NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[Krazakistan]

So just having a missile tank? That has been prepossessed and accepted as an ok idea here. There are even some examples of armies doing it IRL. Probably would be better off mounting it on an IFV or APC hull than using a MBT hull though.

Well, it'd keep a GAU-12, which would be centered then, and possibly adding a TOW rack on either side, or possibly ManPADS?

What you are describing is essentially a not!BMPT

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

So guys... about SEAD'ing Iron Dome. Is there any difference to normal SEAD ops? Does it come with different precautions because it's a C-RAM?

[Valloria]

Hello, folks! I'm relatively new to this. I'm participating in a regional RP, and I'm wondering what to do at this point. We use NSTracker to determine our stats, and I've got just over 12 million people in my military, divided up 30/40/30% respective to army/navy/air force. I spend the same proportions of my defense funds (1.9 trillion) on each sector. Is having ten percent of my force in reserves realistic? Or should I have the numbers bumped up.

[The Akasha Colony]

So just having a missile tank? That has been prepossessed and accepted as an ok idea here. There are even some examples of armies doing it IRL. Probably would be better off mounting it on an IFV or APC hull than using a MBT hull though.

Well, it'd keep a GAU-12, which would be centered then, and possibly adding a TOW rack on either side, or possibly ManPADS?

Rather than tacking weapons onto it, try to figure out what this vehicle is supposed to do. Then figure out whether any existing vehicle or combination of vehicles (since no vehicle operates alone) can already handle this task. If you still think you have a role for it, then figure out what the armament will be.

Hello, folks! I'm relatively new to this. I'm participating in a regional RP, and I'm wondering what to do at this point. We use NSTracker to determine our stats, and I've got just over 12 million people in my military, divided up 30/40/30% respective to army/navy/air force. I spend the same proportions of my defense funds (1.9 trillion) on each sector. Is having ten percent of my force in reserves realistic? Or should I have the numbers bumped up.

Bumped up. Closer to 30-40% or more, depending on doctrine and expected use. Defensive militaries are usually more, since they don't need as much active standing manpower in peacetime.

[Erusuia]

Just one nithpick for that table. There is such a thing as atomic tipped torpedoes. And if his arctic base is located under actual ice or glaciers than presumably those could be used to destabilize them and sink the whole thing or at least make the base useless.

Its located inside of a small island in a similar manor to the balaklava submarine base

[The Nuclear Fist]

So apparently the guy I'm fighting has deployed 5 Longswords. Luckily he's deployed them within range of thousands of missile platforms and submarines.

I AM BECOME DEATH, DESTROYER OF LONGSWORDS.

[Spirit of Hope]

So apparently the guy I'm fighting has deployed 5 {Redacted}. Luckily he's deployed them within range of thousands of missile platforms and submarines.

I AM BECOME DEATH, DESTROYER OF {Redacted}.

I'm sorry what did you say?

Hello, folks! I'm relatively new to this. I'm participating in a regional RP, and I'm wondering what to do at this point. We use NSTracker to determine our stats, and I've got just over 12 million people in my military, divided up 30/40/30% respective to army/navy/air force. I spend the same proportions of my defense funds (1.9 trillion) on each sector. Is having ten percent of my force in reserves realistic? Or should I have the numbers bumped up.

Depends on your doctrine, but I would say at least 40% and probably closer to like 50% of your army would likely be reserves.

[Aelarus]

Hello, folks! I'm relatively new to this. I'm participating in a regional RP, and I'm wondering what to do at this point. We use NSTracker to determine our stats, and I've got just over 12 million people in my military, divided up 30/40/30% respective to army/navy/air force. I spend the same proportions of my defense funds (1.9 trillion) on each sector. Is having ten percent of my force in reserves realistic? Or should I have the numbers bumped up.

Practically it's be best to aim for a lot less active troops. If it bothers you that much you could just have a lot of units that can be equipped and mobilized quickly.

---

So apparently the guy I'm fighting has deployed 5 Longswords. Luckily he's deployed them within range of thousands of missile platforms and submarines.

I AM BECOME DEATH, DESTROYER OF LONGSWORDS.

Are Longswords really that prevalent?

[Lamoni]

Are <REDACTED> really that prevalent?

Fixed that for you.

[Gallia-]

So guys... about SEAD'ing Iron Dome. Is there any difference to normal SEAD ops? Does it come with different precautions because it's a C-RAM?

More or less any modern ADA system can function as "C-RAM". Hitting ballistic rockets and shells isn't that hard, Phalanx does it all the time, and could SA-19 and other 80's-era SPAAGs. IIRC, DIVAD had it as a requirement to be able to kill PGMs, Grison can actually do this as well, and no doubt Gepard and any other in service, '80s era SPAAG can perform reasonably well in the role.

Iron Dome is probably less capable than comparable short-medium range SAMs because it's optimised for a low interceptor cost and attacking ballistic, non-maneuvering targets tbh.

[Imperializt Russia]

Could you? Yes, I don't see any glaring technical issues, though the GUA-12 is rather large.

But why would you want it? For anti vehicle work you would probably be better served by having missiles and maybe a 40-60mm gun.

For anti vehicle work again a 40-60mm gun would probably serve you better. You simply don't need the GUA-12's insane RoF.

Because I take a sick pride in taking out unarmored vehicles in the most action-y way.

It could also serve as a rather fun anti-infantry weapon.

You could fit a pair of 25mm or 35mm high-RoF autocannons to save large amounts of weight and power.

So guys... about SEAD'ing Iron Dome. Is there any difference to normal SEAD ops? Does it come with different precautions because it's a C-RAM?

I imagine it's not designed to deal with conventional air attack. However its radar coverage is, of course, extensive.

[The Kievan People]

So guys... about SEAD'ing Iron Dome. Is there any difference to normal SEAD ops? Does it come with different precautions because it's a C-RAM?

I imagine it's not designed to deal with conventional air attack. However its radar coverage is, of course, extensive.

Actually it is a fully functional SAM system.

And it would be able to shoot down an average Anti-Radiation Missile.

Something like a cruise missile would probably be more effective. Iron Dome is probably not as well optimizes for engaging a slow & low target like that. A killer anti-radiation drone like the Harpy or Tacit Rainbow would be even better.

[Atomic Utopia]

While designing (or moreover attempting to design) the reactor for a nuclear powered tank I had an idea. Would it be reasonable to build small, mobile reactors for forward operating bases. The advantages I see are

I. cannot be cut off from fuel supply.

II. reactor weighs much less than a regular powerplant and fuel.

III. reactor has a higher capacity factor than conventional sources.

(basic designs for tank reactor coming tomorrow)

[The Akasha Colony]

While designing (or moreover attempting to design) the reactor for a nuclear powered tank I had an idea. Would it be reasonable to build small, mobile reactors for forward operating bases. The advantages I see are

I. cannot be cut off from fuel supply.

II. reactor weighs much less than a regular powerplant and fuel.

III. reactor has a higher capacity factor than conventional sources.

I think the tank reactor I was designing will become a FOB reactor now that I think about it.

A major problem with nuclear power in most military contexts is that it requires nuclear engineers, as no military is going to operate a reactor without qualified personnel. But these personnel are expensive and take quite some time to train and certify, and unlike diesel generators, reactors are going to require round-the-clock surveillance at all times for safety and security issues. The safety and reliability demands militaries place on their equipment also adds additional expense. Nuclear warships generally cost twice as much as conventional ones, which is why they've gone out of style worldwide for everything except submarines (where their costs are justified by their unique benefits) and aircraft carriers (which could be conventionally powered at lower cost, anyway).

Most problematically, at least with current designs, is that turning them off in a completely safe manner is not possible. A diesel generator can be switched off and put in storage for years without maintenance. Some parts and seals might end up decaying, but these can be quickly replaced, the engine given a new coating of oil, and the generator be put back in the field none the worse for the wear. It's no real risk if it gets stolen or damaged either, at worst it might leak some oil that will get the hippies angry, but it's not exactly classified technology or dangerous material.

This isn't true of a nuclear reactor. Putting it in unobserved storage is rather problematic at best for safety and security reasons. Naval reactors must be constantly tended and maintained, they cannot be left unobserved nor can they be shut down except for RCOH. So unless you need to use your field generators constantly, then you'd be spending money to keep them guarded and observed at all times in garrison, whereas a diesel generator can be tossed into the equipment shed and periodically checked every few months by anyone with even basic automotive engineering knowledge.



The real benefit for a nuclear reactor in this case is that it reduces to some degree the size of the supply convoys needed to support a FOB. But it pushes up the cost of operation (due to security and manpower requirements) and doesn't mitigate the demand for fuel for vehicles and other purposes, which the FOB will have to be constantly restocked with anyway.

So you end up with two scenarios: a relatively stationary FOB used for occupation work like in Afghanistan, and a FOB supplying mobile forces in a high-intensity conflict. Supplying an occupation base in the face of an insurgency can be hazardous and is a point in favor of reduced supply convoys, but alternative energy sources provide similar fuel independence in most cases and their somewhat larger size is of lesser concern when used in a largely stationary base. Conversely, a FOB supporting a high-intensity conflict will be going through fuel at an extreme rate to support whatever mechanized/motorized forces it is supporting, and base needs will be a relatively small burden.

[Allanea]

Well, Pamir existed, but Pamir was not an FOB power plant.

[Gallan Systems]

I imagine it's not designed to deal with conventional air attack. However its radar coverage is, of course, extensive.

Actually it is a fully functional SAM system.

And it would be able to shoot down an average Anti-Radiation Missile.

Something like a cruise missile would probably be more effective. Iron Dome is probably not as well optimizes for engaging a slow & low target like that. A killer anti-radiation drone like the Harpy or Tacit Rainbow would be even better.

Isn't Iron Dome being considered for counter-UAV though?

[The Kievan People]

Isn't Iron Dome being considered for counter-UAV though?

...tricky Jews.

I guess it is invincible then lol.

Not really. But it is a serious obstacle for conventional SEAD based on ARMs.

[Gallan Systems]

Isn't Iron Dome being considered for counter-UAV though?

...tricky Jews.

I guess it is invincible then lol.

Not really. But it is a serious obstacle for conventional SEAD based on ARMs.

Actually I was asking why anti-UAV capability is being heavily marketed by Rafael if it's actually not that good at it, seemingly, unless it merely has a fairly high minimum altitude.

Is it just the low cost of the missiles versus something like Patriot? Or is it an oblique justification of getting it into a supplementary role for protecting Patriot batteries from attack?

[Lyras]

Are <REDACTED> really that prevalent?

Fixed that for you.

And to answer your questions, no, generally not. And if someone puts them close enough for you to hit with ground-launched missiles, they're doing it wrong.

[Lyras]

Also, I figured that, for those who haven't yet read this, I'd put herein my perspective on technology on NS. It will, I hope, provide some food for thought, if nothing else.

The crux of the matter, as far as I am able to ascertain from my limited experience, is definitional, more than anything else. We are tripping over what constitutes the accepted parameters of creative license in a somewhat fluidly fictitious setting.

Everyone here is likely very broadly aware of my personal position. I agree with Allanea's 3-point hypothesis (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Allanean Hypothesis) on the commentary of NationStates II and NS forum RP, and will here quote them again, as they are, in a sense, foundational, though I will paraphrase for broader application.

1. Several very large NATIONS EXIST. If we RP together, we accept in arguendo that our nations exist, that is that a world exists where nations, very often with a double-digit quantity of billion people in them, exist and are comfortable somehow. Unless we are going to enforce population caps...

2. Resource proportionality. The proportional availability of resources, and thus the prices of materials, are broadly SIMILAR TO RL. It has been the general assumption of NS that the prices of most materials - steel, gold, concrete - is broadly SIMILAR TO that of RL.

3. The world is composed of many many nations. We don't know how many (OOCly), but it's very clear that far more than the RL number of (192) nations exist in NS.

4. (Lyran coda) The laws of physics remain unchanged. Fantasy elements notwithstanding, of course.

With these provisions in mind, several subsequent points become evident;
a) NS is hypermilitarised. Seems self-evident, but it's an important point to keep in mind. Full-blown, no-holds-barred conflict between top-tier military powers are commonplace, not solely a twice-in-a-century event, and nuclear exchanges barely turn a head any more. Militaries, militarism and military-technological offshoots are going to be front-and-center, as one would expect, and the drive to pursue ambitious large-scale military developments that may well be perceived as wasteful in RL may not be considered wasteful on NS, when every advantage could mean the difference between success of failure in the next war, which is likely just-around-the-corner.
b) Available resources for military utilisation are substantial. Broadly speaking, NS has tremendous amounts of manpower, and tremendous amounts of the materials that people produce by their efforts. This leads to a very large pool of resources to allocate.
c) NS is very large. Even if you subscribe to a strange multi-verse style view, rather than the easier-to-get-your-head-around really-big-planet-with-lower-density, single states have three-to-four times the current (RL) global population, and many regions have a hundred times the population. Distances militaries must cover are considerably larger than their RL counterparts.

As such, aside from hard considerations regarding the laws of physics, NS-militaries likely can and will operate quite differently, in many ways, to RL ones. The primary point here?


NS Earth =/= RL Earth
therefore
NS situations =/= RL situations
therefore
NS militaries =/= RL militaries

That being said, because of the fact that we are designing on the broad presupposition that the technology levels are comparable, where do we draw the line?

If we assume that the NS world has, at any given moment, equivalent understanding of technology to ours, what would it do with it? That, to me, would constitute MT. Is it able to be done, according to our current understanding of how technology works? Yes/no. If yes, it's MT.

More generously, one could apply subtleties, based upon the differences between conceptualisation, understanding and implementation. Something like this, I imagine;

Conceptualised, understood, implemented. Hard MT. (Of course, it's likely also only applying to actually existing RL hardware...)
Conceptualised, understood, not implemented. NS MT. (Where the vast majority of well-researched, deliberately 'realistic' design falls)
Conceptualised, not understood, not implemented. PMT (Things we can conceptually wrap our heads around, but have yet to be made to function, even in labs)
Not firmly conceptualised, not understood, not implemented. FT (Properly working FtL falls here. We might have high hopes for an Alcubierre drive, but we only have tenuous grasp of even the idea of the thing, let alone what to do with it).


But perhaps most importantly, I have three thoughts to put before everyone. I try my best to adhere to these principles as rigidly as possible, and encourage everyone to do the same.
Thought 1; Don't be a douche.
Thought 2; If you fail at 1, apologise, and resume compliance.
Thought 3; Be cautious in how you express yourself. Words cannot be un-said.

Hope my ramblings here have been of some use, or at the very least some interest.

[Austrasien]

Actually I was asking why anti-UAV capability is being heavily marketed by Rafael if it's actually not that good at it, seemingly.

Is it just the low cost of the missiles versus something like Patriot? Or is it an oblique justification of getting it into a supplementary role for protecting Patriot batteries from attack?

It may be I was just wrong. I knew it could double as a SAM, but that not that it had already been designed with the intention of engaging targets like UAVs.

[Krazakistan]

Excuse me for my ignorance, but can't any SAM also engage UAVs relatively easily on the fact that, say, a Predator drone isn't as maneuverable as a F-15 Eagle?

[The Akasha Colony]

Excuse me for my ignorance, but can't any SAM also engage UAVs relatively easily on the fact that, say, a Predator drone isn't as maneuverable as a F-15 Eagle?

Radar return and possibly low altitude. Smaller drones, especially modern ones designed to be low observable, may simply present too small a radar signature for a low-cost SAM to intercept.

[Pharthan]

Most problematically, at least with current designs, is that turning them off in a completely safe manner is not possible.
This isn't true of a nuclear reactor. Putting it in unobserved storage is rather problematic at best for safety and security reasons. Naval reactors must be constantly tended and maintained, they cannot be left unobserved nor can they be shut down except for RCOH

*cough*
Actually, we do it for fun aka "Training" (okay, actual training) multiple times a week. It's as easy as a flick of the wrist. Almost literally.
Though I am impressed you know what an RCOH is, and yes, reactors require surveillance by qualified operators for years after final shutdown.

The other problem is you need two of them for a FOB instead of one, or an emergency diesel and/or a battery - at least two of those three. When shutdown, reactors still require power for cooling.

[The Akasha Colony]

Most problematically, at least with current designs, is that turning them off in a completely safe manner is not possible.
This isn't true of a nuclear reactor. Putting it in unobserved storage is rather problematic at best for safety and security reasons. Naval reactors must be constantly tended and maintained, they cannot be left unobserved nor can they be shut down except for RCOH

*cough*
Actually, we do it for fun aka "Training" (okay, actual training) multiple times a week. It's as easy as a flick of the wrist. Almost literally.

By "shut down" I meant "shut down and left unattended for an extended period," that may not have been clear in my post. In the manner that a diesel or gasoline engine can be shut down (and actually be completely off, no need for residual cooling or monitoring).