NationStates

Gallia- wrote:It won WW3.

Oh right, your masturbatory fantasy. Too bad Hill-dawg never got in. Would be nice to see how WW3 would go.

Rhodesialund wrote:Would be nice to see how WW3 would go.

I'll show you a picture:



We're onto WW4 now. Or WW5 if you count the Seven Years War I guess.

Since the T-38 and the F-5 share similar air frames, how useful would it be to turn the winner of the T-X comp. into a fighter? For example, if Northrop or Boeing's T-X wins, an armed version could be developed. This would be the same relationship with the T-38 and the F-5. I know the F-16 or JAS-39 could easily replace existing F-5s, but how useful would it be to turn the T-X into a fighter and have the T-X trainer and armed T-X fighter replace the T-38s and F-5s?

Gallia- wrote:

Rhodesialund wrote:Would be nice to see how WW3 would go.

I'll show you a picture:



We're onto WW4 now. Or WW5 if you count the Seven Years War I guess.

WW6

Germany began its proud tradition of losing World Wars when Barbarossa drowned in 1190 (foreshadowing???).

Korva wrote:

Gallia- wrote:
I'll show you a picture:

(Image)

We're onto WW4 now. Or WW5 if you count the Seven Years War I guess.

WW6

Germany began its proud tradition of losing World Wars when Barbarossa drowned in 1190 (foreshadowing???).

Foreshadowing, but not a world war, it's just losing wars in general.

Germoney has fought itself and lost every time!

"Christianity -- and that is its greatest merit -- has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered, the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame."

The old stone gods will then rise from long ruins and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and Thor will leap to life with his giant hammer and smash the Gothic cathedrals. ...

Oh Germany. Who needs tank battalions and fighter jets when you can give your soldiers free gender-neutral child care and flat-screen TVs and minibars in their barracks?

Are you implying there's something wrong with free gender-neutral child care, flat-screen TVs, and minibars in the barracks?

Gallia- wrote:Are you implying there's something wrong with free gender-neutral child care, flat-screen TVs, and minibars in the barracks?

It's genius, the attacking Russian hordes will see how pampered the enemy soldiers are and immediately surrender.

The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:

Gallia- wrote:Are you implying there's something wrong with free gender-neutral child care, flat-screen TVs, and minibars in the barracks?

It's genius, the attacking Russian hordes will see how pampered the enemy soldiers are and immediately surrender.

Good Sprey impression.

Having minibars and flat screen TVs in the barracks, and child care centers for families, would (if anything) make soldiers fight harder. Incentives like that were common enough in the Soviet Union, where technical troops received special privileges and bonus wages for undertaking advanced training courses, and of course these things exist in the West too.

Unlike teetotaler Americans, Euros at least know the value of alcohol loaded tailgate parties.

General characteristics
• Crew: one or two
• Length: 17.3 m (56 ft 9 in)
• Wingspan: 11.5 m (37 ft 9 in)
• Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)
• Wing area: 40 m2 (430 sq ft)
• Max takeoff weight: 28,000 kg (61,729 lb)
• Powerplant: 2 × AJ200 afterburning turbofans (Size-reduced F119s), 98 kN (22,000 lbf) thrust each
• Maximum speed: Mach 2.3 (2,410 km/h, 1,500 mph)
• Supercruise: Mach 1.82
• Combat range: 1,250 km (777 mi; 675 nmi) on internal fuel, or 2,000 km (1,200 mi) with external tanks
Armament
• Hardpoints: 8 x external, and 6x in internal bay with a capacity of Up to 8,000 kilograms (18,000 lb), including including 2,000 kilograms (4,400 lb) internally
• Gun: 1 × 27 mm Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon with 150 rounds
Avionics
• AN/APG-81 AESA Radar
• Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (EODAS)
What is more or less a westernized J-31



Is this a doable design?

Urran wrote:General characteristics
• Crew: one or two
• Length: 17.3 m (56 ft 9 in)
• Wingspan: 11.5 m (37 ft 9 in)
• Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)
• Wing area: 40 m2 (430 sq ft)
• Max takeoff weight: 28,000 kg (61,729 lb)
• Powerplant: 2 × AJ200 afterburning turbofans (Size-reduced F119s), 98 kN (22,000 lbf) thrust each
• Maximum speed: Mach 2.3 (2,410 km/h, 1,500 mph)
• Supercruise: Mach 1.82
• Combat range: 1,250 km (777 mi; 675 nmi) on internal fuel, or 2,000 km (1,200 mi) with external tanks
Armament
• Hardpoints: 8 x external, and 6x in internal bay with a capacity of Up to 8,000 kilograms (18,000 lb), including including 2,000 kilograms (4,400 lb) internally
• Gun: 1 × 27 mm Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon with 150 rounds
Avionics
• AN/APG-81 AESA Radar
• Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (EODAS)
What is more or less a westernized J-31



Is this a doable design?

Looks good. Nice you have your numbers for your jet!

Pavelania wrote:

Urran wrote:General characteristics
• Crew: one or two
• Length: 17.3 m (56 ft 9 in)
• Wingspan: 11.5 m (37 ft 9 in)
• Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)
• Wing area: 40 m2 (430 sq ft)
• Max takeoff weight: 28,000 kg (61,729 lb)
• Powerplant: 2 × AJ200 afterburning turbofans (Size-reduced F119s), 98 kN (22,000 lbf) thrust each
• Maximum speed: Mach 2.3 (2,410 km/h, 1,500 mph)
• Supercruise: Mach 1.82
• Combat range: 1,250 km (777 mi; 675 nmi) on internal fuel, or 2,000 km (1,200 mi) with external tanks
Armament
• Hardpoints: 8 x external, and 6x in internal bay with a capacity of Up to 8,000 kilograms (18,000 lb), including including 2,000 kilograms (4,400 lb) internally
• Gun: 1 × 27 mm Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon with 150 rounds
Avionics
• AN/APG-81 AESA Radar
• Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (EODAS)
What is more or less a westernized J-31



Is this a doable design?

Looks good. Nice you have your numbers for your jet!

It took 3 people to come up with it. It's a multinational project. I was just the one to post it here so I can't take all the credit for it.

F-35 is the dankest meme plane since the T-60 with wings.

Gallia- wrote:

The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:
It's genius, the attacking Russian hordes will see how pampered the enemy soldiers are and immediately surrender.

Good Sprey impression.

Having minibars and flat screen TVs in the barracks, and child care centers for families, would (if anything) make soldiers fight harder. Incentives like that were common enough in the Soviet Union, where technical troops received special privileges and bonus wages for undertaking advanced training courses, and of course these things exist in the West too.

Rabbi Gallia is right here.

In fact, as Russia gets wealthier, there are now actual bars in some military bases [though officer-only], flat-screen TVs in some Russian Army facilities, etc. etc

Beohld, the incredible luxury.
Officers' bedrooms

Blasphemy and weakness inducing! Soldiers should live a very harsh and unforgiving lifestyle, not luxurious one (Y/N?)

So you guys all know about the USAF's T-X competition. So whatever T-X wins, what do you guys think of making the T-X a light weight fighter like the F-5? I'm mainly talking about the Boeing and Northrop T-X, since those are clean sheet designs. LM's T-50A already has an armed fighter variant, while Raytheon's T-100 has the M-346 Master which is a trainer/light attack and based on the YAK-130. The T-X and this light fighter would have the same exact relationship as the F-5 and the T-38 had. So what do you guys think of turning the T-X into a light fighter like the F-5?

Gallia- wrote:Good Sprey impression.

Having minibars and flat screen TVs in the barracks, and child care centers for families, would (if anything) make soldiers fight harder. Incentives like that were common enough in the Soviet Union, where technical troops received special privileges and bonus wages for undertaking advanced training courses, and of course these things exist in the West too.

Unlike teetotaler Americans, Euros at least know the value of alcohol loaded tailgate parties.

Men don't really need childcare though. And the German army is desperately short on men. It's a waste of money in an already massively overstretched budget.

But it has been slammed by army commanders. A senior serving officer speaking on condition of anonymity told Germany’s *Focus *magazine they were policies for “sissies and wimps”.

General Harald Kujat, a retired former chief of staff of Germany’s armed forces, told *Focus* Ms Von Der Leyen’s proposals were the ideas of a “good housewife taking care of her children” who has no idea of the military. In another interview he said that the army’s badly out-of-date equipment was a more pressing concern.

When you can barely muster enough functional equipment for a mechanized brigade, when soldiers guns literally melt but your military's top priority is child care - the planners are no longer in touch with reality.

Austrasien wrote:

Gallia- wrote:Good Sprey impression.

Having minibars and flat screen TVs in the barracks, and child care centers for families, would (if anything) make soldiers fight harder. Incentives like that were common enough in the Soviet Union, where technical troops received special privileges and bonus wages for undertaking advanced training courses, and of course these things exist in the West too.

Unlike teetotaler Americans, Euros at least know the value of alcohol loaded tailgate parties.

Men don't really need childcare though. And the German army is desperately short on men. It's a waste of money in an already massively overstretched budget.

But it has been slammed by army commanders. A senior serving officer speaking on condition of anonymity told Germany’s *Focus *magazine they were policies for “sissies and wimps”.

General Harald Kujat, a retired former chief of staff of Germany’s armed forces, told *Focus* Ms Von Der Leyen’s proposals were the ideas of a “good housewife taking care of her children” who has no idea of the military. In another interview he said that the army’s badly out-of-date equipment was a more pressing concern.

When you can barely muster enough functional equipment for a mechanized brigade, when soldiers guns literally melt but your military's top priority is child care - the planners are no longer in touch with reality.

This is true, but only in Germany's specific case where it's put something akin to VA care above the military itself. That said, I doubt the German budget as is could pay for basic operating costs of the military to begin with, so it'll increase anyway to cover the cost of both ground equipment and whatever family care is needed for German troops. I don't really see the mutual exclusivity implied by Retrotechnicalists, but rather a paucity of resources that is insufficient to cover any needs.

The basic concept of subsidized childcare for military families is fine and it's probably necessary to ensure they'll breed anyway. The US Army has the same stuff (I'd imagine the German creches are also kindergartens) but they roll it into gyms and libraries for families as well. The obvious priority is new equipment and maintenance, but after that, you still need to pay for support costs for the soldiers themselves. In this case, it's just reversed. Quintuple the Bundeswehr budget, Aktion T4 the pensioners to pay for it, and the problem fixes itself. Then you can subsidize their daycare costs, or pay them enough wages to cover for daycares while wifeu works, but then they might spend the money on beer and TVs anyway.

So all you really need a coup by the Heer? The Germans will either lose the war bored out of their minds staring at stucco ceilings or lose the war drunk on lager, watching the English lose at football, as wifeu does shoppingk, while kids are at school, I guess.

The real problem here is the "flexible hours". Germany is slipping further down the path of Japanese neo-pacifism and American ExecuSpeak tbh. Needing to "compete with business" and "react flexibly". What the fuck? Just tell people "join the army or go to gaol". They're more MBAist than the USA could ever hope to be. It sounds like that DARPA slideshow that demanded "urgent new marketing" and "just-in-time logistics for meeting customer needs" like a Fed-Ex ad, but in real life. The West is gladly crucifying itself on the ideals of individualism, free association, and market capitalism/neoliberalism.

The better West would still be about collective effort, cultural assimilation, and socialism. So universal conscription, everyone speaks one language, and Israeli MIC for all. Just add posterity, so no old people allowed. That's a West I can believe in.

But :millennials: I guess.

Theodosiya wrote:Blasphemy and weakness inducing! Soldiers should live a very harsh and unforgiving lifestyle, not luxurious one (Y/N?)

I don't think people need to live in shitty/spartan conditions in order to be well-motivated and disciplined.

Pavelania wrote:So you guys all know about the USAF's T-X competition. So whatever T-X wins, what do you guys think of making the T-X a light weight fighter like the F-5? I'm mainly talking about the Boeing and Northrop T-X, since those are clean sheet designs. LM's T-50A already has an armed fighter variant, while Raytheon's T-100 has the M-346 Master which is a trainer/light attack and based on the YAK-130. The T-X and this light fighter would have the same exact relationship as the F-5 and the T-38 had. So what do you guys think of turning the T-X into a light fighter like the F-5?

Yes, this is a realistic idea. In fact this is the trend that the world is going towards. I think the days of the dedicated advanced trainer are numbered in most air forces simply due to how much more expensive they are (by necessity, since combat aircraft have been getting more and more complicated), and because defense budgets in many countries are pretty constrained. Therefore, there is a strong incentive for trainer designs to include additional capabilities so that they can carry out basic combat missions.

We currently operate both the F-5 and T-38. We still operate the F-5 because of how easy and simple it is to maintain and operate. A T-X and Light fighter would be a perfect replacement for F-5 operators.

I think Northrop or Boeing is gonna win the T-X competition because their clean sheet designs were specifically designed to match the T-X requirements. I also believe Boeing may win the T-X because Northrop is already working on the B-21 Raider while LM has the JSF contract for the F-35s.

Gallia- wrote:This is true, but only in Germany's specific case where it's put something akin to VA care above the military itself. That said, I doubt the German budget as is could pay for basic operating costs of the military to begin with, so it'll increase anyway to cover the cost of both ground equipment and whatever family care is needed for German troops. I don't really see the mutual exclusivity implied by Retrotechnicalists.

The basic concept of subsidized childcare for military families is fine and it's probably necessary to ensure they'll breed anyway. The US Army has the same stuff (I'd imagine the German creches are also kindergartens) but they roll it into gyms and libraries for families as well. The obvious priority is new equipment and maintenance, but after that, you still need to pay for support costs for the soldiers themselves. In this case, it's just reversed. Quintuple the Bundeswehr budget, Aktion T4 the pensioners to pay for it, and the problem fixes itself. Then you can subsidize their daycare costs, or pay them enough wages to cover for daycares while wifeu works, but then they might spend the money on beer and TVs anyway.

So all you really need a coup by the Heer?

:millennials: I guess

The US Army spends way too much on personnel as it is. Uncontrollable inflation in personnel expenditures has done about as much to eat western budgets as cuts, maybe more. The ever expanding demands of the military welfare complex (which easily rivals the military industrial complex) are not sustainable. And it is not even clear why a professional soldier, who gets paid like everyone else, needs endlessly expansive family services in the first place.

The USSR is a good example because the USSR was never, ever able to provide all the perks it promised for all the soldiers who were promised them.

Moving on to another important aspect of operations many modern air forces do, do any of you have dedicated space-borne assets? Not fancy space lasers pointers and Tungsten rod-noobish shite, but dedicated intelligence-gathering, communications, maintenance, and recovery assets in orbit, whether GEO or LEO? My main nation, Ustosio, uses some of its own assets as well as shared assets pooled between NATO, the EU and other partner organisations.

Most of Ustosio's assets involve communications and imaging satellites, but there are a few special-mission systems currently available.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... d685da502/

galla's space battle stations

Sareva wrote:Moving on to another important aspect of operations many modern air forces do, do any of you have dedicated space-borne assets? Not fancy space lasers pointers and Tungsten rod-noobish shite, but dedicated intelligence-gathering, communications, maintenance, and recovery assets in orbit, whether GEO or LEO? My main nation, Ustosio, uses some of its own assets as well as shared assets pooled between NATO, the EU and other partner organisations.

Most of Ustosio's assets involve communications and imaging satellites, but there are a few special-mission systems currently available.

The Austrasian Space Forces most important asset is it's fleet of optionally manned reusable space vehicles that can be put into orbit for up to a year or more with a variety of intelligence payloads. Optical imagery, infared imagery hyper spectral imagery, SAR imagery, and maritime surveillance (specialized SAR/MTI + ELINT) are the most common loads. The heavy lifting of imagery intelligence is still done with optical bar cameras because of their superb resolution, sensitivity and coverage. Though the film is now processed digitally.

A constellation of four ELINT satellites geosynchronous orbit is the Space Forces primary ELINT asset, they provide continuous global coverage of communication and radar signals.

Three infrared satellites in geosynchronous orbit provide early warning of ballistic missile launches.