NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Danternoust]

Zip fuel missiles.

Why don't people bring up zip fuels more?

[Arkandros]

[nation][/nation]

Zip fuel missiles.

Why don't people bring up zip fuels more?

Largely because, despite several millions (if not billions) in research and development as both jet and rocket fuel, no nation has ever successfully utilized a zip fuel. A small amount of research will lead you to the answer that boranes were too detrimental to jet engine operation and largely ineffective in rockets, which has condemned them to the massive pile of “cool ideas that don’t work as well as advertised”. That doesn’t mean you can’t use them and hand wave the problems, but its real world failure is almost certainly the reason it rarely gets brought up.

[Grand Indochina]

Thank you for answering my previous question, Gallia- and The Manticoran Empire.

---

New Questions :

• How much difference is the military specialist such as medic, technician... when compare to the common infantry ? Do these specialists have a different ranking system ? Can they take command of a small combat unit (squad, fireteam...) ?
  
  
• Can these following tanks fare against the M1A2D (Abrams Tank upgraded with SEPv4) : T-55AM2B (Czech modernized T-55 Tank), Tiran-5Sh (Israelite upgraded T-55 Tank), PT-91 Twardy (Polish modified T-72 Tank), and T-84 (Ukrainian version of T-80 Tank).

[Spirit of Hope]

Thank you for answering my previous question, Gallia- and The Manticoran Empire.

---

New Questions :

• How much difference is the military specialist such as medic, technician... when compare to the common infantry ? Do these specialists have a different ranking system ? Can they take command of a small combat unit (squad, fireteam...) ?

Generally they use the same rank system, though it isn't unheard of for specialist skills to use a different rank structure. Generally where they get paid as if they were a higher rank but did not necessarily have the responsibilities of the higher rank, say being paid as a sergeant but not being required to hold a sergeants leadership position. Generally leaders don't take command of a unit outside of their specialty, an infantry commander doesn't take charge of a signal unit and vise versa. Again, it isn't unheard for that to happen, generally when you are talking scratch forces created in an emergency or as the result of heavy casualties.

Can these following tanks fare against the M1A2D (Abrams Tank upgraded with SEPv4) : T-55AM2B (Czech modernized T-55 Tank), Tiran-5Sh (Israelite upgraded T-55 Tank), PT-91 Twardy (Polish modified T-72 Tank), and T-84 (Ukrainian version of T-80 Tank).

None of them are going to do well, modernization packages are about making old tanks more efficient, not about making older tanks able to stand up against modern tanks.

[Onekawa-Nukanor]

Since there isn’t much happening in the MGVOYN thread might as well post this here too.

Do we know much about the Rheinmetall Challenger 2 LEP upgrade? Is it much of a step up from the baseline Challenger 2?

[Laritaia]

Since there isn’t much happening in the MGVOYN thread might as well post this here too.

Do we know much about the Rheinmetall Challenger 2 LEP upgrade? Is it much of a step up from the baseline Challenger 2?

Take all the bits from inside a Leo2A7 turret.

Now stick them inside a new build CR2 turret.

[United Earthlings]

How the fuck I get the so called "Labor cost" and "Labor hours" in the first place? Like seriously.

You put in the time and do the work {research}, the same principle that applies to any project. Apply what you’ve learned to what would be applicable for the fictional nation you have created.

It’s understandable if you don’t know where to begin, so as I starting place I merely googled “Various labor costs of various countries in the 1980s” and among the first five results there was this one.

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?

I’m beyond denial at this point, if you want to use what’s available in your missile design books, that’s fine with me, as that was never my point of contention. My issue was your apparent improper use of said formula, thereby resulting in an inaccurate calculation.

I leave it up to you to decide how much and at what level of realism you wish to embrace. If you feel US labor rates for the time period in question when your fictional nation is developing this design best reflects that reality, then it is so.

Your desire for accuracy even goes beyond what you are able to muster yourself... isn’t it bit hypocrite?

I’m a perfectionist.

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

The same way it would be calculated in any design, one merely needs to establish what the specific relevant variables are first and input the data to make the calculation.

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?

Oh, we’re back to the condescending, ok I was trying to avoid that, but if that’s the game you want to play I love me some table tennis.

{My ability to accept what you have calculated for your missile is equally proportional to you accepting you may have calculated the result incorrectly. Is that definition simple enough for you or would you prefer something more technical?}=End of condescension.

Then the only question remaining is do you wish to play this ever escalating condescending game that will only reveal are worst impulses at which point we might as well end the discussion here and now as we will accomplish nothing? Or would you prefer to have a civil discussion where we seek out if not some outright consensus or agreement at least some type of compromise? I leave the decision to you.

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.

If math is required, I would do the math myself. As there is nothing to be gained since I have no agenda in seeking the information, but merely the knowledge itself your obsession with denial is misplaced.

[Triplebaconation]

Then the only question remaining is do you wish to play this ever escalating condescending game that will only reveal are worst impulses at which point we might as well end the discussion here and now as we will accomplish nothing? Or would you prefer to have a civil discussion where we seek out if not some outright consensus or agreement at least some type of compromise? I leave the decision to you.

The problem is you have no idea what you're talking about. You've held out this admittedly simple equation as if it's some kind of grand mystery, then completely misinterpreted it...somehow.

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.

This is not how fixed costs work at all. You're once again using jargon and misunderstanding it. Fixed costs are not fixed per unit. Quite the opposite.

In a simplified example, some New Vihenia company has a missile production line that costs $100 million per year to maintain. This $100 million is the fixed cost. Let's say each missile requires $1 million in materials and et cetera. This is the variable cost. Note that I'm NOT including labor in the variable cost for reasons that will become clear later.

In its first year of production, I seem to remember six Tomahawk missiles were built. But to keep things simple, let's say our missile plant makes 10 missiles its first year. The total cost is $100m plus 10 x $1m, or $110m. The unit cost is $11m per missile.

If the next year the company produces 50 missiles, the total cost to produce the missiles will be $100m plus 50 x $1m. The total cost is $150m and the unit cost is $3m per missile.

If the next year the company produces 100 missiles, the total cost to produce the missiles will be $100m plus 100 x $1m. The total cost is $200m and the unit cost is $2m per missile.

This is the most basic and fundamental concept in costs. If you don't understand it then everything then everything you've said so far is completely pointless.

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.

Now let's get more complicated and find out where {you} went wrong and how learning curves really work. The highly-skilled labor needed for the majority of missile production is a fixed cost. You're not going out and hiring people from the local temp agency when you needed to cure extra composite casings.

At the beginning of the learning curve, these workers are producing missiles slowly. Your production line isn't being used at full capacity, but you're still spending the same for labor costs and overhead. As the curve progresses, the workers make more missiles for the same amount of fixed costs. When the curve flattens the line is close to being used at optimal capacity.

In other words, the learning curve is almost entirely about reducing fixed costs per unit. Variable costs per unit will remain roughly the same (actually they'll follow a curve of their own, but I doubt you're ready for diminishing marginal productivity yet).
..
Your entire argument is nonsensical.

I’m a perfectionist.

You're perfectly wrong, and there's no need for an agreement or compromise.

Again, 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 just as he's using it.

[New Vihenia]

You put in the time and do the work {research}, the same principle that applies to any project. Apply what you’ve learned to what would be applicable for the fictional nation you have created.

It’s understandable if you don’t know where to begin, so as I starting place I merely googled “Various labor costs of various countries in the 1980s” and among the first five results there was this one.

Yeah and if its turned out to be as cheap as my previous calculations with simpler formula.. You will obviously starting the denial fest again.

I’m beyond denial at this point, if you want to use what’s available in your missile design books, that’s fine with me, as that was never my point of contention. My issue was your apparent improper use of said formula, thereby resulting in an inaccurate calculation.

I leave it up to you to decide how much and at what level of realism you wish to embrace. If you feel US labor rates for the time period in question when your fictional nation is developing this design best reflects that reality, then it is so.

Well i have my decision already. 335 missiles is what required to have the price i need. The variables can then come later if needed.

You probably dont even have a baseline of "level of realism" defined. As for me.. well conceptual is enough. and for conceptual design... there is no real need for extensive cost information nor overly complex equations.

Oh, we’re back to the condescending, ok I was trying to avoid that, but if that’s the game you want to play I love me some table tennis.

{My ability to accept what you have calculated for your missile is equally proportional to you accepting you may have calculated the result incorrectly. Is that definition simple enough for you or would you prefer something more technical?}=End of condescension.

Then the only question remaining is do you wish to play this ever escalating condescending game that will only reveal are worst impulses at which point we might as well end the discussion here and now as we will accomplish nothing? Or would you prefer to have a civil discussion where we seek out if not some outright consensus or agreement at least some type of compromise? I leave the decision to you.

The question is that.. When will you stop playing around and finally accept :

1.You do not understand what are you reading
2.You dodged already simple and clear definition of what actually i am making and resort to obfuscation.

The discussion can only end one way. You stop bullshitting around using those 2 behaviors observed so far. It is honestly very infuriating seeing your denial and obfuscation of actually simple issue.

I believe i can come up with any sources but as long as my missiles still have the ramjet elements, you will have a denial fest all over the place.

[Triplebaconation]

If he actually understood any of this at all it would be clear that learning curves are an important factor in reducing fixed costs per unit.

But this is really turning out better than when he could calculate the wetted surface area of some ridiculous battleship better than a CG model despite never having heard of "fineness."

[The Manticoran Empire]

So I only read a handful of those but from what I'm seeing...is there seriously an argument that cost reductions are impossible?

[The Manticoran Empire]

Thank you for answering my previous question, Gallia- and The Manticoran Empire.

No problem.

New Questions :

• How much difference is the military specialist such as medic, technician... when compare to the common infantry ? Do these specialists have a different ranking system ? Can they take command of a small combat unit (squad, fireteam...) ?

No. They will typically follow the exact same rank system and can take command of small combat units, though typically will not be in that position. A combat medic will, typically, be bouncing about the Company or Platoon, tending to casualties while more technical personnel such as mechanics will be in their own units behind the lines. There could be situations where a collection of personnel from several severely depleted units will be joined together to form a scratch unit to hold a key position but that is a rare occurrence at best. The key thing to note is that all personnel within a military branch will follow the same rank structure regardless of specialty and, as a result, will follow the same hierarchy.

Can these following tanks fare against the M1A2D (Abrams Tank upgraded with SEPv4) : T-55AM2B (Czech modernized T-55 Tank), Tiran-5Sh (Israelite upgraded T-55 Tank), PT-91 Twardy (Polish modified T-72 Tank), and T-84 (Ukrainian version of T-80 Tank).

There is limited information of the SEPv4 however, based on experiences of Abrams tanks against T-72s in Iraq in 1991 and 2003, chances are that the T-55 variants will do poorly. They are, after all, 60 or 70 years old by now and spare parts aren't easy to come across unless they are being manufactured by the nations using the tanks. The PT-91 and T-84 MIGHT be able to at least engage the Abrams, depending on how well maintained they have been and how modernized they have been. The PT-91M and T-84 OplotM are the most capable variants of those vehicles and the most likely to be able to engage a post 2021 Abrams on relatively equal footing. However, neither tank is likely to be able to survive even a single hit from M829 APFSDS rounds and may have some issues with optics.

That being said, it comes down more to crew skill than tank specifications. The T-55AM2B and Tiran-5Sh can potentially defeat and M1A2 SEPv4 if the crews are able to make most effective use of their vehicle and the terrain. However, in straight up gun duel, the Abrams is most likely to get the first shot off, the first shot on target, and the first kill, leaving the answer overall rather nebulous.

[Triplebaconation]

So I only read a handful of those but from what I'm seeing...is there seriously an argument that cost reductions are impossible?

Not exactly. TLDR: NV is estimating unit costs of a made-up missile based on an empirically-validated model in widespread use. UE says NV's made-up costs are wrong because he hasn't fully simulated his made-up economy to UE standards, which are apparently based on misunderstandings of random small business management pages. NV is becoming irritated because UE is doing his Yoda act to cover up the fact he really doesn't know what he's talking about and demanding NV come to some sort of compromise or agreement with him in order to make NV look unreasonable.

Given NV's demonstrated ability to create and apply mathematical models, the situation is like a guy who's watched a couple of YouTube videos on changing oil a few minutes ago happening by and demanding a mechanic take his unsolicited advice while the mechanic is working on his own car. This advice, of course, is delivered in a bad Dumbledore impression to make it seem smarter.

You put in the time and do the work {research}, the same principle that applies to any project.

If math is required, I would do the math myself.

Then put in the time and do the work {research} and do your math yourself. All you need to know is the fuel consumption and thrust of each missile at Mach 2.7. No doubt that's very easy information to find ( ) {that indicates sarcasm}, but if for some reason you can't all you have to do is calculate it from first principles based on performance, fuel weight, and burn time. You'll need to know each missile's drag coefficient at Mach 2.7, but if you can't find that in public sources you can just figure it out with decent CFD software. Shouldn't take more than few days. After all,

one merely needs to establish what the specific relevant variables are first and input the data to make the calculation.

[The Manticoran Empire]

So I only read a handful of those but from what I'm seeing...is there seriously an argument that cost reductions are impossible?

Not exactly. TLDR: NV is estimating unit costs of a made-up missile based on an empirically-validated model in widespread use. UE says NV's made-up costs are wrong because he hasn't fully simulated his made-up economy to UE standards, which are apparently based on misunderstandings of random small business management pages. NV is becoming irritated because UE is doing his Yoda act to cover up the fact he really doesn't know what he's talking about and demanding NV come to some sort of compromise or agreement with him in order to make NV look unreasonable.

Given NV's demonstrated ability to create and apply mathematical models, the situation is like a guy who's watched a couple of YouTube videos on changing oil a few minutes ago happening by demanding a mechanic take his unsolicited advice while the mechanic is working on his own car.

Ah. Based on my limited reading of the posts, it honestly appears that UE is being the more unreasonable. NV has laid out his argument, provided evidence to back it up, and maintained his stance by continuing to explain his position in a measured way. There are plenty of arguments where compromise simply isn't feasible and you must accept one person as correct. I don't know enough about the maths to make the judgement, though.

[The Manticoran Empire]

So I have been doing some research on divisional structures and I want to know how functional the US Army Division-86 would be on a modern battlefield? Is it something easily modernized or should I continue my search?

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

The Army, a Corps-sized unit of around 120k men and two to four main combat divisions, stands up an ad-hoc reconnaissance unit to "lead the way." The purpose of this unit is to get through or around the enemy's main body and to occupy a position of ground identified or to interpose the enemy's line of communications or threaten their flank.

The Headquarters unit is organised with a tactical HQ, signals HQ, and an admin HQ similar to any other unit in any other army (ie medical post, plans section, quartermaster etc). A Fitters unit is included for immediate recovery of fallen-out vehicles or critical battlefield repairs. The Supply unit is a compact unit with amphibious 5-ton supply trucks capable of providing 48hrs worth of non-stop combat operations (around 340 000kg) and probably like 3-4 giant tank trucks carrying an extra 100 000kg of fuel depending on situation.

The main combat force units are drawn from the best trained squadrons of the divisions of the army. An example set up:

A Squadron, Sultan's Own Dragoon Guards (x18 MBT)
B Squadron, 21st Dragoon Guards (x18 MBT)
C Company, Highlander Regiment (x18 MICV)
D Company, 2nd/5th Duke of Pokhara's Gurkha Rifles (x18 MICV)
G Squadron, Royal Gurkha Hussars (x18 AFV)

Each Squadron or Company HQ acts as an battlegroup mobile force of varying size/capacity, absorbing the others. This division is made ideally weeks before operations begin so the units can have a full training and mock operational order exercise together. The task of the combat units to execute objectives made by the unit commander, whether that is recce in force or armd assault.

Supporting units make the reconnaissance battleforce an "all arms unit" appropriate for "all round defence" when outside the range of direct support of other fighting units. These include but aren't limited to (providing units as examples)

Regimental Anti-tank Team (4x4 FV Swingfire)
Regimental Anti-air Team (4x4 M113 ADATS)
Armd Engineer Squadron, with AVLB - Breaching tanks - sappers
Security Troop 1st Royal Fusiliers/2nd—Line (troops in wheeled APC for route security/taking prisoners/rear area security)
Forward Observation Post (direct link to a heavy artillery regiment - 203s and MRLS)
Z Squadron, 12 Observation Post Battery (RSTA special forces)

did I miss something?

Total strength approximately 1,500 men.

[Gallia-]

did I miss something?

the part where it gets owned by motorcycles and hiluxes and donkey fuel transports

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

did I miss something?

the part where it gets owned by motorcycles and hiluxes and donkey fuel transports

no

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

it probably needs FACs actually, mounted in cute tiny FACTRACS aka spartans with antennae

[Gallia-]

it needs aerostats

the balloon bois will spot the motorcycle gangs producing clouds of dust from 5 miles away but they will never see the bicyclemen

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

aerostats with hellfires mmmmm yes

[Barfleur]

[nation][/nation]

Zip fuel missiles.

Why don't people bring up zip fuels more?

Largely because, despite several millions (if not billions) in research and development as both jet and rocket fuel, no nation has ever successfully utilized a zip fuel. A small amount of research will lead you to the answer that boranes were too detrimental to jet engine operation and largely ineffective in rockets, which has condemned them to the massive pile of “cool ideas that don’t work as well as advertised”. That doesn’t mean you can’t use them and hand wave the problems, but its real world failure is almost certainly the reason it rarely gets brought up.

IIRC the Meteor missile uses Boron fuel, but it has no practical use in an airplane's engine. It's better for missiles, where you don't care about engine damage, than for jet planes.

[Austrasien]

Combustion products of boron and air include boron carbide a material that is noteworthy for being like diamond in every way especially the physical.

It is a short duration fuel choice.

[Gallia-]

[nation][/nation]

Zip fuel missiles.

Why don't people bring up zip fuels more?

Largely because, despite several millions (if not billions) in research and development as both jet and rocket fuel, no nation has ever successfully utilized a zip fuel. A small amount of research will lead you to the answer that boranes were too detrimental to jet engine operation and largely ineffective in rockets, which has condemned them to the massive pile of “cool ideas that don’t work as well as advertised”. That doesn’t mean you can’t use them and hand wave the problems, but its real world failure is almost certainly the reason it rarely gets brought up.

No.

A disposable engine won't care about borane soot destroying the blades or something.

Pentaborane and other zip fuels just require expensive, and niche, production plants which were setup predominantly for the use of manned supersonic aircraft. When these aircraft stopped using zip fuels in the 50s, the plants vanished, because zip fuel has no real purpose industrially. A few years later, cruise missiles appeared, but they were small weapons rather than large ones. But if you wanted to make a supersonic cruise missile with intercontinental range, you could absolutely use zip fuel, and it would actually make sense for the most part. The benefits of zip fuel in something the size and range of Hound Dog is dubious at best. If Hound Dog were fired from launchers in Nebraska instead of B-52s in Siberia, it would be good to use zip fuel, though.

The actual reason they stopped being used is almost the same reason the manned bomber died: ICBMs were cheaper and used very common industrial compounds (predominantly kerosene) rather than high niche chemical products with no real use outside high energy fuels.

If for whatever reason ICBMs stop being useful in the future, and high speed high supersonic cruise missiles take over or something, then zip fuels will probably be studied again. This time in the context of a disposable missile engine intended for a few minutes of flight rather than thousands of hours.

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

If nuclear shells are to be issued to line artillery what 你numbers should they be in?