NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #2

[Samozaryadnyastan]

No.
Where did that mental connection arrive from?

the mating itself is what constitutes a (as previously stressed) hypothetical fourth gen.

It doesn't.

A T-72 is a T-72 is a T-72.

BMP-1 is 1st Gen era (and not even 1st Gen anyway since it's not a battle tank) and the T-34-anything doesn't even register on the Gen scale, since it's before the advent of the Main Battle Tank concept.

[Shuggy555]

Started work on the support version of the giant Poseidon Class Ekranoplane I've been working on. The Kraken Class Think of it as a LCT(R) on steriods, its practically a flying arsenal ship.Fitted with hundreds of rocket launch tubes, and an advanced communications and sensor suite it is the ultimate in modern Missile Spam . The launch tubes almost completely replace the upperdeck, and the added weight decreases the range and only allows it to carry a fraction of the payload of the stock Poseidon Class Here's the rough outline of its payload, any suggestions on how well the mix is I have, and any ideas for better ones.

-230 600mm rocket launcher tubes
Standard load:10 Scout UAVs, 70 Land Attack Cruise missiles, 50 AShMs 100 Super Heavy Artillery
Rockets with assorted payloads(Essentially Tactical Ballistic Missiles)
-1440 300mm rocket Launchers
Standard load:40 WP Smoke Screens, 600 Cluster Warheads, 400 Thermobaric Warheads, 400 HE Warheads

Wow, thoughs numbers seem a bit high to me...

1440 300mm rocket launchers HOLY !%%!$

I mean even the most heaviest cruisers only have a max of like less then 30 AShMs let alone 100 balistic missiles.
If you covered this thing in stealth and gave it some anti air missiles instead of TRBM's, it could not be stoped by anything, ever.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Well, Ticonderoga class GMCs have over 122 Tomahawk-capable missile tubes, plus some additional SAMs.

[Shuggy555]

Well, Ticonderoga class GMCs have over 122 Tomahawk-capable missile tubes, plus some additional SAMs.

Yes and the Ticonderoga is a very large guided missile cruiser.

This thing litraly carries thousands of missiles and rockets and it flies. It just seems a little to high to me.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The Ticonderoga is only 10kt fully loaded.
That's not that heavy as a warship, though the fact that missile cruisers can be so much lighter yet more effective than the older, bigger warships does massively blur the lines.

[Aqizithiuda]

Started work on the support version of the giant Poseidon Class Ekranoplane I've been working on. The Kraken Class Think of it as a LCT(R) on steriods, its practically a flying arsenal ship.Fitted with hundreds of rocket launch tubes, and an advanced communications and sensor suite it is the ultimate in modern Missile Spam . The launch tubes almost completely replace the upperdeck, and the added weight decreases the range and only allows it to carry a fraction of the payload of the stock Poseidon Class Here's the rough outline of its payload, any suggestions on how well the mix is I have, and any ideas for better ones.

-230 600mm rocket launcher tubes
Standard load:10 Scout UAVs, 70 Land Attack Cruise missiles, 50 AShMs 100 Super Heavy Artillery
Rockets with assorted payloads(Essentially Tactical Ballistic Missiles)
-1440 300mm rocket Launchers
Standard load:40 WP Smoke Screens, 600 Cluster Warheads, 400 Thermobaric Warheads, 400 HE Warheads

Holy ferret balls Batman! That's frikin' insane!

[The Corparation]

Started work on the support version of the giant Poseidon Class Ekranoplane I've been working on. The Kraken Class Think of it as a LCT(R) on steriods, its practically a flying arsenal ship.Fitted with hundreds of rocket launch tubes, and an advanced communications and sensor suite it is the ultimate in modern Missile Spam . The launch tubes almost completely replace the upperdeck, and the added weight decreases the range and only allows it to carry a fraction of the payload of the stock Poseidon Class Here's the rough outline of its payload, any suggestions on how well the mix is I have, and any ideas for better ones.

-230 600mm rocket launcher tubes
Standard load:10 Scout UAVs, 70 Land Attack Cruise missiles, 50 AShMs 100 Super Heavy Artillery
Rockets with assorted payloads(Essentially Tactical Ballistic Missiles)
-1440 300mm rocket Launchers
Standard load:40 WP Smoke Screens, 600 Cluster Warheads, 400 Thermobaric Warheads, 400 HE Warheads

Wow, thoughs numbers seem a bit high to me...

1440 300mm rocket launchers HOLY !%%!$

I mean even the most heaviest cruisers only have a max of like less then 30 AShMs let alone 100 balistic missiles.
If you covered this thing in stealth and gave it some anti air missiles instead of TRBM's, it could not be stoped by anything, ever.

The base Poseidon class is the size of a large LST,Here's the stats:
Stats

Crew: 29 (10 Officers, 19 Enlisted)
2-Flight Crews of 10 each with:
1-Pilot (Pilot for Crew A is Commander, Pilot for Crew B is Exec Officer)
1-Copilot
1-Navigator
1-Radio Operator
1-Radar Operator
1-Defensive Systems Operator
1-Chief Engineer
3-Flight Engineers
Plus:
1-Chief Loadmaster
8-Able Crewmen

w/ Armament Package 35 (12 Officers, 23 Enlisted)
-2 Additional Defensive Systems Operators
-4 Gunners Mates

Wingspan: 92Meters
Length: 138 Meters
Width: 11 meters
Top Speed 500 km/h
Cruising Speed: 450 Km/h @ 4 meters
Range at altitude: 15,000 km
Range in Ground Effect:10,000 km
Empty Weight: 1,400,000 kg
MTOW: 2,40,000 kg
Max Altitude:
-6000 meters (Conventional flight reduced payload) (Kraken Class won't be doing this in the least unless its fired everything)
-50 meters (Ground Effect only)
Powerplant:
8x Turbofans Engines w/ >600 kN thrust each.
2x Turbine Generators for auxiliary power
Payload:
~ Cargo bay for up 500 metric tons of Misc Cargo and assorted Vehicles.
~Passenger Compartment with capacity for a 3 companies of combat troops.
Optional Armament Package (pictured)
-1 Dorsal Turret w/ 2 30mm Cannon
-2 Waists w/ 1 30mm Cannons each
-1 Tail Turret w/ 4 30mm Cannons

Full write up here. (WiP)
Replacing the entire upper deck with launch tubes and scrapping the cargo capacity. I think there's both the room and the capacity. Might make the wing a bit bigger for extra lift though. Range is also seriously reduced.

EDIT:Redid some of my math, think I estimated the wieght of the rockets wrong. Going to half the payload or so.

[Galla-]

Well, Ticonderoga class GMCs have over 122 Tomahawk-capable missile tubes, plus some additional SAMs.

Yet they never will have more than 10 TLAMs if you actually want to use a Tico.

100 of those would probably be Standard.

[San-Silvacian]

Started work on the support version of the giant Poseidon Class Ekranoplane I've been working on. The Kraken Class Think of it as a LCT(R) on steriods, its practically a flying arsenal ship.Fitted with hundreds of rocket launch tubes, and an advanced communications and sensor suite it is the ultimate in modern Missile Spam . The launch tubes almost completely replace the upperdeck, and the added weight decreases the range and only allows it to carry a fraction of the payload of the stock Poseidon Class Here's the rough outline of its payload, any suggestions on how well the mix is I have, and any ideas for better ones.

-230 600mm rocket launcher tubes
Standard load:10 Scout UAVs, 70 Land Attack Cruise missiles, 50 AShMs 100 Super Heavy Artillery
Rockets with assorted payloads(Essentially Tactical Ballistic Missiles)
-1440 300mm rocket Launchers
Standard load:40 WP Smoke Screens, 600 Cluster Warheads, 400 Thermobaric Warheads, 400 HE Warheads

Wow, thoughs numbers seem a bit high to me...

1440 300mm rocket launchers HOLY !%%!$

I mean even the most heaviest cruisers only have a max of like less then 30 AShMs let alone 100 balistic missiles.
If you covered this thing in stealth and gave it some anti air missiles instead of TRBM's, it could not be stoped by anything, ever.

Yes it would.

It would be easily stopped.

Just because stelf and anti-air missiles doesn't make it invincible.

It'd be horribly exposed and have EVERYTHING firing at it.

It reminds me of an Ace Combat style boss.

[Grand Britannia]

Wow, thoughs numbers seem a bit high to me...

1440 300mm rocket launchers HOLY !%%!$

I mean even the most heaviest cruisers only have a max of like less then 30 AShMs let alone 100 balistic missiles.
If you covered this thing in stealth and gave it some anti air missiles instead of TRBM's, it could not be stoped by anything, ever.

Yes it would.

It would be easily stopped.

Just because stelf and anti-air missiles doesn't make it invincible.

It'd be horribly exposed and have EVERYTHING firing at it.

It reminds me of an Ace Combat style boss.

Needs moar missile spam or lasers.

[The Corparation]

Wow, thoughs numbers seem a bit high to me...

1440 300mm rocket launchers HOLY !%%!$

I mean even the most heaviest cruisers only have a max of like less then 30 AShMs let alone 100 balistic missiles.
If you covered this thing in stealth and gave it some anti air missiles instead of TRBM's, it could not be stoped by anything, ever.

Yes it would.

It would be easily stopped.

Just because stelf and anti-air missiles doesn't make it invincible.

It'd be horribly exposed and have EVERYTHING firing at it.

It reminds me of an Ace Combat style boss.

Yeah, this thing isn't meant to be a uber flying invinvible death plane. Its meant to be deployed as part of a fleet of similar aircraft. The Kraken is primarily used to bombard defenses via rocket spam prior to the fleet's transports landing and deploying their troops. I'm borderline scrapping the AshM, to reduce the complexity of the fire control system and save weight. AA ability was out of the question already, apart from the defensive turrets. And those are really only useful for knocking out low flying aircraft or possibly slow moving missiles. Most of the defense for the fleet would be handled by the fighter craft I posted the other day. A squadron or two of those with AshM and AAMs would be the main line of defense.

[Aqizithiuda]

Yes it would.

It would be easily stopped.

Just because stelf and anti-air missiles doesn't make it invincible.

It'd be horribly exposed and have EVERYTHING firing at it.

It reminds me of an Ace Combat style boss.

Needs moar missile spam or lasers.

THEL + FIRESTRIKE?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Well, Ticonderoga class GMCs have over 122 Tomahawk-capable missile tubes, plus some additional SAMs.

Yet they never will have more than 10 TLAMs if you actually want to use a Tico.

100 of those would probably be Standard.

Ergo, Tomahawk-capable tubes.

[Grand Britannia]

Needs moar missile spam or lasers.

THEL + FIRESTRIKE?

Seems more like it now.

All it needs now is to be completely unescorted and attacked by fighters.

[The Plutonian Empire]

Again, too lazy to read the thread or do a search.

Anyways, I figured out I can check my troop levels with NSeconomy, but I don't know how to figure out reasonable nuclear stockpiles. How would I go about doing that?

Of course, I'm writing my nation's factbook, and right now I said we have a "massive" nuclear arsenal, so I was wondering what a reasonable "upper limit" to the nuclear stockpiles might be for my nation?

[Aqizithiuda]

Again, too lazy to read the thread or do a search.

Anyways, I figured out I can check my troop levels with NSeconomy, but I don't know how to figure out reasonable nuclear stockpiles. How would I go about doing that?

Of course, I'm writing my nation's factbook, and right now I said we have a "massive" nuclear arsenal, so I was wondering what a reasonable "upper limit" to the nuclear stockpiles might be for my nation?

At its peak, the US had over 30 000 warheads. To be honest, you really don't need any more than that, unless you're planning on Orion style warships or issuing tactical nuclear weapons (eg: nuclear artillery shells, Davy Crocketts, theater ballistic missiles, etc) on a massive scale.

[The Plutonian Empire]

Again, too lazy to read the thread or do a search.

Anyways, I figured out I can check my troop levels with NSeconomy, but I don't know how to figure out reasonable nuclear stockpiles. How would I go about doing that?

Of course, I'm writing my nation's factbook, and right now I said we have a "massive" nuclear arsenal, so I was wondering what a reasonable "upper limit" to the nuclear stockpiles might be for my nation?

At its peak, the US had over 30 000 warheads. To be honest, you really don't need any more than that, unless you're planning on Orion style warships or issuing tactical nuclear weapons (eg: nuclear artillery shells, Davy Crocketts, theater ballistic missiles, etc) on a massive scale.

What about when taking NS civil population and military population/spending into account, for RP and such?

Or is 30k the most that is acceptable regardless of NS nation/military size?

[Aqizithiuda]

At its peak, the US had over 30 000 warheads. To be honest, you really don't need any more than that, unless you're planning on Orion style warships or issuing tactical nuclear weapons (eg: nuclear artillery shells, Davy Crocketts, theater ballistic missiles, etc) on a massive scale.

What about when taking NS civil population and military population/spending into account, for RP and such?

Or is 30k the most that is acceptable regardless of NS nation/military size?

You can have any size, really. you just most likely won't need more than 30 000 warheads to win a war/make your enemy's lands uninhabitable. The resulting nuclear winter would plunge their region into chaos, destroying crops, lowering the temperature by tens of degrees in places and generally making recovery in the short term near impossible, even if they survive the exchange with enough population and industrial base to recover.

Of course, you could just divide your population by the US' population in '65, multiply that number by 32 000 and then double it because this is NS. If you go down that route, you should also think about Orion battleships and a very large FOBS (Fractional Orbit Bombardment System).

[Spirit of Hope]

At its peak, the US had over 30 000 warheads. To be honest, you really don't need any more than that, unless you're planning on Orion style warships or issuing tactical nuclear weapons (eg: nuclear artillery shells, Davy Crocketts, theater ballistic missiles, etc) on a massive scale.

What about when taking NS civil population and military population/spending into account, for RP and such?

Or is 30k the most that is acceptable regardless of NS nation/military size?

You could have more, but your going to have to justify it. Why would your nation need more than 30,000 nuclear warheads that they are going to have to store and maintain, that will become useless over time (depending on design), and that if used will get a nuclear retaliation?

Are you in a cold war with a nation that merits 30,000 nukes pointed at it constantly? Do you have a population that supports 30,000 nuclear weapons? Have you invested/stored other WMD's such as biological or chemical agents?

[Bafuria]

At its peak, the US had over 30 000 warheads. To be honest, you really don't need any more than that, unless you're planning on Orion style warships or issuing tactical nuclear weapons (eg: nuclear artillery shells, Davy Crocketts, theater ballistic missiles, etc) on a massive scale.

What about when taking NS civil population and military population/spending into account, for RP and such?

Or is 30k the most that is acceptable regardless of NS nation/military size?

Welcome to the world of nuclear policy my friend, It's a lot more complicated than in the movies where you just bomb the enemy's downtowns.

How big and rich is your nation? How big and rich are the nations you are likely to face in a nuclear conflict?
How determined and/or aggressive are your most likely adversaries going to be? etc.

Here is a good essay that sums up nuclear policy, but I couldn't find the original link I'm afraid.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=444868

[The Plutonian Empire]

Hmm, interesting read, thanks.

What about when taking NS civil population and military population/spending into account, for RP and such?

Or is 30k the most that is acceptable regardless of NS nation/military size?

You could have more, but your going to have to justify it. Why would your nation need more than 30,000 nuclear warheads that they are going to have to store and maintain, that will become useless over time (depending on design), and that if used will get a nuclear retaliation?

Are you in a cold war with a nation that merits 30,000 nukes pointed at it constantly? Do you have a population that supports 30,000 nuclear weapons? Have you invested/stored other WMD's such as biological or chemical agents?

Hmmm.... That did bring up another question in my mind, which is how might nuclear weapons fit in (or not fit in) if a nation is at a very high tech level, such as FT and FT:FTL?

While I think one might concieve a stereotypical space opera superweapon that blows up stars and planets, I also think that it would probably be godmodding, IIRC.

I know realistically speaking, a population would be very against that many nukes, regardless of how many nukes there actually are.

Admittedly, when you mentioned the population supporting 30k nukes, I originally interpreted that as being similar to the NS calculations of nation population and military funding/troop size (eg, bigger pop + bigger military + bigger military spending(?) = more and more nukes), but then realized you meant whether the populace would like or not like nukes, not how many people there actually were.

On top of that, I'm guessing that if one wanted to include SDI defenses, they would have to integrate that very conservatively, and that retaliation is pretty much guaranteed regardless of the existence of an SDI.

And I'm guessing that with a nuclear-armed FT/FT:FTL nation, it might be tempting to conjure up nukes that never become useless, but I'm guessing that would be godmodding as well?

As for non-nuclear WMD's, I think some nations might stick with just nukes, and not use biological or chemical agents, while others might prefer different WMD's over others, or use a combination of two or more, so I don't know how that would fit in all of this.

Of course, for a nation like mine, and what I have in mind for it (FT:FTL and science fantasy), I don't know any potential justification for nuclear uber-arsenals, other than being a psychotic dicatorship, which it is clearly not, and even that justification would be questionable, I guess?

[Galla-]

It doesn't.

A T-72 is a T-72 is a T-72.

BMP-1 is 1st Gen era (and not even 1st Gen anyway since it's not a battle tank) and the T-34-anything doesn't even register on the Gen scale, since it's before the advent of the Main Battle Tank concept.

And the T-72 isn't anywhere near a hypothetical "next generation" tank.

Again, too lazy to read the thread or do a search.

Anyways, I figured out I can check my troop levels with NSeconomy, but I don't know how to figure out reasonable nuclear stockpiles. How would I go about doing that?

Of course, I'm writing my nation's factbook, and right now I said we have a "massive" nuclear arsenal, so I was wondering what a reasonable "upper limit" to the nuclear stockpiles might be for my nation?

At its peak, the US had over 30 000 warheads. To be honest, you really don't need any more than that, unless you're planning on Orion style warships or issuing tactical nuclear weapons (eg: nuclear artillery shells, Davy Crocketts, theater ballistic missiles, etc) on a massive scale.

i.e. Me.

If your Marines aren't looking like this:



or this:



While getting fire support from something that looks like this:



Which ends up cooking commies with something like this:



Or this:



You're not doing NS rite.

[Aqizithiuda]

Hmm, interesting read, thanks.

You could have more, but your going to have to justify it. Why would your nation need more than 30,000 nuclear warheads that they are going to have to store and maintain, that will become useless over time (depending on design), and that if used will get a nuclear retaliation?

Are you in a cold war with a nation that merits 30,000 nukes pointed at it constantly? Do you have a population that supports 30,000 nuclear weapons? Have you invested/stored other WMD's such as biological or chemical agents?

Hmmm.... That did bring up another question in my mind, which is how might nuclear weapons fit in (or not fit in) if a nation is at a very high tech level, such as FT and FT:FTL?

While I think one might concieve a stereotypical space opera superweapon that blows up stars and planets, I also think that it would probably be godmodding, IIRC.

I know realistically speaking, a population would be very against that many nukes, regardless of how many nukes there actually are.

Admittedly, when you mentioned the population supporting 30k nukes, I originally interpreted that as being similar to the NS calculations of nation population and military funding/troop size (eg, bigger pop + bigger military + bigger military spending(?) = more and more nukes), but then realized you meant whether the populace would like or not like nukes, not how many people there actually were.

On top of that, I'm guessing that if one wanted to include SDI defenses, they would have to integrate that very conservatively, and that retaliation is pretty much guaranteed regardless of the existence of an SDI.

And I'm guessing that with a nuclear-armed FT/FT:FTL nation, it might be tempting to conjure up nukes that never become useless, but I'm guessing that would be godmodding as well?

As for non-nuclear WMD's, I think some nations might stick with just nukes, and not use biological or chemical agents, while others might prefer different WMD's over others, or use a combination of two or more, so I don't know how that would fit in all of this.

Of course, for a nation like mine, and what I have in mind for it (FT:FTL and science fantasy), I don't know any potential justification for nuclear uber-arsenals, other than being a psychotic dicatorship, which it is clearly not, and even that justification would be questionable, I guess?

FT:FTL nations who want a good deterrent should have, at the very least, anti-matter powered, planet destroying bombs.

[The Plutonian Empire]

Hmm, interesting read, thanks.

Hmmm.... That did bring up another question in my mind, which is how might nuclear weapons fit in (or not fit in) if a nation is at a very high tech level, such as FT and FT:FTL?

While I think one might concieve a stereotypical space opera superweapon that blows up stars and planets, I also think that it would probably be godmodding, IIRC.

I know realistically speaking, a population would be very against that many nukes, regardless of how many nukes there actually are.

Admittedly, when you mentioned the population supporting 30k nukes, I originally interpreted that as being similar to the NS calculations of nation population and military funding/troop size (eg, bigger pop + bigger military + bigger military spending(?) = more and more nukes), but then realized you meant whether the populace would like or not like nukes, not how many people there actually were.

On top of that, I'm guessing that if one wanted to include SDI defenses, they would have to integrate that very conservatively, and that retaliation is pretty much guaranteed regardless of the existence of an SDI.

And I'm guessing that with a nuclear-armed FT/FT:FTL nation, it might be tempting to conjure up nukes that never become useless, but I'm guessing that would be godmodding as well?

As for non-nuclear WMD's, I think some nations might stick with just nukes, and not use biological or chemical agents, while others might prefer different WMD's over others, or use a combination of two or more, so I don't know how that would fit in all of this.

Of course, for a nation like mine, and what I have in mind for it (FT:FTL and science fantasy), I don't know any potential justification for nuclear uber-arsenals, other than being a psychotic dicatorship, which it is clearly not, and even that justification would be questionable, I guess?

FT:FTL nations who want a good deterrent should have, at the very least, anti-matter powered, planet destroying bombs.

Ah, makes sense then. Thanks.

[San-Silvacian]

BMP-1 is 1st Gen era (and not even 1st Gen anyway since it's not a battle tank) and the T-34-anything doesn't even register on the Gen scale, since it's before the advent of the Main Battle Tank concept.

And the T-72 isn't anywhere near a hypothetical "next generation" tank.

At its peak, the US had over 30 000 warheads. To be honest, you really don't need any more than that, unless you're planning on Orion style warships or issuing tactical nuclear weapons (eg: nuclear artillery shells, Davy Crocketts, theater ballistic missiles, etc) on a massive scale.

i.e. Me.

If your Marines aren't looking like this:



or this:



While getting fire support from something that looks like this:



Which ends up cooking commies with something like this:



Or this:



You're not doing NS rite.

I agree with this.

railgun FT patton and blaster m16a1s