Military Procurement: Strategic Bomber Concept

[Aanker]

I like the added VTOL incentives. Similarily I want to encourage people to also build medium sized designs to achieve maybe not the top spots but at least respectable scores in the mid to high mid range. And of course more flavoured points.

Some sub-challenges I've thought up:

- Battleduck: +20pts if the Bomber can safely land on and take off from water, with full payload

- Worldwide coverage: +20pts if the Bomber can perform a full circumnavigation around Kerbin's equator, without refueling, full payload required (for the whole trip)

- That's no moon... Not anymore: +80pts if the Bomber can enter and survive the battlefield of the Space Age and deliver the minimum x6 FLT400s onto the surface of the Mun. Refueling in Kerbin orbit is allowed. The bombs must be dropped from an altitude no lower than 10km (so achieving orbit is not necessary)

- One hundred convincing arguments: +20pts extra for carrying at least 100 bombs (this time, the x6 required bombs are included in the count)

- Where Eagles Dare: +30pts if the Bomber can land on top of the VAB

I will also add a definition of full payload as I realize it could be a bit confusing as to what constitutes the 'maximum' payload of a craft when in practice more bombs can be attached anywhere in the hangar:

The full payload is the payload the entrant claims to be the maximum FLT400 bomb loadout (the base requirement included), and this is also used to calculate the 'more BOOM' score. The number of bombs may not be reduced from this maximum loadout in any of the sub-challenges where a 'full payload' is required.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Aanker

[The Mechanic]

@wossname I like what you did there no that flying wing. Placing the cargo bays at an angle allows the craft to be considerably more compact.

@Aanker For "Worldwide Coverage" you might like to specify that the circumnavigation takes place within the atmosphere unless you want to count SSTO into that sub-challenge.

Since you are now including space challenges...are rockets (jet-rocket hybrid SSTO? Nuclear engines?) allowed? It may be an idea to make something like bonus and penalty for the LV-N. Like a penalty for maintaining the LV-N but also a bonus that gives you some extra points so that you can use one or maybe two while still having some more points.

LV-N special maintenance: -20 pts per LV-N

Going nuclear: + 30 pts.

Just an idea though.

With those new sub-challenges you introduced I maybe try my hand on a new entry. Considering that I don't get anything nice done with the Mk.3 fuselage system (it feels just awkward when placing wings and stuff, especially on those adapters) I'll have to settle on doing something really fancy based on the Mk.2 system.

Also, how about making a separate scoreboard for modded entries, of course with the requirement that the mods are somewhat grounded in the stock system, if you get what I mean? SXT, KAX and the Mk.4 fuselage system for example contain some nice stock-alike plane parts. I just wanted to throw that idea into the room.

Now, while I'm at mods: Is it okay for a VTOL-ing entry to use something like Vertical Velocity Control? It doesn't help if the craft is unbalanced but it is really helpful for landing and hovering with VTOL crafts because you don't have to fight against the throttle while trying not to crash . It does have some problems with jets but works well enough for flight assistance.

I'm asking this because you don't mention non-part mods in your challenge. Depending on your answer I may do the flying in a more stock-ish install in case I do a new entry. Not sure if I can design something good at the moment.

[wossname]

Woooohooo! I have a 00:40:15 for a VTOL Peninsula Run!

http://imgur.com/a/gHarS (the images seem to be all out of order I'm afraid, no idea why).

Details to follow in a minute.....

Title of jet: "Fools Rush In"

Swift payback: 220m/s at 3000m = 22 points

Engine maintenance: 18 basic jets!!! = -36 points

Part maintenance: 156 = -3.12 points

Gentle giant: if you use the VTOL engines to provide lift, then yes, I'm being optimistic +20 points

Flashy technology: Yep, that's the whole point of this jet: +30

Service ceiling: +15pts will do this easily without VTOL jets enabled

Where Eagles Dare: +30pts (Photo here) This took about 11 attempts, destroyed the VAB about 5 times! RIP Jeb and Bill

Battleduck: +20 pts (http://imgur.com/a/CDb7n)

Total score: 97 points

57,255 kilos at takeoff.

Here's the craft file. I think you guys will get a kick out of this plane. It's very stable even at VTOL takeoff.

Procedure for taking off VTOL...

- turn SAS ON (vital!!!)

- set 66% throttle

- STAGE

- wait until the VTOL jets spin up and you'll gently lift off with a slight nose dip, pull back gently to trim attitude and add a little more thrust if needed.

- let the nose dip until you're going forward 30m/s or so

- set 100% throttle

- wait a few seconds and maintain stable flight

- STAGE (enables main jets and VTOL simultaneously)

- allow airspieed to pickup and set the nose dead on the horizon and then wait until your altitude hits 2000.

- press "2" to kill the VTOL jets and pull up a bit and then CRUISE to the battle zone!!!

- after a few minutes you can STAGE to drop the four small under-wing jets once they flame out, you won't need them after that.

On the way to the peninsula you can cruise at 10km altitude for a while at around 400m/s. Have a gin and tonic while you're enjoying the view.

After bombing ("9" to toggle cargo doors, and the STAGE to release the payload, then 9 again to close) you will need to pump some fuel forward to trim the loss of mass, else it'll stall after a couple of minutes.

I have not yet tried to land this jet using VTOL method after the payload is dropped - but that is not in the mission requirements.

Edited March 24, 2015 by wossname

[LtColTeddyBear]

I have a 40 hour peninsula run to do... and not because its slow, either...

[gigaboom2]

I have a 40 hour peninsula run to do... and not because its slow, either...

I look forward to seeing your monstrosity.

[Aanker]

wossname, check out the new VTOL sub-challenges!

[juzeris]

Worldwide coverage +20pts if the Bomber can perform a full circumnavigation around Kerbin's equator, without refueling, full payload required (for the whole trip). The circumnavigation must be performed at an altitude of no more than 15km

Just wanted to check on the new bonus objectives - is the worldwide coverage really set at 15 km? Can I get you to reconsider? It's hard to run even the more powerful of crafts faster than 400 m/s at 15 km, and at that speed circumnavigation will take 600015*2*3.14159265/400/60/60=about 2h40min assuming perfect flying and no lag (which, let's admit, is not a very reasonable assumption). For example in the peninsula run Bomb Bay exceeded 25 km alt, Kermite, hoioh, Krapofortress and Ens Gjs exceeded 15km (mostly all the planes with turbojets), and that's coming from screenshots in which the altimeter is cut off a lot.

As an additional example the Kerbal circumnavigation challenge sets the limit at 25 km, which is about the height a turbojet with one air intake will run at full throttle, though turbojets run quite reasonably at reduced throttle to about 30-32km without significant airhogging (same goes for rapier open cycle mode, which is just a weaker turbojet). And at 30km the air resistance, while weaker (terminal velocity of about 2km/s I'd guess), is still too significant to go the whole way around Kerbin on rockets.

[Jakalth]

Circumnavigation with the Khermite could be done. It would just require a few tweaks involving 4 more engines, some more wings, and a LOT more fuel. Probably need about 3x the fuel it's already carrying, which isn't all that much if you think about how little of it's mass is composed of fuel, aka: how little fuel it really has right now. Thinking under wing drop tanks of some type. At 15K it's speed is doable, but about the same speed as the Bomb Bay's.

[LtColTeddyBear]

Behold, the behemoth, Super-Bomber! (Don't pick on it! I'm not very good at names!)

At three days of work, this is probably my most worked on project in KSP. (FFX took a respectable share of the days, though.)

Mods used:

FAR (I cannot live without it!)

KJR (There isn't a way to make big aircraft in FAR without it, I tried at first, and I absolutely despise the Mk 3's weakness. More often than not it would just break apart on the runway.)

ATM (I still crashed a few times)

If you really, really, want to attempt to fly this thing.... well.... here ya go!

<iframe class="imgur-album" width="100%" height="550" frameborder="0" src="//imgur.com/a/cXeFi/embed"></iframe>

(I have no idea if this will work, but it says "embed" and I may as well try it. If not: http://imgur.com/a/cXeFi#0)

More BOOM: 128 bombs stored in the cargo bays. (128-6)*12 = 1464

One hundred convincing arguments: Who needs those six extra bombs counted in? +20

Swift payback: FAR is such a help! 446.5*0.1 = 44.65

Engine maintenance: Only 46 turbojets! 46*-4 = -184

Nuclear maintenance: Nope. +0

Part maintenance: This was so much fun.... 882*-0.02 = -17.64

Fastest bomber award: Nope, but I was pretty close at 22:31! +0

Airshow maneuverability: The most I ever got was around 7 G's. +0

Gentle giant: It can do this easily! +20

Flashy technology: Is it even possible to VTOL capability on a plane that's just under 769 metric tons? +0

You feeling lucky, VAB?/Dynamic Demonstration of Force: I could easily do this, but I'm done flying it! +0

Where Eagles Dare: It was scary landing on the runway! +0

Career switch: It could probably (95% confidence) take a 200 metric ton (the 128 bombs were just over 300 metric tons) rocket, haul it up to 20k, bring it to Mach 3 (at least; it got Mach 4 with the 128 bombs), and then launch it. I am not sitting through that, however. +0

Worldwide coverage: No more than 15k??!? But my bomber likes it better at 17-20k! I don't think it would be able to do this anyways. +0

SPACE bomber: I had an SSTO that took ~250 metric tons of payload into orbit; it just used totally overpowered SABRE engines! +0

That's no moon... Not anymore: This could be an interesting challenge.... I'm pretty sure the number of bombs makes up for it though. +0

Service ceiling: 19k is preferable. +15

Field refueling: A docking port is placed on the front of the cockpit. +10

Field rearming: Docking ports take up too much space! +0

Operational ability: Nope. +0

Battleduck: How would this thing even hope to float?!! +0

Such stealth, very sneak: Nope +0

Inspired shape: Yay! A whole two points!!! +2

Total: 1374.01

I think I've got a good reason to be proud of that.

[Aanker]

I will change the altitude limit for circumnavigation to 25km.

Nice entry, for now I will add a separate FAR list but just include KJR as a note. If more FAR or KJR entries appear then more scoreboards could be warranted.

PS. what do you guys think about a rule change wherein VTOL basic jet engines are given less of a point subtraction to compensate for the fact that we do not have complete thrust vectoring in vanilla KSP?

Edited March 24, 2015 by Aanker

[jrodriguez]

Hi all,

I was wondering if it is allow to use tweakscale (then do maths for the engines thrustScaled/thrustStock to calculate the number of stock engines used?) .

Regards,

Jesus

[Aanker]

I am not entirely familiar with tweakscale. What exactly does it do?

[hoioh]

It allows one to make smaller or larger variants of stock parts, so tiny nuke engines, or massive ones, larger cargo bays, or smaller ones, etc. etc. It's kinda fun, but horribly crash prone imho.

[wossname]

@Aanker: I just got the "Where Eagles Dare" goal with my VTOL

I have updated my entry posting here http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/112550-Military-Procurement-Strategic-Bomber-Concept?p=1801620&viewfull=1#post1801620

Can you remove my previous entry from the scoreboard and replace it with this new one please? The Jet's name is "Fools Rush In"

This is an AWESOME challenge Aanker, I've had a great time playing it. Might do one more design.

- - - Updated - - -

PS. what do you guys think about a rule change wherein VTOL basic jet engines are given less of a point subtraction to compensate for the fact that we do not have complete thrust vectoring in vanilla KSP?

Yes, very yesness. All yesses at once.

- - - Updated - - -

And just got the Battleduck award too!

[Aanker]

@jrodriguez: ok so regarding tweakscale, based on the information provided, you're allowed to use it but you will be added to a 'miscellaneous mods' scoreboard. I want to keep the vanilla scoreboard as vanilla as possible. I hope you understand.

[jrodriguez]

Thanks @Aanker. It makes sense for me, and I will try to submit a bomber for each category!

[ABalazs]

Let me present the XB-64E Pancake Bomber. This is a cheap alternative to all those gigabombers, a prototype designed by Jeb's Scrapyard, all parts salvaged from failed SSTO-s and scrapped rockets. It can carry 18 bombs internally and to deal with early balance problems, 4 externally. It has some rigidity problems to solve, but it is pretty scary, at least for a military force with no enemy at all.

Points list:

More BOOM: +12pts per extra bomb stored internally, +5pts per extra bomb stored externally. 12x12+4x5=164 pts

Swift payback: +0.1pts per m/s top speed at an altitude of 3 km 143 m/s-> 14,3 pts

Engine maintenance: -2pts per basic jet engine, -4pts per turbojet, -10pts per RAPIER engine. Rockets carry no penalty but, remember, they may not be used for takeoff. 4x2+4x4=-20 pts

Part maintenance: -0.02pts per part (bombs included) (calculate at end of construction for simplicity, example bomber has 400 parts which thus equals -8pts). 316 parts -> -6.32 pts

Gentle giant: +20pts if the Bomber with full payload, at cruising speed and an altitude of 3 km, can maintain a prograde velocity vector within 5° of its level indicator. Its somewhere between 3-4 deg, +20 pts

Service ceiling: +15pts if the Bomber can sustain level flight at an altitude of 12 km. It can. +15 pts

Total: 186.98 pts

The mission was completed in 42 min.

I am not good with large structures, so I did not even try to compete with the top of the field. In fact I made several simpler bomber designs and I think Kerbal Air Command could use an even lighter design with 9-12 bombs but less expense and maintenance need.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited March 25, 2015 by ABalazs

[Jakalth]

Nothing wrong at all with that entry Abalazs. There is always a need for a medium strategic bomber.

@Aanker With the range of submissions now seen in this challenge, it might be a good idea to split the stock bombers into 3 catagories. Light, Medium, and Heavy Bombers. This would allow the smaller bombers, who have been getting buried by the sheer bulk of the heavy weights, a chance to shine on their own. I'd suggest something like this:

Light Bomber: between 6 and 18 bombs, or under X tonnage...

Medium Bomber: between 19 and 36 bombs, or between X and Y tonnage...

Heavy Bomber: over 37 bombs, or greater then Y tonnage...

Something like that... Possibly even a Superweight bomber class for bombers carrying at least 100 bombs, or weighing more then Z tonnage.

Might make the smaller bombers more interesting to build for this.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Jakalth

[LtColTeddyBear]

A light bomber seems like much more fun to design and fly! Once those weight limits get added, I'ma make one!

[Skyentist]

Do all required bombs need to be dropped at the same time?

[Jakalth]

Do all required bombs need to be dropped at the same time?

Mine drop in sets of 8, in 6 stages. So I don't think all at once is necessary. Probably do need to drop at least the required 6 in one pass though.

[Aanker]

Sorry for my long absence, was in Death Valley and Las Vegas over the weekend. I will look into splitting up the challenge into several different classes.

- updated scoreboard with new entries

- updated scoreboard with new class categories, based somewhat arbitrarily on the number of bombs

- changed worldwide coverage limit to 25km

Also:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

XB-707 Excalibur

(point tally coming soon)

Edited April 2, 2015 by Aanker

[sammyuri]

Seeing as no-one has made a VTOL bomber, I decided to make one myself. So here is the VTOL Bomber MK1 (I'm not good at making up names)

Points list:

More BOOM: 18 bombs stored internally. (18 - 6)*12 = 144

Swift payback: Cruising speed of 105 m/s. 105*0.1 = 10.5

Engine maintenance: Only 8 Turbojets! 8*-4 = -32

Part Maintenance: 135 parts. 135*-0.02 = -2.7

Fastest bomber award: Forgot to record flight time...

Airshow Maneuvrability: Nope.

Gentle giant: Easily does this. 20

Flashy Technology: Yup. 30

You feeling lucky, VAB? Not sure if this thing is capable.

Where eagles dare: Yup. 30

Career switch: Could probably do this, but I'm done flying it.

Worldwide coverage: Nope, not enough fuel, barely got to the peninsula.

Space bomber: No.

Service ceiling: Yeah. 15

Field refueling: Yep. 10

Feild rearming: Yes, if you want the hassle, all bombs can be reloaded. 20

Operational ability: 5

Battleduck: Again, could do it, but done flying it.

TOTAL: 249.8.

So yeah, now I'm going to show a few screen-shots of the mission.

http://s1303.photobucket.com/user/htrajten/slideshow/VTOL%20Bomber

[TrainEngie]

Can we have multiple entries or is it "one entry per person???"

[Jakalth]

@ TrainEngie Others already have multiple entries so it should be fine.