IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

9 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Aviation Monthly
Pepo
post 8 Jul 2014, 20:19
Post #151



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 517
Joined: 18 March 2013
From: Spain
Member No.: 9862



i really like the lore , althougth i find it strange that you use suchoj instead of sukhoi
ps: no mention to the other big company of russian planes, Yakolev
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cobretti
post 8 Jul 2014, 20:33
Post #152



Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 838
Joined: 7 June 2009
From: Southeastern USA
Member No.: 47



Suchoj/Sukhoi/Suhoj are all acceptable Romanizations of "Сухой." I have plans for Jakovlev in the future; look closely and you'll notice a minor reference to a VTOL jet program for the Russian Navy...


--------------------
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."-- George S. Patton


Resquiescat in pace, CommanderJB 1991-2009
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Svea Rike
post 8 Jul 2014, 20:58
Post #153



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2492
Joined: 20 December 2012
From: My mother's womb
Member No.: 9540



QUOTE (MARS @ 8 Jul 2014, 20:47) *
This is a very well thought out take on the Berkut. I would consider it fully compatible with the canon, even the Su-49 designation. Suppose the Russians could still refer it as the Berkut since this is, for all intents and purposes, a fully developed production model based on the original plane. Great work, Krieger. Someone feel free to add this to the lore section of the Berkut article. I'm pretty sure the plane hasn't been strictly identified as an Su-47 in any official lore text.


Can we do this for all his other in-depth descriptions, too? Heck, why not just have Kriger help with the unit descriptions?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Planardweller
post 8 Jul 2014, 22:06
Post #154



Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 431
Joined: 5 November 2012
From: Ukraine, Kyiv
Member No.: 9425



QUOTE (DerKrieger @ 8 Jul 2014, 22:33) *
Suchoj/Sukhoi/Suhoj are all acceptable Romanizations of "Сухой." I have plans for Jakovlev in the future; look closely and you'll notice a minor reference to a VTOL jet program for the Russian Navy...


Sorry but no, the correct and currently used romanization is Sukhoi, because of the "kh" consonant - which is close enough to the respective cyrillic "х" consonant. By the same logic the correct name of the city is Kharkiv and respectively Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau

There is a speculation about "Suhoj" variant, but both russian and ukrainian official rules on romanizations use "kh"
"Ch" is equivalent to cyrillic "ч" consonant like in Ernesto "Che" Guevara.

Just a minor grammar-nazi moment from me. Please, continue writing your very well written fluff for aircraft and tanks.

This post has been edited by Planardweller: 8 Jul 2014, 22:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cobretti
post 29 Jul 2014, 21:29
Post #155



Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 838
Joined: 7 June 2009
From: Southeastern USA
Member No.: 47



Yes, I realize updates have been sporadic, but I am working on them intermittently. The big question right now is what I want to concentrate on first. One of the suggestions I got a while back was something on the US tanks, getting that one done. I also want to do something on naval technology and warships and something on directed energy weapons as well. If any of y'all have a burning desire to have something explained, speak up!


--------------------
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."-- George S. Patton


Resquiescat in pace, CommanderJB 1991-2009
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Svea Rike
post 29 Jul 2014, 22:05
Post #156



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2492
Joined: 20 December 2012
From: My mother's womb
Member No.: 9540



I've always wondered, do the US still use battleships? They used them in Zero Hour, and some stories and fan-fics suggest they do. If so, why? Budget cuts, again? The US did sell many of their newer vessels in "Farewell to Foreign Shores".


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 30 Jul 2014, 7:02
Post #157



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5870
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



I'd like to see some more on American tanks. I already tried to get a few old hiccups in order with Heavy Hitters, perhaps you can expand on that.

Quick breakdown:
Acolyte = M8 'Acolyte', mounts a 90mm gun
OLD Crusader = M4 'Crusader', has no established information aside from what's been said in manuals and the like, so you have a lot of leeway here
NEW Crusader = M5 'Crusader II', A1 version was in use during the 2030s and mounted a rather odd 90mm cannon according to old lore while the A2 version was updated with a 105mm gun prior to the Sino-American attack on Kurmuk in 2040. Made by a company called Mondo Armor Systems according to older lore. The Crusader name was kept to bullshit it through Congress as merely being an upgrade instead of a whole new vehicle.
OLD Paladin = M1A4 'Paladin', actually an M1A3 'Abrams' with massive upgrades, including PDL and AI assistance
NEW Paladin = M10 'Paladin II', completely new baseline vehicle that includes all M1A4 upgrades as default. The update provided more information on the history of the vehicle than its technical specs (presumably to keep some things classified, since it was presented on a TV programme), so you could really come up with some cool stuff here. The only thing we know is that the tank mounts a 120mm cannon and that it is an all-American design (according to Bradley anyway) with no components of European origin/design.

That aside, maybe you can also think up an explanation for the vaguely religious inspired naming scheme. I kinda operated under the assumption that the GWOT partly escalated in the way it did because the US government at the time had a strong religious vibe and hyped it up to a literal clash of civilisations, a fight for the very survival of western/christian society, against the ravaging hordes of the GLA, which at the time was A LOT more religiously motivated than it is under Sulaymaan, essentially ISIS on steroids (interesting how times change, we still called it 'Al Qaeda on steroids' a few years ago)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cobretti
post 30 Jul 2014, 14:35
Post #158



Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 838
Joined: 7 June 2009
From: Southeastern USA
Member No.: 47



QUOTE (Svea Rike @ 29 Jul 2014, 17:05) *
I've always wondered, do the US still use battleships? They used them in Zero Hour, and some stories and fan-fics suggest they do. If so, why? Budget cuts, again? The US did sell many of their newer vessels in "Farewell to Foreign Shores".

It looked to me in "Farewell to Foreign Shores" like they were selling a lot of the older mothballed vessels from the Cold War. Perhaps they brought out some battleships or heavy cruisers out of mothballs during Zero Hour for the purpose of shore bombardment. I'm thinking some variant of the Zumwalt class destroyer could serve a similar role now.

QUOTE (MARS @ 30 Jul 2014, 2:02) *
I'd like to see some more on American tanks. I already tried to get a few old hiccups in order with Heavy Hitters, perhaps you can expand on that.

Quick breakdown:
Acolyte = M8 'Acolyte', mounts a 90mm gun
OLD Crusader = M4 'Crusader', has no established information aside from what's been said in manuals and the like, so you have a lot of leeway here
NEW Crusader = M5 'Crusader II', A1 version was in use during the 2030s and mounted a rather odd 90mm cannon according to old lore while the A2 version was updated with a 105mm gun prior to the Sino-American attack on Kurmuk in 2040. Made by a company called Mondo Armor Systems according to older lore. The Crusader name was kept to bullshit it through Congress as merely being an upgrade instead of a whole new vehicle.
OLD Paladin = M1A4 'Paladin', actually an M1A3 'Abrams' with massive upgrades, including PDL and AI assistance
NEW Paladin = M10 'Paladin II', completely new baseline vehicle that includes all M1A4 upgrades as default. The update provided more information on the history of the vehicle than its technical specs (presumably to keep some things classified, since it was presented on a TV programme), so you could really come up with some cool stuff here. The only thing we know is that the tank mounts a 120mm cannon and that it is an all-American design (according to Bradley anyway) with no components of European origin/design.

That aside, maybe you can also think up an explanation for the vaguely religious inspired naming scheme. I kinda operated under the assumption that the GWOT partly escalated in the way it did because the US government at the time had a strong religious vibe and hyped it up to a literal clash of civilisations, a fight for the very survival of western/christian society, against the ravaging hordes of the GLA, which at the time was A LOT more religiously motivated than it is under Sulaymaan, essentially ISIS on steroids (interesting how times change, we still called it 'Al Qaeda on steroids' a few years ago)


I actually do have a very good explanation for the names, its a bit unconventional but I think it works.


--------------------
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."-- George S. Patton


Resquiescat in pace, CommanderJB 1991-2009
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omnius64
post 2 Sep 2014, 18:43
Post #159



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 24 May 2014
Member No.: 10479



Love the technicals description you write , DerKrieger!

Would you do for the Harrier , the Gepard Flakpanzer, Golem and Tesla tank?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cobretti
post 3 Sep 2014, 19:00
Post #160



Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 838
Joined: 7 June 2009
From: Southeastern USA
Member No.: 47



Sure thing, I was thinking about the Harrier a while back. Right now I've been working off and on about US armor as someone requested it a while back.


--------------------
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."-- George S. Patton


Resquiescat in pace, CommanderJB 1991-2009
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omnius64
post 3 Sep 2014, 19:05
Post #161



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 24 May 2014
Member No.: 10479



QUOTE (DerKrieger @ 3 Sep 2014, 20:00) *
Sure thing, I was thinking about the Harrier a while back. Right now I've been working off and on about US armor as someone requested it a while back.

Thanks. After all, I dont think the Harrier in-game is the same model of Harrier of the 70s-80s, after all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cobretti
post 3 Sep 2014, 19:08
Post #162



Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 838
Joined: 7 June 2009
From: Southeastern USA
Member No.: 47



I don't think it is, either. My take is that its a very different new build aircraft that has a lot of design similarities to the original Harrier due to it serving the same role. Sorta like my take on the Berkut, actually.


--------------------
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."-- George S. Patton


Resquiescat in pace, CommanderJB 1991-2009
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omnius64
post 3 Sep 2014, 19:41
Post #163



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 24 May 2014
Member No.: 10479



QUOTE (DerKrieger @ 3 Sep 2014, 20:08) *
I don't think it is, either. My take is that its a very different new build aircraft that has a lot of design similarities to the original Harrier due to it serving the same role. Sorta like my take on the Berkut, actually.

Not not like the Harrier. IT IS A HARRIER.
The Harrier we se ingame are mostly from the Spanish Navy, because England sold them the Harriers.
Now the think is, I dont think the Harrier of ROTR are the same Harriers that were sold in 2010s.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omnius64
post 3 Sep 2014, 19:42
Post #164



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 24 May 2014
Member No.: 10479



QUOTE (DerKrieger @ 3 Sep 2014, 20:08) *
I don't think it is, either. My take is that its a very different new build aircraft that has a lot of design similarities to the original Harrier due to it serving the same role. Sorta like my take on the Berkut, actually.

No, it is not like the Harrier. IT IS A HARRIER.
The Harrier we see ingame are mostly from the Spanish Navy, because England sold them the Harriers.
Now the think is, I dont think the Harrier of ROTR are the same Harriers that were sold in 2010s.
I believe England did made a new Harrier model in the 2020s, and then England retired them during late 2030/early 2040, selling them to other countries, most of them being adquired by Spain.

This post has been edited by Omnius64: 3 Sep 2014, 19:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cobretti
post 3 Sep 2014, 23:58
Post #165



Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 838
Joined: 7 June 2009
From: Southeastern USA
Member No.: 47



Oh, it's a Harrier, just a Harrier III. In other words a new generation of Harrier jet, though perhaps existing airframes could be refit to Harrier III standard. It'll be a Royal Navy program that was exported to Spain and Italy just like the prior model of the Harrier.


--------------------
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."-- George S. Patton


Resquiescat in pace, CommanderJB 1991-2009
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cobretti
post 9 Sep 2014, 16:42
Post #166



Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 838
Joined: 7 June 2009
From: Southeastern USA
Member No.: 47



Here's some stuff on American armor. I'll likely do the Microwave Tank, Bradley, and Humvee some other time, give them their own update. This one took long enough as is!

General Dynamics M1 Abrams Series: As tensions rose in Central Asia along with the appearance of makeshift armored vehicles among GLA warlords, the US Army and Marine Corps sought the acceleration of the M1A3 upgrade project for the long-serving Abrams tank. Initially slated for entry into service in 2017, the first M1A3 entered service in 2013. With the thousands of Cold War surplus M1 tanks and literal mountains of spare parts, it is projected that the M1 Abrams will remain in service well into the 21st century.

The M1A3 was seen as a comprehensive upgrade program for the existing stock of M1A1 and A2 tanks, centered around making the Abrams lighter weight and more easily deployable as well as giving it a comprehensive systems update for 21st century warfare. The tanks electronics were replaced with new fiber-optic wiring and the tank's body and treads were upgraded with lighter weight but still robust materials, resulting in a tank weighing 55 tons. Plans to reduce the crew to three members were scrapped early on, and the tank's crew still consists of a driver, gunner, commander, and loader.

For armament, the M1A3 is armed with the M256A2 120mm smoothbore cannon, a variant of the Rheinmetall L/44 cannon made with lightweight composites and tailored for the latest generation of projectiles, namely the M829A4 APFSDS and M1028 canister shot. The M1A3 retains the co-axial M240 and has an M2 Browning machine gun on a CROWS mount on the right side of the turret.

Like all US military combat vehicles, the M1A3 is capable of connecting with a variety of UAVs for support missions such as reconnaissance, fire support, and repair. Chief among these are the MQ-24 Cypher, equipped with a M249 machine gun, welding torch, and instacrete applicators, the new MQ-3 Scryer reconnaissance & attack drone, and the RQ-32 Targeteer spotter. Additionally, the M1A3 features the thermal viewer from the M1A2, a forward-looking phased array radar for fire control, and a tactical laser designator paired to the commander's viewer.

Armor consists of reinforced metal-ceramic composites with DU inserts and reinforced interior, and the M1A3 is completely compatible with active defenses such as the Quick Kill active protection system as well as non-explosive reactive armor. Nano composite armor is available as an upgrade package for the tank, giving even greater survivability at a negligible increase in weight (albeit a considerable increase in cost). The M1A3 features the same AGT-1500 gas turbine and X-1100-#B transmission, albeit with higher performance intakes and radiators mounted in the bottom of the tank to increase stealth versus IR.

During the Global War on Terror, the M1 Abrams earned the nickname “Crusader” after the US Armed Forces' victory at the Battle of Baghdad. After the rapid assault under heavy air support to retake the Iraqi capital from GLA militants, pro-GLA news networks repeatedly broadcast footage of US and Iraqi Abrams rolling through the re-conquered streets of Baghdad, with hysterical narration by GLA propagandists condemning the western “crusaders.” Ironically enough, GLA propaganda had heretofore stated how the Americans and their allies were in effect committing suicide by attacking the brave GLA mujihadeen, that there were no American or Iraqi loyalist troops within kilometers of the Iraqi border, much less in the vicinity of Baghdad or other strategic cities, and had even gone so far as to blame the GLA chemical attack in Baghdad on US & allied forces (which utterly failed to halt the US/Allied advance and had killed thousands of Iraqis who the GLA claimed to be protecting from Western secularism and imperialism). The unofficial nick-name stuck with the American and Australian crews of Abrams, enjoying how the term irritated GLA fighters (as well as many US intelligence officers, who frequently instructed American troops not to colloquially refer to the Abrams as “Crusaders”).

The M1A4 Abrams was conceived as an alternative, even more ambitious upgrade for the Abrams fleet. Seeing the success of the Quick Kill missile defense system on vehicles, Raytheon unveiled the next step in point defense; the Point Active Laser Armed Defense Integrated Network (PALADIN) system. The PALADIN was a comprehensive AI battle network system integrated into an M1 Abrams tank, allowing for the crew to be reduced to one. It included a 60 kW solid-state point defense laser based off of Kratos Defense & Security Solutions' Laser Weapons System developed for the US Navy, and is comparable to the HELLADS system devised by Textron for US combat aircraft. The defensive laser system on the M1A4 and AN/TWQ-1L Avenger were likewise extremely effective against the missile and rocket heavy GLA arsenal. As the AI targeted point defense laser was capable of targeting and destroying rockets, ATGMs, and mortar shells aimed at other vehicles within range, the M1A4 and Avenger-L were extremely effective as force multipliers. The acronym “PALADIN” became shorthand for the M1A4 variant in part to the defense laser acting like a knight's shield to protect tank platoons. However, the name never became official due to confusion with the M109 Paladin mobile howitzer. Due to the high costs of development, it only entered limited service in the US Army during the Global War on Terror. Today however, it is a more common sight in the US military.

The active defense laser and PALADIN weren't the only additions to the M1A4 model, as the tank featured a new M341 120mm auto-loaded high-pressure cannon. Configured for new rocket-assisted APFSDS rounds, the M341 featured a rifled breech lock and multipoint plasma ignition of the primary propellant stage. The initial propellant would activate a rocket motor, designed to boost the range of the M829 APFSDS round and to prevent the pressure reduction that normally occurs as a round moves down the barrel. The M1A4's AI system was also designed to rapidly calculate the most optimal firing solution for each target. The M341 also comes with an integral cooling system, comprised of a passive radiator and a forced air cooling system powered by the cannon's own muzzle flash.

General Townes and DARPA saw potential in the Abrams' gas turbine engine as a power source for directed energy weapons. Both advanced models of the Abrams would be used as combat testbeds for the General Dynamics XM34 laser cannon, as was the AH-64E Apache gunship during the Global War on Terror. The M1A3L was equipped with a modified turret containing the same XM34 laser cannon used on attack gunships, while the M1A4L was outfitted with the heavier XM34A1.

The General Dynamics M34 laser was an extremely effective anti-tank weapon, though like all energy weapons of the time its high cost of production and the need for regular maintenance hampered it. Power issues surrounding portable directed energy weapons were another factor. Aircraft and warship mounted laser weapons and anti-air/anti-missile weapons necessitated either less energy to run or had their own power supply, unlike laser small arms and anti-tank armament. However, DARPA and General Dynamics came up with a solution of sorts. Laser weapons could be powered by a capacitor, which was charged before use by a General Atomics fusion reactor. This had the downside of meaning that the weapons needed to be frequently recharged at a fusion reactor away from the front lines of battle, limiting their battlefield effectiveness despite their great power. When taken into account with the production cost (especially compared with traditional kinetic weapons) and maintenance difficulties with laser weapons, it meant that anti-armor and small arms lasers would not see widespread issue with the United States armed forces for quite some time afterwards.

Mondo Armor Systems M5A2 Schwartzkopf: The M5A2 Schwartzkopf was the first tank created from the Acolyte program for a lightweight armored vehicle to replace the M1128 Mobile Gun System and serve as a lightweight, air-droppable alternative to the M1 Abrams, particularly for US Army Airborne, the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, and the US Marine Corps. During the War on Terror, the Mobile Gun System was an effective support system for infantry facing light armor, though its wheeled chassis and lack of armor made it too vulnerable for the open battlefield. In response, the Acolyte program called for a new lightweight tank that would limit the M1128's weaknesses.

Upstart challenger Mondo Armor Systems' M5 was a radical new design submitted to the tender. The M5 features a quad track drive system powered by the same gas turbine engine used on the M1 Abrams. Having an overpowered engine on the 22 ton (empty) tank not only gave it a maximum speed of 80km/h on ground, it allowed for the most revolutionary feature on the M5; the four track units can swivel outboard, revealing ducted fan thrusters capable of lifting the vehicle over a meter off the ground and propelling it forward at a maximum speed of 160 km/h. This feature allows for the M5 Schwartzkopf to cross any body of water as well as jump cliffs. However, the instability of the tank when in hover mode means that it cannot fire its main gun rapidly due to the inability to manage recoil while hovering over the ground. An advanced computer system allows for the entire tank to be crewed by a single person.

The M5A2 features a M68A2 105mm cannon and a coaxial M240 machine gun. Early in the design phase, an experimental lightweight 120mm cannon salvaged from the canceled Future Combat Systems program was considered but was rejected due to weight and research & development cost concerns. Since the M5A2 was primarily intended to deal with foes such as the Global Liberation Army, however, the M68 was deemed more than adequate for the task.

The Schwartzkopf is armored by a composite metal/polymer weave that keeps weight down whilst giving the M5A2 a high degree of survivability for a tank its size, and the tank body itself is constructed from aluminum. Furthermore, the tank can be equipped with the same nano composite inserts designed for the M1A3 and A4. Like all US ground vehicles, the M5A2 Schwartzkopf is capable of using the standard variety of UAVs for support tasks.

United Defense M8 Buford Armored Gun System: While M5 Schwartzkopf was clearly a capable vehicle, it wasn't as air-droppable as the US Army Airborne corps wanted. Fortunately, there was an off-the-shelf solution to their problem. A cancelled prototype from the 1990s, the M8 Buford Armored Gun System, fit the design parameters perfectly.

The production model of the M8 Buford has aluminum/titanium composite armor, in addition to a 580 horsepower Detroit Diesel 6V-92TIA diesel engine. It is armed with the same M35 105mm cannon and coaxial M240 machine gun as the original, and is capable of mounting a M2 Browning in a CROWS mount over the commander's hatch.

While the design has been for the most part unchanged apart from the electronics and armor composition, the changes are enough to lower the weight significantly, down to 22 tons with a full combat load and supplemental nano composite armor. A level III fully armored and battle ready M8 can be transported and air-dropped by a C-130, and several such tanks can be transported by a C-17.


--------------------
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."-- George S. Patton


Resquiescat in pace, CommanderJB 1991-2009
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Svea Rike
post 9 Sep 2014, 16:53
Post #167



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2492
Joined: 20 December 2012
From: My mother's womb
Member No.: 9540



Very nice descriptions, Krieger. Could these be put under a sub-section on the lore for the wiki called 'description'?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omnius64
post 18 Sep 2014, 15:39
Post #168



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 24 May 2014
Member No.: 10479



We need to make one for the new GLA Interceptor aircraft.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cobretti
post 18 Sep 2014, 23:14
Post #169



Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 838
Joined: 7 June 2009
From: Southeastern USA
Member No.: 47



Thanks guys! I can do the Interceptor next, since it's a Su-17/22 it should be fairly simple to write. For now, here's the Harrier III:


British Aerospace FX.3A Sea Harrier III: The F-35B proved to be an effective combat aircraft, but concerns persisted about its suitability as a close air support aircraft for the Royal Marines, especially in light of the impending invasion of GLA held North Africa. In response, the Ministry of Defence floated a tender for a new VTOL aircraft specifically designed for close air support that was capable of operations from the deck of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. Upon hearing of the project, interest from the Spanish and Italian navies grew, eventually leading to orders from said organizations.

BAE wasted no time on producing a new aircraft design that was more or less a modernization of the 20th century Harrier. The FX.3A Harrier III variant features omnidirectional LIDAR sensors and a CAPTOR-X AESA radar. It's powered by a Rolls-Royce Pegasus II non-afterburning turbofan engine, which is for all intents and purposes a Pegasus engine rebuilt with the latest materials, and has a maximum speed of Mach 0.8. Additionally, the hull has a radar signature reducing shape, although not to the extent of the F-22 or F-35. Since VTOL aircraft need to keep their weight down, the Harrier III is not nearly as well armored as an A-10, but has lightweight ceramic plating around the engine and other critical areas of the airframe and a titanium "bathtub" surrounding the cockpit, in addition to a heavy array of chaff/flares/decoys and standard IR and radio-band jammers. The Harrier III entered service just in time for Operation Nemesis where it proved to an efficient strike bomber when deployed from carriers in the Mediterranean.

Standard loadout consists of Brimstone air-to-ground missiles and two GAU-22 25mm rotary cannons, and the Harrier III also is capable of carrying small bombs and IRIS-T and Sidewinder infra-red guided AAMs. A notable weapon specifically designed for use on the Harrier III during Operation Nemesis was the Artemis missile. The Artemis system consists of a datalink pod with optional imaging analysis AI connected to a quad missile rack, all mounted on an underwing hard-point. With the all-encompassing squad-level tactical infantry networking provided by the FELIN system, a highly mobile autonomous platform with precision anti-personnel weaponry was made feasible. The continuous rod (or zirconium sleeve incendiary) warhead is too thin for anti-armor use, necessitating other aircraft with Brimstone missiles to provide anti-armor support if needed.

Later during the war, BAE produced an experimental cyclotronic plasma cannon loosely based on the laser weapon developed for the F-35 during the Global War On Terror. The plasma cannon, introduced during the later phases of the war, replaces the twin autocannons with a cyclotronic generator installed in the main body of the jet powering a plasma beam cannon specifically designed for use against armored vehicles. Though the plasma cannon was a rare sight, it was reportedly highly effective against heavy Russian armor.

Many of the Sea Harriers used during the Russo-European War were supplied by the Spanish Navy, seeing as their naval air wing was for the most part spared from the Russian air offensive against most European air forces. Both Spanish and Italian Harriers, launched from assault carriers, aided British sea and ground based aircraft in providing air support to the defenders during the unsuccessful Russian invasion of the United Kingdom.

This post has been edited by DerKrieger: 19 Sep 2014, 12:48


--------------------
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."-- George S. Patton


Resquiescat in pace, CommanderJB 1991-2009
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Svea Rike
post 19 Sep 2014, 6:31
Post #170



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2492
Joined: 20 December 2012
From: My mother's womb
Member No.: 9540



Great story, but what's Operation Vengeance?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 19 Sep 2014, 6:33
Post #171



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5870
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



Perhaps a little confusion with Operation Nemesis (the ECA invasion of North Africa). A great take on the Harrier premise though. I also like the plasma part at the end which would be a very cool sight in-game, but alas...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Svea Rike
post 19 Sep 2014, 8:06
Post #172



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2492
Joined: 20 December 2012
From: My mother's womb
Member No.: 9540



Yes... plasma, the supposed "weaponizable" state of matter. Wouldn't it be better with a magnetohydrodynamic cannon?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Planardweller
post 19 Sep 2014, 8:44
Post #173



Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 431
Joined: 5 November 2012
From: Ukraine, Kyiv
Member No.: 9425



QUOTE (Svea Rike @ 19 Sep 2014, 10:06) *
Yes... plasma, the supposed "weaponizable" state of matter. Wouldn't it be better with a magnetohydrodynamic cannon?


Mass effect reaper cannons? They just don't work, metals lose magnetic properties at that temperature, uless it fires just another unobtainium
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Svea Rike
post 19 Sep 2014, 8:46
Post #174



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2492
Joined: 20 December 2012
From: My mother's womb
Member No.: 9540



QUOTE (Planardweller @ 19 Sep 2014, 9:44) *
Mass effect reaper cannons? They just don't work, metals lose magnetic properties at that temperature, uless it fires just another unobtainium


At those temperatures they become liquid metals. But I just realized plasma is part of magnetyhydrodynamics. My mistake, carry on.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cobretti
post 19 Sep 2014, 12:50
Post #175



Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 838
Joined: 7 June 2009
From: Southeastern USA
Member No.: 47



Thanks guys! Edited the Harrier description with the correct name for the invasion of North Africa, and expanded a bit on the Harrier III's engine and defensive systems.


--------------------
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."-- George S. Patton


Resquiescat in pace, CommanderJB 1991-2009
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19 March 2024 - 5:01