NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #3

[Falsea]

Hypothetical question; if the USSR existed for let's say a hundred years and poured all their military funds into the navy, do you think they'll be able to create at least a thousand ships, most of which are destroyers, carriers, LTSs, basically warships..?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Dubious question.
I reckon if the Navy had received better funding in the 1980s, it could have been a worthy rival of the USN.

[Altito Asmoro]

Hypothetical question; if the USSR existed for let's say a hundred years and poured all their military funds into the navy, do you think they'll be able to create at least a thousand ships, most of which are destroyers, carriers, LTSs, basically warships..?

Will be better to poured all of the funds to the Air Force, and maybe, they will produce their first stealth plane for USSR and Russian, and for Mother Russia.

[Falsea]

Alright then, a simpler question. Would the United States (triple their navy budget, for that matter) be able to afford to create same number of ships in 50 or less years?

I maybe using this to influence how my own navy works..

Hypothetical question; if the USSR existed for let's say a hundred years and poured all their military funds into the navy, do you think they'll be able to create at least a thousand ships, most of which are destroyers, carriers, LTSs, basically warships..?

Will be better to poured all of the funds to the Air Force, and maybe, they will produce their first stealth plane for USSR and Russian, and for Mother Russia.

Too bad Mother Russia was torn down by Gorbachev aye? and yes, considering even Russia's size, the air force should be the Union's priority, at least, in my opinion.

[Altito Asmoro]

I maybe using this influence to make my air force better...

Probably.

[Altito Asmoro]

For anyone that still cares, here is a preview of my new fighter. This time, it's just the engine.
Engine

The image is very loosely based on the engines of the Su-27 (seen here). But the case is generally of a different shape. Is there anything you can spot on it that is strange or just plain wrong? Also, I know the nozzles are shortish, but that's because the engine is not thrust vectoring or anything fancy like that. The TV variant gets a 1m extension to those.

Also, in general terms. How would you rate it on a scale of 1 to 10. Where 1 is "omg it sucks, you are worse than beno" and 10 is just plain "OMG".

7

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Alright then, a simpler question. Would the United States (triple their navy budget, for that matter) be able to afford to create same number of ships in 50 or less years?

I maybe using this to influence how my own navy works..

Will be better to poured all of the funds to the Air Force, and maybe, they will produce their first stealth plane for USSR and Russian, and for Mother Russia.

Too bad Mother Russia was torn down by Gorbachev aye? and yes, considering even Russia's size, the air force should be the Union's priority, at least, in my opinion.

How many ships you have is a pointless endeavour without being sure of the doctrine they're intended for, and thus the types of ships that are actually fielded.

[The Kievan People]

The USSR would never have beaten the USAF to stealth. The USSR was aeons behind every western country in everything related to computers.

[Altito Asmoro]

The USSR would never have beaten the USAF to stealth. The USSR was aeons behind every western country in everything related to computers.

Why? Why they can't just transfer technologies from other nations apart of Western Bloc?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The USSR was just always less technologically advanced as a nation.
The same it still true today of the Russian Federation, whose aerial radar seems to still lag behind the west and even Chinese developments.

[Falsea]

Uh...strength in numbers?

Actually, I was hoping to get an answer if a 2nd-world nation having 1000 modern warships in a span of 50 years was logical, but thanks anyways!

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Uh...strength in numbers?

Actually, I was hoping to get an answer if a 2nd-world nation having 1000 modern warships in a span of 50 years was logical, but thanks anyways!

Well, it might be, depending on what those ships were.
You'd have a lot of problems however when it comes to actually manning, funding, equipping and even docking all those warships.

Though logically, if you were a second world nation, your Navy wouldn't stretch beyond your territorial waters. The Second World (per the original, Cold War, definition) seems to denote nations that were either non-partisan or militarily/geopolitically irrelevant. Ones that wouldn't be capable of funding, manning or operating a world-beating Navy. That's the reserve of superpowers past and present.

[Altito Asmoro]

Uh...strength in numbers?

Actually, I was hoping to get an answer if a 2nd-world nation having 1000 modern warships in a span of 50 years was logical, but thanks anyways!

500 maybe yes. 1,000 is.....seemed probably can.

[The Kievan People]

Uh...strength in numbers?

Actually, I was hoping to get an answer if a 2nd-world nation having 1000 modern warships in a span of 50 years was logical, but thanks anyways!

It would have helped if you actually asked your question.

But that question is rather nonsensical. A 50 year old ship is not modern, that is longer than the service lives of most warships.

[New Vihenia]

EDIT: Here, have some submarines again.

([url=https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-AI-N1YHZLjg/UT_qvaB2IFI/AAAAAAAAHgs/G5w3P1ZQjWc/s900/Submarine_Comparison.fw.png]Image)[/url]

Interesting. BTW how did you build statblock for your submarines ? Is there any references ? Like books or scientific papers ?

As for me i did excel spreadsheet based on "Ulrich Gabler : Submarine Design 1978 Edition" and "Concept of Submarine Design by Cambridge University Press 1998"

And here's some of my submarine's statblock

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/ ... 5y3kc6.png

Screenshot of the design spreadsheet
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/ ... 5y3kb6.png

It might not be well arranged but it is able to help me determine required pressure hull volume, displacements, required thickness of pressure hull, required power to "tow" the submarine.. and for Diesel Electric Case.. it is able to determine cruising range both for submerged (in battery propulsion) and surface cruising condition.

For anyone that still cares, here is a preview of my new fighter. This time, it's just the engine.
Engine

The image is very loosely based on the engines of the Su-27 (seen here). But the case is generally of a different shape. Is there anything you can spot on it that is strange or just plain wrong? Also, I know the nozzles are shortish, but that's because the engine is not thrust vectoring or anything fancy like that. The TV variant gets a 1m extension to those.

Also, in general terms. How would you rate it on a scale of 1 to 10. Where 1 is "omg it sucks, you are worse than beno" and 10 is just plain "OMG".

Well.. that is not really engine..that's more like an air intake with the engine. So i can't rate nor make any "educated guesswork".

Perhaps you can start by say.. drawing or modeling the jet engine itself then try building a statblock.

The easiest way is perhaps using the "EngineSIM".. a simple Java applet courtesy of NASA that allow you to have basically a tradeoff study and have fun making engines..

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/ngnsim.html

It features turbojet, turbofan, Afterburning Engine (Turbojet and Turbofan) and Ramjet. I suggest you to download the stand alone version which allow you to actually save your engine design.

Nonetheless because it's coded in Java you may need some "startup" batch file which you can make using notepad (no worries the readme file accompanying the software will told you how to make it) Otherwise if you want it easy then find "JavatoExe" program to convert the previously non directly usable EngineSim into Windows Executable file.

If you wish for more complex calculations.. then i suggest you to find a book titled "Elements of Propulsion: 2nd Edition" By Jack D Mattingley published by AIAA. In there you may find a download link and password (as far as i remember my copy's password is GTrad2 for downloading additional materials and gas turbine engine design software (EngineSIM, TURBN etc) Careful though as the simulation programs there have very annoying bug..that practically not allow you to load and save your result.

[Purpelia]

Well.. that is not really engine..that's more like an air intake with the engine. So i can't rate nor make any "educated guesswork".

It is a whole engine. It is encased in its protective box like it would be in flight. It's also a bottom up view. So I guess you can't really see that much come to think of it. Just the intake, nozzle and a box in between. Still, it should do as I just came here to brag about my drawing and look for tips on the appearance. Like does the intake size look decent or did I miss something like say a maintenance hatch.

Perhaps you can start by say.. drawing or modeling the jet engine itself then try building a statblock.

I did that already to some extent. I used both the simulator and an excel spreadsheet (mostly the spreadsheet since the simulator does not let me modify the bypass ratio on an afterburner equipped engine so I had to wing it to some extent) with the various engines of the era all lined up side by side. (something like 5-6 of them). So I know the general size, weight and thrust of the system as well as other basic specifications to within NS reasonable limits. But on this thread, all I want to know is if the casing looks right when drawn.

Since you are curious thou here are some comparisons:

Pratt & Whitney F100 (F15)

Length: 4,851.00 mm
Diameter: 884.00 mm
Dry weight: 1,460.00 kg
Bypass Ratio: 0.36:1

Dry Thrust: 66.72 kN
Afterburner: 111.20 kN

Saturn AL-31 (Su-27)

Length: 4,990.00 mm
Diameter: 905.00 mm
Dry weight: 1,570.00 kg
Bypass Ratio: 0.59:1

Dry Thrust: 74.50 kN
Afterburner: 122.58 kN

General Electric F110 (F-14)

Length: 4,630.00 mm
Diameter: 1,180.00 mm
Dry weight: 1,778.00 kg
Bypass Ratio: 0.85:1

Dry Thrust: 73.88 kN
Afterburner: 123.00 kN

Falke 74kN/121 F90 M985 (My engine)

Length: 4,900.00 mm
Diameter: 900.00 mm
Dry weight: 1,526.00 kg
Bypass Ratio: 0.47:1

Dry Thrust: 74.00 kN
Afterburner: 121.00 kN

So, think it's about right? Also, you can probably tell I used the excel Average() function a lot.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Right, I think I've figured out my question.

In have two rounds.
a) 54gr 4.75mm WC APBT
At 445m/s
With 347j of energy

b) 43gr 4.75mm Spoon-tip FMJBT
At 537.6m/s
With 393j of energy

Would either pierce a PASGT helmet?
One of those newer ones that the army and USMC are adopting?

Thank you.

[New Vihenia]

It is a whole engine. It is encased in its protective box like it would be in flight. It's also a bottom up view. So I guess you can't really see that much come to think of it. Just the intake, nozzle and a box in between. Still, it should do as I just came here to brag about my drawing and look for tips on the appearance. Like does the intake size look decent or did I miss something like say a maintenance hatch.

In my view then it would be 4. As it somewhat lacks perspective and depth.

My tip on Best appearance is of course Go 3D like what i did and you'll perhaps able to kill most of the nitpicks before they even dream to appear.

Perhaps you can start by say.. drawing or modeling the jet engine itself then try building a statblock.
I did that already to some extent. I used both the simulator and an excel spreadsheet (mostly the spreadsheet since the simulator does not let me modify the bypass ratio on an afterburner equipped engine so I had to wing it to some extent) with the various engines of the era all lined up side by side. (something like 5-6 of them). So I know the general size, weight and thrust of the system as well as other basic specifications to within NS reasonable limits. But on this thread, all I want to know is if the casing looks right when drawn.

Since you are curious thou here are some comparisons:

Pratt & Whitney F100 (F15)

Length: 4,851.00 mm
Diameter: 884.00 mm
Dry weight: 1,460.00 kg
Bypass Ratio: 0.36:1

Dry Thrust: 66.72 kN
Afterburner: 111.20 kN

Saturn AL-31 (Su-27)

Length: 4,990.00 mm
Diameter: 905.00 mm
Dry weight: 1,570.00 kg
Bypass Ratio: 0.59:1

Dry Thrust: 74.50 kN
Afterburner: 122.58 kN

General Electric F110 (F-14)

Length: 4,630.00 mm
Diameter: 1,180.00 mm
Dry weight: 1,778.00 kg
Bypass Ratio: 0.85:1

Dry Thrust: 73.88 kN
Afterburner: 123.00 kN

Falke 74kN/121 F90 M985 (My engine)

Length: 4,900.00 mm
Diameter: 900.00 mm
Dry weight: 1,526.00 kg
Bypass Ratio: 0.47:1

Dry Thrust: 74.00 kN
Afterburner: 121.00 kN

So, think it's about right? Also, you can probably tell I used the excel Average() function a lot.

It's right.. well one thing however i reccommend multiplying that thrust value with 0.78 to account loss incurred by imperfect airflow within the intake.

[Rich and Corporations]

Uh...strength in numbers?

Actually, I was hoping to get an answer if a 2nd-world nation having 1000 modern warships in a span of 50 years was logical, but thanks anyways!

It would have helped if you actually asked your question.

But that question is rather nonsensical. A 50 year old ship is not modern, that is longer than the service lives of most warships.

But this is NS time.
He could have a production run for several centuries as his industry repeats 2013 for the next several hundred years. If properly maintained, he could mothball hulls for quite a long time on dry land.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Right, I think I've figured out my question.

In have two rounds.
a) 54gr 4.75mm WC APBT
At 445m/s
With 347j of energy

b) 43gr 4.75mm Spoon-tip FMJBT
At 537.6m/s
With 393j of energy

Would either pierce a PASGT helmet?
One of those newer ones that the army and USMC are adopting?

Thank you.

I don't believe the PASGT helmet has been in use for some years. We've had Interceptor Armour for nearly a decade, after all.
But most likely, you'd definitely penetrate a helmet at point blank with those rounds, but why is the energy so low? That's about a fifth the energy I'd expect from a round of that size and mass, and barely 50-60% the velocity.

[Elan Valleys]

Right, I think I've figured out my question.

In have two rounds.
a) 54gr 4.75mm WC APBT
At 445m/s
With 347j of energy

b) 43gr 4.75mm Spoon-tip FMJBT
At 537.6m/s
With 393j of energy

Would either pierce a PASGT helmet?
One of those newer ones that the army and USMC are adopting?

Thank you.

I don't believe the PASGT helmet has been in use for some years. We've had Interceptor Armour for nearly a decade, after all.
But most likely, you'd definitely penetrate a helmet at point blank with those rounds, but why is the energy so low? That's about a fifth the energy I'd expect from a round of that size and mass, and barely 50-60% the velocity.

PASGT was being used in 2003 in Iraq.

Probably still in use by other militaries.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Interceptor was issued in 2005.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Right, I think I've figured out my question.

In have two rounds.
a) 54gr 4.75mm WC APBT
At 445m/s
With 347j of energy

b) 43gr 4.75mm Spoon-tip FMJBT
At 537.6m/s
With 393j of energy

Would either pierce a PASGT helmet?
One of those newer ones that the army and USMC are adopting?

Thank you.

I don't believe the PASGT helmet has been in use for some years. We've had Interceptor Armour for nearly a decade, after all.
But most likely, you'd definitely penetrate a helmet at point blank with those rounds, but why is the energy so low? That's about a fifth the energy I'd expect from a round of that size and mass, and barely 50-60% the velocity.

Yeah... sorry about that. In a stroke of ULTIMATE GENIUS I decided it would be easier for everyone if I used numbers from the 650m line.

From the muzzle would be:
a) 54gr WC core APBT
Velocity: 830.2m/s (2,724ft/s)
Energy: 1,205j (889 ft-lbs)
and
b) 42gr Spoon-tip FMJBT
Velocity: 928.7m/s (3047fps)
Energy: 1,172j (865 ft-lbs)

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Ah, right.
Well, that would make a fair bit of sense, I guess.

Penetrating a helmet at 650m is getting into BR territory though, but the ultra-slim bullet might pull off a .280 British and outperform larger rounds due to improved energy retention.

[Purpelia]

In my view then it would be 4. As it somewhat lacks perspective and depth.

My tip on Best appearance is of course Go 3D like what i did and you'll perhaps able to kill most of the nitpicks before they even dream to appear.

My problem with 3D is me. Namely I tend to get carried away. Like that 50K faces high poly model of the Panzer IV I once made by painstakingly measuring things out to scale from blueprints I got from a book.

It's right.. well one thing however i reccommend multiplying that thrust value with 0.78 to account loss incurred by imperfect airflow within the intake.

Is that a standard thing for all engines than? Or is it something I have to do when calculating stuff? Because I got the other stats listed up there from Wikipedia and various other sources. And I made mine up to match. So if they have already included it than mine should have it in by default. And if they didn't why didn't they? Also, my intake size and angle should match that of the Su-27. But one can't see it from this angle.