It's based on the 1990 soviet Universal Cartridge.
http://world.guns.ru/machine/rus/unifie ... -mm-e.html
(I guess I was young, naive and mislead by the "unified"? xD)
Advertisement
by Laywenrania » Sat May 27, 2017 3:51 am
Nachmere wrote:Tanks are tough bastards.
Gallia- wrote: And I'm emotionally attached to large, cuddly, wide Objects.
by Rhodesialund » Sat May 27, 2017 6:41 am
Laywenrania wrote:North Arkana wrote:... you chose the that round diameter and case length because it was exactly in the middle, didn't you?
It's based on the 1990 soviet Universal Cartridge.
http://world.guns.ru/machine/rus/unifie ... -mm-e.html
(I guess I was young, naive and mislead by the "unified"? xD)
by Halfblakistan » Sat May 27, 2017 9:15 am
The Daily Pioneer:Profiles in Solidarity: Marsello Doje, Former VCR Gang Leader, Now Runs Youth Center in Kindred
The Cornerstone Sentinel:Cornerstone State Rolls Back Curfew From 20:00 to 18:00 in Bid to Curb Youth Violence
by Autonomous Eastern Ukraine » Sat May 27, 2017 9:34 am
Halfblakistan wrote:What would be a sensible flagship for an archipelago like the Philippines, only in the South Atlantic? Maybe something like the Chakri Nubaret... it would basically be a cool presidential yacht with STOVL capabilities and a landing dock. I thought enhanced minehunting and -laying capabilities would be useful. Could use some help drafting a design on paper.
by Halfblakistan » Sat May 27, 2017 2:11 pm
Autonomous Eastern Ukraine wrote:Halfblakistan wrote:What would be a sensible flagship for an archipelago like the Philippines, only in the South Atlantic? Maybe something like the Chakri Nubaret... it would basically be a cool presidential yacht with STOVL capabilities and a landing dock. I thought enhanced minehunting and -laying capabilities would be useful. Could use some help drafting a design on paper.
What time period we talking about?
The Daily Pioneer:Profiles in Solidarity: Marsello Doje, Former VCR Gang Leader, Now Runs Youth Center in Kindred
The Cornerstone Sentinel:Cornerstone State Rolls Back Curfew From 20:00 to 18:00 in Bid to Curb Youth Violence
by Laywenrania » Sun May 28, 2017 3:24 am
Rhodesialund wrote:Laywenrania wrote:It's based on the 1990 soviet Universal Cartridge.
http://world.guns.ru/machine/rus/unifie ... -mm-e.html
(I guess I was young, naive and mislead by the "unified"? xD)
The Soviets, going by some fan wankery if the Soviet Union didn't fall apart, would have most likely gone with a larger cartridge to replace the 7.62x54mmR in the 5.45x39/7.62x54mmR dynamic.
It is possible they could have gone with the 9.3x64mm Brenneke as a Medium Machine Gun cartridge (This is my prediction since there is a variant of the SVD called the SVDK that uses this cartridge). You might see a similar trend in the US today with the testing and development of the Lightweight Medium Machine Gun by General Dynamics using the .338 Norma Magnum cartridge.
Nachmere wrote:Tanks are tough bastards.
Gallia- wrote: And I'm emotionally attached to large, cuddly, wide Objects.
by Halfblakistan » Sun May 28, 2017 5:08 am
The Daily Pioneer:Profiles in Solidarity: Marsello Doje, Former VCR Gang Leader, Now Runs Youth Center in Kindred
The Cornerstone Sentinel:Cornerstone State Rolls Back Curfew From 20:00 to 18:00 in Bid to Curb Youth Violence
by Arthurista » Sun May 28, 2017 11:10 am
Halfblakistan wrote:A flagship for the military, but with more political prestige than actual firepower. Check out the Chakri Naruebet. STOVL carriers are pretty outdated, but maybe a landing platform dock could be useful for multiple roles?
by Arthurista » Sun May 28, 2017 11:14 am
by Austrasien » Sun May 28, 2017 11:28 am
Arthurista wrote:What does an army actually gain by transitioning to BCTs, compared to, say, forming combined arms brigade groups on an ad hoc basis by distributing support assets from a divisional 'pool'? Is it not actually more flexible that way, allowing brigade groups to be tailored and task organised for the mission at hand, instead of pre-packaging them?
by Gallia- » Sun May 28, 2017 11:29 am
by Austrasien » Sun May 28, 2017 11:50 am
Gallia- wrote:What if you had two armies tho?
One colonial. With battalion battlegroups.
One big. With atomic battlegroups.
by Gallia- » Sun May 28, 2017 11:52 am
by The Batavia » Sun May 28, 2017 12:00 pm
by The Corparation » Sun May 28, 2017 12:11 pm
The Batavia wrote:Tag, would anyone care to explain what this really is? It looks interesting.
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by Halfblakistan » Sun May 28, 2017 12:45 pm
The Daily Pioneer:Profiles in Solidarity: Marsello Doje, Former VCR Gang Leader, Now Runs Youth Center in Kindred
The Cornerstone Sentinel:Cornerstone State Rolls Back Curfew From 20:00 to 18:00 in Bid to Curb Youth Violence
by The Akasha Colony » Sun May 28, 2017 1:00 pm
Halfblakistan wrote:Would it be sensible to convert a container ship into a Landing Helicopter Dock? Would that even be feasible?
How much would it cost to upgrade and what kind of armament and landing capability should it have?
Halfblakistan wrote: know that Cuba converted a fishing trawler into a "frigate" and Iraq converted a civilian airliner into an AEW platform, so I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. Of course, I could be wrong, which is why I'm asking.
by Halfblakistan » Sun May 28, 2017 2:04 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:Halfblakistan wrote:Would it be sensible to convert a container ship into a Landing Helicopter Dock? Would that even be feasible?
It is fairly easy to make basic conversions to allow a merchantman to handle helicopters; all you need to do is put some flat metal sheeting on deck to create a landing platform and add some sheds or containers to house the support equipment.
But cutting a well deck into a ship that was not designed for it is an extremely expensive endeavor. Adding a well deck would require rebuilding the stern completely since freighters generally don't have the flat, boxy stern that is necessary to accommodate a well deck in the first place, nevermind the needed structural changes to actually create the deck. And then you'd need to rebuild the interior so that any vehicles cargo, or whatever carried onboard would have easy access to this deck to be embarked on landing craft.How much would it cost to upgrade and what kind of armament and landing capability should it have?
There's no universal answer to this question because it depends on the ship in question and the needs of the nation undertaking the modification. A 3,000 TEU ship will obviously be very different from a giant 18,000+ TEU monster like a Maersk Triple E. And how these modifications would be made depends on what requirements are specified by the contracting nation. How extensive the helicopter facilities need to be depends on how many helicopters are planned to be used, which in turn depends on how many helicopters are available. How large the well deck needs to be depends on how many and what type of landing craft are expected. Armament depends on expected use and available funds.
So perhaps the closest answer is that it will cost what you're willing to pay, and you simply won't pay for the things you don't need or don't have the money for.Halfblakistan wrote: know that Cuba converted a fishing trawler into a "frigate" and Iraq converted a civilian airliner into an AEW platform, so I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. Of course, I could be wrong, which is why I'm asking.
Tacking things on to a ship or plane is not particularly difficult. The Cubans basically just bolted some guns, missiles, and electronics onto their fishing trawlers and welded a flat deck structure to the rear for helicopters. Converting airliners to AEW&C is quite easy; that's how the USAF got their E-3s. The problem in this case is that you need to actually modify the structure of the ship itself to accommodate a well deck for landing craft.
The Daily Pioneer:Profiles in Solidarity: Marsello Doje, Former VCR Gang Leader, Now Runs Youth Center in Kindred
The Cornerstone Sentinel:Cornerstone State Rolls Back Curfew From 20:00 to 18:00 in Bid to Curb Youth Violence
by Gallia- » Sun May 28, 2017 2:05 pm
by The Soodean Imperium » Sun May 28, 2017 4:26 pm
by The Akasha Colony » Sun May 28, 2017 5:07 pm
Halfblakistan wrote:After reading this article, I realized that it would be truly disruptive to convert a used container ship into a drone warfare carrier with 3D printing capabilities. The only problem I can forsee in that situation is prohibatively high R&D costs, but that wouldn't be a problem for a more developed country than my own. I'll work on a draft design and post it in "Your Nation's Warships."
by Rhodesialund » Sun May 28, 2017 6:35 pm
by Arkandros » Mon May 29, 2017 12:47 am
The Akasha Colony wrote:Halfblakistan wrote:After reading this article, I realized that it would be truly disruptive to convert a used container ship into a drone warfare carrier with 3D printing capabilities. The only problem I can forsee in that situation is prohibatively high R&D costs, but that wouldn't be a problem for a more developed country than my own. I'll work on a draft design and post it in "Your Nation's Warships."
It will ultimately be less disruptive than the article claims, for a number of reasons.
This may come as something of a surprise, but building a small drone is already well within the capabilities of an aircraft carrier. They already carry large machine shops staffed by skilled machinists capable of manufacturing a huge array of spare parts, ship fittings, and most other things needed to keep the ship and air wing operating. The spares that are beyond their scope are the more complicated things like engines and electronics that have to be manufactured using specialist equipment and special alloys. But even moving this production capability aboard a carrier doesn't fundamentally change things.
And perhaps most importantly, you haven't fundamentally changed anything: you still have aircraft flying from ships. Whether the aircraft came from a land-based factory or was manufactured onboard has never been relevant to the people being bombed by that aircraft. The ship still needs supplies, just rather than pre-made spares ready to be installed, they're delivered as blocks of metal and plastic etc. that have to then be fabricated into the desired configuration.
by Laritaia » Mon May 29, 2017 1:09 am
Halfblakistan wrote:with 3D printing capabilities.
by Halfblakistan » Mon May 29, 2017 3:22 am
Laritaia wrote:Halfblakistan wrote:with 3D printing capabilities.
any value said idea had was completely invalidated by this
3D printing is not a replicator from Star Trek, it takes a long time to produce even the smallest and simplest of parts and is massively expensive.
people who waffle on about how its going to revolutionize X sector of Y industry/technology by allowing on demand production have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.
3d printing is an incredibly useful tool that truly can speed up the design and development process but this belief that it has some sort of magical power to reduce the time and cost of actual manufacturing is only serving to make people heavily disappointed when they find out what it's actually like.
Arkandros wrote:The Akasha Colony wrote:
It will ultimately be less disruptive than the article claims, for a number of reasons.
This may come as something of a surprise, but building a small drone is already well within the capabilities of an aircraft carrier. They already carry large machine shops staffed by skilled machinists capable of manufacturing a huge array of spare parts, ship fittings, and most other things needed to keep the ship and air wing operating. The spares that are beyond their scope are the more complicated things like engines and electronics that have to be manufactured using specialist equipment and special alloys. But even moving this production capability aboard a carrier doesn't fundamentally change things.
And perhaps most importantly, you haven't fundamentally changed anything: you still have aircraft flying from ships. Whether the aircraft came from a land-based factory or was manufactured onboard has never been relevant to the people being bombed by that aircraft. The ship still needs supplies, just rather than pre-made spares ready to be installed, they're delivered as blocks of metal and plastic etc. that have to then be fabricated into the desired configuration.
Just to add onto this, I would argue that the quality and capability of any drone constructed on a carrier would be significantly worse than one built by, say, Lockheed. The machine shops on a carrier just wouldn't be capable of producing something like a "long range stealth bomber drone" described in the article without sacrificing a considerable amount of hangar space to very specialized and basically single purpose equipment, like a carbon fiber fabrication shop. Also, considering that drones can be built on land and then delivered in just as much (or probably less) space than the raw materials required to construct one, you'd get more plane per delivery with prefabricated parts.
The Daily Pioneer:Profiles in Solidarity: Marsello Doje, Former VCR Gang Leader, Now Runs Youth Center in Kindred
The Cornerstone Sentinel:Cornerstone State Rolls Back Curfew From 20:00 to 18:00 in Bid to Curb Youth Violence
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Anarco Argentina, Kuuj, Pretoria-Johannesburg, The English Regions, The Federation of Mars, The Imperial Alliance, The Union of Socialist-Soviet Republics
Advertisement