NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

It's V-44 or sling the HMMWV under your V-22. Or go with OSTR, although that thing is more of a C-130 replacement. You could upgrade the V-22 with GE38s to give it a higher slung-load capability but you can't just make it wider without a complete redesign.

And if you want a "clean sheet" tiltrotor design then you don't want to base it on the V-22 which for a lot of reasons (mostly being constrained to 80s tech) makes excessive comprises in both vertical and horizontal flight. You want something like V-280, OSTR, or VDTR. The former is Blackhawk sized and like its name implies has a top speed of 280 knots while the latter two are C-130 sized and can go 300+ knots (350 knots for VDTR).

[Fryske Ryk]

you can't just make it wider without a complete redesign.

That's the point. It's basically HLR, without the R, for V-22.



Make it wider, lift the same quantity of cargo V-22 can externally internally, and a couple of guys who would drive the thing. I'm really just wondering if there's any crippling problems with V-22 that prevents it from being puffed up about 22" more width to carry HMMWV. "Internal carriage of an HMMWV Weapons Carrier at combat weight with crew is" basically the only requirement, because sling loading is shitty for air assaults; roll-on-roll-off is king.

Everything else except spotting factor remains similar to V-22 I guess, ideally.

It's either going to outright replace V-22 for Galla in a "big" retcon, or act as a heavy lift counterpart for tiltrotor units, like CH-47 and CH-46 were HLH and TTH but similar in layout/configuration, in a small retcon. I haven't decided yet, it basically depends on how big it's going to be. Which I'm not really sure of. I might just make it similar size to CH-47 tbh...but then CH-54 gets left behind somewhere in that mess.

Or go with OSTR, although that thing is more of a C-130 replacement.

What is "OSTR" I only know one "Oster" and they are not a helicopter (I think).

e: I found it. It's hideous unf.

[Fryske Ryk]

jesus christ im turning into g2mil

mfg. 1963 tarhes hauling dudes 100 years later into battle yee haw ride 'em cowboy

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Don't base it off the V-22. If you wanted a modern, slightly wider V-22 I'd basically take the V-280 and scale it up to the size of the V-22. Or take the OSTR and scale it down. If you base it off the V-280 it already has the same rotor diameter as the V-22 (with half the MTOW) so the resulting aircraft would be a lot wider than a V-22 and thus the spot factor would be bigger (if you care about that). V-22 like you said was gimped by CH-46 spot factor which means its rotors are a lot more loaded than what is optimum for a helicopter. Ideally you want to do the opposite which is to take the optimum disc loading (around what the V-280 has) and then scale based on your desired MVTOW.

[Fryske Ryk]

How much is wing design a factor in disc loading? Can particular wings or a higher quantity of wings somewhat mitigate the need for a given disc area? Is MVTOW equally relevant for VL? I'm imagining more of a rolling vertical takeoff, like basically any well loaded assault ship does, but landing would probably be vertical.

Because V-280 is gigantic.

Anyway, while it's true that V-22 was gimped by spotting factor...I was wrong since spotting factor determines the minimum landing area needed (as well as their air transportability requirements) so it would be gimped by the need to fit inside a YC-14 or a Boeing CX and land inside an area that is not silly big. I'm willing to compromise hover performance if it means it's not going to have a 20 m wide rotor pair or something. V-280 is the size of a Blackhawk with the width of a V-22.

So ~100-125 kg/m^2 for disc loading could be acceptable I suppose. Tearing up ground isn't a big deal to me and I can just stuff meaty turbines into it.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Why stick with a Humvee? A P4 or a Hilux can snuggle into a V-22.

[Fryske Ryk]

Why stick with a Humvee? A P4 or a Hilux can snuggle into a V-22.

Because it carries LOSAT and it's prettier than either of those.

Also it lets me have prime movers that aren't terrible like Growler ITV.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Why stick with a Humvee? A P4 or a Hilux can snuggle into a V-22.

Because it carries LOSAT and it's prettier than either of those.

There's nothing stopping a long Hilux from carrying LOSAT.

[Fryske Ryk]

It'd probably cut the ammunition load in half to fit all the electronics. V-22 also isn't long enough to carry a LOSAT prime mover and its trailer, so the ready load is all you'd have. HMMWV is also my sperg security object.

Anyway the main reason is that I don't want to deal with the problematic issue of external loads, though. Namely the reduced speed and altitude restrictions. If it can't carry it internally, it would just be sling loading them for an assault, which is kind of goofy. I suppose that internal assault loading of gun trucks is kind of a luxury in anything that isn't a parachute assault too, but whatever.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

How much is wing design a factor in disc loading? Can particular wings or a higher quantity of wings somewhat mitigate the need for a given disc area? Is MVTOW equally relevant for VL? I'm imagining more of a rolling vertical takeoff, like basically any well loaded assault ship does, but landing would probably be vertical.

Because V-280 is gigantic.

Anyway, while it's true that V-22 was gimped by spotting factor...I was wrong since spotting factor determines the minimum landing area needed (as well as their air transportability requirements) so it would be gimped by the need to fit inside a YC-14 or a Boeing CX and land inside an area that is not silly big. I'm willing to compromise hover performance if it means it's not going to have a 20 m wide rotor pair or something. V-280 is the size of a Blackhawk with the width of a V-22.

So ~100-125 kg/m^2 for disc loading could be acceptable I suppose. Tearing up ground isn't a big deal to me and I can just stuff meaty turbines into it.

Disk loading is inversely proportional to hover efficiency and proportional to downwash velocity. So for a given weight higher disk loading means more power is required to hover and the downwash will be much faster which is obviously undesirable. On the other hand too low a disc loading and you become more susceptible to gusts which is also undesirable, hence moderate disk loading being the ideal compromise. V-22 already has a disk loading on the extreme high end (compared to a helicopter), something that just upgrading the engines to GE38s wont fix (more payload = more disk loading = worse hover efficiency = more power required). So if you're limited to the size constraints of the V-22 there's no much you can do to increase VTOL payload although with GE38s I guess you can make it faster in aircraft mode and increase the STOL payload. TBH I would just go with a V-280 for your light-medium lift needs (where as a tactical helicopter surrogate hover ability is more important and thus low disk loading) and a V-44/QTR or even STR for lifting vehicles where it's basically just an airlifter that lands vertically (where sustained hover performance isn't super important and thus high disk loading is acceptable).

[Gallia-]

A high downwash velocity is undesirable but there are two considerations to be remembered TBF:

1) The USMC and USAF don't really consider V-22's high downwash to be a deal breaker. The high level flight speed and larger capacity make up for it. IMO this is a correct assumption.
2) Hover performance for tiltrotors isn't a tremendous deal when they just land vertically and are otherwise cargo planes.

I'll get back to when I figure out how big I want my landing zones to be and can get a reasonable size limit for air transport. It's not going to be a trans-continental mega strike force, it's just a tactical heavy lift tiltrotor for moving gun trucks and heavy weapons internally. The real comparison is I guess going to be tiltrotor CH-47. I'm leaning towards having it live alongside the V-22 at this point, since it's pretty clear that this...whatever...might as well be a separate heavy lift aircraft.

Mostly because I'm now thinking of segregating the tiltrotorcraft and the helicopters, rather than treating tiltrotor as a "helicopter with airplane wings" like the USMC does, so that distinction will be important. I'm also not limited to the size constraints of V-22. I'm limited to the proportions of V-22 maybe, because I kind of wanted to use pictures of it on Wiki, but that's a bit goofy. So I'll probably just photoshop an image of CH-47 eating a HMMWV and add tiltrotors.

I'm not seriously contemplating V-280 either. This is not a TTH surrogate, it's an entirely different thing. It's more a replacement for XC-142 than anything else, but Galla regards tiltrotors as neither helicopters nor fixed wing aircraft, but leans more towards fixed wing aircraft in the analogy sense. "Airlifter that lands vertically" applies equally to V-22 and (((hmmwv carrier))) in Galla.

Thus, the better analogy is not UH-60 or CH-47 for V-22 or This_Thing, but a VL C-47 and C-27J, respectively.

[Arthurista]

Resurrecting a water-cooled MG design for the serious sustained-fire role at the battalion level - Y/N?

[-AlEmAnNiA-]

No

[Gallia-]

Resurrecting a water-cooled MG design for the serious sustained-fire role at the battalion level - Y/N?

It'd probably be OK.

But why not fortress barrel?

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Resurrecting a water-cooled MG design for the serious sustained-fire role at the battalion level - Y/N?

You know QC barrels are a thing, right?

[Gallia-]

QC barrels and water cooled machine guns have existed side-by-side for literally decades. They still exist side-by-side today.

You might as well ask why submachine guns haven't replaced the LMG.

[Husseinarti]

1930s forever

[North Arkana]

Resurrecting a water-cooled MG design for the serious sustained-fire role at the battalion level - Y/N?

Which weighs more? Extra barrels? Or how ever much extra water you'll need for a unit tacked onto an already massive amount of water your unit needs?

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

QC barrels and water cooled machine guns have existed side-by-side for literally decades. They still exist side-by-side today.

You might as well ask why submachine guns haven't replaced the LMG.

What? The only water-cooled MGs you'll find in service are a few naval and AAA autocannons. Every belt fed MG in existence that isn't some rusted antique piece is air cooled. Water cooling on anything less than an extreme ROF autocannon is beyond useless when you can, you know, change the barrel when it gets too hot.

[Gallia-]

QC barrels and water cooled machine guns have existed side-by-side for literally decades. They still exist side-by-side today.

You might as well ask why submachine guns haven't replaced the LMG.

What? The only water-cooled MGs you'll find in service are a few naval and AAA autocannons.

Nonsense.

Every felt fed MG in existence that isn't some rusted antique piece is air cooled.

This is like saying M-14 EBR is a "rusted antique piece".

Water cooling on anything less than an extreme ROF autocannon is beyond useless

No, it isn't.

when you can, you know, change the barrel when it gets too hot.

No one cares.

The difference is that a water-cooled machine gun brings actual sustained fire capability. It can fire continuously provided it's cooled and has ammunition. Other machine guns, with air cooled barrels, fire in short bursts over the course of about several seconds. The M60 machine gun, one of the best light machine guns ever, has a sustained fire rate of about 70-130 rounds per minute. The textbook answer is 100 because that's the median between 6 rounds every 5 seconds and 9 rounds every 4 seconds.

It can sustain that rate of fire for about ten minutes, before the barrel needs to be changed.

This is not conductive to creating a long-duration beaten zone. A water-cooled machine gun can fire non-stop, provided it has ammunition and coolant, and can create a sizeable beaten zone beyond-line-of-sight as long as the trigger is held down. It is a stereotypical machine gun, unlike LMGs.

Resurrecting a water-cooled MG design for the serious sustained-fire role at the battalion level - Y/N?

Which weighs more? Extra barrels? Or how ever much extra water you'll need for a unit tacked onto an already massive amount of water your unit needs?

One imagines a battalion weapons company would have adequate hauling capacity for water trailers and heavy machine guns?

[Federated Kingdom of Prussia]

The book Achilles in Vietnam mentions an unofficial practice among the US military in the Vietnam era of(and I'm paraphrasing, obviously) not having troops stay with the same unit they train with, fight with, and come home with, and that this caused a great deal of damage in that it did not allow the close-knit ties to form among the individuals in the unit, meaning soldiers would mentally be not as stable without fellow soldiers who shared their same experiences.

It was apparently almost the complete opposite in WWII. Is this a deliberate action by the US military because they thought it would be better, or did policy simply change and nobody thought of the problems that might ensue?

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

snip

....

There are no militaries which still use water cooled MGs. None. Which has been the case least for the last few decades. Maybe a few guerrilla groups or rebels or whatever might still use some vickers guns but that's besides the point. Water cooled MGs are useless because being able to fire continuously for hours on end is a useless capability. Which is why you don't see them anymore. M2, MG3, M60, FN MAG/Minimi, RPD, PKM, DShK? All air cooled. Literally every other belt-fed MG in service? All air cooled. The only place a water cooled MG belongs is in a museum or antique collection. Which is where most the ones still around probably are.

[Gallia-]

The book Achilles in Vietnam mentions an unofficial practice among the US military in the Vietnam era of(and I'm paraphrasing, obviously) not having troops stay with the same unit they train with, fight with, and come home with, and that this caused a great deal of damage in that it did not allow the close-knit ties to form among the individuals in the unit, meaning soldiers would mentally be not as stable without fellow soldiers who shared their same experiences.

It was apparently almost the complete opposite in WWII. Is this a deliberate action by the US military because they thought it would be better, or did policy simply change and nobody thought of the problems that might ensue?

It was nothing similar at all to WW2. Neither the opposite nor the same. Vietnam was the apex of 1980s individualism, basically.

WW2 had no rotational policy, and it was in fact a reaction to WW2 that instituted the rotational policy in the first place. It was ultimately far better than WW2 for individual soldiers, but not much better (perhaps worse) for the units that soldiers belonged to.

It was fine for the soldiers because they only had to go a single year in Vietnam. It was bad for the units because they lost tribal knowledge when their units were eviscerated. Rotational policies do the opposite of what you imply. They improve soldiers' individual mental health and fitness at the expense of their organization's ability. McNamara, LBJ, and the Army CoS were all scared shitless that adding a few more months to the tour of duty in Vietnam would cause units to revolt. Personnel chiefs were pro-rotation because it meant individual soldiers were happy, at least as happy as you can in Vietnam. Organizational chiefs were pissed, because it meant their battalions and brigades were shedding competent personnel.

The root cause of the policy was that they only had about 24 months to work with a draftee at most, because draftees had a legally mandated service period of 2 years. Plus 3-6 months of training. Then you deploy to Vietnam for your 12-month tour, then go home for another 6-3 months, and be cycled out. Rinse and repeat. There was talk of increasing it to 15 months but it fell through because personnel chiefs said "no" and were willing to sacrifice organizational effectiveness.

If the personnel chiefs had had their way to the fullest, they would probably have reduced the term to 6 months or something and shredded organizational capability as a result. Oh wait...that's exactly what they did.

No one seriously debated increasing the draft term past 24 months and since so few soldiers were drafted, it was thought that increasing the term of tour for draftees would cause a big stink among the public.

The problem would have been avoided if, as General Abrams rightly knew, that the National Guard and Reserves been mobilized as well. The Army could replace battalions wholesale with Guard and Reserve units. This was the essence of the Total Force Policy.

tl;dr: Rotation systems have an inverse relationship between individual morale and organizational competence. Vietnam had a 12-month rotational period (6-months for officers) in the Army, and 6-months for the USMC across the board, while the AF and Navy had 12-month combat tours. The root cause of this was the inability of the Army to activate the Reserves and National Guard, which would have allowed them to swap out entire battalions (as normal), instead they had to swap out individuals. The root cause of that was because LBJ didn't want to get into a fight with Congress over Vietnam or draftee term length, because he had enough on his plate trying to get the Great Society pushed through the legislature as it was.

words

[Laritaia]

i genuinely think the only reason the British army phased out the Vickers was because they were switching from .303 to 7.62mm NATO and the treasury were too cheap to pay to convert them.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

i genuinely think the only reason the British army phased out the Vickers was because they were switching from .303 to 7.62mm NATO and the treasury were too cheap to pay to convert them.

Oh ffs Britain even the entirely rekt Western German rump state managed to mod their MG42's for 7.62...