100 replies to this topic

[CommanderJB]

It has no 'real-life' equivalent but is basically a carbon copy of the fictional 'MiG-31 Firefox':

From the film of the latter name, starring Clint Eastwood. As you can see it looks nothing like the real-life MiG-31 'Foxhound':

So the names can get rather confusing.

[DerKrieger]

There is none. It's based on the fictional MiG jet from the movie Firefox.

[BeefJeRKy]

EDIT: nevermind

Edited by Scope, 04 April 2009 - 06:25.

[Katmoda12]

Thank very much you so far.

Is there a RL conterpart for the Han gunship?
And what about the Hellfire mig?

Thanks for yor reply,I know I'm exploiting you.

[CommanderJB]

The Han Gunship was a completely original concept by AaronAsh, but its rotor layout is not totally unprecedented in real life, as on this old HH-43 Husky:

I'm not really sure what the advantages are, other than looking damn cool in the former case.
The Hellfire MiG is a real-life design, the MiG-21. The MiG-21 was one of the iconic fighters of the Cold War and an Eastern Bloc staple for decades:

It also sported one of NATO's silliest reporting names, the 'Fishbed'.
To be slightly more accurate the Hellfire MiG would not actually be a MiG at all in Chinese service but rather the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation J-7, a Chinese license-produced version of the above with minor changes to the avionics suite (replacing Russian components with indigenous-made Chinese ones).

Edited by CommanderJB, 04 April 2009 - 14:15.

[Katmoda12]

So AaronAsh is really a creative, Goshawk and Han gunships.

They should asking for him when they want to create the next-generation-cool-smash-the-opponent-with-a-big-bang-whatever-thing.

Well actually I'm really impressed by this type of creativity.

Long life to AaronAsh.


And the Kodiak is a reference to Tiberian Sun command ship "Kodiak" or is a T-90?

Edited by Katmoda12, 04 April 2009 - 14:18.

[CommanderJB]

To the best of my knowledge the name wasn't intended mainly as a reference, though for all I know it may have influenced the decision. IIRC it was primarily chosen simply as an appropriate-sounding name for a heavy, brawling Russian MBT that fitted the naming pattern. The T-90 is not called Kodiak; its only nicknames are 'Vladimir' for the upgraded (and now production standard) T-90A variant, named after the type's late chief designer Vladimir Potkin, and 'Bhishma' for the T-90S variant delivered to India, after the name of a warrior from an Indian legendary epic.

Edited by CommanderJB, 04 April 2009 - 14:43.

[Razven]

Edit: Nevermind.

Edited by Razven, 04 April 2009 - 14:55.

[partyzanpaulzy]

Quote

I'm not really sure what the advantages are, other than looking damn cool in the former case.

I think it has something to do with stabilisation, otherwise the helicopter needs small propeller in the back opposite to "turn vector" of the main propeller.

Chinnook uses 2 big propellers, Ka-50 uses 2 big propellers (one above other), the heavist Mil (prototype) used them in same way as the Osprey does, HH-43 Husky used 4th variant of 2 big propellers layout.
Some British helicopter crane had 3 propellers.

I have heard about some Mexican project on a helicopter with 4 propellers, 4 because of stabilisation... it was few years ago.

Also there was heavy chopper with 2 giant blades in the Avalon (2001, Poland/Japanese sci-fi where some people play banned computer game which looks like the reality and death there means death or comma in a real life)...

[JJ]

Yes, he most definitely know that. His point is that the weird prop arrangement has no advantages whatsoever compared to the other layouts. In fact, it is much more risky to use it as the two props can easily collide.

[NergiZed]

Katmoda12, on 3 Apr 2009, 20:19, said:

Last question from :

What's the RL counterpart of phoenix bomber?

It's a fictional plane called the Fire Fox

[BeefJeRKy]

CommanderJB, on 4 Apr 2009, 10:38, said:

To the best of my knowledge the name wasn't intended mainly as a reference, though for all I know it may have influenced the decision. IIRC it was primarily chosen simply as an appropriate-sounding name for a heavy, brawling Russian MBT that fitted the naming pattern. The T-90 is not called Kodiak; its only nicknames are 'Vladimir' for the upgraded (and now production standard) T-90A variant, named after the type's late chief designer Vladimir Potkin, and 'Bhishma' for the T-90S variant delivered to India, after the name of a warrior from an Indian legendary epic.

The Kodiak is a large subspecies of the brown bear. The Russian army is often compared to a bear so I'm guessing this is what the name means to represent.

[CommanderJB]

Yes, I'm aware of the Kodiak bear, hence why I said it was 'appropriate for a heavy, brawling Russian MBT'.

[Someone]

I know it has been a while, but I want to quickly comment on 2018 bomber & FB-22:

CommanderJB, on 24 Feb 2009, 8:33, said:

Someone, on 24 Feb 2009, 13:36, said:

CommanderJB, on 15 Feb 2009, 23:53, said:

and the 2018 bomber that might have also resulted from the design (even very unlikely as it was to do so) has also been scrapped, so it's virtually certain the F/B-22 will never come to fruition.

Are you sure that 2018 bomber is canceled? Quiet recently I saw an article that outlined USA airforce’s ambitions for the 2018 bomber (though it made no mention about FB-22).

It's cancelled as the '2018 bomber', though it's still on the drawing board for further away.

Quote

Heavy Bombers Hit The Twilight Zone

February 1, 2009: The U.S. Department of Defense has told the U.S. Air Force that there will be no more money for developing a new heavy bomber. Not for a while, anyway. That will slowdown the decade long air force effort to get a new heavy bomber, but won't stop it.
Since the late 90s, the air force has been U.S. Air Force is working on a replacement for its current force of heavy bombers (19 B-2s, 67 B-1s and 76 B-52s). Models of what the new bomber might look like have been shown, and the "B-3" (officially the NGB, or New Generation Bomber) looks like the B-2. There were two proposals (from Northrop Grumman and Boeing). Both look like the B-2. For the Northrop Grumman proposal, the main difference is that the stubby wings are "cranked" (moved forward a bit, rather than continuing in a straight line from the body of the aircraft).

These derivative designs were apparently favored because the air force knew it was unlikely to get the money for a radical (and expensive) new design. Now they've been told they won't even get money for a "B-2 Lite." There was also talk of building the B-3 so it could operate with, or without, a crew. The air force had rejected suggestions that the B-3 be a UAV. But now it looks like that may change, as a B-3 UAV would be cheaper, and a future project more likely to get funded.

The air force hoped to get the B-3 into service in by 2018. That is no longer possible, even though the air force has already spent several billion dollars of its money on B-3 development. All is not lost. The B-3 spec called for a smaller and stealthier aircraft that carried a ten ton bomb load (less than half what current heavy bombers haul). This recognizes the efficiency of smart bombs, which are more than a hundred times more effective than unguided bombs.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/a...s/20090201.aspx

So according to the article, some experts are predicting that the development of the 2018 bomber may be delayed. That is not the same as saying 2018 bomber project was canceled. You should choose your phrasing more carefully CommanderJB
(No offence intended)

CommanderJB, on 24 Feb 2009, 8:33, said:

I suppose my main point is that the F/B-22 died stillborn for very good reasons. There just isn't the demand for it and won't be, with the F/22 covering SEAD/DEAD, the F-35 covering battlefield interdiction/moderate strike (with considerably more versatility) and the B-1B plugging any deep strike gap probably until the NGB finally arrives, at which point it'll probably be a UCAV.

I do not know a lot about B-1B’s capabilities, but I always thought it was a “heavy” bomber unsuitable for “medium” roles. That is why FB-22 was suggested, was it not?


About the Kodiak tank:

CommanderJB, on 4 Apr 2009, 14:38, said:

IIRC it was primarily chosen simply as an appropriate-sounding name for a heavy, brawling Russian MBT that fitted the naming pattern.

I thought that the Kodiak tank in Rise of the Reds was named after Kodiak Island. It would make some sense since in reality some Russian military vehicles are named after geographic locations (eg: T-72 “Ural”, M1 “Tunguska”, etc.)
Although it is now part of USA (it is located off the coast of Alaska), Kodiak Island used to belong to Russia and was one of the first places in the New World settled by Russians.

To be honest, when I first saw ROTR’s Kodiak tank, I was disappointed (something that would become a “status quo” now that Shockwave team is in charge of that mod) – it looks more like a modernized T-62 than a Russian tank of the foreseeable future.

P.S.: I salute AaronAsh for making the Han gunships – one of the few units to come from the “new” ROTR that I actually liked.

[CommanderJB]

Someone, on 14 Apr 2009, 1:41, said:

I know it has been a while, but I want to quickly comment on 2018 bomber & FB-22:
...
So according to the article, some experts are predicting that the development of the 2018 bomber may be delayed. That is not the same as saying 2018 bomber project was canceled. You should choose your phrasing more carefully CommanderJB
(No offence intended)

Turns out the prognosis set out in the article was pretty good actually:
Secretary for Defence Robert Gates's 2009 Intended Budget Statement:

Quote

With regard to our nuclear and strategic forces:
...
* We will not pursue a development program for a follow-on Air Force bomber until
we have a better understanding of the need, the requirement, and the technology.

If Gates gets his way, which in this area he probably will, it'll be delayed without a timetable and denied any serious developmental funding. Congress are likely to agree that an open-ended program with serious budgetary risks and impacts is not appropriate right now in more fiscally restrictive times when the aircraft is facing a serious aircraft shortfall in its front-line fighter fleet and needs far more significant big-ticket items such as the KC-X tanker far more urgently. NGB also doesn't have the promotion of existing jobs behind it of the sort that the F-22, the ceasing of the purchase of which the statement also advocates and which Congress are far more likely to give him a fight over, does. I'd call that scrapping it as the '2018 bomber' alright. While I could have been clearer with the specific word used, and I will admit that when I first used it I was under the impression that it had been totally cancelled, which, as I acknowledged in the next post, I found out was not the case, I think that the point remains the same; the NGB programme is not really working at present and certainly not going ahead to design and production any time soon. They'll get one eventually but when they do it'll probably be into the 2030s at this rate and it's virtually guaranteed to be unmanned, and most likely look like a smaller B-2.

Someone, on 14 Apr 2009, 1:41, said:

CommanderJB, on 24 Feb 2009, 8:33, said:

I suppose my main point is that the F/B-22 died stillborn for very good reasons. There just isn't the demand for it and won't be, with the F/22 covering SEAD/DEAD, the F-35 covering battlefield interdiction/moderate strike (with considerably more versatility) and the B-1B plugging any deep strike gap probably until the NGB finally arrives, at which point it'll probably be a UCAV.

I do not know a lot about B-1B’s capabilities, but I always thought it was a “heavy” bomber unsuitable for “medium” roles. That is why FB-22 was suggested, was it not?

B-1B can indeed actually carry the heaviest weapon load of any aircraft in the U.S. Air Force, correct. However, as it was designed for the low-level penetration role with a view to delivering SAC's primary late Cold War tactical nuclear strike capability with the AGM-69 SRAM it's perfectly capable 'down in the weeds' so to speak, though it doesn't operate there unless it has to. The only real problem with the B-1B is that it's expensive to maintain, but I think recent experiences with the Raptor have demonstrated that using an F-22 derivative, though smaller, isn't really going to provide you with a heck of a lot of benefits in that area. There is no clear distinction between tactical, medium, and heavy bombers any more; there are simply different platforms for different jobs. As the USAF's primary bomb truck (20 B-2As are not going to get you very far, plus they're so horrifyingly difficult to maintain that only about six are serviceable at any given time, and on top of that they are slow and vulnerable to attack if discovered, and the B-52 was never designed for modern high-intensity aerial warfare and would fare as such) the B-1B provides the range necessary to deliver large quantities of ordnance on targets deep in enemy territory. The only difference that the F/B-22 would give is that it would not need to be escorted, but by the time you factored in the greater number of aircraft for the job given their smaller and less-diverse weapons payload (and of course the development and unit costs) I doubt you'd end up with a wholly superior and practical solution using a solely F/B-22 package. So did the U.S. Air Force.

Someone, on 14 Apr 2009, 1:41, said:

About the Kodiak tank:

CommanderJB, on 4 Apr 2009, 14:38, said:

IIRC it was primarily chosen simply as an appropriate-sounding name for a heavy, brawling Russian MBT that fitted the naming pattern.

I thought that the Kodiak tank in Rise of the Reds was named after Kodiak Island. It would make some sense since in reality some Russian military vehicles are named after geographic locations (eg: T-72 “Ural”, M1 “Tunguska”, etc.)
Although it is now part of USA (it is located off the coast of Alaska), Kodiak Island used to belong to Russia and was one of the first places in the New World settled by Russians.

To be honest, when I first saw ROTR’s Kodiak tank, I was disappointed (something that would become a “status quo” now that Shockwave team is in charge of that mod) – it looks more like a modernized T-62 than a Russian tank of the foreseeable future.

P.S.: I salute AaronAsh for making the Han gunships – one of the few units to come from the “new” ROTR that I actually liked.

I don't believe that Kodiak Island played any role in the naming of the tank in Rise of the Reds. As far as I can determine based on the evidence I have available to me (design documents et cetera) it was a simple reference to the bear, which was chosen as appropriate for its similar approach to warfare. It was originally intended to be a T-80 variant and the unit design still reflects this, but the name was changed to fit in with the Zero Hour naming convention of not using alphanumeric designators. To get a decent idea of what a future Russian tank will look like we'll have to wait and see what Uralvagonzavod have in store with the T-95, but for something that's supposed to see the light of day this year, things have been deathly quiet on that front for an awfully long time. Still, I do agree that the current version is rather... conventional, shall we say.

Edited by CommanderJB, 13 April 2009 - 16:33.

[Pav:3d]

Just looking through chinese military hardware and came across this

I think hunter used this pic for the bezerker cameo:


edit:
Infact Im almost sure it is, check the SWR productions banner :O

Sorry if its not entirely the right thread to post, I just thought it may be interesting

Edited by Pav3d, 23 April 2009 - 21:15.

[Razven]

Oh jesus christ, sinodefence just reorganised, all my web addresses have now gone stupid.

[Someone]

Does anyone know what the GLA cargo/bomber aircraft (the one that delivers the Anthrax Bomb general power in the original C&C Generals/Zero Hour) is based on?

I originally thought it was based on the German WW2-era He-111. However, the wing placement & wing angle do not seem to match between the He-11 and the GLA plane. Also, GLA plane has what appears to be 4 jet engines and the real-life He-111 has 2 propeller engines.

It has been suggested to me that the aircraft might be modeled after the USA-made B-50. But the B-50 is not a good mach either: the tail is different, as well as the engines and the wing angle.

So does anybody know of any other possible inspirations behind GLA cargo/bomber aircraft?


Screen-capture showing GLA cargo/bomber aircraft in-game (sorry for the size, but this is the biggest picture I could find).


(Click to enlarge) Photograph of a Boeing B-50.


Model of the German He-111.

Edited by Someone, 03 May 2009 - 22:27.

[WNxMastrefubu]

^

good find

[CommanderJB]

Contra based their remake of the GLA cargo plane on the US C-97 Stratofreighter:

Incidentally a Superfortress derivative, its body shape is closer, but the wing sweep angle is still wrong. Also I believe the GLA cargo plane does have propellers - or at least that's what it sounds like to me at any rate. I suspect it was a 'generic cargo plane' GLA-ised with hard angles and made to look scrappy and brutish like the rest of their arsenal, with no exact real-life equivalent.

Edited by CommanderJB, 06 May 2009 - 00:58.

[Waris]

^That and can't imagine other propeller-driven plane with such a sharp back-swept wings like the Bear.

[DerKrieger]

I thought it was a B-29/B-50 Superfortress.

[Katmoda12]

I have a few question for you about Gla units:

-Juzhiz' Topol M wich kind of topol is? SS-20, SS-25 or SS-27? With Orlov's new Topol-m being the lastest one,I guess juzhiz' one is one of the precedent.

-Also Trax' scourge with kind of vehicle is?

-And Vanilla's Scud with type of scud is?

Thank you

[CommanderJB]

Katmoda12, on 20 May 2009, 17:44, said:

I have a few question for you about Gla units:

-Juzhiz' Topol M wich kind of topol is? SS-20, SS-25 or SS-27? With Orlov's new Topol-m being the lastest one,I guess juzhiz' one is one of the precedent.

The Topol-M refers specifically to the SS-27, though in this case it uses a specialised GLA chassis (adapted from the Scud Launcher). The lack of piping on the missile tube is distinctive however.

Katmoda12, on 20 May 2009, 17:44, said:

-Also Trax' scourge with kind of vehicle is?

It's fictional and has no real equivalent.

Katmoda12, on 20 May 2009, 17:44, said:

-And Vanilla's Scud with type of scud is?

It's the R-17/R-300 (SS-1), as you probably know, and really EA has customised it to the point where you can't really pick which variant. It's at least a Scud-B (wheeled chassis) but the GLA-isation that's been done is too heavy to make any distinction.

[The_Hunter]

CommanderJB, on 20 May 2009, 12:54, said:

Katmoda12, on 20 May 2009, 17:44, said:

-Also Trax' scourge with kind of vehicle is?

It's fictional and has no real equivalent.

Not entirely true.

It uses the BM21 truck, Modified SA11 Gadfly turret as launcher, and the missile from the russian amphibious launcher which the name fails me atm.