NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Type 08

[Atomic Utopia]

Would UZrH (fuel used in TRIGAs) be a reasonable fuel and moderator for a nuclear sub reactor? The advantages and disadvantages I see are as follows:

Advantages:

-When the core heats up the value for K_eff goes down due to a lack of moderation and (in a HEU core) a massively reduced neutron non-leakage probability.

-The above simplifies the control rod setup and allows for setups that would be absolutely deadly in other designs to be practical (central control rods anyone?)

-It also means that you can have an "on" and an "off" button for the reactor core itself and instead rely upon the coolant flow cooling the core to control the energy output

-It also means, like a TRIGA, you can simply remove all the control rods to bring it to operating temperature as quickly as possible with no ill effects

Disadvantages:

-Inherently low power density

-Inherently low operating temperature

-UZrH has not been used as a fuel in power reactors IRL

[Ardoki]

While we maintain a sizeable and formidable tank force, since our military doctrine prioritises defence of the homeland rather than overseas wars we have decided to use helicopters as our primary tank killing unit.

How could we effectively deal with tanks, and other armoured vehicles with installed anti-air systems?

Thank you, and sorry for my noobish questions.

[The Kievan People]

While we maintain a sizeable and formidable tank force, since our military doctrine prioritises defence of the homeland rather than overseas wars we have decided to use helicopters as our primary tank killing unit.

How could we effectively deal with tanks, and other armoured vehicles with installed anti-air systems?

Thank you, and sorry for my noobish questions.

Tanks.

Helicopters are painfully expensive to own and to operate so you aren't even saving money here.

[Yukonastan]

While we maintain a sizeable and formidable tank force, since our military doctrine prioritises defence of the homeland rather than overseas wars we have decided to use helicopters as our primary tank killing unit.

How could we effectively deal with tanks, and other armoured vehicles with installed anti-air systems?

Thank you, and sorry for my noobish questions.

The antiaircraft armament on most modern Western MBTs isn't all that impressive. It's usually one or two .50 machine guns, and MAYBE special munitions. But it's hard to whack a helicopter with a tank main gun.

In short: Armor the vitals to 23mm (ie cockpit and avionics), and leave the rest as thin and easy to shoot through as possible, to minimize damage. That's how most modern attack helicopters are designed.

[Imperializt Russia]

Whacking a low-flying helicopter is not so hard, it's a viable threat. It's such a viable threat that M830A1 and possibly M830 before it have fuse settings for engaging aircraft.
It's such a viable threat, it's why helicopters run and hide when they go tank hunting.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

While we maintain a sizeable and formidable tank force, since our military doctrine prioritises defence of the homeland rather than overseas wars we have decided to use helicopters as our primary tank killing unit.

How could we effectively deal with tanks, and other armoured vehicles with installed anti-air systems?

Thank you, and sorry for my noobish questions.

Tanks.

Helicopters are painfully expensive to own and to operate so you aren't even saving money here.

Ka-50 weeps salty tears.

[New Vihenia]

Finally got a time to do some fixes..

http://sta.sh/0uinezpanoc

Anyway my "submarine calculator" Will soon taking account of structure i mean real one not just some statistical equation like one presented by K.Stennard or H.A Jackson. Thanks to input from Scandinavian Nations.

For structural strength calculation though i base it on the SNAME's book, "Submersible Vehicle System Designs" As it has very good description and equations to calculate strength of unconventional structure (Say Losharik's unique joined spherical hull)

Weight calculation however will still using "Submarine Design Theory" By OA Khalizev. The approach to weight calculation however is to treat the hull as "analogue cylinder" As that's what submarine hull usually is, and to relate it to "real hull" Some adjustment factor from the book would be used.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

But it's hard to whack a helicopter with a tank main gun.

Ghosts lied to me.

[Imperializt Russia]

But it's hard to whack a helicopter with a tank main gun.

Ghosts lied to me.

It's exceedingly satisfying in Battlefield.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Ghosts lied to me.

It's exceedingly satisfying in Battlefield.

Once upon a time, I got a trophy for shooting down aircraft in a tank in Warhawk.

[Galba Dea]

Would UZrH (fuel used in TRIGAs) be a reasonable fuel and moderator for a nuclear sub reactor? The advantages and disadvantages I see are as follows:

Advantages:

-When the core heats up the value for K_eff goes down due to a lack of moderation and (in a HEU core) a massively reduced neutron non-leakage probability.

-The above simplifies the control rod setup and allows for setups that would be absolutely deadly in other designs to be practical (central control rods anyone?)

-It also means that you can have an "on" and an "off" button for the reactor core itself and instead rely upon the coolant flow cooling the core to control the energy output

-It also means, like a TRIGA, you can simply remove all the control rods to bring it to operating temperature as quickly as possible with no ill effects

Disadvantages:

-Inherently low power density

-Inherently low operating temperature

-UZrH has not been used as a fuel in power reactors IRL

There's a few variables that require maths (such as figuring out the total energy needed to power said sub vs. excusable reactor size), but basically, yes, bearing in mind that the heat you want is how you're getting your power.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's possible, certainly, but I think it's going to be inherently limited. UZrH is used for safety reasons, because if there's a reactor you really don't want exploding, it's a research reactor that should never have that capability.

All those disadvantages you listed is probably why TRIGA isn't scaled to a power reactor design - it may not practical.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm intrigued by Americium, to be honest. Someone posted a few months back about the possibility of using Americium based off a paper discussing its use for space reactors, I think. Seemed interesting.

[Auroya]

Does anyone have a link to that paper still?

Seems a worthwhile read.

[Galba Dea]

I'm intrigued by Americium, to be honest. Someone posted a few months back about the possibility of using Americium based off a paper discussing its use for space reactors, I think. Seemed interesting.

All other things aside, I now want to do this, just to say my not!Vanguards are powered by 'Murica.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I'm intrigued by Americium, to be honest. Someone posted a few months back about the possibility of using Americium based off a paper discussing its use for space reactors, I think. Seemed interesting.

Obligatory.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I'm intrigued by Americium, to be honest. Someone posted a few months back about the possibility of using Americium based off a paper discussing its use for space reactors, I think. Seemed interesting.

Aren't you studying nuclear physics (Or was it a different but related field?) yourself?

[The Soodean Imperium]

I'm intrigued by Americium, to be honest. Someone posted a few months back about the possibility of using Americium based off a paper discussing its use for space reactors, I think. Seemed interesting.

Aren't you studying nuclear physics (Or was it a different but related field?) yourself?

Pharthan is probably the one to ask, given that he's NS's resident naval "nuclear raptor op'rator." He's made a few detailed posts in the past about the viability of alternative fuels for nuclear naval propulsion, mostly with regard to Thorium. Generally speaking, his overall verdict is that a shipborne reactor has a very different set of demands and conditions than a land-based one, such as the need to be compact, the requirement to match varying power outputs, and the abundance of water as a coolant.

I can't speak for Americium or UZrH specifically, since I only have a superficial understanding of nuclear physics, but the general caveat to bear in mind is that even if it's promising for civilian power plants that doesn't necessarily make it promising for shipborne reactors.

[Gallia-]

For anyone seeking clarification about the above discussion:

Where NATO organization normally goes Division - Corps - Army, Soviet organization normally goes Division - Army - Front.

Soviet forces would sometimes have Corps, which, as Krazakistan noted, were independent shock formations slightly smaller than an Army but able to fight more independently, designed to support and exploit breakthroughs. The Soviets also had provision for a "Group of Tank Armies" in Belarus and Poland, which would be the "1:3 Armor-heavy" counterpart to the "3:1 Motor-Rifle-heavy" Front... though it's possible I'm just remembering that from Suvorov/Rezun's speculations.

At any rate, the Soodean Army is Division - Corps - Army - Army Group, the latter necessitated by the length and density of my militarized border. Corps not on the militarized border are mainly administrative, and are grouped into Military Districts, which are almost purely administrative.


You know full well that this has already been said last summer, but I'll say it again: posting a long list of semi-relevant information here isn't giving us much to work off of, nor is it likely to get you feedback. Listing the names of the individual ships, for instance, isn't really grounds for much feedback, unless you want to go for a really detailed discussion of which refits were applied to certain Krivaks and not others.

Moreover, it doesn't really address the core of your issue, which is that the Soviet Navy was never designed to launch an invasion of the Continental United States. Even if Lenin's ghost had descended from the Great Marxist Beyond and vaporized the entire US Navy with one angry glance, the USSR would have struggled to transport, support, and supply even a few Divisions on US soil.

If you want to go for some kind of Red-Dawn-meets-Call-of-Duty fantasy where the Reds are parachuting into Times Square and sailing Slavas up the Hudson, then that's good for you, but it's not the sort of thing you can discuss in a Realism thread.

Oh sorry, that was for a friend.

I was just wondering if the carriers escorts and such are adequate, in this setting the Soviets are just trying to bog down the U.S. so they can't send troops to Europe, and are invading along side Cuba.

I know the Kiev could only carry a shitty plan, and it's more of a cruiser, so may I ask what are some ways the Soviet invasion fleet can not get evaporates?

It looks fine.

Could use more submarines.

[Secundua]

Regarding AFVs, would be feasible for a civilisation (A 2700's-ish era civ) to be using treaded vehicles like today (And, by extension, choppers and non-vtol fighter jets). My justification thus far is that (Firefly is probably the best example of this) Earth is a central planet with some pretty cool stuff- star wars-like ships, hovertanks and huge behemoth... things (Like theMammoth from Halo 4 on steroids) that actually have small anti-orbital capabilties ona mounted railgun.

anyway, the point being that space is big. Therefore, it would be logical that a technology that is brand new on the frontier worlds would be several years, maybe decades old in the 'core', right?

[Crookfur]

Regarding AFVs, would be feasible for a civilisation (A 2700's-ish era civ) to be using treaded vehicles like today (And, by extension, choppers and non-vtol fighter jets). My justification thus far is that (Firefly is probably the best example of this) Earth is a central planet with some pretty cool stuff- star wars-like ships, hovertanks and huge behemoth... things (Like theMammoth from Halo 4 on steroids) that actually have small anti-orbital capabilties ona mounted railgun.

anyway, the point being that space is big. Therefore, it would be logical that a technology that is brand new on the frontier worlds would be several years, maybe decades old in the 'core', right?

Maybe, maybe not it's entirely down to in universe conditions heck you even go the other way and get all star empire of manticore or jerry pournelle with the freedom of being on the fringes permitting greater chances for people to move things forward.

As to still using tracked vehicles there would still be good reasons to use them in FT outside of "the periphery is backwards bumpkin land lolz"

[The Corparation]

Regarding AFVs, would be feasible for a civilisation (A 2700's-ish era civ) to be using treaded vehicles like today (And, by extension, choppers and non-vtol fighter jets). My justification thus far is that (Firefly is probably the best example of this) Earth is a central planet with some pretty cool stuff- star wars-like ships, hovertanks and huge behemoth... things (Like theMammoth from Halo 4 on steroids) that actually have small anti-orbital capabilties ona mounted railgun.

anyway, the point being that space is big. Therefore, it would be logical that a technology that is brand new on the frontier worlds would be several years, maybe decades old in the 'core', right?

1) Tracked ground vehicles make perfect sense even in the future barring cheap handwavium cavorite powered Antigravity. The advantages that tracked vehicles have aren't going to magically disappear. Same goes for helicopters.
2) Don't bring Halo's mammoth into the realisim thread. Its worse than CnC's mammoth tank.
3) ON the subject of frontier worlds the best technology to use isn't several years or decades old. Such technology is thousands of years old. Firefly had the right idea with using lots of horses. Horses are perfect for colonization because they're cheap, able to work hard, and most importantly they can make new horses.

[Gallan Systems]

Regarding AFVs, would be feasible for a civilisation (A 2700's-ish era civ) to be using treaded vehicles like today (And, by extension, choppers and non-vtol fighter jets). My justification thus far is that (Firefly is probably the best example of this) Earth is a central planet with some pretty cool stuff- star wars-like ships, hovertanks and huge behemoth... things (Like theMammoth from Halo 4 on steroids) that actually have small anti-orbital capabilties ona mounted railgun.

anyway, the point being that space is big. Therefore, it would be logical that a technology that is brand new on the frontier worlds would be several years, maybe decades old in the 'core', right?

1) Tracked ground vehicles make perfect sense even in the future barring cheap handwavium cavorite powered Antigravity. The advantages that tracked vehicles have aren't going to magically disappear. Same goes for helicopters.
2) Don't bring Halo's mammoth into the realisim thread. Its worse than CnC's mammoth tank.
3) ON the subject of frontier worlds the best technology to use isn't several years or decades old. Such technology is thousands of years old. Firefly had the right idea with using lots of horses. Horses are perfect for colonization because they're cheap, able to work hard, and most importantly they can make new horses.

1) That depends entirely on how he wants to RP. What if the colony runs on levitating transit cars that travel at the blistering speed of 80 kph between prefabricated buildings along ferrous roadways? We don't need roads where we're going. Or better yet, just use your FTL to transport everything where it's needed before its needed. Superluminal speed makes things really simple and rather confusing.
2) Halo is more realistic than most forms of "realism" NSFT has.
3) Horses were used because they were cheaper than building proper miniature sets and fit with the "final frontier" aesthetic that modern science fiction has, which is just Bonanza with laser guns and blinking lights.

A real life space colony to the extent of something like Firefly would likely have technology more advanced than the planet that created it. It certainly wouldn't be using wooden shanties, horses, and (probably not) six shooters. Whatever definition of "perfect" you have is quite divergent from reality's.

Space would be a state venture primarily, as states are the only organizations with sufficient resources to adequately exploit and explore it. This would necessitate a certain political attachment to any "space colony", which would probably be rotationally manned for a few months at a time. At best you'd be more like "space oil rig", at worst you'd be "Skylab on the moon". Astronauts/space colonists would probably have just as demanding physical requirements as they do today, meaning the majority of "colonists" will be military men or women, and it still won't free you from the tyranny of our Pale Blue Dot.

Living in space is incredibly dangerous, not just because you're surrounded by an environment that actively despises your very presence (it's a bit like living under the sea, but worse). The closed community and thus need for intercommunication and interdependence of everyone to everyone else means that the sort of politicking you see in ~space sci-fi~ will never happen. Space colonies will, at worst, be communist societies which reject the idea of property ownership. Think Kibbutz, but you're never able to leave. At best, it'll be a strict hierarchy enforced by military discipline and rotational shifts of soldiers coming and going to crew your continually inhabited space base. Think submarine combat patrol.

Assuming you somehow had the ability to counteract the effects of low/microgravity on the human body, perhaps drugs or something if we're being hypothetical, these societies may become permanent. That won't make them change into libertarian paradise. They'll be even more entrenched in their beliefs since they will be less and less exposed to external ideas from crews swapping out of the space oil rig/submarine base. They'll become tight knit communities in the libertarian sense, but they'll reject private property and capitalism utterly. On a space station, where land is highly limited and life support can only handle so many people, things will need to be managed. Things like having children, whether or not your semen is allowed to be used to reproduce, and whose children you raise.

Of course, you'll accept this totally because you won't have a choice. Bend to the will of the gestalt, or die. If you don't, everyone dies, and everyone will choose you over themselves. Space colonies are a neat idea, but let's not pretend they'll regress or something to a 19th century mindset created by neo-reactionaries rebelling against the imminent and inevitable victory of philosophical Marxism.

Marx was right, just not about economics. Before Gagarin, there were Kibbutzim.

Regarding AFVs, would be feasible for a civilisation (A 2700's-ish era civ) to be using treaded vehicles like today (And, by extension, choppers and non-vtol fighter jets). My justification thus far is that (Firefly is probably the best example of this) Earth is a central planet with some pretty cool stuff- star wars-like ships, hovertanks and huge behemoth... things (Like theMammoth from Halo 4 on steroids) that actually have small anti-orbital capabilties ona mounted railgun.

anyway, the point being that space is big. Therefore, it would be logical that a technology that is brand new on the frontier worlds would be several years, maybe decades old in the 'core', right?

Possibly, and that's certainly the trope. Being based on 19th century pre-industrial memes and ideas, it fits that the Old World would be more advanced than the New World. Battletech has the opposite, with the frontier being the Golden Horde and "core" planets being Germany and Eastern Europe. There are other sci-fi universes that do this to varying degrees, depending on the author's feelings on the matter.

re: Tracks, yes you'd probably find use using them for what they're used for IRL. The need for a low ground pressure, high mobility, high traction vehicle is probably still in demand barring some means of sending things back in time.

[Atomic Utopia]

I'm intrigued by Americium, to be honest. Someone posted a few months back about the possibility of using Americium based off a paper discussing its use for space reactors, I think. Seemed interesting.

I belive that the problem is, correct me if I am wrong, despite it's low critical mass, it is not a good reactor fuel as it has to be made in a breeder, and that costs a ton. But it might make a good bomb material.

It's possible, certainly, but I think it's going to be inherently limited. UZrH is used for safety reasons, because if there's a reactor you really don't want exploding, it's a research reactor that should never have that capability.

All those disadvantages you listed is probably why TRIGA isn't scaled to a power reactor design - it may not practical.

Well safety and ease of use is why I thought it might be a good idea. But I do see your points, especially the last one.

[The Corparation]

1) Tracked ground vehicles make perfect sense even in the future barring cheap handwavium cavorite powered Antigravity. The advantages that tracked vehicles have aren't going to magically disappear. Same goes for helicopters.
2) Don't bring Halo's mammoth into the realisim thread. Its worse than CnC's mammoth tank.
3) ON the subject of frontier worlds the best technology to use isn't several years or decades old. Such technology is thousands of years old. Firefly had the right idea with using lots of horses. Horses are perfect for colonization because they're cheap, able to work hard, and most importantly they can make new horses.

1) That depends entirely on how he wants to RP. What if the colony runs on levitating transit cars that travel at the blistering speed of 80 kph between prefabricated buildings along ferrous roadways? We don't need roads where we're going. Or better yet, just use your FTL to transport everything where it's needed before its needed. Superluminal speed makes things really simple and rather confusing.
2) Halo is more realistic than most forms of "realism" NSFT has.
3) Horses were used because they were cheaper than building proper miniature sets and fit with the "final frontier" aesthetic that modern science fiction has, which is just Bonanza with laser guns and blinking lights.

A real life space colony to the extent of something like Firefly would likely have technology more advanced than the planet that created it. It certainly wouldn't be using wooden shanties, horses, and (probably not) six shooters. Whatever definition of "perfect" you have is quite divergent from reality's.

1) Hence my use of "cheap handwavium cavorite powered Antigravity". Although I should have just put any handwaivim technology rather than just antigravity. As for FTL, I didn't even address it and the logistical magic it enables so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
2) Fair point, its still stupid in my view.
3) Aesthetic and practicality may have been one the main reasons horses were used in Firefly, but under the conditions in Firefly the use of Horses on the frontier worlds make sense.
4) I'll grant that six shooters are dumb, but if the environment supports Horses, it probably makes sense to use horses if you're tying to start a self sufficient colony in a hurry. Horses require significantly less infrastructure than a tractor. When a colony is starting out the use of horses allows for it to expand more easily with less waiting around for more tractors or tractor parts to be delivered from the home world. There will undoubtedly still be a need for things that can only be produced off planet, but the use of horses reduces the need for off planet goods.

Also if there's wood available on a planet, it makes perfect sense to use wooden structures.