Project Reviews, Post all project objections here!

Cool. Pencil me in for 50 fighters when they enter production in the year 2045.

Canada would then request advanced payment lol

There are all kinds of things wrong with this.

1) Russia's participation should not be assumed. Yes, you're offering to do me a significant favor, but you haven't actually done anything IG to lend credence to that. Even after our previous agreement is fulfilled, I'm inclined to walk away from the discussion having gotten as good as I gave. Russia does not want or need another fifth gen fighter to compete with it: you're going to run into some rather serious resistance to that plan and it's erroneous to use what is more or less a shot in the dark as the basis for your R&D project.

2) There's the fallout with America. It's one thing to criticize America. It's quite another for a NATO member to directly cooperate with a country on stealing American military technology. The fallout for participation for this topic, even for France, would be enormous. It would quite literally be a diplomatic Chernobyl. I really don't see any NATO member being committed to this project over the long haul. Ask yourself: how many NATO countries are willing to torpedo relations with America over Quebec? The answer is "not many." Especially not when the repercussions paralyze the European Union. Everyone east of the Iron Curtain would trip over themselves to garner American favor at this point: they've done it every other time the opportunity has presented itself (see: Iraq).

3) It is not in Russia's interest in increase the combat capability of NATO states. I'm involved in this only because the risk to them greatly exceeds the risk to us. Giving you some of my best technology means the risk to me becomes unacceptably high. France is in the same boat. Cultural unity with Quebec only goes so far.

4) We've been down this road, but it needs to be said again: the F-15SE will never be on par with the F-22. It will never be in the "same territory." It will never possess a fraction of the F-35's capability in SEAD operations. It is a strike fighter with forward-looking stealth. Think about that. It doesn't even make sense.

5) The project you propose is ambitious. You want new engines (thrust vectoring would require it), you want all-aspect RCS reduction, you want dramatic changes to fuselage, presumably entirely new avionics suites, and on and on. You're essentially throwing out the F-15SE and keeping a few of the ideas (maybe the parts?). Then, to make matters more complicated, you're going to mate French and American avionics plus whatever else you can procure from overseas. It's a nightmare of a project waiting to happen. Provided it all started right now, and nobody bowed out or had second thoughts, I'd give you a very optimistic figure of a decade.

After a long hard thinking about it, CF-205 will NOT be pursued. Silent Eagle technology will not be leaked. I could end up with something worthwhile but it's not worth it in this crisis, i'm not going to push too far. And since production with foreign parts would be extremely complicated (i'd encounter pretty much the same difficulties as Israel when it was developing the Kfir), i'll scrap the project and use the unbuilt airframes as parts. Production of parts will continue. So hey hey, bring on the European fighters

France would probably sell you parts and help you with it, considering it sold you missiles at the height of the Winter Crisis.

Considering the US is not angry with Canada, it's angry with Quebec, there's no reason why this Quebec Crisis can't end and Canada returns to cooperating with the US on defense issues.

You've basically mortgaged all of Canadian influence to defend the possibility of an independent Quebec, I highly doubt the rest of Canada are going to let their businesses wither just so the Quebecois can have a shot at an independent state that by your admission will continue to leech off Canada for defense and economic purposes.

I wouldn't mind ignoring Quebec's lack of foresight in these economic and social issues and i'd be willing to have the US forgive Canada for its completely uncharacteristic behavior.

Keep it in-game please.

There's a certain degree of communication required OOC to keep storylines tidy. For example the entire bit with Canada trying to steal planes and the recent confusion with NATO SecGen elections could have been avoided if players communicated before hand.

Secretary General elections were explained in-game in the very first post - stop bringing this up to try and paint it as an issue to deride real issues.

This thread is for project reviews - please see the original post. No more violations.

Alright, I know playing the US is tough and all, but when your job is pretty much solely to do R&D and reply to the now negligible amount of FMS, a bit of attention to detail isn't going to murder you. So while Surfinbird and myself, as well as Schwer (he started the GCV program for the most part) have every right to be insulted, I'd just assume to stick to the objective criticism of why copying and pasting from previous rounds needs to be more closely watched.

Take for example the "Paradox AFV." I seriously doubt the GCV program is intended to span a decade, unless the US is really dicking itself with making petty ground vehicles that may not even see FOC IG (even though it is not uncommon to do that). Unless of course this can magically be explained by development of the 105mm ETC gun...which there isn't.

Then there's the Poseidon. So what's a FIRESTRIKE II do? And of course, another far away time before it even sees final testing. And a few references throughout about something called a Vanguard, namely in the very first line of the discussion on the Bushmaster III.

And while I'm on it, the YF-23 has no stats, yet has Glock's sig on it with an aside mention that CSJ might need to take a fine tooth comb to it. Unless of course it is to be taken that the original YF-23 is being restored in its entirety, whereby something like a payload would still be nice to know.

Also, aren't we supposed to have budgets?

It's worth pointing out that the CG(X) design probably doesn't work. The Zumwalt's hull isn't amenable to nuclear propulsion: there's not enough room for anything larger than submarine reactors and, quite frankly, submarine reactors don't deliver the degree of power you need for a full-fledged air defense cruiser. That's why I split the CG(X) project into two classes and pursued both the lighter but Zumwalt-esque destroyer and the much heavier escort cruiser for CVG air defense. You can go with the current project if you're okay with maxing out your hull from the beginning, but that's not something the USN would sink money into.

I feel the need to also note that I have no idea what the hell "active Magneto Rheological suspension" is. I'm going to assume it's closely related to the currently-in-testing magnetorheological shock absorber, but I really don't think it's a good idea to push for including that on what amounts to the entirety of your armored forces. Especially since the technology is immature. It's also worth noting that JB did not sign off on Surfin's changes to my program -- they were never approved and should be considered as automatically valid.

And Surfin had one hell of a time getting FIRESTRIKE II approved by JB. You should probably get started on that, Antler.

you cant believe how many versions we've made for it...

YF-23 is fine.

GCV project is following IRL dates - fielding beginning 2017/2018. Can't be any deviation from that.

Zumwalt as it stands is built for gas turbines - will need to be enlarged for nuclear reactor. And with the sensors are they the same AN/SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar?

Dates for GCV all aligned to existing real world plans.

Cruiser propulsion adjusted and yes sensors would be the same as the AN.

Oh yeah, Firestrike II was all a piece of work. And we did have several years technology ahead too, development started in 2017 i think?

Some relevant links for the Wendigo MMEV
Of course mine is slightly updated, i want to know if everything is alright and if the Price is Right.
http://www.casr.ca/bg-lav-mmev-project.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-Mission_Effects_Vehicle
http://www.science.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=0F86BA59-1
http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/index.php?fid=1573&lang=3
http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/index.php?fid=1501&lang=3

Reviews given to Chris' imaginary upgrade to the Ariane 5 that doesn't exist IRL and his attempt at turning a rip-off from SpaceShipTwo into a sub-orbital airliner without a decade of R&D.
The Galileo seems ok though.

My imaginery Ariane 5 is the Ariane 5ECB after strapping 2 additional boosters on it - which requires an additional R&D of roughly 2 minutes-, it is expected to enter service in 2016 IRL.

The "ripoff of the spaceshiptwo" is not a ripoff since it uses a totally different systems, and it is expected to have its first flight in 2011, i even lenghened it as you can see. Hell, even the worst critics only said that it looks like a now defunct american project...

Two errors here...
First, 'strapping 2 additional boosters' on a rocket DOES NOT TAKE TWO MINUTES. First it takes redesigning the lower stage to carry additional release systems (Which, if memory serves, are Norwegian ). Then it takes simulations to figure out if it will work as calculated.
Then you have to run ground tests.
And then there are the test firings, which are to make sure the extra power isn't too much for the entire structure. If it is, gl;hf designing an entirely new vehicle over the next decade.
The notion that "Hey, it has two boosters, why don't we strap two more on, suddenly, it is better" is entirely ridiculous. Unlike a lot on this forum, this is actually rocket science.
Not to mention the fact that I have not seen a shred of EU approval on throwing two new boosters on it, hence it has never happened ICly. Yes, I am going to be that petty...

Then there is the interesting fact that the first flight test of the Vinci engine is expected in 2016 or 2017.

Not to mention my biggest concern, which is the very simple fact that ESA has either CANCELED or PUT THE PROJECT ON HOLD IRL, which was done before the round started and still hasn't been overturned ICly, or OOCly, as far as I can see.

I suggest you actually read the comments there before you start going off deflecting my entirely serious criticism of your space plane.

Thought you only posted here...post edit should be a bump...

Yeah, first flight. Since right now there is nothing to launch for a couple of years, first flight is first flight and not a "mission to colonize Mars".

And the ECB as a whole was put on hold, the individual parts, like the Vinci or the upgraded Vulcain, which logically can be called Vulcain-3, were not, so effectively there could be - especially cause that stuff is at least one decade old at the moment.

And practically it takes more time, wasnt the point here. It's rather that there was more than a decade given here, its pretty much possible and we are talking about first flight.

But yeah, i'll raise then inside the EU.



And yeah, not ESA, but EADS is pan-Europe and the project is for space, so seemed logical to post here. But right, i'll make the airliner part a frenc-backed, independent project then.

I cannot possibly imagine the EEA ever approving a floating nuclear power plant. Russia gets away with it because its Russia but France plays by entirely different rules. And those are just the environmental issues -- the security issues would outright veto the project early on. Especially since France doesn't have remote Arctic outposts to power.

That's why its shipped to South America

That matters how, precisely? You're designing the ship. You're building the ship. You're plugging this reactor (which I'm not even sure can be adapted) into it. It is France's responsibility. There's no two ways about it. Something goes bad and it's on you, not Peru.

Which is why the EU would never approve this. Ever.

Two errors here...
First, 'strapping 2 additional boosters' on a rocket DOES NOT TAKE TWO MINUTES. First it takes redesigning the lower stage to carry additional release systems (Which, if memory serves, are Norwegian ). Then it takes simulations to figure out if it will work as calculated.
Then you have to run ground tests.
And then there are the test firings, which are to make sure the extra power isn't too much for the entire structure. If it is, gl;hf designing an entirely new vehicle over the next decade.
The notion that "Hey, it has two boosters, why don't we strap two more on, suddenly, it is better" is entirely ridiculous. Unlike a lot on this forum, this is actually rocket science.
Not to mention the fact that I have not seen a shred of EU approval on throwing two new boosters on it, hence it has never happened ICly. Yes, I am going to be that petty...

Then there is the interesting fact that the first flight test of the Vinci engine is expected in 2016 or 2017.

Not to mention my biggest concern, which is the very simple fact that ESA has either CANCELED or PUT THE PROJECT ON HOLD IRL, which was done before the round started and still hasn't been overturned ICly, or OOCly, as far as I can see.

Now now, Chris really underestimated the work at hand, but i'm sure it's not Impossible either. Granted it's some pretty shaky engineering, but this is meant as (relatively) a quick solution for a finale Ariane of greater power, before we move in the Saturn-V/Moon Rocket range. Of course you won't find the 4-booster setup anywhere, since i pulled it out of where the sun don't shine. Naturally the thrust profile is much different to accommodate the different load.

I am not a rocket scientist, i would really like to be one and i might try some day but right now i'm working by rule of thumb. I'm very glad they are not asking about a price. We need to talk on MSN and you to light my lantern on a few things. Yeah, i designed it. I am the shadow designer.

For the ESA, well, i can't do much for it, this is Chris' job.

My main problem is not with the feasibility of this project (Except maybe the quad booster setup and still keeping it the Ariane 5). It is with how it is presented as a RL existing project that is well underway, when it is significantly different and scaled up far beyond what ESA even wants for its Ariane 5, and how Chris is trying to pass this as having been in continuous development for almost a decade.

If ESA is trying to expand, it is going to need the support of not only the EU, but also other major ESA nations, like Norway (not that I think Norway would object, practically every time I turn around at the rocket range there is someone talking about how much money we're sinking into ESA and how great it is...).

It should also me mentioned that any human launch needs (Into orbit at least) which ESA might have, would be far better filled with the Soyuz system they've procured from Russia.

You didn't say First Flight however. You said "Enter service", which is distinctively different from first test flight.

Yes, the invididual parts are still being developed at a slower pace. With emphasis on the SLOWER PACE. This has still not been rectified ICly or OOCly, nor has the ECB project been revived ICly or OOCly, hence I will not approve this as retro-R&D.

End of fucking discussion