Kethane Station Discussion

[Megalodon 720]

The sea harrier is famous for it's work in the Falklands war, in which they gained air superiority around the islands by shooting down Argentinean jets. After gaining superiority in the air, they were used to drop cluster bombs on the Argentinean forces protecting Goose Green. As the only airfield on the islands had been destroyed by an Avro Vulcan beforehand, each plane had to take off from one of two aircraft carriers(I've actually seen one of the same class as those ships), HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes.

[Rune]

1. J-10: that is not classified as a fighter-bomber, it is a multirole fighter design much like the F-16.

2.F/A-18: twin-engined carrier aircraft, again multirole supersonic aircraft, not a fighter-bomber.

3. AV-8B: single-engined VTOL operated from small to mini aircraft carriers or helicarriers, again multirole without focus on ground attack

4. F-35: single-engined multirole 5th generation supersonic overpriced trash(no wonder I forgot it).

Fighter-bombers have the following characteristics: twin-engines for added weight carrying capability, a pilot and WSO(weapons station operator), inbuilt terrain following radar function, inbuilt laser designating unit with electro-optical devices, also has added provisions for jammers and EW suites, such as the wing-tip pylons on the Su-34 being able to carry massive SAP-518, and SAP-14 jammers.

Edit:

1. Rafale: multirole supersonic single seat fighter, again not meant specifically for air to ground.

2. F-2 : multirole fighter, not meant for ground attack.

Yeah... the F/A-18 (F/A stands for Fighter/Attack, BTW) is the most famous of all fighter-bomber aircraft (in recent history at least). Reportedly capable of changing from a ground attack mission to air superiority config with the single flick of a switch. And, originally, the twin seater version was just a trainer. The F-16 was more of a pure fighter... at least until General Dynamics (now LockMart) saw how the F/A-18 was eating the foreign market and added laser designators and electronics to turn it into a multirole fighter, which is what fighter-bomber aircraft are these days. I will remind you that the term was coined before there were electronics, BTW, so assigning your quite arbitrary characteristics (which the hornet still complies with, BTW) is a bit meaningless. The Hawker Typhoon wasn't a fighter-bomber, for example?

Rune. These days it's much more accurate to use "attack aircraft" anyway, the days of the bomber-fighter dichotomy are long past.

[War Eagle 1]

1. J-10: that is not classified as a fighter-bomber, it is a multirole fighter design much like the F-16.

2.F/A-18: twin-engined carrier aircraft, again multirole supersonic aircraft, not a fighter-bomber.

3. AV-8B: single-engined VTOL operated from small to mini aircraft carriers or helicarriers, again multirole without focus on ground attack

4. F-35: single-engined multirole 5th generation supersonic overpriced trash(no wonder I forgot it).

Fighter-bombers have the following characteristics: twin-engines for added weight carrying capability, a pilot and WSO(weapons station operator), inbuilt terrain following radar function, inbuilt laser designating unit with electro-optical devices, also has added provisions for jammers and EW suites, such as the wing-tip pylons on the Su-34 being able to carry massive SAP-518, and SAP-14 jammers.

Edit:

1. Rafale: multirole supersonic single seat fighter, again not meant specifically for air to ground.

2. F-2 : multirole fighter, not meant for ground attack.

So can you explain the difference between a fighter bomber and a multirole then?

Edit:

on a different topic: how is ep 20 going?

Edited October 12, 2014 by War Eagle 1

[Rune]

So can you explain the difference between a fighter bomber and a multirole then?

Mostly, the period. The "Multirole" moniker has started being applied very recently, when new missions like ECM cover and SAM site neutralization came up, development cost of a new plane platform also came up sharply, and the missions were fulfilled with existing fighter platforms suitably modified. As missions became more varied over time, the mission platforms became less specialized, until right now there haven't really been new bomber designs since the stealth generation, everything is multirole fighters with as much payload as possible and the main difference between them is size and the access to weapon systems of the owner. It is like the arguable distinction between interceptors and fighters, that was based mostly on range and makes less sense with each passing day, as the main difference is the weapon system of choice and whether or not it is BVR. F-15s, for example, could count as everything from recon craft to bombers, inlcuding both heavy and light fighters and interceptor, it all depends in what's in the pylons and behind the radome, hence the ascendancy of the "multirole" classification.

Rune. It's all nomenclature anyway.

[2SPOOKY4U]

*sigh* Very well, I was hoping to not have to drag this thread off course but it appears I will have to. The thing with "mutirole fighters" is that weapons technology became more advanced, it mattered less and less what platform delivered it. Take for example the Su-25T and its Shkval sensor system. The Shkval system was used to guide Vikhr missiles. However, time went on and with the proper laser exciter coding, you can nearly put Vikhrs on every platform as long as you obeyed the overall seeker-riding arc. Another example would be the A-10, it took down a lot of tanks with the AGM-65 Maverick. However, the Mav isn't unique to the A-10. When A-10s started to accumulate severe damage and losses from the Republican Guard, F-16s took over. They utilized the superior speed and maneuverability of the F-16 to help stay out of the Republican Guards defenses. And yes, Rune I am fully aware that F/A is Fighter/Attack. I remember when the F-15 was being designed, there was a popular motto, "not a pound for air to ground". But when they realized how the F-15s range, speed, large aperture radar, and plenty of pylons would lend itself well to air to ground munitions. In fact, the JDAM is an excellent example. It does not matter what platform carries it. All that matters is that you input the target coordinates, and subsequently drop it. F-15 or F-16 or F/A-18, they all make good air to ground platforms I am not disputing that. But a F-111 or a Su-34 would do it better as they were designed to carry out those missions from the start. They were made to have as much range and pylons possible. But I see your point, Su-34s can fire R-27 air to air missiles which allows it to have an air to air role, but it will never be suited for it the way a Su-35 would be. But an Su-35 can also use it's ridiculously strong Irbis radar to detect ground targets and attack them. But the single-seat Su-35 will not be as good as firing a Kh-59 and using its terminal tv guidance system. That is why it was made for aircraft like the Su-24.

[Rune]

*sigh* Very well, I was hoping to not have to drag this thread off course but it appears I will have to. The thing with "mutirole fighters" is that weapons technology became more advanced, it mattered less and less what platform delivered it. Take for example the Su-25T and its Shkval sensor system. The Shkval system was used to guide Vikhr missiles. However, time went on and with the proper laser exciter coding, you can nearly put Vikhrs on every platform as long as you obeyed the overall seeker-riding arc. Another example would be the A-10, it took down a lot of tanks with the AGM-65 Maverick. However, the Mav isn't unique to the A-10. When A-10s started to accumulate severe damage and losses from the Republican Guard, F-16s took over. They utilized the superior speed and maneuverability of the F-16 to help stay out of the Republican Guards defenses. And yes, Rune I am fully aware that F/A is Fighter/Attack. I remember when the F-15 was being designed, there was a popular motto, "not a pound for air to ground". But when they realized how the F-15s range, speed, large aperture radar, and plenty of pylons would lend itself well to air to ground munitions. In fact, the JDAM is an excellent example. It does not matter what platform carries it. All that matters is that you input the target coordinates, and subsequently drop it. F-15 or F-16 or F/A-18, they all make good air to ground platforms I am not disputing that. But a F-111 or a Su-34 would do it better as they were designed to carry out those missions from the start. They were made to have as much range and pylons possible. But I see your point, Su-34s can fire R-27 air to air missiles which allows it to have an air to air role, but it will never be suited for it the way a Su-35 would be. But an Su-35 can also use it's ridiculously strong Irbis radar to detect ground targets and attack them. But the single-seat Su-35 will not be as good as firing a Kh-59 and using its terminal tv guidance system. That is why it was made for aircraft like the Su-24.

Yup, I think we agree in the end. The time of specialized munition platforms married to a specific weapon system is over, and wars being what they are nowadays, and the rise of the drone and AESA radars, manned warplanes are going to be as multirole as they get. I expect them to increase in weight and favour twin seaters too as drones become more of a standard as munition platforms, they are going to like having big manned fighters as a short of Mini-AWACS support. And yeah, I realize I am derailing this further, so I'll shut up.

Rune. I just like talking this kind of thing!

[2SPOOKY4U]

I agree with your statement Rune, the time of special munitions to special platforms is long gone. Drones will have a big part in the air to ground wars but very little parts in the air to air wars. I think that we will be having fighters like the T-50 in the future. Official statements include information about 5 radar arrays, one 1526 TR module X-band AESA, two sidelooking X-band300 TR AESA, and two L-band AESAs in the wings for counter-stealth and jamming L-band radars along with a most likely rear facing X-band AESA. Not only that but with a 360 degree IRST system along with a independent MAWS system and DIIRCM jamming systems. Combined with high speed supercruise >M1.8 thanks to the T-50s just plain silly huge fuel reserve, extremely high altitude operations thanks to the new life support systems, and high maneuverability to boot. My bet is that the T-50 will use it's sensors at a standoff range while passing that off to cheaper drones to attack ground targets, for air contacts I imagine the T-50 will engage those by itself. My assumption is that the drones that will attack the targets the T-50 designates will be extremely simple, engine, RWR/MAWS,stealthy shape, and a low IR engine with high efficiency to give it a large range, preferably to keep up with the T-50s. Anyway, I will stop derailing this thread, this will be my last message on this topic. BTW, I just wanted to point out that just because you have a fighter that can do multirole missions like bombing, does not classify it as a fighter-bomber. I enjoyed our discussion, let us PM each other to talk about this interesting subject.

[zekes]

Here's a ship for you...

The Drekevak XIV

DOWNLOAD: https://www./?570nrm0pf3jb3m4

Weight: 104 Tonnes

Part count: 497

The Drekevak XIV was built by Zokesian Shipyards during the year 13328 (November 24th 2013). She featured a quantum leap in armor protection, and for years the armor was unpenetratable by even Probe-Tek, Voyager Labs, and DAEcorp weaponry. She possesses a long barrel which can easily be fitted with numerous different weapons, abeit "smart" (guided) or "dumb" (Direct fire). She was meant to enter combat unmanned, but has a cockpit for ferrying/rescue. She sports two long range nuclear engines, One Aerospike for speed at a slight cost to efficiency, and two large radials to provide war emergency power.

It is nearly 1000 kerbal years later (Date 14286), the armor has lost its invulnerability, due to the introduction of "Shredder" missiles, but remains in active frontline duty in many parts of the solar system, including still in Frontline Service in the Zokesian Navy, and its design has been exported to 75 different nations/institutions. Since the XIV, there have been 12 more Drekevak designs, but the most successful ones are carbon copies of the XIV's amazing armor.

The XIV-I carried 2 "Helos" missiles, which are very much dated. The export version (which is the one in the link) Has 4 sate of the art Quad-Engined AP missiles, which are strong enough to break through most armor and are standard carried on Modern Zokesian Ships. She also carries 2 Straight shot "HV" minimissiles on the sides, to take out fighters, although these have been proven to be very difficult to aim due to the Drek's size and slow SAS control.

Edited October 13, 2014 by zekes

[andrew123]

Special fighters, you say?

T-50. The bomb bay contains a... present... :) It also carries A2A missiles.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Hehe. This is the PAK-FA Concept Craft, which includes a fully sized large mk2 bomb bay, and, if needed, 2070 units of fuel for the two turbofan engines.

I also threw in the prototype SSN-22-1 missile, but this iteration has an extremely short range. It does, however, seem to carry quite a bit of kinetic energy.

Our first bomb bay equipped stealth long range strike fighter.

Download of the prototype pak fa plus the prototype ssn-22-1 will be available to KATEC members upon request, although I will allow non members of KATEC to acquire the craft file on case-by-case basis through PM's. One of the longest ranged aircraft ever made in KSP.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited October 13, 2014 by andrew123

[KinkyFerrets]

The Su-34 is a two seater, in fact there are very little single seat fighter bombers. (cant think of any off the top of my head).

F-105D Thunderchief.

[zekes]

F-105D Thunderchief.

A-4 Skyhawk, A-1 Skyraider

[2SPOOKY4U]

F-105D Thunderchief.

Sorry, I meant successful fighter-bombers.

[2SPOOKY4U]

A-4 Skyhawk, A-1 Skyraider

Those are attack aircraft, not fighter-bombers. BTW, I am done with derailing this thread, if anyone wants to discuss this further, send me a PM.

[Megalodon 720]

Hatbat, did you get the updated version of Victory Ok?

[Halban]

Download of the prototype pak fa plus the prototype ssn-22-1 will be available to KATEC members upon request, although I will allow non members of KATEC to acquire the craft file on case-by-case basis through PM's. One of the longest ranged aircraft ever made in KSP.

Hey, nice ship but this thread is for submissions only. I'm afraid it's not just for showcasing :/

Hatbat, did you get the updated version of Victory Ok?

Yup, loving it

[Megalodon 720]

It's really no different from the last one, the only differences are:

She's will presumably compatible when the old C7 parts are removed.

and she now has a crew of 2 rather than one.

Her performance, combat effectiveness and survivability shouldn't be much different.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Megalodon 720

[War Eagle 1]

1056 subs

Man I bet if ep #20 came out late today or tomorrow you d hit 1200 by Friday

[2SPOOKY4U]

@HatBat, hows it going? Did you get the Inquisitor? Any thoughts on it?

[OCAdam]

I have a few ships that are still in development, but I did have a few questions (in order to better develop them to conform to the specs mentioned in the original post):

1. Though the post never mentioned allowing it, what is your stance on the mod Modular Fuel Tanks? It should be able to help reduce the parts count of some ships by combining some tanks to be multifunction (ie, electric charge in a tank also containing xenon). My current ships under development haven't used it, but I know I can reduce the PC by at least a few through such use.

2. You mention trying to only allow the weaker turrets on space fighters. Is the 20mm Vulcan cannon (hidden variant) one of those? I've tended to use that one on all my ships so far, and usually in a pair.

3. I have a large space-only fighter that contains 2 of the 20mm cannons, a Hydra pod, and 4 stock rail missiles. Is that too large an arsenal? The rules only stated a max of a rocket pod and 2 turrets, but that only mentioned the BD armory stuff.

4. The rules on large space fighters mention your ship, the Buzzard, but I've yet to find a solid picture of the craft on the forums (my search-fu might be weak though). The space fighter I've been working on (the one I mentioned the arsenal of in #3) is fairly large, so honestly I dunno if it's truly a fighter, or more a capital-fighter hybrid. If it's the second, I'll likely try to remove the onboard weaponry and try to develop sub-fighters.

I'll try to get a picture of my craft up soon, but since I have a class soon and a ton of exams this week (yay college)... I'll just try to have it up soon.

Edit: Managed to figure out adding the imgur stuff and getting pictures of the craft in question. Note: While the ship currently shows 2k dV, that's on a light fuel load (it can actually run up to 7k dV if you load of the outboard tanks that really are only there for use in the shielded 'wing' structures (though they do have fuel lines to support feeding the nukes anyways)).

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited October 13, 2014 by OCAdam

[2SPOOKY4U]

I have a few ships that are still in development, but I did have a few questions (in order to better develop them to conform to the specs mentioned in the original post):

1. Though the post never mentioned allowing it, what is your stance on the mod Modular Fuel Tanks? It should be able to help reduce the parts count of some ships by combining some tanks to be multifunction (ie, electric charge in a tank also containing xenon). My current ships under development haven't used it, but I know I can reduce the PC by at least a few through such use.

2. You mention trying to only allow the weaker turrets on space fighters. Is the 20mm Vulcan cannon (hidden variant) one of those? I've tended to use that one on all my ships so far, and usually in a pair.

3. I have a large space-only fighter that contains 2 of the 20mm cannons, a Hydra pod, and 4 stock rail missiles. Is that too large an arsenal? The rules only stated a max of a rocket pod and 2 turrets, but that only mentioned the BD armory stuff.

4. The rules on large space fighters mention your ship, the Buzzard, but I've yet to find a solid picture of the craft on the forums (my search-fu might be weak though). The space fighter I've been working on (the one I mentioned the arsenal of in #3) is fairly large, so honestly I dunno if it's truly a fighter, or more a capital-fighter hybrid. If it's the second, I'll likely try to remove the onboard weaponry and try to develop sub-fighters.

I'll try to get a picture of my craft up soon, but since I have a class soon and a ton of exams this week (yay college)... I'll just try to have it up soon.

1. If it is not in the list, do not use it.

2. The weaker turrets are the .50 cal twin guns. The 20mm are fitted to heavy attack helicopters in IRL. They are too strong and OP to be mounted on space based military craft.

3. Yes, that is ok, that rule was made to be only for limiting BD armory, stock armament is encouraged so please feel free to design as much as you like.

4. Try "heavy fighter", you will have to check Rune's Skunkworks page, I believe that is where it is located. Feel free to design whatever ships you like. If they fit the rules then HatBat will not have a problem.

[Halban]

1. If it is not in the list, do not use it.

2. The weaker turrets are the .50 cal twin guns. The 20mm are fitted to heavy attack helicopters in IRL. They are too strong and OP to be mounted on space based military craft.

3. Yes, that is ok, that rule was made to be only for limiting BD armory, stock armament is encouraged so please feel free to design as much as you like.

4. Try "heavy fighter", you will have to check Rune's Skunkworks page, I believe that is where it is located. Feel free to design whatever ships you like. If they fit the rules then HatBat will not have a problem.

Wow, thanks man. You just saved me a bunch of time there. And no, I've yet to test ships that aren't making an appearance in the immediate story arc but I'll make an exception for the inquisitor once I get some time.

[OCAdam]

Mm, seems my getting pictures was a bit unnecessary for the moment then. I'll be updating the design down to the .50 cal guns then

[zekes]

Wow, thanks man. You just saved me a bunch of time there. And no, I've yet to test ships that aren't making an appearance in the immediate story arc but I'll make an exception for the inquisitor once I get some time.

just wondering if u saw my post

[Halban]

just wondering if u saw my post

Yup, and I'm definitely going to use it. If being on the forums has taught me anything, it's that zeke ship are best ship.

[zekes]

Yup, and I'm definitely going to use it. If being on the forums has taught me anything, it's that zeke ship are best ship.

haha, thank you! I appreciate that much!

Keep in mind it's a full year old, It should work but it's probably more braun and less brains, but it'll do the job.

Edited October 13, 2014 by zekes