WesWorld

I think the original proposal or the one modified table I presented would cover everything across the board.

I can see the point presented by Hood; that 90% of the aircrafts in WW are at late 1940's level. So if they are so good, why you need to come up with a newer aircraft every year? So you have a late 1940's aircraft entering service in 1940, why you need to have another one in 1942 instead of keeping those aircrafts until 1947? I blame the major powers in WW as guilty as some of the smaller ones. Another problem of the "I'm better than you mentality" but nobody wants to be last.

My jet aircraft will arrive in 1949. The entry is already in the encyclopedia.

Can't see that myself.

Germany is now perhaps approaching 1944 tech in some areas but not in radar or jet engines. Piston engines advanced certainly.

USA seems firmly OTL at the moment, nothing amazing yet come out of USA.

GB, 1942/43 in regards to fighters, 1942 bombers, 1941 heavy bombers, working on radar for ASR, not so much AI. Civil probably about 1938 level.

France, not even at +3 years level

Russia +3 level, just

Japan, +3 level

SAE about 1941/42 level.

Can't see many world-beaters coming out every year. Then again its only a handful of players abusing the system. Anyhow that's weapon procurement, until the mid-40s development is reletively cheap, things are still pretty basic before you get to pressurisation, jets, radars, fuel additives etc. Only now should it be costing greater sums to get the hardware finished.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Can't see that myself.

Germany is now perhaps approaching 1944 tech in some areas but not in radar or jet engines. Piston engines advanced certainly.

USA seems firmly OTL at the moment, nothing amazing yet come out of USA.

GB, 1942/43 in regards to fighters, 1942 bombers, 1941 heavy bombers, working on radar for ASR, not so much AI. Civil probably about 1938 level.

France, not even at +3 years level

Russia +3 level, just

Japan, +3 level

SAE about 1941/42 level.

Can't see many world-beaters coming out every year. Then again its only a handful of players abusing the system. Anyhow that's weapon procurement, until the mid-40s development is reletively cheap, things are still pretty basic before you get to pressurisation, jets, radars, fuel additives etc. Only now should it be costing greater sums to get the hardware finished.

So even better then. The tables should work as a guideline for the major powers across the board, there is not a big need to have major projects running, and I also agree that the second-rate and third rate powers should be behind the major powers in regard to tech. I got a jump start thanks to Hrolf sharing a lot of German tech during the late 1930's. But now I'm stuck with a lot of equipment or ideas that I have to figure out myself.

I'm guilty of misunderstanding rules myself before. Before I was under the impression that a +5 existed, that explained the selective fire Garands and the latest tanks (loosely based in the VK-301, bigger gun with less armor). I was corrected by PM with one of the mods and I stopped a lot of projects.

From disccussions on IRC it has been decided to set up a panel of players to discuss and vet all new aircraft designs starting from 1/1/2011.

The four nominated players are Hood, Red Admiral, Bruce Duncan and Snip. The fifth member is the tiebreaker judge which will be Brockpaine. His decision will be final on the vote.

Our work will be to see if the new designs breach the current +3 year rule and judge each case on merit and circumstance when a breach is found. We shall defend our own designs and be fully open for scrutiny too. Hopefully this will provide players with an opening to explain themselves and have them open to account without introducing masses of new rules with further loopholes etc.

My name is Brock and I approve of this message.

We shall make an open folder for discussions/votes etc.

Ditto (Dita for Hoo's sake)

Is a good idea.

I see a very large possibility for abuse of this panel.....

care to explane your reasoning Tex?

More specifically, Tex - do you believe the concept itself is flawed, or do you believe the individuals selected for this will abuse this?

Sort of a mixture of both. I sort of see a "shift" of relative technological ability, and aircraft on the approved list, towards the Great Powers. In other words, aircraft that would be approved for Italy wouldn't be approved for Latvia to build, despite them being at that same level of technology....and I'm not in favor of that.

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy
In other words, aircraft that would be approved for Italy wouldn't be approved for Latvia to build, despite them being at that same level of technology.

But Latvia and Italy aren't at the same level of technology.

Quoted

We shall defend our own designs and be fully open for scrutiny too.

I think this is worth restating. As to the objectivity of myself, I run a small country that for all intensive purposes have very little military aircraft design capacity. I don't see Thailand having any indigenous combat designs at any point in the near future without significant outside help.

There will be no basis towards any nation. We are operating purely OOC at all times.

There is inherent swing towards Great Powers in regards to certain technologies. I can't see Latvia (which OTL had a reasonable industry) having the ability to produce its own 2,500hp 24-cyl radial, to build something like the G.55, to produce 35,000 Bf-109s, to build its own Avon jet engine in the next 10 years etc.

We are talking about high-end high-tech aircraft and equipment, basic civil stuff, trainers, light fighters etc won't arouse our concern. But we will be keeping close eyes on everything regardless.

Perhaps at this point we should also point out that the resulting folder for our work will be open for everyone to see, for full accountability.

Quoted

But Latvia and Italy aren't at the same level of technology.

Latvia has strong ties with Russia so no doubt the whole Latvian industry was built by the Russians, being supported by the Russians and has access to the same tech as the Russians so the Latvians themselves should be able to independently throw out a design or two at the same level as the Russians (though not in the same numbers).

Russia is greater than Italy, therefore Latvia, at the same level as Russia, is greater than Italy. Of course that's going to be ignored as a couple might not stand it that Tex comes out with such a design so they are going to slam it down.

I could be wrong about it as Tex and Adm. K know the status between their two nations better than I do, but I think that that is where Tex's going with his arguement.

Quoted

I don't see Thailand having any indigenous combat designs at any point in the near future without significant outside help.

Thailand is part of AANM. Surely they would be helping out with the industry?

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy
In other words, aircraft that would be approved for Italy wouldn't be approved for Latvia to build, despite them being at that same level of technology.

But Latvia and Italy aren't at the same level of technology.

The question has been framed incorrectly; it is not a question of technology, but one of industrial capacity - having the ability to do something rather than knowing how to do something, or merely knowing that something can be done.

Building an aircraft, particularly a high-performance combat aircraft, in any numbers, is the result of a complex chain of industrial activities. Some of the factors in this chain are:

The size of the pool of aircraft designers, engineers and skilled technicians
The scale of the investment made in aircraft and aero engine plants
The viability of the industrial base to produce the necessary components - from aluminum sheet and steel tubing to rivets and tires. If not available from the home industry, then it is a question of what is imported.

Should this scheme of a review panel be adopted, it is my opinion that clear criteria need to be established before any such reviews are undertaken, and that those criteria ought to include consideration of a nations capacity to produce high performance aircraft of indigenous design.

Moreover, if we, as players, are going to pay more attention to this outcome (ie - the aircraft) we will have to pay closer attention to requests for industrial licences, and actually document our nations' industrial capabilities. This will be anathema to some.