NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Theodosiya]

How useful a modern 57mm gun with 21st century tech as SPAAG and as main armament of IFV, coupled with ATGM, GPMG and HMG on RCWS?

[Iltica]

Hello all, I was wondering if anyone knew how much more difficult it was to produce jet engines in the 30,000 lb / 130 kN thrust range like the P&W F100 or Saturn AL-31 than ones in the 18,000 lb / 80 kN range like the Klimov RD-33 or GE F404?

I was planning on having 2 main fighters. A smaller single-engine "tactical" fighter that would be cheap enough to risk using for WVR missions and as a strike fighter, complemented by a more expensive twin-engine "strategic" fighter that would focus mainly on BVR combat and air-superiority roles but I haven't really settled on the optimal size for each.

The level of difficulty is roughly proportional to Turbine rotor inlet temperature. The higher the more difficult the engine would be to develop and manufacture.

Couldn't find all of them, but the RD-33 is 1,407 °C / 2,565 °F and the Saturn 1,392 °C / 2,537 °F, pretty close. Well that's nice.

I don't understand why the JF-17 and HAL Tejas are so small then? Is it more the cost of content like the Radar and trying to cut back on the logistical burden or something?

[New Vihenia]

Couldn't find all of them, but the RD-33 is 1,407 °C / 2,565 °F and the Saturn 1,392 °C / 2,537 °F, pretty close. Well that's nice.

That indicate the level of technology of turbomachinery in those engine are about equal to each other. Any increase, e.g wanting to go as high as 1600 deg K. You will perhaps see considerable increase in price and extension in development time.

I don't understand why the JF-17 and HAL Tejas are so small then? Is it more the cost of content like the Radar and trying to cut back on the logistical burden or something?

Because they aren't meant to be like larger Flankers or Eagle.

[Doppio Giudici]

How useful a modern 57mm gun with 21st century tech as SPAAG and as main armament of IFV, coupled with ATGM, GPMG and HMG on RCWS?

Why 57 and not 47, 40, or 35mm?

[New Vihenia]

Why 57 and not 47, 40, or 35mm?

Big-Bad-killer and easier to put guidance in.

[North Arkana]

Why 57 and not 47, 40, or 35mm?

Big-Bad-killer and easier to put guidance in.

There's not much in between what can be killed with a 25-35mm autocannon, and what needs a heavy ATGM or 120+mm (maybe 105mm if they're only super fat rather than uberfat) APFSDS. Uberfat IFVs and APCs need anti-MBT levels of firepower, while ones which don't need MBT level logistics are handled well enough by lighter weapons than a 57mm. Assuming you're already carrying heavy ATGMs, you have your anti-MBT firepower onboard already, so spending weight to get something so large for the main gun just seems like a poor return on investment.

[New Vihenia]

There's not much in between what can be killed with a 25-35mm autocannon, and what needs a heavy ATGM or 120+mm (maybe 105mm if they're only super fat rather than uberfat) APFSDS. Uberfat IFVs and APCs need anti-MBT levels of firepower, while ones which don't need MBT level logistics are handled well enough by lighter weapons than a 57mm. Assuming you're already carrying heavy ATGMs, you have your anti-MBT firepower onboard already, so spending weight to get something so large for the main gun just seems like a poor return on investment.

But there is this.

[North Arkana]

Russia has a massive surplus of 57mm shells. And they're cheapskates. Of course they'd make an AFV that uses them. Only a minority of shells are going to of the guided type, but I guess if you're an NS nation it's not an issue, so meh.

[Gallia-]

There's not much in between what can be killed with a 25-35mm autocannon, and what needs a heavy ATGM or 120+mm (maybe 105mm if they're only super fat rather than uberfat) APFSDS. Uberfat IFVs and APCs need anti-MBT levels of firepower, while ones which don't need MBT level logistics are handled well enough by lighter weapons than a 57mm. Assuming you're already carrying heavy ATGMs, you have your anti-MBT firepower onboard already, so spending weight to get something so large for the main gun just seems like a poor return on investment.

But there is this.

h e
e

Dumbla's cavalry HIFV uses a 57mm Bofors I guess.

Russia has a massive surplus of 57mm shells. And they're cheapskates. Of course they'd make an AFV that uses them. Only a minority of shells are going to of the guided type, but I guess if you're an NS nation it's not an issue, so meh.

Russia has no IFV with a 57mm.

Both K-25 and T-15 use the old 30mm.

Big-Bad-killer and easier to put guidance in.

There's not much in between what can be killed with a 25-35mm autocannon, and what needs a heavy ATGM or 120+mm (maybe 105mm if they're only super fat rather than uberfat) APFSDS. Uberfat IFVs and APCs need anti-MBT levels of firepower, while ones which don't need MBT level logistics are handled well enough by lighter weapons than a 57mm. Assuming you're already carrying heavy ATGMs, you have your anti-MBT firepower onboard already, so spending weight to get something so large for the main gun just seems like a poor return on investment.

Tons of vehicles are protected against 20-30mm rounds.

[Purpelia]

Honestly I think 40mm is probably the best middle ground. It has enough AP to punch through most anything that ain't a tank. And the shell is big enough for smart fuses, interesting loads and stuff like that. And yet it's all small and light enough that you can get a decent ammo capacity. Although I will admit to being a tad sad about the fact that good old historical calibers like 7.5cm aren't going to be making a comeback. I mean, a 75mm IFV gun with the ballistics of a field gun would be just awesome. But I don't think it would be practical.

[Gallia-]

You are literally describing BMP-1.

[Purpelia]

You are literally describing BMP-1.

Which went out of fashion before either of us were born.

[Gallia-]

He lives on in spirit if not in body.

[The Akasha Colony]

I don't understand why the JF-17 and HAL Tejas are so small then? Is it more the cost of content like the Radar and trying to cut back on the logistical burden or something?

For the same reason Rafale and Typhoon aren't as big as F-15 or Su-27. They wanted to build a plane that size.

JF-17 and Tejas are supposed to affordably replace older planes in a similar size range. If Pakistan wanted bigger and better planes they'd buy more F-16s. And India has an obvious desire to build a separate heavy fighter of their own, but still needs something to replace their old MiG-21s.

[New Vihenia]

Chopper time.

"Marishka" in her standard paintscheme.





In this configuration, she has active protection system underside to actively engage RPG's or stingers if any.

[Purpelia]

He lives on in spirit if not in body.

I guess. But like a cramped 10cm widelding thing isn't as cool as a troop carrier with a French 75 poking out the nose.

[Austrasien]

Chopper time.

"Marishka" in her standard paintscheme.

(Image)

(Image)

In this configuration, she has active protection system underside to actively engage RPG's or stingers if any.

I don't think there is enough clearance between the ATGM rails and the guns on the side - a missile leaving rail is going to pass REALLY close to the muzzle of the Gatling gun. Perhaps increase the length of the pylons so there is more clearance?

[Iltica]

I don't understand why the JF-17 and HAL Tejas are so small then? Is it more the cost of content like the Radar and trying to cut back on the logistical burden or something?

For the same reason Rafale and Typhoon aren't as big as F-15 or Su-27. They wanted to build a plane that size.

JF-17 and Tejas are supposed to affordably replace older planes in a similar size range. If Pakistan wanted bigger and better planes they'd buy more F-16s. And India has an obvious desire to build a separate heavy fighter of their own, but still needs something to replace their old MiG-21s.

Is it more operating costs and runway requirements they are concerned about?
I just don't see how being smaller would make much difference on the manufacturing end if the technology level is kept the same.

[The Akasha Colony]

Is it more operating costs and runway requirements they are concerned about?
I just don't see how being smaller would make much difference on the manufacturing end if the technology level is kept the same.

It drives up costs everywhere. If all you need is a light fighter to replace your old light fighters, why would you bother with something more expensive? It's like asking why the US or USSR didn't just buy an all-F-15 or Su-27 fleet.

Likewise, France and the Eurofighter participants had design requirements for range, speed, payload, etc. that could be met with a fighter in the size range of Typhoon or Rafale and didn't require something bigger like F-15 or Su-27.

A bigger plane requires more fuel to fly, more T-R modules for the radar (and in turn more processing power in the avionics to handle the data), more raw components (and in turn more machining time), and more man-hours to build and maintain. These all tend to snowball into each other. If you don't have an actual need for these capabilities to fill specific role you're willing to pay for, why waste money on capabilities that are unnecessary?

For the Pakistanis, Chinese, and Indians, starting small is a cheaper and less costly way to develop the domestic technology and industrial base that can later be transferred and built upon to build larger, more complex aircraft. JF-17 and Tejas aren't meant to be super high-performance world-beating aircraft, so they're a low-stakes place to start.

[Iltica]

Is it more operating costs and runway requirements they are concerned about?
I just don't see how being smaller would make much difference on the manufacturing end if the technology level is kept the same.

It drives up costs everywhere. If all you need is a light fighter to replace your old light fighters, why would you bother with something more expensive? It's like asking why the US or USSR didn't just buy an all-F-15 or Su-27 fleet.

Likewise, France and the Eurofighter participants had design requirements for range, speed, payload, etc. that could be met with a fighter in the size range of Typhoon or Rafale and didn't require something bigger like F-15 or Su-27.

A bigger plane requires more fuel to fly, more T-R modules for the radar (and in turn more processing power in the avionics to handle the data), more raw components (and in turn more machining time), and more man-hours to build and maintain. These all tend to snowball into each other. If you don't have an actual need for these capabilities to fill specific role you're willing to pay for, why waste money on capabilities that are unnecessary?

For the Pakistanis, Chinese, and Indians, starting small is a cheaper and less costly way to develop the domestic technology and industrial base that can later be transferred and built upon to build larger, more complex aircraft. JF-17 and Tejas aren't meant to be super high-performance world-beating aircraft, so they're a low-stakes place to start.

Ok then.
I vaguely recall some report saying something about no fighter above a certain price point was to be risked in WVR engagements. I'll try and track that down and base the smaller fighter around that I suppose.
The air superiority fighter I'd like to make around the size of a Rafale or Mig-29 but that probably won't work.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Chopper time.

"Marishka" in her standard paintscheme.

(Image)

(Image)

In this configuration, she has active protection system underside to actively engage RPG's or stingers if any.

I don't think there is enough clearance between the ATGM rails and the guns on the side - a missile leaving rail is going to pass REALLY close to the muzzle of the Gatling gun. Perhaps increase the length of the pylons so there is more clearance?

can't it be timed so the missile is released into freefall then the engine activates?

although its probably easier juts to extend the pylon lol

[Purpelia]

I am sort of more concerned about the missile belching hot exhaust plumes next to an open window. So I assume that if he is intending to do missile heavy operations he would probably reel the gun in and close it.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

[Purpelia]

I assume those doors close. And besides you'll always be shooting down with rockets and the things are well bellow the bottom of the door so overall all you'd ever possibly get singed is your boots. Not the face of a guy leaning out trying to aim a MG.

[Communist Xomaniax]

Is towed artillery obsolete in the context of a full scale war between modern, mechanized armies?