Print

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

[Kot]

REVISION
NAF-NG-53 "Grand Duke" (0):
NAF-MAB-53 "Albatross" Airship (0):
NAF-UH-51-A "Draught" (2): Chiefwaffles, Kot

[frostgiant]

REVISION
NAF-NG-53 "Grand Duke" (0):
NAF-MAB-53 "Albatross" Airship (0):
NAF-UH-51-A "Draught" (3): Chiefwaffles, Kot, Frostgiant

[evictedSaint]

Revision: NAF-UH-51-A "Draught"

The Draught is a set of modifications to the Draft in order to make it more viable in direct combat roles.

The first is the implementation of (detachable) floats, allowing the Draught to be some degree of effective at sea. We're not expecting it to be some fantastic gamechanger, but it should be of notable use. The next modification is the implementation of two Emus mounted on the front of the Draught, with the gearing set so a passenger (preferably gunner, but if we can't easily fit another in the cockpit, just do passenger) using two hands can operate both Emus at once; if they can't see where they're shooting, then the pilot just tells them when to shoot. The cabin-mounted Emus from the Draft stay and will be standard, with passengers to operate them. Beyond the crew for the weaponry, the Draught will not be carrying any passengers or cargo.
Finally, we take some basic bombs from our illegal plane and attach them to the Draught to allow for a limited bombing role.

So, to sum it up, we basically glue some extra guns and bombs onto the Draft along with detachable floats. Maybe paint it black for additional tacticoolness, and rename it "Draught".

Normal Difficulty: 4

The Draft now features a more heavily-armed variant known as the NAF-UH-51-A "Draught".  It comes with a set of detachable floats to allow it to float in water, though this will only work on calm waters and the craft will likely capsize or be otherwise unable to take off in rougher seas.  We mount a second pair of forward-facing Emu's on the side of the Draught, which can both be operated by a single passenger through some clever gearing.  They cannot see what they're firing at, but rely instead on the pilots instructions on when to shoot.  The effectiveness of this design over the gunner aiming and firing himself is dubious, but we can do it nonetheless.  Lastly, we hastily rig up a pair of bomb mountings on either side of the helicopter at the cost of the helicopters carrying capacity.  They can be deployed by the pilot, but it is recommended to drop both in quick succession to avoid balance issues. We also paint it black, to differentiate it from the standard Draft.  4 Ore, 4 Oil, 1 Cobalt, 1 Aluminum.

[frostgiant]

Attack:
Swamp (from mountain) (0):
Swamp(from badlands) (0):
Fjords (1): Frostgiant
Sea (1):Frostgiant

[10ebbor10]

Attack:
Swamp (from mountain) (0):
Swamp(from badlands) (0):
Fjords (2): Frostgiant, 10ebbor10
Sea (2):Frostgiant, 10ebbor10

[Chiefwaffles]

We have a pretty good chance this turn. The Draught should actually really help, we have better tanks that are comparatively much more durable, and our Red Herrings will be cheap.

Attack:
Swamp (from Mountains) (0):
Swamp(from Badlands) (0):
Fjords (3): Frostgiant, 10ebbor10, Chiefwaffles
Sea (3): Frostgiant, 10ebbor10, Chiefwaffles

U.N. Appeal
Bring "Xi-52 Yīfānfēngshùn Artillery Rocket" to Court
- Yes (1): Chiefwaffles
- No (0):

But we should bring their rockets to court.
It's an open-and-shut case. If we look at Article V of the conventions... (emphasis mine)

V.    Fixed-Wing Aircraft:
Protocol V on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Fixed-Wing Aircraft prohibits the use of air-borne vehicles which use stationary wing planes as their primary method of generating lift for offensive military purposes.  Such vehicles may not be fitted with offensive or defensive armaments, including but not limited to: bombs, guns, rockets, or flechettes.  Additionally, the use of fixed-wing aircraft itself as a weapon against enemy targets is prohibited.  The reason is that the imprecise nature of bombing results in unacceptable amounts of collateral damage against civilian objects, and such vehicles do not permit chance for military personnel to surrender during combat. This protocol does not recognize the pilots signal flare as an armament, nor does it prohibit the use of unarmed fixed-wing aircraft for observational purposes.

They added fins to their rockets, and as the rockets have no other method of generating lift, that means rockets are weaponized fixed-wing aircraft. It's clear that when looking at the word of the law, it's downright illegal. Fins are fixed-wing. Their rockets have fins. Their rockets use fins as the primary method of generating lift. It goes exactly against what the conventions say.
Furthermore, this isn't just some "BUT TECHNICALLY...!" case. We have the morale highground too. Their use of fins on the rockets allows them to bomb further-off areas with little consequence to the operator, and little consideration/awareness of the collateral damage and destruction that'd be caused by the finned rocket. So not only do we have the word of the law on our side, but we have the spirit of the law.

There shouldn't be any question that their new rockets are illegal.

[stabbymcstabstab]

Attack:
Swamp (from Mountains) (0):
Swamp(from Badlands) (0):
Fjords (4): Frostgiant, 10ebbor10, Chiefwaffles, Stabby
Sea (4): Frostgiant, 10ebbor10, Chiefwaffles, Stabby

U.N. Appeal
Bring "Xi-52 Yīfānfēngshùn Artillery Rocket" to Court
- Yes (2): Chiefwaffles, Stabby
- No (0):

[Happerry]

I have to say I am not at all convinced that we can prove that the fins are the main source of lift, or a source of lift at all instead of being a stabilizer, compared to the actual rocket part of the rocket artillery, which is definitely pushing the Yīfānfēngshùn upwards when fired.

Attack:
Swamp (from Mountains) (0):
Swamp(from Badlands) (0):
Fjords (5): Frostgiant, 10ebbor10, Chiefwaffles, Stabby, Happerry
Sea (5): Frostgiant, 10ebbor10, Chiefwaffles, Stabby, Happerry

U.N. Appeal
Bring "Xi-52 Yīfānfēngshùn Artillery Rocket" to Court
- Yes (2): Chiefwaffles, Stabby
- No (1): Happerry

[Chiefwaffles]

This is lift.
Lift does not mean "upwards force". It's a force borne from "a fluid flowing past the surface of a body." Angling the rocket upwards does not mean the rocket motor generates lift. Lift in this sense can also be provided by things such as helicopter blades (and actually anything - just only effectively by helicopter blades and the like), but fixed wings - fins - are explicitly banned as a primary method of generating this lift.

If they're using fins, those fins are the primary source of generating lift.


EDIT: Furthermore, in addition to our substantial technical backing, we also have this lovely clause of Article V to work off of:

The reason is that the imprecise nature of bombing results in unacceptable amounts of collateral damage against civilian objects, and such vehicles do not permit chance for military personnel to surrender during combat.

So not only are their finned rockets technically illegal, but they're also immorally illegal. Every word of the quoted sentence applies to Toskesh's rockets.
Toskesh proved in prior cases that morale arguments have a weight with UN. We have both technical and morale arguments.

And it's painfully obvious that we have enough of a case so even if they don't rule in our favor, it won't be seen as a frivolous appeal. Even if they rule against us, it'll still generate important (dangerous) precedent and the U.N. knows that. We don't actually have any substantial risk towards arguing that their rockets are illegal.

[Khang36]

This is lift.
Lift does not mean "upwards force". It's a force borne from "a fluid flowing past the surface of a body." Angling the rocket upwards does not mean the rocket motor generates lift. Lift in this sense can also be provided by things such as helicopter blades (and actually anything - just only effectively by helicopter blades and the like), but fixed wings - fins - are explicitly banned as a primary method of generating this lift.

If they're using fins, those fins are the primary source of generating lift.

The question is are the fins generating any form of force? I have always thought stabilising fins worked the same way wind vains did just pushed by the wind until it presents the smallest profile.

[10ebbor10]

I have always thought stabilising fins worked the same way wind vains did just pushed by the wind until it presents the smallest profile

Yeah, that's lift.

Here's NASA's explanation.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/rocket/rktfor.html

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/rocket/rktstab.html

[Kot]

And how do you guess wings generate lift, Sherlock. There is a bunch of pressure and other aerodynamics involved (which are mostly concerned by the shape of a given wing plane, although it should be noted that even a piece of paper can literally generate lift, so the shape is not neccessary, it's just way better this way), but it works according to Newtons laws is that air pushes wing and wing pushes air and that's lift for you. When the fins correct the course of the rocket they do so by generating lift. There is nothing else on the Toskesh missiles that generates lift (well, except the body but if it doesn't fly straight without the fins the lift amount is negligible), as the rocket engine only generates thrust, this effectively means that the fins are the main source of lift on the rockets.

Seems like insane troll logic, but it's actually really solid. I can see the case going either way, to be honest, but I don't think it'd be frivolous, and the appeal to the morality and the purpose of law - preventing massed bombing from air due to high casualties, low accuracy and inability to surrender very much applies to rocket artillery.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/rocket/rktfor.html

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/rocket/rktstab.html

Holy shit, Ebbor with the clutch. I was trying to find a page that explains it all well and openly in sense of rockets, but didin't think of NASA. I think that settles it all.

Attack:
Swamp (from Mountains) (0):
Swamp(from Badlands) (0):
Fjords (5): Frostgiant, 10ebbor10, Chiefwaffles, Stabby, Happerry
Sea (5): Frostgiant, 10ebbor10, Chiefwaffles, Stabby, Happerry

U.N. Appeal
Bring "Xi-52 Yīfānfēngshùn Artillery Rocket" to Court
- Yes (3): Chiefwaffles, Stabby, Kot
- No (1): Happerry

Also, should be noted the “Jin Na” SMRL X-52b also includes fins, but they are fold-out fins. I'd throw them in too - if they are somehow legal then it means we can just make a plane with fold-out wings.

[10ebbor10]

Attack:
Swamp (from Mountains) (0):
Swamp(from Badlands) (0):
Fjords (5): Frostgiant, 10ebbor10, Chiefwaffles, Stabby, Happerry
Sea (5): Frostgiant, 10ebbor10, Chiefwaffles, Stabby, Happerry

U.N. Appeal
Bring "Xi-52 Yīfānfēngshùn Artillery Rocket" to Court
- Yes (4): Chiefwaffles, Stabby, Kot, 10ebbor10
- No (1): Happerry

Bring "Jin Na” SMRL X-52b to Court
- Yes (1): 10ebbor10
- No (0):

[BBBence1111]

Attack:
Swamp (from Mountains) (0):
Swamp(from Badlands) (0):
Fjords (6): Frostgiant, 10ebbor10, Chiefwaffles, Stabby, Happerry, BBB
Sea (6): Frostgiant, 10ebbor10, Chiefwaffles, Stabby, Happerry, BBB

U.N. Appeal
Bring "Xi-52 Yīfānfēngshùn Artillery Rocket" to Court
- Yes (5): Chiefwaffles, Stabby, Kot, 10ebbor10, BBB
- No (1): Happerry

Bring "Jin Na” SMRL X-52b to Court
- Yes (2): 10ebbor10, BBB
- No (0):

[Kot]

Attack:
Swamp (from Mountains) (0):
Swamp(from Badlands) (0):
Fjords (6): Frostgiant, 10ebbor10, Chiefwaffles, Stabby, Happerry, BBB
Sea (6): Frostgiant, 10ebbor10, Chiefwaffles, Stabby, Happerry, BBB

U.N. Appeal
Bring "Xi-52 Yīfānfēngshùn Artillery Rocket" to Court
- Yes (5): Chiefwaffles, Stabby, Kot, 10ebbor10, BBB
- No (1): Happerry

Bring "Jin Na” SMRL X-52b to Court
- Yes (3): 10ebbor10, BBB, Kot
- No (0):