CTD - XC 1 Gryphon

[warhamster]

I actually did think up of using some sort of light weight mid to high viscosity type of gel or pudding to protect the pilot from the effects of high g maneuvers, but the problem is deployment. With such an idea it makes getting into your interceptor a tedious process, and launch time will take quite a bit of time. Actually, that's something we might consider in the game. A time gap delay between the launch command, and the actual launch of the fighter. I'm sure our pilots (and even the xcom staff) don't live in their aircraft.

[j'ordos]

There could be several pilots per craft, and they take turns in standby-mode, each pilot gets in the cockpit for two hours or so, and if no scramble is needed, he gets to rest as a second one takes his place. That way there's a pilot in the Interceptor all the time, but the pilots don't have to spend an entire day in it. Say 3 or 4 pilots per Interceptor (maybe more, I don't know how long you could stay in those cockpits)

[fux0r666]

They used PDE's in world war II. You can make a PDE using a tube and a propane tank to propel your bicycle. What's currently being developed (or so theorized by ufo kooks) now is a Pulse Detonation Wave Engine which requires an external combustion combonent to blast the sonic shockwave forward and away from the aircraft.

 

Edit: They used Pulsejets in wwII and you can make a pulse jet to move your bike. Apparently PDE's are much more violent and LOUD LOUD LOUD.

 

The Federation of American Scientists Military Analysis Network - The Aurora/Senior Citizen project.

 

Some kook's PDWE engine page. This page has other interesting, crazed rants on 'top secret' stuff.

 

Why have stupid high maneouverability in an aircraft when you have missiles to do it for you? Besides, you can have an incredibly maneouverable aircraft without liquifying the pilot by the use of fly by wire computer control mediation.

 

Intertia is a property of all matter. It isn't the plane's inertia that acts upon the pilot, it's the pilot's inertia. There's no way of reducing inertia without reducing the force that's acting on the pilot or the mass of the pilot himself. Having a pilot floating around in jelly wouldn't help, either, since it's not the compression of the gasses around the pilot that's the problem, it's the elasticity of his cardiovascular system. Canada currently has a G mask in development that inflates the lungs of the pilot and uses that pressure to keep the blood in his brain- but the pilots really hate it because it's very hard to breathe.

Edited August 24, 2003 by fux0r666

[warhamster]

I guess that's feasible... As such then, I have re-written the entry with consideration from all the feed back. Thank you people.

 

Note: I put in the name Warhamster while I am still being pickle about the whole name biz.

 

 

XC-1

 

Outwardly like a conventional aircraft, the XC-1 Warhamster is anything but conventional and represents the most advanced technical innovations ever used in a military aircraft. Using the latest Earth-based technologies, it out performs all other previous designs by decades.

 

This is primarily due to technological advances in hydrogen storage, the development of dielectric polymers as replacement for the conventional system of hydraulics, and the advanced design of its Modular Control Bubble.

 

Late in the 21st century, it was already foreseen that the world’s petroleum resources would only last, at most 40-50 years (this ultimately led to the Gulf Reformation Wars). Thus scientists began experimenting on Hydrogen engines, and a little after the turn of the century, some working prototypes have already begun testing. These prototypes produced 3 times the energy output of petroleum based engines of the same displacement. Years of refinement and the use of Pulse Detonation has increased this output factor to 7. The real problem of such engines, however, was storage. Hydrogen had to be kept at -253 Celsius to maintain its liquid state. And even as such, it required 4 times the space of petroleum fuels. This made Hydrogen based vehicles too bulky for practical military use.

 

The developments made in Carbon Nanotube (CN) technologies in recent years, have made feasible the storage of hydrogen at normal pressure and temperature. Basically, scientists have discovered a method of infusing CN’s into metal hydrides for use as ‘tanks’. The concept of this storage system is similar to that of a sponge. The CN infused metal hydride ‘tank’ can absorb up to 70% of its weight in hydrogen. Releasing of this hydrogen is done through thermal excitement by increasing the temperature of the storage system. This has eliminated the need for the excessively large tanks needed to store liquid hydrogen. The only real drawback to this is the weight of the whole storage system which is roughly 3 times heavier than conventional petroleum tanks when both are filled to capacity. This drawback is more than compensated for, however, by the hydrogen Pulse Detonation Engine’s power output.

 

With the usage of the hydrogen PDE, the XC-1 is the first aircraft capable of vertical take off and landing (VTOL), as well as sustained mach 2 flight even without afterburner. Top speeds of this aircraft can reach in excess of mach 3.5

 

Another technological advancement, represented in the XC-1, is the first time use of dielectric polymers in an aircraft. Dielectric polymers are manufactured carbon based materials that contract and expand in the presence of an electric field. Before the XC-1, previous polymers required ludicrous amounts of electricity to stimulate even the smallest movement. The key was to create a polymer with a higher dielectric constant. Scientists discovered that infusing a polymer with silver ions increased its dielectric constant by a factor of 746.7, thus reducing the required amount of electricity by the same factor.

 

Applied to the XC-1, this only means that the old hydraulic system of conventional aircraft has been replaced by electric wires and some polymers. This not only makes the XC-1 lighter and more space efficient, but it was learned that when fused with A-waves system of control, the pilot gains an almost organic control of all facets of the aircraft. Combined with variable control configuration technology and the ability to Vector in Forward Flight (VIFF), the XC-1 is agile beyond what was previously thought possible.

 

The Modular Control Bubble (MCB) of the XC-1 is a total redesign of the old conventional cockpit system. Basically, the pilot sits in the MCB which is immersed in a magnetically excited monomer emulsion that makes the MCB sensitive to the Alpha waves created by human brain activity. The A-waves is then run through several neuron-synthetic AI processors to produce digital signals for hydraulic control. This makes the pilot an organic control element in the fighter and increases the fighter’s response rate by a factor of 231%. A backup manual control panel is available for emergencies.

 

Inside the MCB is the interface for the advanced detection and identification system of the XC-1. Using multi-phased variance Doppler receptors, the XC-1 is capable of detecting and identifying up to 50 non-cooperative targets from over 100 miles. This can be used in conjunction with the [stingray] missile and can even accommodate the long range hard hitting [avalanche] missile. The system also incorporates a low side lobe technique of particle emanation for higher frequency agility. Multiple panoramic cameras and an infrared line scan apparatus provide for faster tactical line-of-sight imaging of its target, optimizing the pilot’s target identification capabilities. A short range laser locked vector targeting array allows the internal cannon to be aimed with unprecedented accuracy.

 

The MCB is also a life support capsule in itself. With the monumental increase in flight performance represented in the XC-1, concerns on how a pilot might cope with the extraordinary G-forces, have arisen. For this, scientists developed a light weight, mid-viscosity gel which fills the MCB. The pilot, wearing a special bio-sensitive skin suit and oxygen mask, is immersed into this gel. The gel protects the pilot from the effects of centripetal forces of to 18 G. The gel is also magnetically sensitive to the A-waves of a human brain, and acts as a thought-noise inhibitor, as the static created by non-binary thought patterns have a tendency to disrupt control of the aircraft. The gel also acts as thermal protection, and reduces magnetic interference to 0.02%. The MCB ejects as a whole, and can act as an emergency life boat for the pilot.

 

All weapons of the XC-1 are internal, and its advanced geometric design reduces its radar signature to that of an insect. A multi-mode transponder can confuse enemy missiles, and a rotating frequency modulator ECM makes it virtually impossible to gain lock on the XC-1. Chaff, flare, and decoy dispensers are also included for the highest degree of survivability.

XC_1.doc

Edited August 24, 2003 by warhamster

[j'ordos]

As far as I can tell, one thing needs to be changed: since the game will take place in approximately 15 years or so, 'late 21st century' should be 'late 20th century', as we now only are a few years in the 21st.

 

edit: (very) early 21st century could work too

Edited August 24, 2003 by j'ordos

[Cpl. Facehugger]

Yeah late 21 century is almost 2100.

[Breunor]

Rather than try to figure out how to keep a pilot alive, why not make the plane remote controlled? All you need is a camera mounted to allow for a wide range of movement, and VR goggles for the pilot. As they turn their head back at base, the camera turns to show them different angles. Similar to the minigun targetting system used on the Apache gunship, where the gun follows the pilots head motions. This allows you to use as many Gs as the craft can sustain, and explains why you don't have to hire pilots as well.

 

The downside to increasing the income from various countries is that you have to balance all the prices to your income. There's such a range in costs that you can easily lose the balance. Charging rental fees seems to be the simplest way to go.

[fux0r666]

If you're going to make the interceptor a UCAV, it would look nothing like airplanes do today. A lot of accomodation is given to the pilot in aircraft designs.

[Guest Jim69]

I take it UCAV's are the remote controlled 1's. Why would it look different? There wouldn't be a cockpit, and it would be smaller ( which would help with my idea ) but apart from that they look identical. I know this coz there was 1 on the news they were claiming was used in Iraq 2 bomb a car they thought Ouday was on ( a few months back I think. )

[fux0r666]

yeah, it looks like an airplane in that it has wings...

 

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ucav-ng1.jpghttp://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ucav_fate_1_2.gif

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ucav_fate_1_1.jpg

 

This is more a discussion for the laboratory, however.

[Guest Jim69]

Hmm, that's nothing like what I saw, it looks like a paper aeroplane ::

 

The one I saw was a large Fuselauge ( sp? Also, not sure if that's the term I mean ) and wings towards the back, a lot like a small 747.

 

Edit: Except the wings aren't angled back from the top-middle towards the back, they are a much tighter wing angle and further back. I'll draw a sketch if anyone actually cares.

 

And yeah, this is pretty much lab stuff.

 

Edit2: Does ne1 else think that the top view looks a little like Vaaish's Avenger?

Edited August 24, 2003 by Jim69

[fux0r666]

Here's a thought: If you're going to use the yf-23, why not study the yf-23's history and use that? You can develop a future based on that. As it stands, half the population over 15 will be able to recognize the yf-23. They'll see and then see this totally fictitious write up about monomer gels and brainwave navigation. I think the use of the yf-23 needs to be reevaluated if we want to pursue an amneotic cockpit of a machine that reads your mind.

 

As it stands the fighter and the write up are completely disjointed. This would call for billions of dollars in technological acheivement and the fighters are worth a few hundred thou? If you thought the f-22 was expensive...

 

Oh, and afterburners are a deflaguration reaction. They would just get in the way of the PDE.

[Cpl. Facehugger]

Whew, you certainly know alot about avionics fux0r. But, remember this aircraft has to be able to take out alien craft, so no expense would be spared when we are talking about the survival of the human species here. Besides, we could write up some fluff text saying essientially that the xc1 was based on the yf-23 because of its efficient airframe and stealth properties but many improvements were needed to be able to actually fight ufos.

 

Edit: That picture on the bottom looks a lot like a actual flying aircraft.

If you want to make it so that the interceptors are unmanned, merely say that you refitted some yf-23's with ai processors and other techno stuff.

Edited August 24, 2003 by Cpl. Facehugger

[warhamster]

Guys... Please don't strap your imaginations to reality. That's the first thing that GreatGold told me when I came up with a first draft that looked like nothing like this. None of what I wrote is completely off the scale of today's realms of possibilities, is it? This is creative text, afterall. It doesn't always have to be scientifically proven... it needs only to be plausible. Now, I'll be worried if all are players are going to be NASA scientists and will actually scrutinize every bit of proposed technology.

 

Please don't take this wrong, i really appreciate the critique, but we can go on forever about this and not really get anything settled.

 

Anyway, I don't like remote pilots so with all due respect to breunor, I think i'll leave that idea out. I'll understand if you don't like the gel idea, but if anyone can suggest ways of how a pilot can prevent himself from beng a creative splot of red on the sides of the fighter, I would appreciate that kind of input.

 

As for the image of the fighter, does my descriptive restrict the possible looks for the aircraft? I included a rough schematic of how the MCB might actually look inside the aircraft. It is important to note that the MCB is almost like a completely seperate unit from the aircraft. At least that's the idea.

 

Note: The afterburner is out.

Edited August 28, 2003 by warhamster

[Cpl. Facehugger]

Warhamster, I just realized that, maby the whole plane-reads-your-mind control system is possible a little bit farfetched. IIRC isn't that what the aliens use? So, maby you should change it a little, so that it reads your motions not your mind. Like you move your head right and the plane turns right or something. The computer reading your mind doesn't seem like it would be possible until the invention of psionics and research on alien nav. No offense, because it is a great concept that you wrote well.

[Breunor]

The concern I have is that the interceptor is not supposed to be a super futuristic craft. You can use the gel system to keep the pilot from bouncing around in the cockpit, but that doesn't stop the internal organs from rupturing under the pressure, it doesn't keep the blood circulating, etc. The only change in the hull for a pilotless craft would be to remove the canopy and put a solid hull over that spot. You can replace that space with additional fuel, advanced radar, whatever. Pilotless craft tend to be minimal in their design due to cost and mission scope. Vehicles like the predator drone aren't designed as air superiority craft like the yf-23, so it looks a lot different. The next advance in fighter craft would be removing the pilot, to allow for the higher speeds and Gs they can't survive. Consider that some people have gone blind while bungee jumping, as the blood pressure in their eyes and sudden shock made their retinas detach. Amplify that by quite a bit and even elite pilots would be pulled apart.

 

I understand that the gel could reduce the sudden impact of movement change, but unless you're in a huge tub you only have a few inches of buffer. And you have to access all the controls as well, and have a viable eject option. All that sounds far more complex than remote piloting IMHO. But if you prefer a different direction, please make sure whatever is agreed on can fit within the models we are using.

[Cpl. Facehugger]

How about we say that the pilot has to wear a special flight suit, but we don't give any specifics? If we only tell them that it is there, but not how it works, then they can't say that it wouldn't work. Thus by not explaining, we are relying on the player to use his imagination which is not a bad thing.

 

And, I repeat what I said about the control system in my last post.

Edited August 28, 2003 by Cpl. Facehugger

[Guest Jim69]

Hmm, sorry if I missed something but I haven't been keeping up 2 date with this topic, but why is this necessary? Surely the XC-1 isn't going 2 be that different from the YF-23, and the G's pulled wouldn't be that much would it? I get the feeling that I have missed something.

[fux0r666]

Also I think the liquid would obscure the pilot's vision.. being a medium of higher density than air and all...

 

Personally if I were doing creative text for the Interceptor I would research the yf-23. It is about as high tech as you get these days. The model doesn't make concessions for any thrust vectoring yet, though. I would update its weapons and avionics and increase the responsiveness and intelligence of its fly-by-wire system, give it larger engines, then give reasons why its not in service in the any of the world's militaries as the xc-1, and you're done!

 

I think that all this about advanced materials and such would be groovy for the lightning or the firestorm or later aircraft. I like all of what you say in your CT but when I think about all that and put it to the shape of the model we're using, at least at this juncture, it sounds very, very wrong... like lies. Heh.

Edited August 28, 2003 by fux0r666

[warhamster]

Hehe... this is the problem with people who are too educated. It's hard to convince them of anything. Way too smart and often nit-picky about details.

 

The control system, well I borrowed that from Capt. Boxershorts' control idea for the HWP's. I wanted my entry to be consistent with other entries in the Xnet. That's why I borrowed ideas that were already out. I suppose we can always say that A-wave's are different from PSI ability in that 'A-waves are magnetic emmissions produce by mechanical brain activity, while PSI is a totally new way of communication.' I don't know. It's a whole lot of hula-balu for me. I suppose A-wave is more related to telekinesis, while PSI would be closer to telepathy. Related, but not the same thing. I do understand what you're saying though, Facehugger.

 

As it is, Breunor's right about the gel thing, which does look a little 'clumsy' in the entry. It doesn't solve anything about pilot survivability either. I'm actually researching on potential technology that might emerge in 10-20 years (often this tech is already in the research stage today). The funny thing about technology in aircraft is that billions of dollars goes to improving flight performance, but they've only put so much research to deal with the pilot's resistance to G. Facehugger's idea is a plausible idea. Just say they developed a flight suit that protects the pilot from G-forces and then indicate that it's a seperate entry in some bogus miitary book. I don't think too many people will complain about that.

 

Anyway, with regards to remote control interceptors, can we just put this to a vote. Do we make this a remotely piloted vehicle or do we stick with the original plan? I'll admit i'm biased against remotely piloted aircraft because it does away with the gladiatoral excitement that goes hand in hand with military aircraft. But it is true, the future will probably present to us more remotely controlled fighters. As it is, it wouldn't really surprise me if we start seeing such fighters in the next decade or so.

 

As for updating avionics... I'll admit i'm blank on that. I just took some cool sounding words from some military books that I have and slapped them together. Again, try not to be too nit-picky... I think, unless the player actually designs radars and surveillance aparatus for a living, the system already sounds way advanced. And well, I can't update on the weapons systems, because weapon systems are the ones that'll be used in the game.

 

And Fox, expand your imagination. I'm sure that your entusiasm for aircraft is at work when you say that this all sounds like a lie. Well, it is. This is creative text. We're trying to come up with a design using technology that's only in the testing stages today. Most of these technologies already work but lack the refinement and the efficiency that an additional 20 years of research can bring. I just want to remind you we are not writing a military book here. And I guarantee you, in 10-20 years, the YF-23 will probably be just an obsolete design, and I doubt any of us can actually conceptualize the kind of designs and the kind technological advamncements that will make it so.

 

Anyway... this is getting a little tedious. I'm going to sit back and review all the comments and rewrite the piece soon.

 

FYI: I did a lot of research on the YF-23. And my first entry, which was never posted, had a lot of references to that current aircraft. That's when GG told me to rethink it. Be more radical in the design. We don't have a time frame with which to put this game together, so it is possible that when V.1 finally comes out, technology as we know it will already be a whole different animal. And all the current aircraft we have will be a distant memory.

[Guest Jim69]

I don't know about the YF-23 being obsolete in 20 years. The F-16 has only just gone out of commision and was the staple of the USAF for many years. I agree that it should be an advanced, but it should still be based upon the YF-23. Having just the shell is like having an Maclaren F-1 engine in a Ford Escort. At least draw reference as to how the YF-23 has been updated, u may think that it isn't a military textbook and u'd be right, but remember how many peeps here have played combat flight sims.

 

I'm sure peeps would be a lot more forgiving if it was stated that the XC-1 was based upon the existing craft with all the bells and whistles rather than just taken the chassis and rebuilt the aircraft. I don't know a lot about aircraft but often technical information about how something is advanced, even if the user doesn't understand it all, adds an air of authenticity to the account, rather than pure fiction. The best fiction ever written is based upon real like.

[fux0r666]

I don't really have an enthusiasm for aircraft, actually. I'm just a sponge for information and have a great big brain for conceptualizing things- what einstien called thought experiments.. although I am no genius. And I'm not over educated, I'm just in my second year of college.

 

It sounds like lies because it's based on a current design, period. The things you are talking about sounds more like something you would find on a b-side story line in macross plus. Any enthusiasm for aircraft I have pales in comparison for my enthusiasm for plot continuity. What you describe in your CT sounds like a 1950's movie that takes place in the 1980's where everyone eats pills and walks on the moon. In the style guide the initial human technology is supposed to be ultra modern. The next step in the technological evolution is 'anything you could imagine seeing on a battle field, realistically,' which would include airplanes with monomer doodads. After that, when we develop powered armour, another step towards pure fantasy. I am having trouble believing that machines will read Alpha wave thoughts through a conductor liquid in the nose of an airplane in 10 years.

 

Like I said, I like your ideas, but they don't work with the yf-23. I'm afraid the art department has you by the throat. Why not apply them to a nonexistant aircraft?

[Breunor]

I must say that the current entries would be great for explaining something like the Firestorm craft, where the mystical elerium can explain all kinds of things like inertial dampening and other, was that on Star Trek, concepts. That's not meant as a dig or anything, I really do think they could be used, we just shouldn't call them inertial dampeners I guess. Since most aircraft of good design tend to stay in service for 20-30 years the yf-22/23 will still be in use as many of us send our children to college (scary!). In 20 years there might be theoretical work on something this advanced, but I'd never expect to see it in my lifetime. Unless aliens attacked the planet and brought the tech with them of course...

 

For the interceptor, I would really strongly suggest that you work from it being today's most advanced fighter, and work in every possible tech being developed today for other craft like the JSF and Mig35. I wouldn't count on vtol capability, there's no use for it when you consider how much top speed is lost with that system. A Harrier wouldn't have a chance of intercepting an equivalent non-vtol craft. The hangars are designed to have a lift platform like those used on carriers to bring the plane to the surface, and then it takes off from there. It could use thrust vectoring like the Mig to enable a shorter takeoff and landing perhaps, or even a catapult system. I expect that a base might have some type of hangar/building above ground for cover, where food and other supplies are delivered. That could conceal whatever devices would be needed.

[Cpl. Facehugger]

Weren't hangars able to launch all craft? I mean, if interceptors require a special system to launch, and skyrangers another, and firestorms another and so on, then we will have a really versatile hangar! Unfourtnatly, it is very difficult to do something like that in real life.

I wonder, the skyranger is vtol right? I figure that it is so slow becuase it is weighted down with guys, tanks, guns, etc. But would an interceptor have this problem? And, I believe work has been done to vastly improve the capabilites of vtol aircraft to make them more viable. I don't remember where I saw that though.

[Breunor]

The hangars don't need changes for different craft, they'd lift all of them to the surface and that's it. The vtol craft would taxi out of the above-ground hanger/building, and then power up and go. For the catapult, you could have a blast wall and launcher in front of the lift. The plane taxis forward into the launch area, the wall is erected, and it's shot out. With afterburners on, it should take off pretty quick, especially using those advanced technologies being worked up. Landing can be short as well using thrust vectoring and flaps, even an arrestor hook & cable could be used.

 

I just don't see the benefit of vtol for the interceptor, since it doesn't have to land during its missions. You'll always have a fixed base to land at, and using a hook and cable would be simpler than vtol craft IMO. vtol craft can do some nice acrobatics, just like the Mig 35 with thrust vectoring, but that's more for close range, subsonic maneuvering. Our engagements are more long range and supersonic, where extreme maneuvering isn't as important as long range, high speed and stealth.

[fux0r666]

Weight has nothing to do with supersonic flight. Some of the heaviest craft in the world are the fastest. It has more to do with internal compression. By directing part of the forward fan's wash into ducts along side the forward fuselage, and constricting the hot exhaust by forcing it to do the same, it restricts airflow and internal compression. It's kind of like diverting part of a car's carbuerator and stopping up its exhaust. The rear exhaust ports have to go through 2 90 degree turns. Everytime you put a 90 degree turn in a fan port it halves the CFM output.

 

Check out the JSF project on the Federation of American Scientists' Military Analysis Network. It has a different approach to stovl.

 

I don't think that you would need a different method of launching for every craft. Having a catapult or short take off and landing capabilities would be adequate, as every aircraft you build after the initial jets hover like hummingbirds. I thought the hangars themselves just had elevators that brought the planes to the surface.

 

The biggest problem with STOVL in a cargo plane would be that the thrust of the plane would have to be gargantuan. I mean, even the harrier doesn't have enough thrust to lift itself off from a stop with a full war load.

[warhamster]

Let's put it this way guys. I tried your aproach to the whole thing. I did write an entry that had all the twinks of what you guys keep trying to tell me. And to put it bluntly, GreatGold sent it back.

 

Next, all systems I have discussed in my entry are internal systems. The assumption is, they can be adopted into a current airframe. So. this is probably the descriptive of the YF-23 with a new system of hydraulics and kickass powerful engine. It retains most of it's conventional detection systems, since there is no foreseeable major tech advances in that department, or at least I haven't caught wind of anysuch tech.

 

Again, let me emphasize that these systems are internal. I don't see how you say the art department has me by the throat, or how my descriptives limit what it can look like.

 

Hydrogen engines, even today are existent. This is the future. It's 3 times more powerful than petroleum engines, burns clean, and is actually 20 times safer than petrol. It can make VTOL and super sonic flight possible. And the fuel storage systems that I described are the ones that are currently being used today. My only pressumption is that both engine system and fuel system will be more efficient by that time in the future. Try doing a google search on hydrogen engines and hydrogen storage.

 

Di-electric polymers are being tested even today as possible replacements for human limbs, and severed muscles. Scientists are also currently trying to applying the technology to anything that requires moving parts. The technology is feasible. In fact, NASA is currently testing the technology for future robot designs for use in space exploration and planetary investigation. They've recently renamed the system EAP or Electro-Active Polymers since apparently Di-electric polymer is a copywrighted name for some high tech bonding material. Try doing a google search on artificial muscles.

 

So guys, please don't say that this is hula balony from a b-side macross movie. This is current. I have put research into this. A lot of research.

 

Maybe you haven't sponged enough, eh kids? Try to imagine how these technologies can breed a new aircraft.

 

Agreed, the control system is questionable. I've always felt that to be so. But read on Capt Boxershorts' entries regarding HWP's. That's where i boosted the whole A-waves thingie. I wanted consistency with his writings. It would be logical that if we use brain waves to control our tanks, it can and should be used in other things like aircraft.

 

Again, open your minds guys.

[fux0r666]

They aren't going to take a yf-23, gut it, and then design new systems to fit inside the old airframe and patch it up again. They would design a whole new airframe. What is GreatGold's concern?

[Breunor]

I'm guessing GG wanted really futuristic technology for all the entries, which I can understand. I haven't read the HWP CT (or really any of it yet to be honest), but using brain waves to control a very dnagerous weapon in the middle of a high stress battle doesn't sound very wise IMO. I think having a remote control from the base using transmitters from the transport plane or sattelite would be a more likely choice, but that's a different CT to discuss.

 

I can see there being parallel development of a more advanced engine that is fitted to a yf-23 for testing, and it just so happens that soon after the successful testing we find out about the aliens. So the new engine becomes the standard for the craft. So long as there are enough of the engines to supply you indefinitely in theory. I think the art dept comment was regarding the vtol capability mostly, but even that is a matter of adding various thrust nozzles. We wouldn't even need to use nozzles, just louvered panels that would be easy to add in. Watch the first X-Men movie and check out their plane's vtol, that's what I'm talking about here. Again though, vtol wouldn't be needed for the XC-1, so consider it an extra that might be considered once everything else is ready.

 

I guess my main comment would be that while a certain tech might not be mainstream in the next 10 years, so long as it's possible that it would be entering the mainstream by then, then it's reasonable. We've all read how technology is going to sweep along and have us living like the Jetsons in no time. The truth is, we were supposed to have Jetsons tech about 4 years ago according to researchers 30 years ago. So while there are some really cool things "right around the corner", I'd double the time expectations when you consider when things will go from research to actual application. The Dielectric polymers might be possible by then and play a small role beyond space and weight savings, so I'd say that's not so far out there as to be beyond belief. The use of brain waves from the pilot to control it are IMO. I know people can cotrol their brain waves in very controlled circumstances, but certainly not in flight under combat conditions. Just have the polymers connect to a standard yoke control.

[fux0r666]

Perhaps after we research psychic technology one can use the machine and certain drugs to approach a meditative state in which later craft technologies may encorperate an alpha wave interface.

[Cpt. Boxershorts]

The alpha wave idea is based on current biofeedback techniques, just scaled up. Whether it's actually feasable in RL to have this on the battlefield is another idea (just look at the hits 'russian sleep' has taken recently), but given that this is 'future war', there's no reason why it couldn't be.

 

The alphawave technology is referenced is several of the ctds at the moment...all of them would have to be updated if we decide to cut it.

 

-The Captain

[Cpl. Facehugger]

Correct, I think th alpha wave should be changed in this entry, I mean, it seems like the pilot actually is part of the craft temporarily, but that is what the aliens use, so we can't do that.

And although tech this advanced wouldn't be used in mainstream military outfits, I figure that any and all technology that existed would be used by xcom.

[Kenshiro]

I'd been reserving some comment, but the fact is the YF-22 and 23 were both in the pipe in 1989, and by 2010 will have about the same currency as the F-16 does now. If we're looking for the latest and greatest feasible technology available, here's some ideas:

 

Boeing Bird of Prey

 

X-36

 

UCAV

 

Some ideas to throw out there; not that we need to unsettle something that's already been completed.

[fux0r666]

I based my intitial interceptor design on the high speed delta wing configuration of the f-16xl (with bits of the blackbird and mig25 thrown in) with an f22 airframe. Later I ran into the x36 on the fas.org site. I am so god damn good. Heh.

 

 

For those who are interested, bare in mind that those are (mainly) low observable technology platforms. The interceptor would lose a lot of (infrared) stealth with the more powerful engines as the exhaust cowls would have to be much less restrictive. At the heights and speeds that they are supposed to fly at, provided we don't decide to slow everything down, infrared stealth would be an impossibilty due to skin temps above 1000 degrees fahrenheit. So what I'm saying is don't forget to make the engine nozzles larger than the bird of prey's. Planes with big butts look like they fly faster anyways.

[Guest Jim69]

X-36 looks the most promising out of those 3, looks not too distant future but still cutting edge

[Breunor]

I'd been reserving some comment, but the fact is the YF-22 and 23 were both in the pipe in 1989, and by 2010 will have about the same currency as the F-16 does now.  If we're looking for the latest and greatest feasible technology available, here's some ideas:

 

Boeing Bird of Prey

 

X-36

 

UCAV

 

Some ideas to throw out there; not that we need to unsettle something that's already been completed.

While in the pipe in '89, they haven't entered service in force yet today. They will be by 2010, and that's the position we want the aircraft to be in. The most modern craft in mass production and the support structure that allows dozens to be built and repaired using international support. There are all kinds of cool looking concept aircraft out there, but in most cases there's either just a couple of each built for minimal testing or they haven't made it off the concept board. They certainly won't be in regular use by the military in the next 5-10 years IMO.

 

Is there a reason for bringing up different body shapes again? I thought the point of this thread was what would go inside the craft. Polymer hydraulics and PDU engines can go into whatever aircraft frame you want, but it needs to be something viable for modern use. That's why the art department's already agreed on using the yf-23 design. That's doesn't mean you can't upgrade the technology used in it to make it cutting edge, better than the run-of-the-mill production bird. So long as it's not an outrageous tech that the average person says "there's no way we'd have something like that in use in 10 years".

[Cpl. Facehugger]

My only problem with the ctd at the moment is the control system. I think we should stick with fly-by-wire as I figure control of the craft like currently described is impossible without psionics and alien nav.

 

Oh for the tank ctds, maby we could say the controler has an implant that lets him control the tank? Or someone at base is controling it somehow? We can call this system the alpha-wave system. Maby there is a dude at blase playing it like a vr computer game? Get the kids into the program, after all, all we do is sit on our butts and play videogames anyway, might as well make us help use our skills to save the world.

[fux0r666]

Why would you need your brain connected to something that goes forward, back, turns and has another part that elevates and turns? All you need to control that entire thing is a joystick with a cooly hat and a trigger. I think a small crew of 2 controlling it from either in the bird or from the xcom base would be sufficient... either that or have it AI.

[Guest Jim69]

Well, if we are being realistic ( we should IMO ) then improvements should be towards weapons and engine systems, things that can be improved upon from the YF-23 not havin anything more than a joystick 2 steer it. Remember when peeps thought by now we would all be eating food in pill form? Yeah, that happened -_- Stuff like engines being improved and improved targeting is fine, stuff like UAV's and controlling the craft thru thought processes are gonna make the user say "Yeah, right" more than a slightly more recent fighter than the YF-23. So, it's either cutting edge based upon technology that will be in mainstream use in 10 years time or just go plain Sci-Fi in which case we might as well ditch the YF-23 in favour of something that looks more futuristic.

[Cpl. Facehugger]

I agree with you and Fux0r Jim. I feel that the current entry is a bit too high tech (only in the control department imo) and it needs to be changed because the alien nav uses the same concept, and the alien nav should be more advanced right? But, the rest could stay the same. I mean, the f22 has a good airframe, and it should last well into the 21st century.

 

On a side note: Why do you call it the yf-23? Isn't it the f22? I don't know too much about it though, so I am probably wrong.

[red knight]

Always remember this: For base technology it must be credible and feasible in 10 years. And remember you can use some EXPERIMENTAL Technology but I wouldnt be crazy to go to the battlefield with EXPERIMENTAL technology all around me. Tried and tested technology is what is needed as a base technology with a minimal touch with experimental. After that you have time to use lots of experimental stuff.

 

Greetings

Red Knight

[Guest Jim69]

I agree with you and Fux0r Jim. I feel that the current entry is a bit too high tech (only in the control department imo) and it needs to be changed because the alien nav uses the same concept, and the alien nav should be more advanced right? But, the rest could stay the same. I mean, the f22 has a good airframe, and it should last well into the 21st century.

 

On a side note: Why do you call it the yf-23? Isn't it the f22? I don't know too much about it though, so I am probably wrong.

AFAIK the Raptor is different from the YF-22, but I'll check. I agree with RK also, we shouldn't go crazy with all the new stuff.

 

Edit: The look the same, but have different code names, the F-22 being the Rapture and the YF-23 being the Black Widow, so maybe under the chassis they are different, I don't know.

 

Edit2: They have different wing designs, the Rapture has the regular right angle triangle design whereas the Black Widow has the diamond shape. They are simular in appearence however.

Edited September 5, 2003 by Jim69

[fux0r666]

Design wise they are like night and day. At first they look similar but upon closer inspection they only look vaguely alike. They were competetors for the same contest. The F-22 Raptor is made by Lockheed Martin and the YF-23 Black Widow II was developed by Northrop/ McDonnell Douglas.

 

YF is a test model designation. Before it was the f/a-18, the hornet was the yf-17

[Cpl. Facehugger]

Ohh.

And red knight, stuff that is expiramental (sp?) today may be in common usage in 10 years.

 

That being said, you are probably right about some of the super advanced tech.

[Breunor]

Correct on the differences between yf-22/f-22 and the yf-23. Main visual differences are the wing and tail profiles. The yf-23 was considered a better performer, but lost due to the higher cost during bids from what somebody here said. So the yf-23/XC-1 design was picked as it's a tested design that was considered the best, and secret upgrades could be fitted into it.

 

I tend to not stomp with these size 17 shoes for fear of breaking other's toes, but let me state that the XC-1 hull design is fixed and will not be discussed or debated with other designs until after v1 is done. Further debate over using another design is wasted keystrokes, we need to let that issue be for now. Any future tech that can fit in the hull that is currently in testing for aircraft or could reasonalby be in the next few years isn't a problem, so as stated before use the PDUs if you like, the polymer wires connected to a yoke if want to, but the rest seems too much IMO.

[warhamster]

hmmm... well, this is kind of a bugger. I suppose GG's head of this department because he has a certain idea of the technological landscape of the time setting of the whole game.

 

As for sci-fi... it was less than 10 years ago that cell phones were carried around like luggage, and if anybody ever said it was feasible to make a phone that was roughly the size of thumb, that guy would've been thrown into the looney bin. Computers, now, are a gazillion times faster than what was thought back then as the pinnacle. And SNES seemed insurmountable as a home system. Street Fighter 2 was the bomb, and nobody ever thought it could be done any better.

 

That's just ten years of development. With all the simulations and the new research techniques today. Who knows what is possible and not.

 

Anyway, the control interface could be reverted back to fly-by-wire control, and the alpha wave thingie helps enhance performance, rather than throwing complete control to the mind reader system. No way can the A-wave system override the manual system, but the manual system takes priority always. How's that for a compromise?

[fux0r666]

Fly by wire systems are very responsive... waaay more responsive than a human could be on his own. They keep the f117 from twitching it's ugly arse out of the sky. I can see why a system that interfaced directly to the consciousness of the pilot might be helpful in something that has very developed sensors... but as for the actual control of the aircraft, the one thousandth of a second it takes to move your hand from the initial intention to move it is negligible.

 

To increase the contrast between the initial human and alien tech I vote no to brain controlled airplanes.

Edited September 9, 2003 by fux0r666

[Breunor]

How about this warhamster: the pilot's suit has a variety of biometric sensors built in to monitor the pilot's vitals and even brain waves through a type of EEG in the helmet, but instead of it being used for supplemental flight input, it's there to make sure the pilot isn't hurt by the performance the craft is capable of. Say it has some failsafes that detect if the pilot's blacking out and it can increase and decrease the flight suit's pressure to maintain blood flow. The system can detect if the pilot is unconscious despite its action, and puts the plane on autopilot and/or return to base in this case, and if the pilot regains consciousness they get control back as soon as they take the yoke again. So all this is mainly a health monitoring system, but then it could be upgraded when the Firestorm comes along to be more interactive and used for navigation and flight control. I agree with fux0r that the division between human and alien tech levels needs to be distinct, and I think this would give that balance while still giving the pilot some advanced-tech assistance.

[Deimos]

The problem with putting in possible future tech is similar to the 50's effect I described a while ago. Basically look at the technology of the 50's and what they said that we in the new century would be doing.

 

One of them was that we'd be flying around in cars instead of driving them. Not only the 50's effect but bringing it closer to home, go watch a film made in the eighties that's supposed to represent the 21st centruy and it all looks dated and cheesy.

 

There are only a very few examples of future times that stand up to scrutiny now Blade Runner being one of them. Even that shows flying cars though.

 

It all comes down to suspension of disbelief, the more way out the technology the harder its going to be for the average player to accept things. Mind controlled planes? Watch firefox again and you'll see how cheesy that idea is.

 

The other issue is that if we go for all this fantasy tech for our base level, how believable is the higher tech levels going to be? Not very.

 

You Ctd guys should be thinking about the top level of tech and making that the more esoteric stuff and work backwards to the bottom level. Remember that our base level of technology is ultra-modern stuff that exists, not theortical flights of fantasy.

[Cpl. Facehugger]

Well, I think that only the brain wave system is fantasy, the rest seems like it could be used in an actual plane.

 

Thanks Deimos, you gave me a great idea for the Autocannon CTD! It reads your mind! "do you want to fire, Dave" :: Just Kidding.

 

But seriously, for my next CTD after the autocannon, I will try something really high tech.