NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[San-Silvacian]

Why not just get on the Mk-19 and have the other members of the crew grab their M16A2s and lay down a base of fire so the Mk-19 can engage anything that seems bad.

Unless like a BMP comes in.

Thats when you get the AT4.

dont miss major

>whump

>short 50m

Then you hope the other guns in your firing line haven't wasted their AT4s.

You deeply hope.

[United Earthlings]

Nonetheless i can't just put aside on classical manner of attack by using heavy torpedo.

And you shouldn't. Finding exact range & speed numbers for all those modern heavy torpedoes isn't easy, but basically those traveling around 55+ knots can generally reach out up to 20+ km. At the slower end of around 40+ knots, you get estimates of around 40/50+ kilometers which is about the range of some short range AsM, the early versions of the Exocet and the Penguin being key ones that come to mind.

FOBS is a class of ICBM. The technology behind FOBS can make for a low-development space launcher.

IMO, the FOBS is a further development of the ICBM and hence it's own class. Granted they share many characteristics as plenty of ICBMs have been converted into Space Launchers.

Just how sooper eleet can you make 1.5 million troops with a pretty damn good budget?

Well that depends on how much you are willing to spend on the infantry. Not just in training but on their equipment. Do you have a ballpark figure in USD for us to work with? If I remember correctly most European nations spend around 100,000 USD to train their troops.

Got this from a site two years ago that was comparing the defense trends in Asia, would post the link, but I forget to save the link and I don't remember the site name itself. However, I did save some of the good parts that should help.

Japan is the exception with $238,100 spent per soldier in 2011. By comparison, European states spent on aggregate $140,400 per service member in 2010* and the United States $504,800 per soldier in 2011. On a per-soldier basis, China [$64,100 in 2011 (SIPRI estimates) and $41,000 in 2011 (official Chinese data), India [$28,200 by 2011], South Korea [$43,600 in 2011], and Taiwan [$34,800 in 2011] spent as much as countries like Romania ($29,100 in 2011) or Cyprus ($44,600 in 2011).

*My note, but from comparing other data points most of that aggregate was achieved by the main European powers such as UK, France, Germany, Italy which on average had spending per soldier closer to $200,000 with smaller nations like Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands being closer to the $80,000-$100,000 mark.

So, I'm working on a plan for a modernized Iowa that would actually be a capable (if inefficient) surface combatant. Not for new production or a frontline warship of course, just for if you happen to have some lying around.

My intention is to make as few changes to the ships' actual structure as possible. So for starters, in going to just load up the Tomahawk launchers with Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missiles. Then I'm going to remove the Harpoon launchers and install a pair of 8-cell Tactical length Mk 41 VLS modules to carry ESSMs. Finally, I plan to remove the remaining six 5"/38 turrets and install Mk 22 GMLSs for the RIM-66 SM-2 in their place. Along with that comes swapping out the 5" fire control radars for the targeting radars for the SM-2 and ESSM (SPG-62 I think?).

The 5" turrets may have to be widened slightly to fit the Mk 22 launchers. The 16" guns will be kept, mostly because removing them would require some seriously heavy machinery, but also partly because they'd still be useful for shore bombardment, especially with the TLAMs gone.
(And because it just wouldn't have the same coolness factor without them. And let's face it, this is NS. There will come a time when the enemy drives his Kirovs, Ticonderogas, and Zumwalts into gunnery range. And the effects of nine 2,700 pound shells hitting an unarmored warship will be glorious. As will your maniacal laughter when their own guns barely even scratch your paint. )

1. Doesn’t this post in of itself invalidate your rule of not getting into big gunnery duels, especially considering you even had that whole post about developing a WW2 fleet with a focus still on Carrier Aviation? Did I miss something in the past 200 pages or so?
2. Additionally, the economics of this project aren’t in your favor. The original 1980s refit & reactivation of the Iowa Class cost $496 million per vessel and that was back in the 1980s, plus that refit wasn’t even as extensive as to what you’re planning. Today you’d be lucky to keep it under a billion dollars and for that cost you could just buy a brand spanking new destroyer/frigate that could carry just as many missiles as this refit not to mention the destroyer/frigate would be better bang for your buck over the long haul both in maintenance & operational costs.

Isn’t economics fun, but hey it’s your {nation’s} money, want not, waste not.

[Gallia-]

dont miss major

>whump

>short 50m

Then you hope the other guns in your firing line haven't wasted their AT4s.

You deeply hope.

driver forward maximum speed

ramming speed

fix bayonets

monument to the artillerymen at ft sill you will be remembered ss my hero

[Korouse]

Then you hope the other guns in your firing line haven't wasted their AT4s.

You deeply hope.

driver forward maximum speed

ramming speed

fix bayonets

monument to the artillerymen at ft sill you will be remembered ss my hero

charge of the light tank brigade.

[San-Silvacian]

Then you hope the other guns in your firing line haven't wasted their AT4s.

You deeply hope.

driver forward maximum speed

ramming speed

fix bayonets

monument to the artillerymen at ft sill you will be remembered ss my hero

elan > vdv

[Spirit of Hope]

Well that depends on how much you are willing to spend on the infantry. Not just in training but on their equipment. Do you have a ballpark figure in USD for us to work with? If I remember correctly most European nations spend around 100,000 USD to train their troops.

Got this from a site two years ago that was comparing the defense trends in Asia, would post the link, but I forget to save the link and I don't remember the site name itself. However, I did save some of the good parts that should help.

Japan is the exception with $238,100 spent per soldier in 2011. By comparison, European states spent on aggregate $140,400 per service member in 2010* and the United States $504,800 per soldier in 2011. On a per-soldier basis, China [$64,100 in 2011 (SIPRI estimates) and $41,000 in 2011 (official Chinese data), India [$28,200 by 2011], South Korea [$43,600 in 2011], and Taiwan [$34,800 in 2011] spent as much as countries like Romania ($29,100 in 2011) or Cyprus ($44,600 in 2011).

*My note, but from comparing other data points most of that aggregate was achieved by the main European powers such as UK, France, Germany, Italy which on average had spending per soldier closer to $200,000 with smaller nations like Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands being closer to the $80,000-$100,000 mark.

Ok, so I was off. Looks like $200,000 would be a good number to settle on for an elite army. Also interesting to see how close China and South Korea are on spending. Did it have any estimates on North Korea, that is a number I would love to see.

[San-Silvacian]

150,000 feels like a well trained army tbh.

The price that is 500,000 per US troop is also because our budget is massive since we operate everywhere, with everything, and give money to everybody.

[Korouse]

150,000 feels like a well trained army tbh.

The price that is 500,000 per US troop is also because our budget is massive since we operate everywhere, with everything, and give money to everybody.

We're even operating on Mars.

trust me im special forces.

theres aliens under the surface of mars btw.

[Spirit of Hope]

150,000 feels like a well trained army tbh.

The price that is 500,000 per US troop is also because our budget is massive since we operate everywhere, with everything, and give money to everybody.

We're even operating on Mars.

trust me im special forces.

theres aliens under the surface of mars btw.

Well they are holding on to some space oil we want. But its ok I support our troops.

I wish their was a break down of where the money went. Because I feel like deployment across the world doesn't adequately explain the 300,000 gap.

[Korouse]

We're even operating on Mars.

trust me im special forces.

theres aliens under the surface of mars btw.

Well they are holding on to some space oil we want. But its ok I support our troops.

I wish their was a break down of where the money went. Because I feel like deployment across the world doesn't adequately explain the 300,000 gap.

We just love our troops enough to spend 300,000 dollars more on them...

or it's because we need to kill dem talibanis with money.

[The Akasha Colony]

We're even operating on Mars.

trust me im special forces.

theres aliens under the surface of mars btw.

Well they are holding on to some space oil we want. But its ok I support our troops.

I wish their was a break down of where the money went. Because I feel like deployment across the world doesn't adequately explain the 300,000 gap.

Deployment, training, R&D, transportation even within the US itself (in a European country you can get on the train to get anywhere, but in the US you have to fly to get anywhere outside the Northeast), ongoing procurement of vehicles, theoretical research, etc. You can find the rough breakdown itself on Wikipedia.

There are also other benefits involved, although many are administrated via the VA. For instance, veterans get healthcare and tuition, which is an additional expense in the US but which is rolled into general government expenses elsewhere because veterans would be covered under existing healthcare and education programs available for all citizens.

[Mitheldalond]

Nonetheless i can't just put aside on classical manner of attack by using heavy torpedo.

And you shouldn't. Finding exact range & speed numbers for all those modern heavy torpedoes isn't easy, but basically those traveling around 55+ knots can generally reach out up to 20+ km. At the slower end of around 40+ knots, you get estimates of around 40/50+ kilometers which is about the range of some short range AsM, the early versions of the Exocet and the Penguin being key ones that come to mind.

FOBS is a class of ICBM. The technology behind FOBS can make for a low-development space launcher.

IMO, the FOBS is a further development of the ICBM and hence it's own class. Granted they share many characteristics as plenty of ICBMs have been converted into Space Launchers.

Well that depends on how much you are willing to spend on the infantry. Not just in training but on their equipment. Do you have a ballpark figure in USD for us to work with? If I remember correctly most European nations spend around 100,000 USD to train their troops.

Got this from a site two years ago that was comparing the defense trends in Asia, would post the link, but I forget to save the link and I don't remember the site name itself. However, I did save some of the good parts that should help.

Japan is the exception with $238,100 spent per soldier in 2011. By comparison, European states spent on aggregate $140,400 per service member in 2010* and the United States $504,800 per soldier in 2011. On a per-soldier basis, China [$64,100 in 2011 (SIPRI estimates) and $41,000 in 2011 (official Chinese data), India [$28,200 by 2011], South Korea [$43,600 in 2011], and Taiwan [$34,800 in 2011] spent as much as countries like Romania ($29,100 in 2011) or Cyprus ($44,600 in 2011).

*My note, but from comparing other data points most of that aggregate was achieved by the main European powers such as UK, France, Germany, Italy which on average had spending per soldier closer to $200,000 with smaller nations like Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands being closer to the $80,000-$100,000 mark.

So, I'm working on a plan for a modernized Iowa that would actually be a capable (if inefficient) surface combatant. Not for new production or a frontline warship of course, just for if you happen to have some lying around.

My intention is to make as few changes to the ships' actual structure as possible. So for starters, in going to just load up the Tomahawk launchers with Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missiles. Then I'm going to remove the Harpoon launchers and install a pair of 8-cell Tactical length Mk 41 VLS modules to carry ESSMs. Finally, I plan to remove the remaining six 5"/38 turrets and install Mk 22 GMLSs for the RIM-66 SM-2 in their place. Along with that comes swapping out the 5" fire control radars for the targeting radars for the SM-2 and ESSM (SPG-62 I think?).

The 5" turrets may have to be widened slightly to fit the Mk 22 launchers. The 16" guns will be kept, mostly because removing them would require some seriously heavy machinery, but also partly because they'd still be useful for shore bombardment, especially with the TLAMs gone.
(And because it just wouldn't have the same coolness factor without them. And let's face it, this is NS. There will come a time when the enemy drives his Kirovs, Ticonderogas, and Zumwalts into gunnery range. And the effects of nine 2,700 pound shells hitting an unarmored warship will be glorious. As will your maniacal laughter when their own guns barely even scratch your paint. )

1. Doesn’t this post in of itself invalidate your rule of not getting into big gunnery duels, especially considering you even had that whole post about developing a WW2 fleet with a focus still on Carrier Aviation? Did I miss something in the past 200 pages or so?
2. Additionally, the economics of this project aren’t in your favor. The original 1980s refit & reactivation of the Iowa Class cost $496 million per vessel and that was back in the 1980s, plus that refit wasn’t even as extensive as to what you’re planning. Today you’d be lucky to keep it under a billion dollars and for that cost you could just buy a brand spanking new destroyer/frigate that could carry just as many missiles as this refit not to mention the destroyer/frigate would be better bang for your buck over the long haul both in maintenance & operational costs.

Isn’t economics fun, but hey it’s your {nation’s} money, want not, waste not.

This is for a different nation. My no big-gun rule only applies to new built ships. But even with the guns, it still has 32 TASMs, 96 RIM-66 SM-2s, and 64 ESSMs. Which would actually make it the most powerful surface combatant in other-nation's navy.

Yes, most of my concept for this nation doesn't make any sense from an economic stand point. Somehow they can afford to buy some Spruances, all the necessary Aegis equipment, and modify the Spruances to carry that equipment. And they can afford all the missiles that come with Aegis. Yet they can't simply buy a Ticonderoga.

[Mitheldalond]

So, if you had to pick one ship to convert into an Aegis ship, would it be better to go with an Albany-class cruiser or a Spruance/Kidd-class destroyer?

The Albany might make a more powerful ship, but it's also much older than the Spruance and would require far more extensive modifications. It's also much larger, which is good for missile capacity, but also makes it a bigger target. It is also unusually tall, which is useful when it comes to radar range.

The Spruance on the other hand, is newer and would require less extensive modifications. The Ticonderoga-class was built on the same hull design as the Spruance as well. On the other hand, the superstructure of the Spruance is too short for the AN/SPY-1 radar arrays to be mounted on it directly (they'd practically be flush with the deck). So you'd have to build a platform on top of it to hold the radar.

Spruance already has VLS. There's your answer.

True, but it can only launch Tomahawks and ASROCS currently. It lacks the radar and electronics to guide the Standard Missile series. Though as Gallia pointed out, there was an Aegis Spruance planned, which I hadn't noticed before:

So, if you had to pick one ship to convert into an Aegis ship, would it be better to go with an Albany-class cruiser or a Spruance/Kidd-class destroyer?

The Albany might make a more powerful ship, but it's also much older than the Spruance and would require far more extensive modifications. It's also much larger, which is good for missile capacity, but also makes it a bigger target. It is also unusually tall, which is useful when it comes to radar range.

The Spruance on the other hand, is newer and would require less extensive modifications. The Ticonderoga-class was built on the same hull design as the Spruance as well. On the other hand, the superstructure of the Spruance is too short for the AN/SPY-1 radar arrays to be mounted on it directly (they'd practically be flush with the deck). So you'd have to build a platform on top of it to hold the radar.

Why not a Virginia Class Cruiser? Plenty of VLS space available with the removal of the mk26's, the USN did plan a Aegis subclass but cancelled the notion before CGN42 could eventuate. Shame, a nuclear powered Aegis ship of a displacement of of over 10,000t would be a suitable answer to the far larger Kirov

I do like the Virginia, but for my current project, I've decided that nuclear ships aren't allowed.

[The Akasha Colony]

This is for a different nation. My no big-gun rule only applies to new built ships. But even with the guns, it still has 32 TASMs, 96 RIM-66 SM-2s, and 64 ESSMs. Which would actually make it the most powerful surface combatant in other-nation's navy.

I should hope. It would require six times the crew of an Arleigh Burke, including a number trained to operate systems that haven't been produced or used since the 1940s. Namely the engines.

True, but it can only launch Tomahawks and ASROCS currently. It lacks the radar and electronics to guide the Standard Missile series.

That's the point. It's much easier to attach a mast to the superstructure to a ship than have to tear out the existing armament from a WWII-era cruiser, especially considering that cruiser also has an armored deck you'd need to work through.

[Fin Dovah Junaar]

Should I focus more on crossbowmen or bowmen (Longbows, Composites, etc) or mix it up?

[Vancon]

Should I focus more on crossbowmen or bowmen (Longbows, Composites, etc) or mix it up?

What tech:
What quantities:
What resources:

In general, crossbows are more powerful, but are significantly slower to load. Bow is the opposite of that. Of course it's more complicated then this,but it should give you a basic basic idea of what to do. Then again, we'd need more info to assist any more.

[Fin Dovah Junaar]

Should I focus more on crossbowmen or bowmen (Longbows, Composites, etc) or mix it up?

What tech:
What quantities:
What resources:

In general, crossbows are more powerful, but are significantly slower to load. Bow is the opposite of that. Of course it's more complicated then this,but it should give you a basic basic idea of what to do. Then again, we'd need more info to assist any more.

Well I think the tech would at its core be obviously, no modern military would be sane to make a longbow standard issue.

The quantities would have to be determined by what doctrine I want to go for, so that would involved specific research, the resources going into it depends on what I am researching ass well.

[Vancon]

What tech:
What quantities:
What resources:

In general, crossbows are more powerful, but are significantly slower to load. Bow is the opposite of that. Of course it's more complicated then this,but it should give you a basic basic idea of what to do. Then again, we'd need more info to assist any more.

Well I think the tech would at its core be obviously, no modern military would be sane to make a longbow standard issue.

The quantities would have to be determined by what doctrine I want to go for, so that would involved specific research, the resources going into it depends on what I am researching ass well.

You forget which site we're on...

Regardless, I'll elaborate a bit. Crossbows are significantly harder to make, at least crossbows that are an improvement on bows, rather then their analog counterparts. If you have the materials and the ability to do so, go all out and have a ton of crossbows.

[Questers]

The longbow is a superior weapon to the crossbow sorry

[Rich and Corporations]

This is the Leo 2 you're talking about, or Western MBTs in general?

And are you taking 1650 m/s as average velocity or as a starting velocity? Remember that velocity drops with wind resistance.

Leopard, Leclerc and Challenger traverse 40 degrees per second. Abrams is faster.

It's an irrelevant number - a modern LRP loses 40mps per kilometre or so. It makes no appreciable difference to the outcome.

Then why do Russian tanks with APS slew their turrets to face an incoming missile?

150,000 feels like a well trained army tbh.

The price that is 500,000 per US troop is also because our budget is massive since we operate everywhere, with everything, and give money to everybody.

or maybe we are just that incompetent

I mean

robot donkeys versus real donkeys? We're reinventing the wheel people. No, we already reinvented the wheel through copious air transport.

[Questers]

Then why do Russian tanks with APS slew their turrets to face an incoming missile?

So the APS faces the missile, obviously

[Rich and Corporations]

Then why do Russian tanks with APS slew their turrets to face an incoming missile?

So the APS faces the missile, obviously

Thought it had to do with the thickest part of the armor facing the missile as well.

And maybe the gun facing the launcher of the missile.

[Questers]

So the APS faces the missile, obviously

Thought it had to do with the thickest part of the armor facing the missile as well.

And maybe the gun facing the launcher of the missile.

Imagine that! what I was originally suggesting!

[Kouralia]

Does anyone know what the RAF Regiment actually brings/is meant to bring to the SFSG?

[Questers]

Does anyone know what the RAF Regiment actually brings/is meant to bring to the SFSG?

CBRN Support, probably. That's their remit after the Joint CBRN Regiment was broken up.