Gateworld Virtual Fleet 4.0 - Discussion thread

[puddlejumperOZ]

Blacky it looks good, though I'd cut your hardpoints down to 8 max and include an internal bay. 2 guns should be standard unless you're going for a multi-barreled M30

And lastly, essentially we'll be using the F302 airframe as base, with improvements, it's like going from a F18A to a F18F. Bigger, longer range, more capable and adaptable

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

The wings worry me. I'm not sure about molecular-compression technology. It would be rather difficult to reverse-engineer, in my opinion.

[puddlejumperOZ]

The wings worry me. I'm not sure about molecular-compression technology. It would be rather difficult to reverse-engineer, in my opinion.

That is why we talked about this a zillion pages ago, and the F100's would be simply upgraded F302's as per my post above

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

I was just addressing all possible concerns.

[puddlejumperOZ]

I was just addressing all possible concerns.

Concerns note Colonel, the tech dept is briefed on required specs

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

Thank you, Commander.

[puddlejumperOZ]

Thank you, Commander.

You're welcome Colonel Here is a possible incarnation of the F100, ManiaMike's F307

Spoiler:

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

I've always liked that design.

[puddlejumperOZ]

Yes me as well, it's nice progression from the F302

[blackluster]

Blacky it looks good, though I'd cut your hardpoints down to 8 max and include an internal bay. 2 guns should be standard unless you're going for a multi-barreled M30

The hardpoints I can do, I'm unsure about the internal bay since with the profile I have in mind there might not be place for it. It is possible though. From the standardization tables, the rate of fire for a Mk II railgun is already 8000 rounds per minute. Could you maybe motivate why higher would be necessary?

And lastly, essentially we'll be using the F302 airframe as base, with improvements, it's like going from a F18A to a F18F. Bigger, longer range, more capable and adaptable

Frankly, I absolutely hate the 302 airframe and care absolutely nothing for it. Considering the technology it employs, its design does absolutely nothing for its range, capability or adaptability. Looking at some threads also, the Asagai may be bigger than a 302 anyway at 22 m long. Do you perhaps have some reliable 302 data?

The wings worry me. I'm not sure about molecular-compression technology. It would be rather difficult to reverse-engineer, in my opinion.

There is no molecular compression, but rather innovative mechanical folding. You could think of it as an upgrade of swing wing technology.

That is why we talked about this a zillion pages ago, and the F100's would be simply upgraded F302's as per my post above

As I said, I hate the aesthetics of the 302 with a passion, so given the opportunity to explore an alternative I intend to use it. Alternatives in fighter airframe manufacture are also far more likely than in larger ships, so I think thinking out of the box should be viable.

[Princess Awinita]

*is strongly tempted to set up the data for Projects Startail and Windfire.......* Though i am unsure if they'd fit the fleet, as for Project Startail one has to be "extremely fast with the refelxes, or mad, or breave enough to use such a craft" Project Windfire though was just a modified F302 fighter, one person craft

[puddlejumperOZ]

Blacky the worst feature of the 302 is the wings. That can be changed easily, and with a modified fuslege a bomb bay can be added. To ease manufactoring costs, take a 302 and send it to the chop shop. Look at the difference between a Spitfire Mk1 and the F24 model, huge changes, but still recognisable as a Spitfire

[blackluster]

Blacky the worst feature of the 302 is the wings. That can be changed easily, and with a modified fuslege a bomb bay can be added. To ease manufactoring costs, take a 302 and send it to the chop shop. Look at the difference between a Spitfire Mk1 and the F24 model, huge changes, but still recognisable as a Spitfire

In my humble opinion, the 302 design is inherently flawed and nothing in even its existing specs gives a reason for why it looks the way it does. The chop shop approach is like taking a T roof '89 Camaro and putting a modern spoiler and suspension in it. For all the improvements you still have the same flaws underneath that bring the whole thing down in the end. I really don't see a viable reason to stick with a aesthetic design that is frankly an eyesore from the nose to the tail no matter how you dress it up.

This is just a personal approach I am taking which is well within modern tech and the standardization tables barring objections to technical interpretations of systems which I'm more than happy to take into account. Besides which this is predominantly spec'ing, though it is obviously clear that when it comes to the appearance of the craft I have no intention of making something that looks like a 302 but you can rest assured it's not like I'm thinking of X-wings, Vipers or Star Furies either. This craft will look very Earth/Human.

[puddlejumperOZ]

It'll have to go to a vote, but I'm in favour of retaining the fundamental F302 airframe and making changes as required per mission requirement. The FA/18 is a good example of how an existing airframe can be improved.

[blackluster]

It'll have to go to a vote, but I'm in favour of retaining the fundamental F302 airframe and making changes as required per mission requirement. The FA/18 is a good example of how an existing airframe can be improved.

Acknowledged.

I am glad for the opportunity to motivate for this though, since aesthetics in a fictional setting are important to me. That's why I was keen to hear technical data for the 302, since its design truly seemed illogical to me. It looks smaller than a conventional fighter, so it carries less fuel and weapons. The cockpit has a bomber design which is useless in a dogfight. The fuselage is covered with near perpendicular angles, there is no tail and the wings have no visible moving parts, so seemingly nothing in the craft's physical design actually contributes to the aerodynamic concept flight, much less with the capability of anything with the nerve to call itself a fighter. Thus, how ever a 302 is flying, its airframe has virtually nothing to do with it. So if it is tech that is responsible, I became inherently interested in what could be achieved by combining that with 100 years of human advances in aerodynamic science.

The design of the "Asagai" in particular was inspired by a "what if Russian aerospace companies took a crack at the design of a space capable fighter?" question. Russian in particular because I have great respect for their technical and engineering capability and design approaches to air superiority fighters and space technology. Like I said though, this is just spec'ing, so people could happily vote for this configuration, shove it in a 302 and promptly break my heart, but its not the end of the world. At least with this background though, people understand where I'm coming from and at least consider the alternative.