NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Valeda]

How many people would I possibly need to keep a Panzer 68 tank running for avalanche control? (i.e shooting at mountains to mitigate avalanches) or would it be more practical to just use a howitzer instead?

[Kassaran]

Towed howitzer, or mortar, or just some dude out on a snow-mobile/skis planting charges across the mountainside and then remotely blowing them from his ranger station.

[Crookfur]

How many people would I possibly need to keep a Panzer 68 tank running for avalanche control? (i.e shooting at mountains to mitigate avalanches) or would it be more practical to just use a howitzer instead?

Depends on what you mean by "running" if you mean fully operational and regularly moving under its own power then probably 6-8 personnel. If you mean it sits in one place during the active season with the engine just being used to run the turret and gun then 4 personnel would be fine as long as it is getting a bit of TLC in the off season.
A howitzer would likely require similar numbers if it has to be moved to different firing positions regularly.
Cost probably comes down to ammo availability rather than staffing costs.

[Triplebaconation]

You most likely won't have extra people around just to run a tank a few times a year. They'll be in a state agency or whatever's equipment park alongside other heavy equipment.

For example, when I worked at a state park with a lot of heavy equipment, we had just two people on staff to maintain the park and the bulldozers and trucks and everything we used to...maintain the park. When we had some weird thing we used a couple of times a year we just spent a few hours getting it in working order before we took it out.

[Danternoust]

Avalanche control is a part of scheduled small unit military exercises in Danternoust.

Large caliber mortars are used, with redundant fuses.

[Gallia-]

atmospheric airburst testing has rendered snow an endangered species in dumbla ):

[Greater Kazar]

(Image)

(Image)

Light A/C Company. The six-wheel model does not appear to have a turret large enough to require both a gunner and vehicle commander. Suggest converting one of these to an additional dismounted scout.

Heavy A/C Company. Assistant drivers are not much of a thing anymore, suggest converting to another dismounted scout. Why the vehicle difference for PLT LDR and PSG? Suggest making both vehicles the same.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

the patgb recovery sections are soooooooooooo cute, I love them sooooooo much.

can we have the patgb bridgelayer too pwease?

[Cossack Peoples]

For a nation whose navy is a little lackluster, what would be the strategic value of a purely defensive fleet comprised of rubber dinghies, crewed by two sailors, with a single mortar? I'm talking a few thousand of these, at the minimum.

[Crookfur]

For a nation whose navy is a little lackluster, what would be the strategic value of a purely defensive fleet comprised of rubber dinghies, crewed by two sailors, with a single mortar? I'm talking a few thousand of these, at the minimum.

Very little other than to provide target practice for the opposing navy's helicopter door gunners and close defence gunners

[Gallia-]

(Image)

(Image)

Light A/C Company. The six-wheel model does not appear to have a turret large enough to require both a gunner and vehicle commander. Suggest converting one of these to an additional dismounted scout.

There are three scouts. The VC sits in the turret when mounted and the gunner takes over when he dismounts. Hence "backup commander". The backup commander sits in the back, behind the turret, normally.

Heavy A/C Company. Assistant drivers are not much of a thing anymore, suggest converting to another dismounted scout.

I'm pretty sure that Commandos retain the assistant driver seat. I'm not sure why you would get rid of a perfectly useful pair of hands. At the very least he can operate things like radars and look at the map.

Why the vehicle difference for PLT LDR and PSG? Suggest making both vehicles the same.

It isn't different. One shows the ground surveillance radar deployed on its mast.

the patgb recovery sections are soooooooooooo cute, I love them sooooooo much.

can we have the patgb bridgelayer too pwease?

I think they just float, unless that's not a thing with the newer Commandos or something.

I might have to redraw them again to make them buoyant. ):

Or just give them a screen like M551/M2.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I admit, landing whole tank companies on PRC with a single air cushion landing craft seems tempting
but
>Zubr

[Gallia-]

he THICC

[The Manticoran Empire]

I admit, landing whole tank companies on PRC with a single air cushion landing craft seems tempting
but
>Zubr

It does.

Until you consider the fact that if that boat gets sunk, you just lost a whole company of VERY expensive tanks. A 1 or 2 million dollar missile taking out maybe 200 million dollars worth of tanks.

[Gallia-]

As opposed to a $5 million missile sinking a $2 billion ship?

[United Earthlings]

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.

That makes sense...

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.

Out of curiosity, if displayed graphically how would the SA-6, Meteor and something like the British Bloodhound compare using ISP as a base?

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.

Just one of the reasons while I find psychology such a fascinating subject, after all every one of us has our own unique idiosyncrasies.

Then again, I might just be following this preordained path, “We shall not grow wiser before we learn that much that we have done was very foolish”, one does never truly know.

For a nation whose navy is a little lackluster, what would be the strategic value of a purely defensive fleet comprised of rubber dinghies, crewed by two sailors, with a single mortar? I'm talking a few thousand of these, at the minimum.

Are you fighting a local insurgency in your nation located within the vast inland waterways with your ground forces requiring direct/indirect fire support? If yes, then you got yourself a cheap, if limited PBR. If, no, then why isn’t your nation instead buying dozens of these, instead of a few thousand of those mortar barges?

I admit, landing whole tank companies on PRC with a single air cushion landing craft seems tempting
but
>Zubr

It does.

Until you consider the fact that if that boat gets sunk, you just lost a whole company of VERY expensive tanks. A 1 or 2 million dollar missile taking out maybe 200 million dollars worth of tanks.

Counterpoint...

1. This is why; preferably you should pick a landing spot for the company that doesn't have a well prepared enemy force nearby, among other things...
2. Whether the potential enemy missile sinks that huge LC/AC or a larger landing ship like a LPD or LSD, you’re still losing that company. The only question then is, did you come out favorably in the exchange of assets and/or secure your objectives.

The game's called Risk for a reason.

[The Manticoran Empire]

As opposed to a $5 million missile sinking a $2 billion ship?

The difference there is that you have other options for the tanks that make the exchange far less extreme. You kinda can't make a Guided Missile Destroyer smaller.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

As opposed to a $5 million missile sinking a $2 billion ship?

The difference there is that you have other options for the tanks that make the exchange far less extreme. You kinda can't make a Guided Missile Destroyer smaller.

AShM's are a meme anyway. The real threat is the torpedo and the underwater battleship.

[The Manticoran Empire]

For a nation whose navy is a little lackluster, what would be the strategic value of a purely defensive fleet comprised of rubber dinghies, crewed by two sailors, with a single mortar? I'm talking a few thousand of these, at the minimum.

None at all. They are incredibly vulnerable to small arms fire and even wildlife while simultaneously being highly unstable platforms that are likely to actually sink when fired. Instead of spending $4,300 on a dinghy, $10,700 on a 60mm Mortar, and $12,080 on 20 rounds of 60mm ammunition a minimum of 3,000 times (totaling $81,240,000 just for the equipment), you would be far better served by 5 Mark VI patrol boats, who will also only require 10 men to crew them and maybe 30 or 40 men to maintain each one. For just slightly more money ($90 million instead of $81.24 million) you can have six of these boats only needing 300 men instead of 6,000. For the price, you get six boats equipped with 2x 25mm chain guns, 6x .50 cal machine guns, and options for mounting M134 miniguns, M240 machine guns, and Mk. 19 grenade launchers, as well as the potential to mount anti-tank guided missiles. Far more versatile platforms requiring far less personnel for basically the same price.

[Gallia-]

As opposed to a $5 million missile sinking a $2 billion ship?

The difference there is that you have other options for the tanks that make the exchange far less extreme. You kinda can't make a Guided Missile Destroyer smaller.

LPD-17 is $2 billion. T-ESDs are like $400 million.

The Zubr battalion carrier is probably like $600 mn for the ship alone. Call it $800 mn for the whole thing. Slightly less than the USCG's latest cutter.

The thing that is most valuable is not necessarily the things carried inside. Splitting up a landing force into multiple hunks makes it more likely that bigger portions of the landing force will survive an attack of any given size because it increases the amount of weapons needed to attack with. It also makes each individual loss of a ship less injurious to the landing troops because they will be taking fewer casualties for a given attack size. Larger attack sizes can also be more readily detected and defeated because they can be attacked sooner. They are also more expensive to maintain as a capability.

The only real argument is that a dozen ships might cost a bit more money, which is true, but not particularly relevant if you think amphibious assault is an important capability to have regardless.

[Triplebaconation]

Out of curiosity, if displayed graphically how would the SA-6, Meteor and something like the British Bloodhound compare using ISP as a base?

[United Earthlings]

Well 335 is what it needs to get the cost down to 2M.

Assume 80% learning curve. Like, i dont get the value from thin air...

You have the initial missile cost of 13000000. You want one cost 2000.000. How many missiles should be produced for the learning curve to take effect?

You do this:

First to find the cost factor:

2000000/13000000 = 0.15

Then the learning curve factor assumed to be 80%. Which is typical.

LN(0./LN(2)=-0.322

Now we can find how many missiles required to be produced to achieve the required production cost :

N=0.15^(1/-0.322)
N=335 missiles.

so 336th and onwards would cost the 2M USD.

I wonder how did you can come up with "it’s highly improbable you’d eventually be able to get the average unit cost down to $2 million USD no matter how large scale of mass production your nation pursued"

Once more into the breach, I know I already replied to this post of yours some time ago, but in the interest of context I’m quoting it again. I feel this post was the beginning of where we lost each other in the conversation and as such where my final post explaining my reasoning and how I arrived at it I feel is where it should end.

Getting the blatantly obvious out of the way first. Why am I skeptical of an eventual 2 million unit cost? Because, starting with this simple equation of Variable Costs + Fixed Costs / Total Units Produced = Unit Cost. If unit cost for the first unit produced otherwise known as 1 unit produced equals 13 million, after assigning a random 60/40 split between variable costs and fixed costs nets me an estimated variable cost of 7.8 million and a fixed cost of 5.2 million, then acknowledging the following as true: Variable costs are costs that change, depending on the volume of product or service produced. Fixed costs are expenses that remain unaffected by changes in output.

If your fixed costs to produce a single unit is higher than 2 million, which is more than likely than mathematically you’re never going to have a unit cost lower than your fixed costs even if you applied every saving you could to the variable costs that are part of the calculation. The exact ratio of variable costs to fixed costs you’ve yet to determine and which no one, but you can determine since it’s your nation but suffice to say even a fixed cost as low as 2 million would still result in a unit cost higher than two million since there is never going to be a variable cost that is zero.

On the learning curve cost calculation you provided, I have been able to determine where you went wrong. For starters, you need to understand that learning curves only apply to direct labor costs per unit and hence only in direct labor costs are where you would see potential savings, which is but one of the many components that is required to calculate variable costs. At maximum efficiency at most you gain a 10% savings as applied to the overall variable costs with a more likely average of between 2 and 5% overall savings. It should go without stating that an initial direct labor cost of $10 per hour would produced a different saving result as one compared to an initial $20 per hour labor cost. The exact percentage of your labor costs to total costs will have an effect.

In your calculation above, you never applied labor costs nor the required labor hours, those variables being required for an accurate estimate.

In addition, economics of scale is a separate calculated saving potential from the application of learning curves and if it is ultimately determined that 335 is the required number to achieve the savings from economics of scale, that’s 335 you would have to produced on an annual rate, considering most defense budgets are budgeted on a yearly basis, and not 335 as a total production run. If you’re total production run is only projected to be 335 over say a five year period that means on average your nation would only be producing 67 missiles per year which may or may not be below the threshold to achieve maximum savings from economics of scale. Whatever the final determination for economics of scale is, maximum savings as applied to variable costs will probably not exceed 10% according to my source and it’s entirely possible to be below that 10 percent.

Combined, achieving maximum efficiency the most you could gain from both learning curves and economics of scale would be a savings of up to 20 percent of your specific variable costs.

In closing, as requested, the full equation for calculating learning curves.

Out of curiosity, if displayed graphically how would the SA-6, Meteor and something like the British Bloodhound compare using ISP as a base?

Not the graph I had in mind, more what the specific ISP number is on the graph in relation to attainable mach speed just for those examples. For example: At Mach 2.7 would the bloodhound have a higher ISP than the SA-6, and what would each ISP be in comparison to the other. Would the Bloodhound be higher on the graph at say 500 ISP while the SA-6 is at 450?

Not a general rating by engine type, but a specific rating by each missile graphed.

[Gallia-]

Isp has nothing to do with speed. If you have infinite fuel, you have infinite speed, no matter your specific impulse. It's a measure of fuel economy.

Bloodhound is worse than Kub because it has six quite efficient engines compared to Kub's single quite efficient engine. This is pretty obvious from following the graph.

It's also obvious from looking at Bloodhound: It's 4x the mass but has only twice the range and a warhead only 50% bigger than Kub.

[New Vihenia]

Once more into the breach, I know I already replied to this post of yours some time ago, but in the interest of context I’m quoting it again. I feel this post was the beginning of where we lost each other in the conversation and as such where my final post explaining my reasoning and how I arrived at it I feel is where it should end.

Getting the blatantly obvious out of the way first. Why am I skeptical of an eventual 2 million unit cost? Because, starting with this simple equation of Variable Costs + Fixed Costs / Total Units Produced = Unit Cost. If unit cost for the first unit produced otherwise known as 1 unit produced equals 13 million, after assigning a random 60/40 split between variable costs and fixed costs nets me an estimated variable cost of 7.8 million and a fixed cost of 5.2 million, then acknowledging the following as true: Variable costs are costs that change, depending on the volume of product or service produced. Fixed costs are expenses that remain unaffected by changes in output.

If your fixed costs to produce a single unit is higher than 2 million, which is more than likely than mathematically you’re never going to have a unit cost lower than your fixed costs even if you applied every saving you could to the variable costs that are part of the calculation. The exact ratio of variable costs to fixed costs you’ve yet to determine and which no one, but you can determine since it’s your nation but suffice to say even a fixed cost as low as 2 million would still result in a unit cost higher than two million since there is never going to be a variable cost that is zero.

On the learning curve cost calculation you provided, I have been able to determine where you went wrong. For starters, you need to understand that learning curves only apply to direct labor costs per unit and hence only in direct labor costs are where you would see potential savings, which is but one of the many components that is required to calculate variable costs. At maximum efficiency at most you gain a 10% savings as applied to the overall variable costs with a more likely average of between 2 and 5% overall savings. It should go without stating that an initial direct labor cost of $10 per hour would produced a different saving result as one compared to an initial $20 per hour labor cost. The exact percentage of your labor costs to total costs will have an effect.

In your calculation above, you never applied labor costs nor the required labor hours, those variables being required for an accurate estimate.

In addition, economics of scale is a separate calculated saving potential from the application of learning curves and if it is ultimately determined that 335 is the required number to achieve the savings from economics of scale, that’s 335 you would have to produced on an annual rate, considering most defense budgets are budgeted on a yearly basis, and not 335 as a total production run. If you’re total production run is only projected to be 335 over say a five year period that means on average your nation would only be producing 67 missiles per year which may or may not be below the threshold to achieve maximum savings from economics of scale. Whatever the final determination for economics of scale is, maximum savings as applied to variable costs will probably not exceed 10% according to my source and it’s entirely possible to be below that 10 percent.

Combined, achieving maximum efficiency the most you could gain from both learning curves and economics of scale would be a savings of up to 20 percent of your specific variable costs.

In closing, as requested, the full equation for calculating learning curves.

Thanks for the link. But

How the fuck i get the so called "Labor cost" and "Labor hours" in the first place ? Like seriously. You already denied my simplified approach using what is available in missile design books. If i do use US labor rate am i going to go through your long nonsense denial again ?. Your desire for accuracy even goes beyond what you are able to muster yourself... isnt it bit hyppocrite ?

And talking about Variable cost... again how the fuck it can be estimated in a conceptual design ?

You have been technically unsound so far... Can't get around a simple definition of ramjet and now you demand something which probably blow your head away again in understanding. Is it too difficult to accept that My missile can cost what i calculate ?

Not the graph I had in mind, more what the specific ISP number is on the graph in relation to attainable mach speed just for those examples. For example: At Mach 2.7 would the bloodhound have a higher ISP than the SA-6, and what would each ISP be in comparison to the other. Would the Bloodhound be higher on the graph at say 500 ISP while the SA-6 is at 450?

Not a general rating by engine type, but a specific rating by each missile graphed.

So you basically tell us to do the math ? What could be gained by doing it ? If the result turned out to be different to what you had in mind you will start the denial again.

[Triplebaconation]

Even if the necessary information was available, it'd take hours of painstaking research to find it. Then of course you want it graphically!

As the chart above indicates, the liquid-fueled Bloodhound engines most likely have much higher isp than the solid-fueled Meteor and SA-6 at most speeds. But it would be almost useless (especially given the effort required) to answer your specific question because isp isn't the sole indicator of missile performance.

On the learning curve cost calculation you provided, I have been able to determine where you went wrong. For starters, you need to understand that learning curves only apply to direct labor costs per unit and hence only in direct labor costs are where you would see potential savings, which is but one of the many components that is required to calculate variable costs

And yet the Wright learning curve is a prescribed method of cost analysis within the DoD and there's plenty of empirical data validating it to within a typical percent of error of about 10% (good enough for NS, in other words) for the unit cost of items with very low incompressibility factors {huh?} like aircraft and missiles.

Of course reality is more complex, and older models of learning curves tend to underestimate costs towards the end of procurement, where the actual curve often begins to pick up a slight S-shape.

Can {you} propose an alternate method with a demonstrated empirical MAPE of less than 5-20%? If not, what are you going on about?

In closing, as requested, the full equation for calculating learning curves.

It seems like someone of your erudition would know there's no single "full equation for calculating learning curves," but a variety of methods.

New Vihenia may find this more useful than random stuff pulled from investormojopedia or whatever, not to mention an equation he's already using.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1056447.pdf

I think this bears repeating more simply:

The method being used by New Vihenia to calculate unit costs has been proven reasonably accurate by hundreds of programs and is actually used in military cost estimates.

If his fictional missile produced by a fictional country unit cost is too cheap it's most likely because he's underestimated the first unit cost. Calculating that correctly would be a difficult task even for the accountants of a multibillion dollar aerospace corporation, and if you can invent a simple way to do it to within 100% error you're probably up for a Nobel Prize.

Getting the blatantly obvious out of the way first. Why am I skeptical of an eventual 2 million unit cost? Because, starting with this simple equation of Variable Costs + Fixed Costs / Total Units Produced = Unit Cost. If unit cost for the first unit produced otherwise known as 1 unit produced equals 13 million, after assigning a random 60/40 split between variable costs and fixed costs nets me an estimated variable cost of 7.8 million and a fixed cost of 5.2 million, then acknowledging the following as true: Variable costs are costs that change, depending on the volume of product or service produced. Fixed costs are expenses that remain unaffected by changes in output.

This is blatantly and obviously silly, and it seems you've misunderstood pretty much everything at a very basic level.

I used to go this little panini shop in Oxford. Ever since then, I've loved paninis! But there's a problem. There are no panini shops near me now. Thankfully a few months ago I got a specialized tool for making paninis. Yes, a panini press. I got it for Christmas, but let's say it cost me $100 (it's pretty nice). The morning after I got it, I purchased some brie, bacon, and bread for about 8 bucks and made two sandwiches. I'll discount the cost of my labor even though I'm a gourmet chef since paninis aren't that complicated.

The unit cost of my first sandwich was an incredible 104 dollars! But the second was only 54 dollars. Now, after I've made about 20 paninis, the unit cost is a much more reasonable six dollars - mostly depreciation of the panini press (fixed cost), but I've learned to use ingredients more efficiently (variable cost).

Fixed costs are stuff like rent, interest payments, depreciation of equipment, etc. The cost of my kitchen is negligible per panini, but what about those nice ladies in Oxford, paying perhaps a couple of thousand pounds a month in fixed expenses? If they sold one panini it would have to cost over two thousand quid for them to stay in business! Yet somehow they sold them for six.

Now, imagine I'm making missiles instead of paninis. The specialized tooling and everything else needed to make a specific missile may take hundreds and hundreds of thousands of specialized man-hours to create. Rent, insurance, interest - who knows? Point is you don't know how fixed costs work, or we'd all be eating sandwiches that cost as much as a used car.

If your fixed costs to produce a single unit is higher than 2 million, which is more than likely than mathematically you’re never going to have a unit cost lower than your fixed costs even if you applied every saving you could to the variable costs that are part of the calculation.

To put it more simply, this is completely ass-backwards.

Bloodhound is worse than Kub because it has six quite efficient engines compared to Kub's single quite efficient engine. This is pretty obvious from following the graph.

It's also obvious from looking at Bloodhound: It's 4x the mass but has only twice the range and a warhead only 50% bigger than Kub.

Really Bloodhound was mostly filled with weird British electronics and only had 40 or so gallons of fuel.