4): Thanik, Taricus,Rockeater, Pavellius