NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Spirit of Hope]

For rapid overseas deployment, are Ekranoplans viable or are they a technological dead end?

Ekranoplans make more sense for rapid, short and more tactical movements than for longer and heavier range deployments.

[Polvokia]

For rapid overseas deployment, are Ekranoplans viable or are they a technological dead end?

Ekranoplans make more sense for rapid, short and more tactical movements than for longer and heavier range deployments.

Dully noted

There's nothing inherent to the design of ground effect vehicles that renders them incapable of long range deployments though right? From what I gather the bigger they are the more capable they become in terms of poor weather performance and all that and the heavier the cargo they're able to carry, although I could be incorrect

[Allanea]

It doesn't really matter because the real logistics problems in long-range deployment have very little to do with the speed of the veihcles.

[Spirit of Hope]

Ekranoplans make more sense for rapid, short and more tactical movements than for longer and heavier range deployments.

Dully noted

There's nothing inherent to the design of ground effect vehicles that renders them incapable of long range deployments though right? From what I gather the bigger they are the more capable they become in terms of poor weather performance and all that and the heavier the cargo they're able to carry, although I could be incorrect

Nothing inherently makes it so they can't carry out longer range and heavier operations, and I think one or two NS nations have designed heavy Ekranoplans, Corp being one if I remember correctly. There just less efficient than other methods of travel, and more dangerous.

[Gallia-]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Co ... d_Vehicles

You realize this never went away, right?

it died and the potential replacement programs are still in the "defining what they want" stage

It "died" because it didn't work for a variety of complex engineering reasons.

Their "defining what they want" is more nuanced and complex than what you imply. It's less "defining what they want" and more "waiting for technology to catch up".

For the light infantry, sure.

Although calling a stripped down HMMWV built for helicopter sling-loading a "golf cart" is disingenuous. You might as well call a Universal Carrier or M151 a "four-wheeler".

suggesting that i meant a HMMWV when it was obvious i was referring to the Polaris things the 82nd are tooling around in now is "disingenuous"

Suggesting it isn't a stripped down HMMWV al a M151 or Jeep is actually disingenuous. You know full well what it is, you're just being dismissive. You might as well call Jackal a "golf cart", since it's about as survivable. Clearly, it's not a "golf cart", then, because it can drive in rocky terrain at relatively high speeds, while golf carts have trouble on flat grassy fields. Rather, it's a Jeep to bring back the paratroopers' FAVs:



"Mobile Protected Firepower" is just the 21st century term for "Armored Gun System". An MPF/Griffin armed with missiles and an automatic cannon in a Bradley turret will be the LRV, assuming the Army doesn't crawl back to M8 AGS begging for forgiveness (like it well should).

[Laritaia]

i asked if they had actually settled on some sort of airborne light tank as all of the various airborne fire support vehicle programs have so far amounted to little more then a handful of industry events to find out what the various manufacturers would suggest.

and while they do this they seem to have settled on a weaponized version of the Polaris MRZR or something similar in the interim.

The "Golf Cart" jibe was a reference to the manufacturer Polaris who for the most part makes vehicles which look like and functionally are souped up golf carts.


you are reading far more into this then is really needed



and the Jackal is far to heavy and slow to really qualify as a golf cart, which in many ways makes it worse

[Gallia-]

i asked if they had actually settled on some sort of airborne light tank as all of the various airborne fire support vehicle programs have so far amounted to little more then a handful of industry events to find out what the various manufacturers would suggest.

and while they do this they seem to have settled on a weaponized version of the Polaris MRZR or something similar in the interim.

There's only one Airborne FSV now, it's MPF.

re: Armed ULCV: I think it's more "because we can" rather than anything with an actual name. An armed ULCV will just be "armed ULCV", not MPF. M551 served alongside the TOW and M2HB HMMWVs and MUTTs without being pushed aside by either. MPF is just dragging its feet because the Army really needs to introduce mechanization into the parachute divisions again. More than giving the paratroopers an assault gun, because they patrol so far that they can't walk around that distance.

If the Army had double the money it would be pushing ahead with MPF much faster than it is now, but it doesn't. Thanks FCS. Thanks Shinseki.

The "Golf Cart" jibe was a reference to the manufacturer Polaris who for the most part makes vehicles which look like and functionally are souped up golf carts.

It's not a golf cart, though. It's literally a modern M151/Growler/MUTT/Jeep/Willys MB.

I don't know how it looks like a golf cart, either. It's much meatier and longer. It looks like a tan Jeep to me.

you are reading far more into this then is really needed

Possibly. The more sperg I become the more easily triggered I am.

[Laritaia]

The "Golf Cart" jibe was a reference to the manufacturer Polaris who for the most part makes vehicles which look like and functionally are souped up golf carts.

it was a reference to the manufactures normal products rather then the specific vehicle itself

[Gallia-]

Oh I didn't know that.

Kind of like RAW.

Battle Bowling Ball.

[Laritaia]

assuming the Army doesn't crawl back to M8 AGS begging for forgiveness (like it well should).

but if it does the unthinkable and admits that it was wrong and accepts M8 AGS into it's heart, then 50mm supershot will lose it's best chance to actually become a thing(though the EAPS program is apparently making 50mm supershot not a thing anyway).

[Gallia-]

It'll put 50mm SS on the LRV.

[Laritaia]

didn't the LRV program also die a death in favour of a JLTV with a Hughes 30mm chaingun

[Gallia-]

It's on the backburner. Lack of money is the reason all these programs progress as slowly as they do. None are "revolutionary" like FCS, they're just incremental improvements, but there's barely enough money to keep the Army running, much less acquire new things. So stuff keeps getting delayed by several years for want of money to buy it all right now.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

It's on the backburner. Lack of money is the reason all these programs progress as slowly as they do. None are "revolutionary" like FCS, they're just incremental improvements, but there's barely enough money to keep the Army running, much less acquire new things. So stuff keeps getting delayed by several years for want of money to buy it all right now.

Yet the US has the largest defense budget in the entire world and Trump is going to beef it up some more

what gives?

[Gallia-]

It's on the backburner. Lack of money is the reason all these programs progress as slowly as they do. None are "revolutionary" like FCS, they're just incremental improvements, but there's barely enough money to keep the Army running, much less acquire new things. So stuff keeps getting delayed by several years for want of money to buy it all right now.

Yet the US has the largest defense budget in the entire world

Literally the most irrelevant statement. Surprise! Defense expenditures rise as you place increasing burdens on the military.

what gives?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Co ... ct_of_2011

Trump's fiscal plan will probably destroy America, but that's probably the plan.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Yet the US has the largest defense budget in the entire world

Literally the most irrelevant statement. Surprise! Defense expenditures rise as you place increasing burdens on the military.

what gives?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Co ... ct_of_2011

Trump's fiscal plan will probably destroy America, but that's probably the plan.

Should we start a gofundme for Gallia to become a lobbyist?

Also, the Polaris thing is a golf-cart because dem 6" ATV rimz.

[Australia and New Zeeland]

Would it be at all realistic for a developed nation isolated from any potential military threat by ocean to have a navy, with subordinate naval air and land forces as its sole service branch?

[Federated Kingdom of Prussia]

Depends entirely on how secure you think you are.

[Australia and New Zeeland]

Depends entirely on how secure you think you are.

Well based on Australias current political situation being a regional power where any major conventional threat would prefferably be met at sea, I would think it would be wiser to invest in maritime forces primarily. Of course there would still be a few brigades worth of marines for land based engagements.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Depends entirely on how secure you think you are.

Well based on Australias current political situation being a regional power where any major conventional threat would prefferably be met at sea, I would think it would be wiser to invest in maritime forces primarily. Of course there would still be a few brigades worth of marines for land based engagements.

That tune may change in the event of a civil-war (or getting tied into another land-campaign in New Guinea). That or a very stronk police force ensues.

Like artillery, a large army can compensate for alot of doctrinal mistakes in wartime.

Russia demonstrated the army doesn't even need to be particularily spectacular, either (war in Finland, not GPW).

[Allanea]

Literally the most irrelevant statement. Surprise! Defense expenditures rise as you place increasing burdens on the military.

Then don't place increasing burdens on the military.

[Laritaia]

Literally the most irrelevant statement. Surprise! Defense expenditures rise as you place increasing burdens on the military.

Then don't place increasing burdens on the military.

they very rarely do

[The Soodean Imperium]

Depends entirely on how secure you think you are.

Well based on Australias current political situation being a regional power where any major conventional threat would prefferably be met at sea, I would think it would be wiser to invest in maritime forces primarily. Of course there would still be a few brigades worth of marines for land based engagements.

At the very least, you may want a contingency force in the event that enemy airborne or naval forces are able to land on your soil. The Navy and Air Force (Naval Aviation?) should be your main priority and your first line of defense, but abandoning land forces entirely apart from a few brigades of marines leaves no backup plan in the event that you aren't able to meet a major conventional threat at sea.

You might be able to get away with a small army, or one that doesn't invest much in replacing old equipment (note that this is not the same as buying old equipment!). But this depends on the scale of the threats you're likely to go up against.

[Gallia-]

Literally the most irrelevant statement. Surprise! Defense expenditures rise as you place increasing burdens on the military.

Then don't place increasing burdens on the military.

This would mean the US military would become a parade force like the Dutch Army tbh.

Better solution: Increase military funding to match its missions.

Although ATM the US military can barely run itself as a garrison force, let alone do anything else.

Barely more than a quarter of USMC aircraft can fly these days. The USAF is probably slightly better off, though, since it doesn't have as many holidays stacked up in the wintertime. The US Army is transitioning the National Guard from mechanized to light infantry to save money because it can't afford to run tanks. Pretty much the only Western militaries that can afford to mobilize a significant fraction of itself in case of war would be the IDF and the ROKA.

gg austerity

mccain_was_right

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-mccain ... ch-speech/

Depends entirely on how secure you think you are.

Well based on Australias current political situation being a regional power where any major conventional threat would prefferably be met at sea, I would think it would be wiser to invest in maritime forces primarily. Of course there would still be a few brigades worth of marines for land based engagements.

The most recent foreign adventure Australia has gone on was in Southwest Asia. Invading Iraq. Before that, Central Asia in assisting the invasion of Iraq. The Australian Army contributed substantially to Operation Anaconda in 2002, providing SASR special forces troops and a couple airplanes.

Before that, the Australian Army deployed mechanized infantry to INTERFET in East Timor. Marines are mostly useless. You don't need Marines, you need an Army which deals exclusively with ground combat. You also don't need to plan for big engagements. Any big war the Australians are involved in, they would be a sideshow compared to the US Navy who is the real regional power in the Pacific. The Army is Australia's marines, they do all the amphibious stuff, to the point that they actually owned amphibious ships until the Vietnam War.

An Ultimate Australian Military would be looking at small peacekeeping actions using an Air Force, Army, and Navy. There are no Marines because Australia's Army exists. You have the SASR who are sufficient commandos. You'd have F-35s as the frontline fighter for the RAAF. Maybe double up the number of M1 tanks and replace the M113s with a more modern infantry fighting vehicle. Actually having a full armored brigade would be a vast improvement over the ADF's current position, where it has a tank battalion and a boatload of APCs.

Hobarts are cool ships. They're mini-Burkes. Get another three of them maybe? Maybe a light helicopter carrier like Izumo or something to compliment them? That might not be necessary with the Canberras coming online and being about the same size but actual assault ships. Replace the Collins with a good ship, like Soryu. Look at the JMSDF for inspiration TBH. Australia and Japan are close enough (politically and geographically) that buying weapons direct from the Japanese is a good idea for improving regional ties and security for both countries.

You could have an air assault regiment in the new Australian Army, trained for deep attack, and using V-22s from the Canberras. You'd have a couple (maybe 12? not all would be embarked but you'd need a few for training/maintenance/whatever) F-35Bs for the Fleet Air Arm to use to support the airborne troops' landings. Canberras are built to operate STOVL jets (they have the ski jump) so operating the F-35B would require a new deck coating and that's about it. The V-22s could be used as assault ships or as tankers for the F-35Bs, with another 3-4 of those on the Canberras, and then the difference is filled out with medium assault ships like MH-60R, or you could nix that and just go with 4 F-35Bs and a couple V-22s, plus a mechanized infantry battalion. There's your marines.

[Allanea]

This would mean the US military would become a parade force like the Dutch Army tbh.

Better solution: Increase military funding to match its missions.

Better for whom?

Stop inventing entirely unnecessary or downright foolish missions and many problems will solve themselves.