Strategic Bomber Procurement (Reboot!)

[Kernel Kraken]

First iteration: 

So, I contacted @Aanker about a month ago to see if it was fine if I rebooted it, and as of yet have gotten no reply. So, here we go: 

(I just copy-pasted the origional challenge)

If there's a problem with the rules of rebooting, please let me know.

KAF Strategic Bomber Challenge

 

Air force officials began to suspect that their old fleet of KB-68 'Vanquishers' was long past the expiration date when museums began to hire thieves to steal entire engines and other essential components from the magnificent, but sadly antiquated aircraft. The military, of course, performed several raids against many of the involved museums, where they retrieved the lost equipment so that it - along with the planes - could be scrapped for good.

However, this left the air force without any form of strategic bombing capability. An untenable situation indeed. As such, a procurement process has been initiated wherein various different aircraft manufacturers will be allowed to compete over a single strategic bomber contract. Runner-ups may be allowed to further study their concepts. As long as they look awesome. 

The selection process works as follows: entrants have to comply with the basic requirements set forth by air force officials. However, entrants may score points on top of these depending on a multitude of different testable factors. These may range from top speed, to number of engines, to a specific challenge, etc.

The basic goal is to construct a reliable, functional bomber.

Basic Requirements

Spirit of the challenge: build a modestly realistic design which could serve as a reliable and functional strategic bombing platform

A bomb is herein defined as a single anythinng, within limits: bomb part count cannot exceed 10 parts.

The full payload is the payload the entrant declares to be the maximum amount of bombs (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.

Stock parts only, FAR may be allowed but such entrants will be listed as FAR users.

Part clipping per se is allowed, so long as its usage does not constitute an obvious attempt to exploit physics. Think in terms of the spirit of the challenge.

No other attempts to circumvent or exploit KSP physics are allowed. I may have missed some exact point but then refer to the spirit of the challenge.

- The Bomber must be able to take off and land, both with and without payload, on the conventional KSP runway without the assistance of rockets.

- The Bomber must at least carry six (6) bombs per the definition provided above.

- The Bomber must carry these six bombs internally, shielded from the airflow. A cargo bay is preferable. However, any bombs beyond the required six may be attached to outside hardpoints (see bonus objectives).

- The Bomber must be able to drop this payload safely, without any damage being inflicted on the airframe. Collisions between bombs, such that parts of the payload are destroyed during drop, should be avoided, but not all bombs have to drop successfully.

 

- The Bomber must be able to perform a simulated attack mission (takeoff, cruise, drop payload, return to KSP, land) against the peninsular landmass far to the east of KSP, see image:

Clock the mission if you want to win the fastest bomber award.

- The Bomber must have a crew of at least two (2) Kerbals. This crew must be able to enter and exit the bomber.

Bonus Objectives

Math Is Not Fun: +100pts for not making me do the math.

More BOOM: +14pts per every ton of payload stored internally, +6pts per ton stored externally.

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

Swift payback: +2 pts per m/s top speed at an altitude of 3 km (for instance, if aforementioned KB-68 Vanquisher top speed at 3 km is 200 m/s, total points for this: 400 pts). The speed test is to be performed with the full payload and fuel, so perform it as soon after takeoff as possible.

Engine maintenance: -1pts per Juno, -2pts per Wheasley, -3pts per Panther/Goliath, -4pts per Whiplash, -10pts per RAPIER engine. Rockets carry no penalty but, remember, they may not be used for takeoff and certainly are a bad idea.

Nuclear maintenance: -20pts per LV-N (nuclear) rocket engine (relevant for some of the challenges listed below)

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

Fastest bomber award: an entrant may be awarded +10pts if it is the fastest bomber (as measured in time to complete the simulated attack mission, see above) amongst its competitors in the same category scoreboard. Note that the arrival of faster entrants or new time trials for previous entries may result in the award and its points being transferred to someone else. The currently fastest plane is denoted with a cool bolded F.

Airshow maneuverability: +10pts if the Bomber can execute a horizontal turn, with or without payload, with a peak force of 10Gs or more at an altitude between 100-300m.

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.

Flashy technology: +30pts if the Bomber has VTOL capability, with payload.

You feeling lucky, VAB?/Dynamic Demonstration of Force: +10pts if the Bomber can successfully destroy the VAB, using a part or the entirety of its payload (but not by crashing into it). For this subchallenge only, the bomber may use another loadout than Small Holding Tanks.

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

Career switch: +20pts if the Bomber can be used to launch a simple one-Kerbal crewed SSTO from underneath one or both of its wings (akin to the use of the B-52 for the X-15), no payload except the SSTO(s) is necessary. +40pts If the SSTO is in an internal cargo hold.

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 25km

SPACE bomber: +20pts if the Bomber itself functions as an SSTO, with payload.

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 Small Holding Tanks 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)

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

Field refueling: +10pts if the Bomber can be refueled on the runway.

Field rearming: +20pts if the Bomber can be rearmed (only the required six bombs have to be successfully rearmable for this objective to be fulfilled) on the runway.

Operational ability: +5pts for completing both 'Field refueling' and 'Field rearming'.

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

Such stealth, very sneak: +2pts if it can be argued that the shape of the aircraft resembles that of a flying wing.

Inspired shape: +2pts if the Bomber has a swept wing layout, similar to that of the B-52.

Plane 'The Rock' Johnson: +30pts if it can still fly after being served a taste of its own medicine.

F/A Still Has A In It: +20pts if you can manage to repurpose a fighter to be a bomber, then magic it into completing the mission.

Mothership: +150pts if it can carry, launch, dock, and refuel one or more other plane, that can carry a payload of one bomb of its own. +50pts for every plane after the first one. Each plane must have a minimum of ten parts not including the bomb and a pilot.

 

If you come up with any interesting side objectives on top of these, do let me know!

Good luck and let's build some awesome-looking aircraft!

MODS ALLOWED:

FAR, Tweakscale, Take Command, any visual mods, Hangar Extender, and FullAutoStrut. Building massive bombers isn't easy.

SCOREBOARDS

 

The scoreboard is divided into severall different categories. First, vanilla entries are separated from those using mods (for now, only FAR has its own scoreboard, with extra modifications listed with the entrant name). Secondly, different classes of bombers are recognized to encourage the construction of a wide range of different vehicles. The classes are heavy (40+ tons), medium (20-40 tons) and light (~10-20 tons). For now, the same scoring system and modifiers apply to all classes

SCOREBOARD!

Heavy:

1: @qzgy's Goliath- 3080- something points. Jeez.

2: My Benchmark Bomber (just an example):  1452pts

Light:

1: @Gaarst's B22-  1094.56pts.

2: @panzerknoef's CL-A2- 468.38pts

3: F @Laie's KISS Bomber- 244pts!

 

 

Example Entry:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cipjKOOnCFM&t=2s

More Boom: 1440 pts

100 convincing arguments: 20 pts

Swift Payback: 35 pts

Engine maintenance: -36pts

Part Maintenance: (estimated ~350 parts): -7 points

Total: 1452pts! Yeah, the bomb score is really easy to take advantage of.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Kernel Kraken

[panzerknoef]

Was just wondering about a thing, the SSTO, it has to be wing mounted? Can't be mounted under the hull like the X-1? 

Regardless of that, I like the challenge and will probably send my entry soon enough 

[Kernel Kraken]

8 minutes ago, panzerknoef said:

Was just wondering about a thing, the SSTO, it has to be wing mounted? Can't be mounted under the hull like the X-1? 

Regardless of that, I like the challenge and will probably send my entry soon enough 

It can be mounted in any way, mabye I'll make it worth twice as many points if it's in a cargo bay. Looking forwards to the entry!

(+100 points if you don't make me do the math)

[Hodo]

3 hours ago, panzerknoef said:

Was just wondering about a thing, the SSTO, it has to be wing mounted? Can't be mounted under the hull like the X-1? 

Regardless of that, I like the challenge and will probably send my entry soon enough 

Technically the X-1 is not a SSTO.  It is deployed from an aircraft which would have been the first stage.   

[panzerknoef]

6 minutes ago, Hodo said:

Technically the X-1 is not a SSTO.  It is deployed from an aircraft which would have been the first stage.   

The X-15 isn't an SSTO either then, it staged from a B-52 and it didn't go into orbit, though it did go into space 

[sturmhauke]

On 10/16/2018 at 10:29 AM, Kernel Kraken said:

Plane 'The Rock' Johnson: +30 points if it can survive it's own payload being dropped on it.

Define "survive". "Take no damage at all" seems unlikely. Maybe "still flyable and can continue its mission if rearmed"?

[Kernel Kraken]

55 minutes ago, sturmhauke said:

Define "survive". "Take no damage at all" seems unlikely. Maybe "still flyable and can continue its mission if rearmed"?

Yeah, I just added that, I'll re-word it.

EDIT: Just FYI, I changed the bomb to the Radial Ore Tank, because A: It's more realistic to the size of a 1000- lb bomb, and B: ore tanks are really good at destroying stuff.

Edited October 18, 2018 by Kernel Kraken

[qzgy]

WIP

You know whats happening @Kernel Kraken

 

[sturmhauke]

I'm not sure you have enough bombs there.

[qzgy]

Just now, sturmhauke said:

I'm not sure you have enough bombs there.

No probably not.......

I could remove some fuel tanks to double the number......

[Chel]

Hmm... I'll see what I can do for your destructive needs

On 10/17/2018 at 3:29 AM, Kernel Kraken said:

peninsular landmass far to the east of KSP,

Basically you are talking about the old airfield, which is a site of many a BDA missile

[Rocket In My Pocket]

7 hours ago, qzgy said:

No probably not.......

I could remove some fuel tanks to double the number......

Don't forget to put some in the wings!

Spoiler

 

[Kebab Kerman]

Time to put my skills to the test. Ooh, are cluster bombs allowed!? Please tell me they are!

 

I've just realized what I use if I can bomb the VAB. Time to build a stock nuclear bomb!

 

EDIT: Do I get extra points if I make it look like this?

Edited October 19, 2018 by Kebab Kerman

[Kernel Kraken]

1 hour ago, Kebab Kerman said:

Time to put my skills to the test. Ooh, are cluster bombs allowed!? Please tell me they are!

 

I've just realized what I use if I can bomb the VAB. Time to build a stock nuclear bomb!

 

EDIT: Do I get extra points if I make it look like this?

Hnn...... I bet this can qualify as a stealth aircraft, hiding in plane sight, BADUM CRASH.

9 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:

Hmm... I'll see what I can do for your destructive needs

Basically you are talking about the old airfield, which is a site of many a BDA missile

There's a map, is shows where it is. It might not show up, I don't know how I can show it to you...

[Kebab Kerman]

Just now, Kernel Kraken said:

Hnn...... I bet this can qualify as a stealth aircraft, hiding in plane sight, BADUM CRASH.

Hehe. Meanwhile, at Mission Control:

*This is Jeb over the radio. This is Mission Control.

"All according to plan. They don't suspect a thing."

"What plan? Who doesn't suspect what, over."

"I- Uh... Nothing, nothing! I didn't say anything, over!"

"Then who did, over."

"Um... It was just the plane rattling... Yeah! The plane rattling. Over."

"Hmm... Seems legit, over and out."

*click*

"Gotta remember not to keep the radio on next time..."

[qzgy]

2 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Don't forget to put some in the wings! 

Yeah probably should! OTOH, the bomber as is already weighs like.... almost 1000 tons or something? and carries well over 200 bombs. So uhhh..... overkill much? wait nah there's no such thing as overkill.

Have to give props for nice bomb packing. ATM my design has issues with things exploding during deployment. Now in fairness, it is using a one time use bombrack that decouples and then auto annihilates, releasing its peaceful spawn to wreak havoc upon whatever target there is. Overcomplicated? yes. Effective? Maybe.

 

 

[Kernel Kraken]

1 hour ago, qzgy said:

Yeah probably should! OTOH, the bomber as is already weighs like.... almost 1000 tons or something? and carries well over 200 bombs. So uhhh..... overkill much? wait nah there's no such thing as overkill.

Have to give props for nice bomb packing. ATM my design has issues with things exploding during deployment. Now in fairness, it is using a one time use bombrack that decouples and then auto annihilates, releasing its peaceful spawn to wreak havoc upon whatever target there is. Overcomplicated? yes. Effective? Maybe.

 

 

Do you have any tips on wing placement and fuel efficiency? I can't get my 50- ton 60- bomb bomber to stay in the air for more than 40 minutes while alternatively turning the engines on and off to save fuel.

It also part of my monstrosity series:

(Monstrosity Stingray)

(Stingray releasing it's cloud of bombs).

I'm an idiot and the solution is probably really obvious.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Kernel Kraken

[Kebab Kerman]

@Kernel Kraken Try using an inline cockpit or merging the fuselages into one, and generally making it as aerodynamic as possible. As it is in the pic, it's pretty blunt on the nose(s), so what you want is to merge them into one or put nose cones on them and use an inline cockpit. That should help a bit, at least.

EDIT: For engines, try using junos. They aren't very powerful, nor can they go supersonic (Unless you add a crap ton) but they are very efficient. Then there's the Panther, when dry, has a fuel consumption rate of 0.119. After that is the Wheesley with 0.223. Those are probably your best options for engines for efficiency.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Kebab Kerman

[Rocket In My Pocket]

6 hours ago, qzgy said:

Yeah probably should! OTOH, the bomber as is already weighs like.... almost 1000 tons or something? and carries well over 200 bombs. So uhhh..... overkill much? wait nah there's no such thing as overkill.

Have to give props for nice bomb packing. ATM my design has issues with things exploding during deployment. Now in fairness, it is using a one time use bombrack that decouples and then auto annihilates, releasing its peaceful spawn to wreak havoc upon whatever target there is. Overcomplicated? yes. Effective? Maybe.

Yeah mine had the same issue, I actually added a rear cargo ramp door so some of the debris could fly out the back lol. Even had to shield some more sensitive components back there from collisions. There are pictures of it somewhere, in some challnge thread somewhere I think? Might even have been the precursor to this thread.

Believe it or not, even with all those bombs I still couldn't get a kill on the VAB. Lol! I hope you have better luck.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Rocket In My Pocket

[sturmhauke]

2 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Believe it or not, even with all those bombs I still couldn't get a kill on the VAB. Lol!

I've found that for blowing up the KSC, a few large bombs works better than a similar mass of numerous, small bombs. High speed (e.g. missiles, or a crashing aircraft) is even better. Has something to do with how the physics is calculated I suppose.

[panzerknoef]

46 minutes ago, sturmhauke said:

I've found that for blowing up the KSC, a few large bombs works better than a similar mass of numerous, small bombs. High speed (e.g. missiles, or a crashing aircraft) is even better. Has something to do with how the physics is calculated I suppose.

Objects with high impact tolerance also tend to more easily destroy buildings 

[qzgy]

8 hours ago, Kernel Kraken said:

Do you have any tips on wing placement and fuel efficiency? I can't get my 50- ton 60- bomb bomber to stay in the air for more than 40 minutes while alternatively turning the engines on and off to save fuel.

Wingplacement is a personal thing, as long as it flies its fine. I would HIGHLY reccomend though using the wings with fuel in them. You get wings and free fuel space! Whats not to like?

[Laie]

K.I.S.S.

530m/s @ 3km (what is this, WW2?),  630m/s@10km cruise w/o afterburner. With afterburner, it's ~880m/s both high and low, though @3km the engines will explode after a minute or two. Can go around the world. It could certainly lift more bombs, but I've done the trials with the basic six. Round-trip time under 20 minutes. Probably capable of aerobatics, but I'm not the pilot to try this.

Doing the maths, I award myself 144 points. Also, fastest entry so far... heh.

 

Edited October 20, 2018 by Laie

[Kernel Kraken]

1 hour ago, Laie said:

K.I.S.S.

530m/s @ 3km (what is this, WW2?),  630m/s@10km cruise w/o afterburner. With afterburner, it's ~880m/s both high and low, though @3km the engines will explode after a minute or two. Can go around the world. It could certainly lift more bombs, but I've done the trials with the basic six. Round-trip time under 20 minutes. Probably capable of aerobatics, but I'm not the pilot to try this.

Doing the maths, I award myself 144 points. Also, fastest entry so far... heh.

 

Nice, I'll put it on the leaderboard!

EDIT: I believe you forgot the first challenge, where I award you an extra 100 for not making me do the math!

Edited October 20, 2018 by Kernel Kraken

[Laie]

1 hour ago, Kernel Kraken said:

Nice, I'll put it on the leaderboard!

EDIT: I believe you forgot the first challenge, where I award you an extra 100 for not making me do the math!

Yes I did, thanks.

BTW, is it necessary that ever bomb has it's own individual decoupler?