NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

TAC there is a lengthened version of the V-22 I use (I forgot the name, else I'd tell you.) It might be worth looking into.

[ur=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_Quad_TiltRotorl]Are you thinking of the QTR concept? (Quad Tilt Rotor) [/url]

No, it was literally just a V-22 with a longer fuselage. I think it was about 1.4x bigger. I would use the QTR if there was a bit more development. Maybe a functioning prototype.

[The Akasha Colony]

I want to understand more about the logistical rule.

How many support ships does it take for each surface combatant or submarine to make a well organized navy in terms of logistics realistically?

There's no hard-and-fast rule. It depends on how far you want your ships to operate, and whether or not you'll have bases in the area. The US doesn't actually have very many support ships, but it always has bases in the region so the supply ships need only make short, fast trips to stock up and base and deliver the supplies to the task groups. Sailing from the continental US to the Middle East would easily triple the number of ships needed, if not more.

There's also the question of quality. A larger, faster supply ship can do the work of several smaller, slower ships, but is more expensive and harder to maintain. If you want your ships to remain at sea for months, like the USN, you'd probably need one support ship per two to three warships, assuming you have a good base network. If you have a poor base network, then you should at least double it. But if your ships are staying close to home and can simply return to port, you may not need any at all.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Thanks, I've been looking into it and decided to make my own. Something between the chinook and a Mil Mi-6. I didn't know helicopters got that big. I'm thinking it should be roughly 30m long, modular, and capable of carrying either a 21 man squad w/APC or a 45 man platoon. Too unrealistic?

[The Akasha Colony]

Thanks, I've been looking into it and decided to make my own. Something between the chinook and a Mil Mi-6. I didn't know helicopters got that big. I'm thinking it should be roughly 30m long, modular, and capable of carrying either a 21 man squad w/APC or a 45 man platoon. Too unrealistic?

No, it could definitely be done with existing technology. Only reason it hasn't is that so far, no one's found the need or the money for it.

EDIT: Amusingly, just realized that 'TAC' could refer to The Archangel Conglomerate or The Akasha Colony, lol.

[The Corparation]

Thanks, I've been looking into it and decided to make my own. Something between the chinook and a Mil Mi-6. I didn't know helicopters got that big. I'm thinking it should be roughly 30m long, modular, and capable of carrying either a 21 man squad w/APC or a 45 man platoon. Too unrealistic?

No, it could definitely be done with existing technology. Only reason it hasn't is that so far, no one's found the need or the money for it.

EDIT: Amusingly, just realized that 'TAC' could refer to The Archangel Conglomerate or The Akasha Colony, lol.

Homer says wut? Hook says same.So does Stallion. Granted I'm not too sure of the second two carrying an armored vehicle plus troops, but all of them can carry at least a full platoon of infantry.

[The Akasha Colony]

No, it could definitely be done with existing technology. Only reason it hasn't is that so far, no one's found the need or the money for it.

EDIT: Amusingly, just realized that 'TAC' could refer to The Archangel Conglomerate or The Akasha Colony, lol.

Homer says wut? Hook says same.So does Stallion. Granted I'm not too sure of the second two carrying an armored vehicle plus troops, but all of them can carry at least a full platoon of infantry.

What I mean is the specific military-grade, production tilt-rotor or equivalent that Archangel is after. The V-22 is too small, but the engine power definitely exists to make it more powerful and larger. If not switching to an existing standard helo type, although these tend to have shorter range.

[Greater Evil Imperial Japanese Dystopia]

I want to understand more about the logistical rule.

How many support ships does it take for each surface combatant or submarine to make a well organized navy in terms of logistics realistically?

There's no hard-and-fast rule. It depends on how far you want your ships to operate, and whether or not you'll have bases in the area. The US doesn't actually have very many support ships, but it always has bases in the region so the supply ships need only make short, fast trips to stock up and base and deliver the supplies to the task groups. Sailing from the continental US to the Middle East would easily triple the number of ships needed, if not more.

There's also the question of quality. A larger, faster supply ship can do the work of several smaller, slower ships, but is more expensive and harder to maintain. If you want your ships to remain at sea for months, like the USN, you'd probably need one support ship per two to three warships, assuming you have a good base network. If you have a poor base network, then you should at least double it. But if your ships are staying close to home and can simply return to port, you may not need any at all.

Thank you.

[Vitaphone Racing]

There is no reason to use a five decade old helicopter at all and it isn't realistic in the least sense. There are loads better alternatives from that family of helicopters alone without even considering the myriad of other much better alternatives.

You sure there is no reason?

I use the 'Wasp' class Amphibious Assault Ship, which carries the UH-1N Huey (also, since the Wasp is a modern american ship, there is obviously some merit to/reason for its use of the UH-1 platform). I use the Wasp class ship in my ambibious ready groups. I figure if the UH-1N can fit on the Wasp ship, any vehicle from the UH-1 platform can fit in its place on that ship.

Also, its a versatile, medium helicopter, just like what Anemos Major told me I needed to get.

If you are asking why the Wasp uses the UH-1N, it's because when the ship was designed, the UH-1N would have been the mainstay of the US Navy's force. Nothing to do with which helicopter is the best.

I also can't see why you would choose the H variant over the N where the N has more lifting power (although none of the UH's were any good at lifting shit) and two engines in case one breaks. Payload and reliability are the factors most crucial to a utility helicopter. If you must avoid the twin-huey for whatever reason, go with the UH-1J which has been nicely overhauled already. Truth be told the only way you could acquire a UH-1H these days would be to get an aircraft that's dangerously close to it's flying limit or to get the 1H produced again in favour of far more modern, capable, reliable and just all-round better UH's.

[The Corparation]

Homer says wut? Hook says same.So does Stallion. Granted I'm not too sure of the second two carrying an armored vehicle plus troops, but all of them can carry at least a full platoon of infantry.

What I mean is the specific military-grade, production tilt-rotor or equivalent that Archangel is after. The V-22 is too small, but the engine power definitely exists to make it more powerful and larger. If not switching to an existing standard helo type, although these tend to have shorter range.

Oh, tilt rotor, he mentioned the Chinook and Hook, so it threw me off. Still no reason he couldn't.

[The Akasha Colony]

You sure there is no reason?

I use the 'Wasp' class Amphibious Assault Ship, which carries the UH-1N Huey (also, since the Wasp is a modern american ship, there is obviously some merit to/reason for its use of the UH-1 platform). I use the Wasp class ship in my ambibious ready groups. I figure if the UH-1N can fit on the Wasp ship, any vehicle from the UH-1 platform can fit in its place on that ship.

Also, its a versatile, medium helicopter, just like what Anemos Major told me I needed to get.

If you are asking why the Wasp uses the UH-1N, it's because when the ship was designed, the UH-1N would have been the mainstay of the US Navy's force. Nothing to do with which helicopter is the best.

I also can't see why you would choose the H variant over the N where the N has more lifting power (although none of the UH's were any good at lifting shit) and two engines in case one breaks. Payload and reliability are the factors most crucial to a utility helicopter. If you must avoid the twin-huey for whatever reason, go with the UH-1J which has been nicely overhauled already. Truth be told the only way you could acquire a UH-1H these days would be to get an aircraft that's dangerously close to it's flying limit or to get the 1H produced again in favour of far more modern, capable, reliable and just all-round better UH's.

VR's right. The reason why the Wasp-class uses UH-1N is because the USMC hasn't completed upgrading all of its existing stockpiles to the UH-1Y. Not because they're better. If you're buying new helos, you'll end up with the UH-1Y, no other model is in production. Unless you're going to pay extra to get the factories converted to produce an obsolete helicopter. There isn't really a reason to pick the UH-1H unless the 300 kg of extra weight in the UH-1N is really that important. Which it probably isn't.

The twin-engine variants are more reliable, with greater payload capacity. They have younger airframes, with fewer flight hours on them. They're also more fuel-efficient and have better avionics. The old UH-1 single-engine variants can't even be called a medium helicopter these days, and the twin-engine ones just barely can.

[Asneira3]

If you are asking why the Wasp uses the UH-1N, it's because when the ship was designed, the UH-1N would have been the mainstay of the US Navy's force. Nothing to do with which helicopter is the best.

I also can't see why you would choose the H variant over the N where the N has more lifting power (although none of the UH's were any good at lifting shit) and two engines in case one breaks. Payload and reliability are the factors most crucial to a utility helicopter. If you must avoid the twin-huey for whatever reason, go with the UH-1J which has been nicely overhauled already. Truth be told the only way you could acquire a UH-1H these days would be to get an aircraft that's dangerously close to it's flying limit or to get the 1H produced again in favour of far more modern, capable, reliable and just all-round better UH's.

VR's right. The reason why the Wasp-class uses UH-1N is because the USMC hasn't completed upgrading all of its existing stockpiles to the UH-1Y. If you're buying new helos, you'll end up with the UH-1Y, no other model is in production. Unless you're going to pay extra to get the factories converted to produce an obsolete helicopter. There isn't really a reason to pick the UH-1H unless the 300 kg of extra weight in the UH-1N is really that important. Which it probably isn't.

This is NS.

There are no factories to be converted, since he'd be already producing his own equipment and the factories would presumably be tooled to mass produce UH-1H, not UH-1Y, since that is what his military uses. Since neither the United States of America, nor Bell Helicopter, exists in NSverse, the models being produced IRL matter absolutely nothing.

[The Akasha Colony]

VR's right. The reason why the Wasp-class uses UH-1N is because the USMC hasn't completed upgrading all of its existing stockpiles to the UH-1Y. If you're buying new helos, you'll end up with the UH-1Y, no other model is in production. Unless you're going to pay extra to get the factories converted to produce an obsolete helicopter. There isn't really a reason to pick the UH-1H unless the 300 kg of extra weight in the UH-1N is really that important. Which it probably isn't.

This is NS.

There are no factories to be converted, since he'd be already producing his own equipment and the factories would presumably be tooled to mass produce UH-1H, not UH-1Y, since that is what his military uses. Since neither the United States of America, nor Bell Helicopter, exists in NSverse, the models being produced IRL matter absolutely nothing.

That actually makes the decision even less logical, as now in addition to real-world military equipment, there is a host of custom, NS-player-created equipment out there to choose from, which is often designed to out-perform equivalent real-world designs. He was picking from US military equipment and keeping their designations intact, so picking from that same pool, there are better designs. That's before we even consider European and former Soviet designs. If he's building a factory, may as well produce the best, most up-to-date model, unless there is some RP reason why he can't go past the early-Cold War, which doesn't seem to be true in any event since the M60A3 Patton and CH-53E Super Stallion are both late-Cold War models, younger even than the UH-1N.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

TAC: Huh, that is funny.

I've come up with a rough stat block, thoughts?

Length: 30.5m
Wingspan: 25m
Hight: 10m (12m w/landing gear deployed)
Crew: 2-3 (two pilots, optional crew chief)
Capacity: 30 (seated), 65 (floor loaded), up to 30,000lbs internally, or 35,000lbs externally.

that's what I've gotten so far, any issues?

[The Corparation]

TAC: Huh, that is funny.

I've come up with a rough stat block, thoughts?

Length: 30.5m
Wingspan: 25m
Hight: 10m (12m w/landing gear deployed)
Crew: 2-3 (two pilots, optional crew chief)
Capacity: 30 (seated), 65 (floor loaded), up to 30,000lbs internally, or 35,000lbs externally.

that's what I've gotten so far, any issues?

Not really much to go on here to criticize. Except for the fact you're landing gear puts you 6 feet of the ground. Hieght stat needs to be revised a bit. Also is that height to tail or height of the body?

[Vitaphone Racing]

VR's right. The reason why the Wasp-class uses UH-1N is because the USMC hasn't completed upgrading all of its existing stockpiles to the UH-1Y. If you're buying new helos, you'll end up with the UH-1Y, no other model is in production. Unless you're going to pay extra to get the factories converted to produce an obsolete helicopter. There isn't really a reason to pick the UH-1H unless the 300 kg of extra weight in the UH-1N is really that important. Which it probably isn't.

This is NS.

There are no factories to be converted, since he'd be already producing his own equipment and the factories would presumably be tooled to mass produce UH-1H, not UH-1Y, since that is what his military uses. Since neither the United States of America, nor Bell Helicopter, exists in NSverse, the models being produced IRL matter absolutely nothing.

The only way the 1H would still be produced is if no progress was made at all in helicopter design.

Since "This is NS," your argument is even more flawed considering the bloated defence budgets and relentless push for advancement by most nations who RP here. The UH-1H is far from a perfect helicopter, thinking anyone would intentionally halt the development process and pretend it was flawless is illogical and idiotic.

[The Akasha Colony]

TAC: Huh, that is funny.

I've come up with a rough stat block, thoughts?

Length: 30.5m
Wingspan: 25m
Hight: 10m (12m w/landing gear deployed)
Crew: 2-3 (two pilots, optional crew chief)
Capacity: 30 (seated), 65 (floor loaded), up to 30,000lbs internally, or 35,000lbs externally.

that's what I've gotten so far, any issues?

Does the height include the tail/vertical engines? Or is it fuselage only? If it's with the tail, it's decent, but if it's fuselage, then damn that's a tall plane.

That aside, looks good. Although I would suggest decreasing the landing gear height. Two full meters is a lot; that's more than six feet off the ground. The engines, as always, are the real issue. But there are some pretty powerful ones out there.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

It does include the tale/engines.
I will decrease the landing gear hight, I'm trying to do imperial to metric conversions in my head, and it's almost always 1m=1ft. (I'm working on that)

[The Akasha Colony]

It does include the tale/engines.
I will decrease the landing gear hight, I'm trying to do imperial to metric conversions in my head, and it's almost always 1m=1ft. (I'm working on that)

I originally wrote my specs in Imperial as well, but switched to metric a few years ago when I began doing basic physics and design equations on my equipment. Now, I'm almost better at using metric measurements than imperial, at least for length, volume, and of course energy.

[The Corparation]

That reminds me I need to work on the stat block for a few of my cargo planes.

Main one I'm working on is the C-230 ATAL* Nike *(Advanced Tactical Airlifter)

The C-230 is a low observable C-14 replacement,baed of the Lockheed Speed Agile design.

Length:30-33 meters
Height: 6 Meters Body, 8 meters Tail. Sits .5-.8 meters taller w/ landing gear.
Crew: Pilot/ Commander Copilot, Navigator/flight engineer, loadmaster.
Cargo bay is 20 meters long by 4 meters wide by 4.5 meters tall.
Payload:
-60,000lbs (Around half that for STOL)
-120 Troops (With center line Seating.)
-80 Airborne
-2-3 Light vehicles
-1 Medium Armored Vehicle.
Equiped with ground following AESA conformally mounted in the forward lower fuselage beneath the flight deck, a fullyretractable refueling probe covered by a hatch when no in use to minimize RCS,

Out of date Pics:

Have newer pics but haven't uploaded them yet.
I might lengthen it a bit to increase the size of the cargo bay.
Thoughts?

[The Akasha Colony]

That reminds me I need to work on the stat block for a few of my cargo planes.

Main one I'm working on is the C-230 ATAL* Nike *(Advanced Tactical Airlifter)

The C-230 is a low observable C-14 replacement,baed of the Lockheed Speed Agile design.

Length:30-33 meters
Height: 6 Meters Body, 8 meters Tail. Sits .5-.8 meters taller w/ landing gear.
Crew: Pilot/ Commander Copilot, Navigator/flight engineer, loadmaster.
Cargo bay is 20 meters long by 4 meters wide by 4.5 meters tall.
Payload:
-60,000lbs (Around half that for STOL)
-120 Troops (With center line Seating.)
-80 Airborne
-2-3 Light vehicles
-1 Medium Armored Vehicle.
Equiped with ground following AESA conformally mounted in the forward lower fuselage beneath the flight deck, a fullyretractable refueling probe covered by a hatch when no in use to minimize RCS,

Out of date Pics:

(Image)

(Image)

Have newer pics but haven't uploaded them yet.
I might lengthen it a bit to increase the size of the cargo bay.
Thoughts?

The general specs look pretty good. My only comments would be that you may be able to reduce the crew further, to just three, for normal cargo operations. The modern C-17 has only three crew. For combat insertions, four may be more appropriate. The other comment is that the AESA radar may not be necessary for standard cargo ops. I normally assume MT militaries care about cost-effectiveness, in which case the radar probably isn't needed except when conducting combat insertions. For normal point-to-point full-load missions, it's probably just excess weight and expense. So it's probably something to spin off either into a separate, special operations combat variant, or make removable based on intended mission.

[The Dictatorship POD]

It does include the tale/engines.
I will decrease the landing gear hight, I'm trying to do imperial to metric conversions in my head, and it's almost always 1m=1ft. (I'm working on that)

I originally wrote my specs in Imperial as well, but switched to metric a few years ago when I began doing basic physics and design equations on my equipment. Now, I'm almost better at using metric measurements than imperial, at least for length, volume, and of course energy.

In 1790, during the French Revolution, the National Assembly of France requested the French Academy of Sciences to “deduce an invariable standard for all the measures and all the weights.” Napoleon once banned its use. The standardized structure and decimal features of the metric system made it well suited for scientific and engineering work. Originally this system included changing the week from a seven day week to a ten day week but this did not last as the people couldn't handle working nine days in a row then only having one day off for more then a month.

[The Dictatorship POD]

That reminds me I need to work on the stat block for a few of my cargo planes.

Main one I'm working on is the C-230 ATAL* Nike *(Advanced Tactical Airlifter)

The C-230 is a low observable C-14 replacement,baed of the Lockheed Speed Agile design.

Length:30-33 meters
Height: 6 Meters Body, 8 meters Tail. Sits .5-.8 meters taller w/ landing gear.
Crew: Pilot/ Commander Copilot, Navigator/flight engineer, loadmaster.
Cargo bay is 20 meters long by 4 meters wide by 4.5 meters tall.
Payload:
-60,000lbs (Around half that for STOL)
-120 Troops (With center line Seating.)
-80 Airborne
-2-3 Light vehicles
-1 Medium Armored Vehicle.
Equiped with ground following AESA conformally mounted in the forward lower fuselage beneath the flight deck, a fullyretractable refueling probe covered by a hatch when no in use to minimize RCS,

Out of date Pics:

(Image)

(Image)

Have newer pics but haven't uploaded them yet.
I might lengthen it a bit to increase the size of the cargo bay.
Thoughts?

Center line seats take up more causing the craft to carry less cargo.

[The Corparation]

That reminds me I need to work on the stat block for a few of my cargo planes.

Main one I'm working on is the C-230 ATAL* Nike *(Advanced Tactical Airlifter)

The C-230 is a low observable C-14 replacement,baed of the Lockheed Speed Agile design.

Length:30-33 meters
Height: 6 Meters Body, 8 meters Tail. Sits .5-.8 meters taller w/ landing gear.
Crew: Pilot/ Commander Copilot, Navigator/flight engineer, loadmaster.
Cargo bay is 20 meters long by 4 meters wide by 4.5 meters tall.
Payload:
-60,000lbs (Around half that for STOL)
-120 Troops (With center line Seating.)
-80 Airborne
-2-3 Light vehicles
-1 Medium Armored Vehicle.
Equiped with ground following AESA conformally mounted in the forward lower fuselage beneath the flight deck, a fullyretractable refueling probe covered by a hatch when no in use to minimize RCS,

Out of date Pics:

(Image)

(Image)

Have newer pics but haven't uploaded them yet.
I might lengthen it a bit to increase the size of the cargo bay.
Thoughts?

The general specs look pretty good. My only comments would be that you may be able to reduce the crew further, to just three, for normal cargo operations. The modern C-17 has only three crew. For combat insertions, four may be more appropriate. The other comment is that the AESA radar may not be necessary for standard cargo ops. I normally assume MT militaries care about cost-effectiveness, in which case the radar probably isn't needed except when conducting combat insertions. For normal point-to-point full-load missions, it's probably just excess weight and expense. So it's probably something to spin off either into a separate, special operations combat variant, or make removable based on intended mission.

1)Standard operating procedure for large multiengine Corparate Military Aircraft is a 4 person crew. The fourth crew memeber is redundant but they reduce the workload of the pilot and copilot and double as helping the loadmaster.
2)Part of the things mission is low level insertion of special forces, a job for which terrain following radar is helpful there, I'm thinking it could also be of use for night landings at forward airfields in war zones Although keeping it for a separate variant is something I'll look into. Also plan on a KC-230 tanker variant

Center line seats take up more causing the craft to carry less cargo.

It's not carrying all that at once.

[The Akasha Colony]

That reminds me I need to work on the stat block for a few of my cargo planes.

Main one I'm working on is the C-230 ATAL* Nike *(Advanced Tactical Airlifter)

The C-230 is a low observable C-14 replacement,baed of the Lockheed Speed Agile design.

Length:30-33 meters
Height: 6 Meters Body, 8 meters Tail. Sits .5-.8 meters taller w/ landing gear.
Crew: Pilot/ Commander Copilot, Navigator/flight engineer, loadmaster.
Cargo bay is 20 meters long by 4 meters wide by 4.5 meters tall.
Payload:
-60,000lbs (Around half that for STOL)
-120 Troops (With center line Seating.)
-80 Airborne
-2-3 Light vehicles
-1 Medium Armored Vehicle.
Equiped with ground following AESA conformally mounted in the forward lower fuselage beneath the flight deck, a fullyretractable refueling probe covered by a hatch when no in use to minimize RCS,

Out of date Pics:

(Image)

(Image)

Have newer pics but haven't uploaded them yet.
I might lengthen it a bit to increase the size of the cargo bay.
Thoughts?

Center line seats take up more causing the craft to carry less cargo.

They're presumably removable, and only used when the maximum troop load is desired, rather than cargo. For cargo or mixed transport, they can likely be removed, as is already the standard on most airlifters.

[The Dictatorship POD]

It's not carrying all that at once.

Sorry I was assuming (from what your post said) that it was.