NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

f16 needs 40 guys, whether ur pop is 400,000, 4 million, or 400 million. minimum reqs means minimum force size

[New Vihenia]

No simple formula, no, the more complex the formula and the more data inputs included the more accurate the calculated cost estimate. Right now, you’re going off what would be equivalent of asking 100 individuals on what they think of a particular topic, while the complex formula {whatever the specifics of it looked like} I think you need to use would be the equivalent of asking hundreds of thousands if not millions of individuals on what they think of a particular topic. Both forms are valid, but one is more representative than the other.

There’s been no contradiction, we just haven’t been understanding what the other has been saying.

Sure, but that requires a little explanation first.

“Acquisition costs are part of life-cycle costs and embrace research and development (R&D) and production costs. For any class of equipment, development costs tend to vary in proportion to unit production costs. Total acquisition cost comprising both development and production costs can be estimated with the following equation where TC is total acquisition cost, R is the ratio of development cost to unit production cost, N is the number to be produced and P is the unit production cost. TC=(R+N)P” from The Economics of Defence Policy, Pg 18.

And it should be noted, those numbers are never fixed, but can be constantly changing on an annual or even monthly basis based on a whole slew of other variables that can alter/affect the cost estimate. Just one, depending on what your initial labor costs are whether low, medium or high and how inefficient or efficient your workers are able to take advantage of learning curves will have an direct impact on what the stated value of both R and P of that variable are. If you go from low to medium labor costs in the following year or two, that has an effect, while the inverse equally applies going from medium to high.

One formula would be used to calculate a single variable whose solution would be used in the next formula to enable further calculation to eventually arrive at a calculated estimate. This isn’t a difficult math concept to grasp considering you’ve done something similar not that long ago. Only this time, the formulas apply to economic theory and not engineering.

I did similar and i came up with result, step by step practical example and i showed it. Now i need you to come up with the same not bullshitting around trying to obfuscate stuff with a looong unnecessary post which doesnt have any merit.

Unless I’m mistaken, the two are interconnected and what are whole discussion has been about.

How you would enter that as a definable numbered variable I’m unsure of at this time, but the passage of time + the number of technical faults, glitches and delays would in my opinion be a good place to start.

I am unsure on what exactly you are trying to do ?

I think the 9 years is adequate to represent whatever snags etc that might happen.

With your scheme you are basically telling me to actually build one which i wont be able, and you wont be bothering doing so too as well as your research.

Now you tell me should i input 9 or 100 ?

From everything I’ve read on the subject so far, FTR beyond what’s found on Wikipedia has lead me to conclude the 2K12 Kub {SA-6 Gainful} doesn’t use an identical propulsion scheme as proposed for the Gnom.

As far as I can tell, given the vagueness that surrounds the term “Air augmented” at times, both you and Tripbacon have been equating the term Air Augmented as meaning the same thing as “Integral Rocket Ramjet”. As to date, I’ve found no evidence supporting that conclusion and some evidence that actually the two terms imply very different things in how they function.

I’m greatly simplifying what I’ve found, but basically an Air Augmented system means both the rocket and the ramjet are working in tandem in one fashion or another. An integral rocket/ramjet means exactly that, first the rocket fires, burns out, then the ramjet engages, three separate actions and never together in tandem. Furthermore, if one is observant enough to notice like I was, never is the SA-6 referred to as an Air Augmented rocket, it’s always ramjet or integral rocket/ramjet. Now look at the Meteor missile, when described it’s always as an Air Augmented ramjet rocket.

That’s a clue if there ever was one, but it’s nice to see Confirmation basis at work making us oblivious to the obvious.

What is everything you read so far ? Like seriously. Meteor works exactly the same as SA-6 with the only differences is that Meteor have valve in its gas generator to control the fucking thrust. Something which SA-6 lacks. Yet both works the same.

1.Rocket booster ON.. kicking the missile into Ramjet operating speed
2.Rocket booster exhausted.. The room left by the rocket now become a combustion chamber.. or in Solid fuel one become mixing one as the gas generator starts burning and sending its fuel rich particles which then mixed with air from inlet and perfect the combustion, producing thrust.

That's how it works and it works the same way for Meteor and SA-6. Like WTF.. how do you think SA-6 missile propulsion works ?

If you REALLY... and REALLY doing your research it would be very obvious that they works the same manner and the same manner as the one i devise for Except in my scheme, the ramjet/air augmented and 1st stage of rocket booster are ejected once they run out of propellant.

This part came from you, I'll be honest it is ridiculous.

I’m greatly simplifying what I’ve found, but basically an Air Augmented system means both the rocket and the ramjet are working in tandem in one fashion or another.

So you mean they work at the same time ? Then it can be called air augmented rocket ?

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

rockets: broke and lame

strategic bombers: woke and not lame

[Triplebaconation]

No simple formula, no, the more complex the formula and the more data inputs included the more accurate the calculated cost estimate. Right now, you’re going off what would be equivalent of asking 100 individuals on what they think of a particular topic, while the complex formula {whatever the specifics of it looked like} I think you need to use would be the equivalent of asking hundreds of thousands if not millions of individuals on what they think of a particular topic. Both forms are valid, but one is more representative than the other.

Better hire RAND to do a full analysis on your made-up stuff from now on, everyone.

{Unless you can just shit out numbers with 95% accuracy.}

[Taihei Tengoku]

rockets: broke and lame

strategic bombers: woke and not lame

[Gallia-]

airfields refuted

[New Vihenia]

I miss assault breaker ;-;

[Gallia-]

f16 needs 40 guys, whether ur pop is 400,000, 4 million, or 400 million. minimum reqs means minimum force size

you can make it work with 20 if you only work monday-friday 9 AM to 5 PM

like the swiss military

whoops army's closed

[Laritaia]

rockets: broke and lame

strategic bombers: woke and not lame

[Gallia-]

airbase refuted again lmao

[Amaurita]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=987472

This is no where near done but any input/suggestions?

[Crookfur]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=987472

This is no where near done but any input/suggestions?

Check your calibres, you have a few things listed as using 9mm para when they probably shouldn't

One would wonder why anyone would bother developing and adopting a FAL today esspecially when they are doing so as a compliment to an AR alike. If you want a "precision" full calibre semi auto rifle go with something AR-10 derived.

The description of the command companies seems a bit weird what with having multiple platoons of the same type.
Also why does the command company get platoons when the actual combat elements don't? They sorely need them.
You seem to have not included the support weapons squad from each company in your numerical make up nor the company HQ.
Grenadier company's are just a bit odd these days given that grenade launchers should be more or less universal. If you must have an "elite" company maybe have it house actual specialist troops like snipers, patrol/recce and pioneers.

[United Earthlings]

The SA-6 and Meteor operate exactly the same lol

In all your research, you weren't observant enough to notice that?

1. The booster fires.
2. The empty booster casing becomes a ramjet combustion chamber.
3. A second rocket (the gas generator) spews fuel-rich gas into the ramjet combustion chamber, where it mixes with air and combusts completely.
4. zoom

The Meteor differs in some details, like having a throttleable gas generator and boron rather than magnesium fuel, but it's the exact same principle.

Gnom differed in having a separate booster and ramjet chamber.

In all three cases the air is augmenting the sustainer motor, not the booster.

The Joke's on you, in your rush to be right you failed to image you could ever be wrong. I wasn't bound to such limitations since from the start I was unsure which answer was the correct one and have been merely seeking an objective truth since then. It took some time, but I figured out the truth.

Which, is why it is indeed funny you think the SA-6 and Meteor missile operate in exactly the same way, when any person capable of reading would be clearly able to see that they don’t on some very basic principles.

Here’s the clue, if the rocket motor {Booster} isn’t augmenting the ramjet {ramcombustor} then it isn’t an Air Augmented propulsion system, hence the name. This is why the Gnom was projected to have a separate additional rocket booster. Finally, observe how in the SA-6 the rocket booster becomes a ramjet chamber once the rocket booster has been expended, hence why it’s called an integral rocket-ramjet. No rocket booster for ramjet, no air augmentation. The gas generator step is irrelevant in determining the type of propulsion system whether air augmenting or not.

New Vihenia is free to copy the SA-6 propulsion system, but they won’t be getting that sweet ISP their after.

This post has about 95% accuracy.

[New Vihenia]

The gas generator step is irrelevant in determining the type of propulsion system whether air augmenting or not.

New Vihenia is free to copy the SA-6 propulsion system, but they won’t be getting that sweet ISP their after.

This post has about 95% accuracy.

Are you fucking serious ?

[Triplebaconation]

beyond words

[The Corparation]

The SA-6 and Meteor operate exactly the same lol

In all your research, you weren't observant enough to notice that?

1. The booster fires.
2. The empty booster casing becomes a ramjet combustion chamber.
3. A second rocket (the gas generator) spews fuel-rich gas into the ramjet combustion chamber, where it mixes with air and combusts completely.
4. zoom

The Meteor differs in some details, like having a throttleable gas generator and boron rather than magnesium fuel, but it's the exact same principle.

Gnom differed in having a separate booster and ramjet chamber.

In all three cases the air is augmenting the sustainer motor, not the booster.

The Joke's on you, in your rush to be right you failed to image you could ever be wrong. I wasn't bound to such limitations since from the start I was unsure which answer was the correct one and have been merely seeking an objective truth since then. It took some time, but I figured out the truth.

Which, is why it is indeed funny you think the SA-6 and Meteor missile operate in exactly the same way, when any person capable of reading would be clearly able to see that they don’t on some very basic principles.

Here’s the clue, if the rocket motor {Booster} isn’t augmenting the ramjet {ramcombustor} then it isn’t an Air Augmented propulsion system, hence the name. This is why the Gnom was projected to have a separate additional rocket booster. Finally, observe how in the SA-6 the rocket booster becomes a ramjet chamber once the rocket booster has been expended, hence why it’s called an integral rocket-ramjet. No rocket booster for ramjet, no air augmentation. The gas generator step is irrelevant in determining the type of propulsion system whether air augmenting or not.

New Vihenia is free to copy the SA-6 propulsion system, but they won’t be getting that sweet ISP their after.

This post has about 95% accuracy.

Are these sentences the 5% of the post that aren't accurate?

[United Earthlings]

I did similar and i came up with result, step by step practical example and i showed it. Now i need you to come up with the same not bullshitting around trying to obfuscate stuff with a looong unnecessary post which doesnt have any merit.

What you previously showed made no sense to me, I have no idea how you arrived at your solution.

Everything I’ve said on the subject has merit, you’re just at the part where it doesn’t quite make sense to you and you’re getting frustrated, I feel your pain because I’ve been there before. While, I can’t post a calculated amount since I have no idea on what the variables to enter into the formula would be specific to your nation, I can post three links that almost word for word state the same thing I have been saying, I can only advise you to take your time and read them carefully.

From Google: calculating production costs
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/determine-unit-costs-production-80184.html
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/production-cost.asp
https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/product-cost/

I am unsure on what exactly you are trying to do?

I think the 9 years is adequate to represent whatever snags etc that might happen.

With your scheme you are basically telling me to actually build one which i wont be able, and you wont be bothering doing so too as well as your research.

Now you tell me should i input 9 or 100?

Since, this part of the discussion is going in circles and you have no clue what I’ve been trying to convey, here’s a simple compromise I propose.

For the number of developmental years as an input, just put 10 and let’s move on.

What is everything you read so far? Like seriously. Meteor works exactly the same as SA-6 with the only differences is that Meteor have valve in its gas generator to control the fucking thrust. Something which SA-6 lacks. Yet both works the same.

1.Rocket booster ON.. kicking the missile into Ramjet operating speed
2.Rocket booster exhausted.. The room left by the rocket now become a combustion chamber.. or in Solid fuel one become mixing one as the gas generator starts burning and sending its fuel rich particles which then mixed with air from inlet and perfect the combustion, producing thrust.

That's how it works and it works the same way for Meteor and SA-6. Like WTF.. how do you think SA-6 missile propulsion works?

If you REALLY... and REALLY doing your research it would be very obvious that they works the same manner and the same manner as the one i devise for Except in my scheme, the ramjet/air augmented and 1st stage of rocket booster are ejected once they run out of propellant.

This part came from you, I'll be honest it is ridiculous.

So you mean they work at the same time? Then it can be called air augmented rocket?

For the last part of your post quoted directly above, I answered in my reply to Tripbacon since you two have taken the exact same stance and I don’t feel it necessary to repeat myself.

I’ll only add this, if you still feel I’ve reached the wrong conclusion, I’ll post every single source I consulted and you two can hash out an answer amongst yourselves.

[New Vihenia]

What you previously showed made no sense to me, I have no idea how you arrived at your solution.

Everything I’ve said on the subject has merit, you’re just at the part where it doesn’t quite make sense to you and you’re getting frustrated, I feel your pain because I’ve been there before. While, I can’t post a calculated amount since I have no idea on what the variables to enter into the formula would be specific to your nation, I can post three links that almost word for word state the same thing I have been saying, I can only advise you to take your time and read them carefully.

From Google: calculating production costs
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/determine-unit-costs-production-80184.html
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/production-cost.asp
https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/product-cost/

So if you cant post a calculated amount while i can, and i have backing on my method.. why not just accept what i got ?

It is very strange you claim you need a variables that not actually needed to answer a simple question. It's more like you are just cannot accept that Ramjet aided ballistic missile can exist and simply obfuscating thing by using unnecessary stuff

Since, this part of the discussion is going in circles and you have no clue what I’ve been trying to convey, here’s a simple compromise I propose.

For the number of developmental years as an input, just put 10 and let’s move on.

You cant even properly provide a clear and concise example anyway... you just bullshitting around with your "economic theory" while what i ask is simply "What value to input and how to calculate them"

If you cant accept my example then you are by default should show better. show calculations use example from say another missile...

For the last part of your post quoted directly above, I answered in my reply to Tripbacon since you two have taken the exact same stance and I don’t feel it necessary to repeat myself.

I’ll only add this, if you still feel I’ve reached the wrong conclusion, I’ll post every single source I consulted and you two can hash out an answer amongst yourselves.

Post it..

i'll post this.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1INuAip ... sp=sharing

Everyone can download and view the paper, see how the author define what an Air augmented rocket is and you can compare the damn thing with Meteor and SA-6.

See the Red box particularly.

[Austrasien]

Here’s the clue, if the rocket motor {Booster} isn’t augmenting the ramjet {ramcombustor} then it isn’t an Air Augmented propulsion system, hence the name. This is why the Gnom was projected to have a separate additional rocket booster. Finally, observe how in the SA-6 the rocket booster becomes a ramjet chamber once the rocket booster has been expended, hence why it’s called an integral rocket-ramjet. No rocket booster for ramjet, no air augmentation. The gas generator step is irrelevant in determining the type of propulsion system whether air augmenting or not.

The gas generator is what an air augmented rocket is. An oxidizer-poor rocket that produces a fuel-rich exhaust that can be combined with the incoming air stream to combust more completely. A very simple air augmented rocket would be a hydrazine monopropellant rocket (gas generator) feeding its exhaust (Nitrogen and Hydrogen) into the combustion chamber to mix with oxygen in the incoming air collected by the inlets. The resulting oxygen-hydrogen combustion has a much higher ISP than hydrazine decomposition alone or even pure hydrogen-oxygen rocket fuel because the oxygen in the second stage is externally supplied.

The booster is a completely separate rocket motor which may or may not be physically inside the combustion chamber of the ramjet or ram rocket. Its main purpose is to accelerate the missile to a velocity where the ram intake will actually suck in a useful amount of air, so it would be pointless to try and augment its operation. A booster is not strictly necessary to operate an air augmented rocket though, it is mostly a concession to the practical limits of ram-air intakes. If you have a method of supply intake air even at low/zero forward speed it could be dispensed with entirely.

You are apparently reading jargon without understanding it (something that seems to come up a lot here these days, recognizing the words being used is not the same as knowing what a particular jargon is signifying) and are parsing its meanings in absurd ways i.e. concluding the presence of the rocket motor which is being augmented with air (the gas generator) has no bearing on whether or not something is an air augmented rocket/ramjet... but the functionally and sometimes physically self-contained booster stuck on or in its ass is what really decides the question.

[Triplebaconation]

Since, this part of the discussion is going in circles and you have no clue what I’ve been trying to convey, here’s a simple compromise I propose.

For the number of developmental years as an input, just put 10 and let’s move on.

This conversation is going in circles because it's nonsensical.

UE: {Your [number] is wrong.}
NV: How?
UE: {I don't know.}
NV: How do I fix it?
UE: {Simulate your entire fictional national economy, create parametric cost estimate software, then change the variables until the results match random numbers I pulled out my ass.}

It's not some gnomic mystery that costs fluctuate. Some of the reasons are foreseeable, some are not. Since some reasons are unforeseeable, no cost estimate will ever be entirely accurate and they're continually revised during a project.

It would be just as valid and far more reasonable for New Vihenia to take his cost estimate and multiply it by a random number in a certain range. If he's happy with that number being ({1} [one]) why should he compromise with you?

I'm sure you have plenty of sources, but I'm about as interested in them as Manokan's sources about how helicopters work. I'll stick with this definition: "Air-augmented rocket systems is a generic term descriptive of a wide variety of alternative design approaches that utilize atmospheric air to improve the performance of rocket systems."

[Gallia-]

[Puzikas]

The Joke's on you, in your rush to be right you failed to image you could ever be wrong

I was wheezing when I read this

Get fucked dtn

Here’s the clue, if the rocket motor {Booster} isn’t augmenting the ramjet {ramcombustor} then it isn’t an Air Augmented propulsion system

Gas generators don't exist I see.

Or you know, you can use the normal definition of using atmospheric air to increase the power of a rocket motor like everyone else?
Idk just a thonk.

A booster is not strictly necessary to operate an air augmented rocket though

There are several proposals for pump powered versions, indeed.

[United Earthlings]

I'll stick with this definition: "Air-augmented rocket systems is a generic term descriptive of a wide variety of alternative design approaches that utilize atmospheric air to improve the performance of rocket systems."

So, it's nothing more than an utterly meaningless bullshit term with no specific meaning? Gotcha… So, if I change a few words of that sentence around to basically say the same thing would I still have the correct definition?

“An integral rocket/ramjet is a generic descriptive term of a wide variety of alternative design approaches that utilize atmospheric air to improve the performance of rocket systems.”

The gas generator is what an air augmented rocket is. An oxidizer-poor rocket that produces a fuel-rich exhaust that can be combined with the incoming air stream to combust more completely. A very simple air augmented rocket would be a hydrazine monopropellant rocket (gas generator) feeding its exhaust (Nitrogen and Hydrogen) into the combustion chamber to mix with oxygen in the incoming air collected by the inlets. The resulting oxygen-hydrogen combustion has a much higher ISP than hydrazine decomposition alone or even pure hydrogen-oxygen rocket fuel because the oxygen in the second stage is externally supplied.

The booster is a completely separate rocket motor which may or may not be physically inside the combustion chamber of the ramjet or ram rocket. Its main purpose is to accelerate the missile to a velocity where the ram intake will actually suck in a useful amount of air, so it would be pointless to try and augment its operation. A booster is not strictly necessary to operate an air augmented rocket though, it is mostly a concession to the practical limits of ram-air intakes. If you have a method of supply intake air even at low/zero forward speed it could be dispensed with entirely.

Thank you for the clarity.

You are apparently reading jargon without understanding it (something that seems to come up a lot here these days, recognizing the words being used is not the same as knowing what a particular jargon is signifying) and are parsing its meanings in absurd ways i.e. concluding the presence of the rocket motor which is being augmented with air (the gas generator) has no bearing on whether or not something is an air augmented rocket/ramjet... but the functionally and sometimes physically self-contained booster stuck on or in its ass is what really decides the question.

Not apparently, that’s exactly what was happening and sorting through that jargon was proving to be quite the quandary. Patient and understanding mentors this place is not. Safe to say, I still have some parsing and sorting to do to grasp as much as the material as possible for future information storage.

Parsing what I had previous read up on air augmented systems with this source, combined with trying to make sense of how the SA-6 propulsion system was described working on a technical level, later combined with this slightly confusing source and parsing out what was correct and what was not was proving to be exceedingly difficult especially with everyone basically yelling and cussing me out.

It's more like you are just cannot accept that Ramjet aided ballistic missile can exist and simply obfuscating thing by using unnecessary stuff

I ACCEPT THAT RAMJET BALLISTIC MISSILES CAN EXIST.

Post it..

i'll post this.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1INuAip ... sp=sharing

Everyone can download and view the paper, see how the author define what an Air augmented rocket is and you can compare the damn thing with Meteor and SA-6.

See the Red box particularly.

That paper only adds to the confusion, not diminishes it. The Red box in particular offers no clarity of definition that I haven’t already read.

I haven’t forgotten, nor am I ignoring it, the parts of your post on the economic discussion we’ve been having I’m going to post later.

Are these sentences the 5% of the post that aren't accurate?

Please take a number, all our operators are currently busy at the moment.

[Triplebaconation]

I'll stick with this definition: "Air-augmented rocket systems is a generic term descriptive of a wide variety of alternative design approaches that utilize atmospheric air to improve the performance of rocket systems."

So, it's nothing more than an utterly meaningless bullshit term with no specific meaning? Gotcha… So, if I change a few words of that sentence around to basically say the same thing would I still have the correct definition?

This definition came from the report "Air-Augmented Rocket Propulsion Systems," prepared for the Air Force Astronautics Laboratory by Astronautics Corporation of America. Unfortunately they didn't have access to stackexchange at the time.

At the moment, there is an automobile parked under a plant outside a structure.

To be more specific, there is a truck parked under a tree outside my house.

To be even more specific, there is a 2015 Chevy Silverado parked under a Southern live oak outside my ranch house.

A Chevy Silverado is a type of truck which is a type of automobile.

Similarly, an integral rocket/ramjet is a type of air-augmented rocket which is a type of reaction engine. "Air-augmented rocket" has a meaning broader than "integral rocket/ramjet" but narrower than "reaction engine."

This is very simple, and evident even from the source you posted above.

"Ducted rocket propulsion systems, sometimes called air-augmented rocket propulsion systems, combine the principles of rocket and ramjet engines"

"The action of rocket propulsion systems and ramjets can be combined. An example of these two are propulsion systems operating in sequence and then in tandem and yet utilizing a common combustion chamber volume, as shown in Fig. 1–7. Such a low-volume configuration, known as an integral rocket–ramjet"

The "integral-rocket ramjet" is an example of a propulsion system combining the principles of rocket and ramjet engines. In other words, it's an example of an air-augmented rocket propulsion system.

You might even say that the integral-rocket ramjet is one of a wide variety of alternative design approaches that utilize atmospheric air to improve the performance of rocket systems.

To be most specific and {technically accurate}, the SA-6 sustainer is a "fuel-rich solid-propellant unchoked gas generator-fed ramjet." The Meteor sustainer is a "fuel-rich solid-propellant choked gas generator-fed ramjet." They operate on the exact same principle except the Meteor sustainer can be throttled.

Not apparently, that’s exactly what was happening and sorting through that jargon was proving to be quite the quandary. Patient and understanding mentors this place is not.

You're most likely met with hostility because your affected and cutesy writing style doesn't have the effect you seem to be going for, especially when combined with your attempts to appear smugly profound while simultaneously admitting you're out of your depth.

[Gallia-]

>2015

wow that's basically brand new