NationStates

Dostanuot Loj wrote:As the legitimate winner of the voting* I support and endorse this coup.

In my mind only.

You can't let your son win every time.
It'll be bad for his self-esteem in the long run.

FTR I am totes OK with this thread being closed and the reigns being passed to the duly elected authorities.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Dostanuot Loj wrote:As the legitimate winner of the voting* I support and endorse this coup.

In my mind only.

You can't let your son win every time.
It'll be bad for his self-esteem in the long run.

His mother coddled him as a baby so he throws a tantrum if I don't now. You don't want to see a Leopard 2 throw a tantrum.

Dostanuot Loj wrote:His mother coddled him as a baby so he throws a tantrum if I don't now. You don't want to see a Leopard 2 throw a tantrum.

Bit of an explosive temper, eh?

Dostanuot Loj wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:You can't let your son win every time.
It'll be bad for his self-esteem in the long run.

His mother coddled him as a baby so he throws a tantrum if I don't now. You don't want to see a Leopard 2 throw a tantrum.

Just get one of those ARVs to pull his powerpack and let him stew for a bit.

You gotta show some control and instill discipline or he'll never learn any better.

Dostanuot Loj wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:You can't let your son win every time.
It'll be bad for his self-esteem in the long run.

His mother coddled him as a baby so he throws a tantrum if I don't now. You don't want to see a Leopard 2 throw a tantrum.

it's not like trudeau has been taking care of him

this isnt 55-ton juggernaut viky

this is like no maintenance no field work and the-last-time-i-went-outside-is-2013 viky

Western Weyard wrote:

Dostanuot Loj wrote:His mother coddled him as a baby so he throws a tantrum if I don't now. You don't want to see a Leopard 2 throw a tantrum.

Bit of an explosive temper, eh?

he inherited it from MBT-70

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/653 ... imbing.png

look at him so brave

Heavonia wrote:Is it a solid thing for security services to have their own direct action troops rather than solely relying on military SF for wetwork?

Incidentally, I read this while I still had the Wiki article on OMON open in another tab.

*Begins to lineart a Soodean APC in special police camo*

That shameless Kyivists pilfered yet another election from Roski should come as no surprise.

The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:

Heavonia wrote:Is it a solid thing for security services to have their own direct action troops rather than solely relying on military SF for wetwork?

The CIA has its own paramilitary wing called the Special Activities Division (SAD) which in turn has a sub-unit called the Special Operations Group (SOG) which does all the secret boogeyman/black ops jazz. Basically DEVGRU/Delta +1.

Like fuck up bin Laden's assassination more times than I have fingers?

Gallia- wrote:

The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:
The CIA has its own paramilitary wing called the Special Activities Division (SAD) which in turn has a sub-unit called the Special Operations Group (SOG) which does all the secret boogeyman/black ops jazz. Basically DEVGRU/Delta +1.

Like fuck up bin Laden's assassination more times than I have fingers?

Yes, SOG has a sword of "Fuck up Assassinations +1"

The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:

Shonburg wrote:1. My nation has a long history of shipbuilding, and by popular support for the idea, we built it ourselves. The shipbuilding industry and Navy also wanted the experience.
2. What do you reccomend then? I chose the F14 because it was multirole...
3. What's the difference between the Sea Staillion, Sea King and Seahawk? I use the Hueys for ASW and S&R operations

The F-14B " bombcat" and F-14D Super Tomcat both have AtG capability.

Sea Stallion is a heavy lift helicopter. Sea king and Seahawk are much smaller and are utility/ASW helicopters.

Just a note on the Midway based carrier stuff, since I'm apparently Mr.No on these threads.

The Midway class was absolutely incapable of embarking F-14. They could land and launch in an emergency, although the deck had to be completely clear because the jet blast deflector was too narrow to actually deflect the F-14s engines, the hangar was too short to fit the F-14.

Raising the hangar on Midway is not an option as post rebuild they were at maximum displacement for the hull design, the added weight would essentially risk flooding in all but calm waters. This is why Forrestall was built. I think E-2 won't fit on Midway either. So if you want to operate F-14 or E-2 you need Forrestall.

>not using cvv
>using f-14

anti technocratic syndicalists strikes again

midway can use e-2, a-7, a-6, sea king [king of the sea], s-3 and f-18a/c this is all you need

since f-14 wasnt even conceived of while forest fire was being built (it was a-3 that was the big navy item) i dont see why you would need forest fire to use it at all

the modern midway is cvv not forest fire, that is a modern USS United States

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Dostanuot Loj wrote:As the legitimate winner of the voting* I support and endorse this coup.

In my mind only.

You can't let your son win every time.
It'll be bad for his self-esteem in the long run.

Family photo Kyiv Sumer and grandpa


So cute

Dostanuot Loj wrote:I'm apparently Mr.No on these threads.

I'm glad I'm not the only one :]

Gallia- wrote:>not using cvv
>using f-14

anti technocratic syndicalists strikes again

midway can use e-2, a-7, a-6, sea king [king of the sea], s-3 and f-18a/c this is all you need

since f-14 wasnt even conceived of while forest fire was being built (it was a-3 that was the big navy item) i dont see why you would need forest fire to use it at all

the modern midway is cvv not forest fire, that is a modern USS United States

I think autocorrect did a number on this post...

no gayla is just a master of modern english

I've had an idea to create an aircraft carrier. This carrier shall be approximately double to thrice the size of the Independence-class aircraft carrier. Using a CATOBAR system, it will propel heavy and strategic bombers to lift off. On this vessel, the command tower is built into the side of the hull instead of being an actual tower, to allow for larger wingspans. Speaking of hulls, I intend for the hull to be a catamaran design. The ship is to have no weapons systems, but allows for a small onboard helo and countermeasures.

Now, I don't intend to launch B-52s off of this. I just want to use B-1 Lancers. It will not be a storage for the planes, but merely a stop point for restocking and refueling, before going for another strike.

Thoughts, threadmembers?

Hey guys, is it smart to put cable cutter blades on submarines?
The United States gets its internet partly from undersea cables, and in some locations power is transferred this way. So why not put cable cutters on submarines?

Meinkraft wrote:I've had an idea to create an aircraft carrier. This carrier shall be approximately double to thrice the size of the Independence-class aircraft carrier. Using a CATOBAR system, it will propel heavy and strategic bombers to lift off. On this vessel, the command tower is built into the side of the hull instead of being an actual tower, to allow for larger wingspans. Speaking of hulls, I intend for the hull to be a catamaran design. The ship is to have no weapons systems, but allows for a small onboard helo and countermeasures.

Now, I don't intend to launch B-52s off of this. I just want to use B-1 Lancers. It will not be a storage for the planes, but merely a stop point for restocking and refueling, before going for another strike.

Thoughts, threadmembers?

I like it, but why not a trimaran design? Then you could build the superstructure on the center hull and have room for weapon systems like cannons or vertical missile launch tubes and have your flight decks on the side hulls.
Dude! You could have a carrier/battleship hybrid with this trimaran ship!

New Axiom wrote:Hey guys, is it smart to put cable cutter blades on submarines?
The United States gets its internet partly from undersea cables, and in some locations power is transferred this way. So why not put cable cutters on submarines?

Cutting submarine cables willy-nilly would degrade or cut off most of the internet.

But more importantly, why bother? It's really not much more than a nuisance.

The Kievan People wrote:

New Axiom wrote:Hey guys, is it smart to put cable cutter blades on submarines?
The United States gets its internet partly from undersea cables, and in some locations power is transferred this way. So why not put cable cutters on submarines?

Cutting submarine cables willy-nilly would degrade or cut off most of the internet.

But more importantly, why bother? It's really not much more than a nuisance.

Without access to the Internet, the majority of the general populace wouldn't be able to get news, therefore they would be completely cut off, which means you could invade unexpectedly. I mean, there'd still be radio and television but they still get most of their info from the Internet as well. Besides, the population would riot! They wouldn't be able to play nationstates and their account would be deleted!

New Axiom wrote:Without access to the Internet, the majority of the general populace wouldn't be able to get news, therefore they would be completely cut off, which means you could invade unexpectedly. I mean, there'd still be radio and television but they still get most of their info from the Internet as well. Besides, the population would riot! They wouldn't be able to play nationstates and their account would be deleted!

The internet would not be completely cut off. Not every connection goes through submarine cables, the network within the country and over its land borders will still be intact. Satellite links will still allow some traffic to move overseas.

1. LOL @ Coup.

2. Internet access can be easily cut off using the equipment on submarines already, and it would do incredible economic damage.

The Kievan People wrote:FTR I am totes OK with this thread being closed and the reigns being passed to the duly elected authorities.

Are you kidding me? This is the best gag we've had in ages!

The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:

Heavonia wrote:Is it a solid thing for security services to have their own direct action troops rather than solely relying on military SF for wetwork?

The CIA has its own paramilitary wing called the Special Activities Division (SAD) which in turn has a sub-unit called the Special Operations Group (SOG) which does all the secret boogeyman/black ops jazz. Basically DEVGRU/Delta +1.

Yeah, the CIA has some pretty interesting direct-action elements that you never hear about. SAD and SOG are the guys to go out and retrieve people we want to talk to, assassinate people we don't like, and generally go places they shouldn't be such as North Korea, East Germany, etc. You can read about some of the things they've done about 30 years after they occurred. The most secret of their missions are usually classified for 50 years, so you can go back and read about what they were up to during the Vietnam War now. That's also why we've seen a few more Medals of Honor being awarded for actions undertaken in the Vietnam War - we can now publicly acknowledge that those events did occur. For those of you who read Tom Clancy, the character John Clark/John Kelly is a fictional SAD operative and the missions Clancy sent him on aren't far removed from reality.

Meinkraft wrote:I've had an idea to create an aircraft carrier. This carrier shall be approximately double to thrice the size of the Independence-class aircraft carrier. Using a CATOBAR system, it will propel heavy and strategic bombers to lift off. On this vessel, the command tower is built into the side of the hull instead of being an actual tower, to allow for larger wingspans. Speaking of hulls, I intend for the hull to be a catamaran design. The ship is to have no weapons systems, but allows for a small onboard helo and countermeasures.

Now, I don't intend to launch B-52s off of this. I just want to use B-1 Lancers. It will not be a storage for the planes, but merely a stop point for restocking and refueling, before going for another strike.

Thoughts, threadmembers?

Strategic bombers already have intercontinental capability. It's practically a defining feature.

What does putting them on a carrier achieve, except forcing you to design a super-heavy carrier concept to ferry them through ranges they could already fly combat operations?

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Meinkraft wrote:I've had an idea to create an aircraft carrier. This carrier shall be approximately double to thrice the size of the Independence-class aircraft carrier. Using a CATOBAR system, it will propel heavy and strategic bombers to lift off. On this vessel, the command tower is built into the side of the hull instead of being an actual tower, to allow for larger wingspans. Speaking of hulls, I intend for the hull to be a catamaran design. The ship is to have no weapons systems, but allows for a small onboard helo and countermeasures.

Now, I don't intend to launch B-52s off of this. I just want to use B-1 Lancers. It will not be a storage for the planes, but merely a stop point for restocking and refueling, before going for another strike.

Thoughts, threadmembers?

Strategic bombers already have intercontinental capability. It's practically a defining feature.

What does putting them on a carrier achieve, except forcing you to design a super-heavy carrier concept to ferry them through ranges they could already fly combat operations?

Well in a world where neighbouring nations are transatlantic distances from each other, you get into fights with nations on the other side of the world that you hadn't heard of until yesterday and nobody ever actually talks to other nations to establish basing and fly over "rights" then mega carriers and JMOBs suddenly become very important looking as they are easier to hand wave than a convenient island chain or ally