NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Velkanika]

Fun fact: The cost of shipping goods on a river is 1/5 the cost of railroad transport on flat and level ground like the American Great Plains. Railroads are fast (except when you're near Chicago) and don't require a lot of water flowing downhill, which is why a lot of railroads link the heads of navigation on waterways. Also, the Nile and Ganges aren't particularly navigable due to local geology.

That minor nitpick aside, look at riverboats that operated on those waterways in that era. River gunboats have historically been based around contemporary riverboats, with the Union Navy Mississippi Squadron in the American Civil War being the perfect example of that.

For modern times, there isn't a lot to draw from besides the Vietnam War and the Brownwater Navy swift boats in the Mekong Delta. Generally speaking though, 1,000 tons displacement should be manageable on very large rivers like the Danube, Volga, Yukon, and Mississippi however maneuverability and shallow draft is key.

[Purpelia]

Fun fact: The cost of shipping goods on a river is 1/5 the cost of railroad transport on flat and level ground like the American Great Plains. Railroads are fast (except when you're near Chicago) and don't require a lot of water flowing downhill, which is why a lot of railroads link the heads of navigation on waterways. Also, the Nile and Ganges aren't particularly navigable due to local geology.

That minor nitpick aside, look at riverboats that operated on those waterways in that era. River gunboats have historically been based around contemporary riverboats, with the Union Navy Mississippi Squadron in the American Civil War being the perfect example of that.

For modern times, there isn't a lot to draw from besides the Vietnam War and the Brownwater Navy swift boats in the Mekong Delta. Generally speaking though, 1,000 tons displacement should be manageable on very large rivers like the Danube, Volga, Yukon, and Mississippi however maneuverability and shallow draft is key.

I know what was done historically. My question is how crazy I could go with making it BIG without just looking terribly stupid. Like, I imagine something on the scale of a late WW2 destroyer (in size) would be plausible. Or hell, maybe some way of getting battleship grade guns on something on a river. Can you like imagine 12 inch guns being fired from a river boat at another river boat?

On that note I have for a long time now decided to check if I can put railroad scale guns on a river barge for WW1 use as a railroad artillery equivalent.

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

What are the effects of treating spies in wartime as POWs (rather than criminals)?

Azad, stop assuming that we are either having a war or that you are going to capture my spy.

[Grand Indochina]

Munkcestrian RepubIic , please don't respond to him.

[Manokan Republic]

Thinking about removing IFVs from my TOE altogether. As they converge with tanks in complexity and cost an IFV seems to be a diversion of various scarce inputs (fire control sets, trained armor crews, 1,000hp+ drivetrains) from main battle tanks to a generally weaker vehicle.

There are a number of advantages to an IFV, the main two are transporting infantry and using their chainguns/autocannons to take out lightly armored vehicles or infantry.

Chainguns or autocannons are usually faster firing and easier to acquire targets with than a tank gun, so it's easier to hit a fast moving target like a lightly armored technical with a rocket launcher or another IFV, or with air-bursting/exploding rounds take out infantry. In the Yom kippur war specifically, but a number of engagements, the U.S. and many other military's found that combined arms warfare, that is a combination of a variety of tactics and vehicles against tanks, were far more effective than they originally envisioned, with it being easier to ambush and take out tanks than they expected. As a result of numerous tank losses in the Yom Kippur war, the Israelies began combining infantry, artillery, and light vehicles in to their tank assaults, and particularly found something like an IFV would be really useful for this, which prompted the U.S. to make their own. IFV's have a number of advantages due to their chainguns, such as shooting down low flying aircraft (particularly anti-tank helicopters), light fast moving vehicles, taking out enemy infantry, and out maneuvering tanks to fire missiles at, as well as having the ability to deploy infantry who, can also have rocket launchers to take out enemy tanks. In most conflicts tanks are not ideal tank killers, usually suffering more losses than things other than tanks, than tanks, and so they're main use is to punch down, to go after lighter armor, defensive bunkers and so on, and to absorb hits from other tanks, but big heavy tanks don't necessarily make great tank killers.

At one point in recent history, anti-tank missiles from terrorists were so effective against tanks the Israelis completely withdrew their tanks from the front lines, as it wasn't worth risking them in ordinary combat. Infantry fighting vehicles being tasked along side tanks help with missiles as they can take out lighter vehicles or infantry more easily with their main gun, either using relatively powerful 25-40mm armor piercing rounds or high explosive rounds, particularly air-bursting one's. Another reason for an IFV is anti-vehicle warfare, and mounting a cannon on a lot of your APC's adds only a slight additional cost and weight but dramatically increases the firepower. The stryker dragoon is a good example of that. You could however mount some kind of chaingun or autocannon to a tank and some missiles and compensate for it, so there might not be as much of a reason to have an entirely separate vehicle if you do that.

[Manokan Republic]

Fun fact: The cost of shipping goods on a river is 1/5 the cost of railroad transport on flat and level ground like the American Great Plains. Railroads are fast (except when you're near Chicago) and don't require a lot of water flowing downhill, which is why a lot of railroads link the heads of navigation on waterways. Also, the Nile and Ganges aren't particularly navigable due to local geology.

That minor nitpick aside, look at riverboats that operated on those waterways in that era. River gunboats have historically been based around contemporary riverboats, with the Union Navy Mississippi Squadron in the American Civil War being the perfect example of that.

For modern times, there isn't a lot to draw from besides the Vietnam War and the Brownwater Navy swift boats in the Mekong Delta. Generally speaking though, 1,000 tons displacement should be manageable on very large rivers like the Danube, Volga, Yukon, and Mississippi however maneuverability and shallow draft is key.

This is some really great information to be honest, it's pretty much what I surmised, waterways are still a great way to transport huge amounts of goods, if not one of the best. Hence why most industrial cargo is shipped by boat.

[Triplebaconation]

A match made in Heaven.

[New Vihenia]

Browsing some materials. There appears to be argument to "buy latest variant of F-16 to adapt to 5th gen F-35".

I'm curious how true this could be ? Like in my view, both airplanes are of completely different league and underlying thoughts that commonality between them be it technical, logistics or even doctrine is practically nil. Both have AESA radars but that doesnt mean one can snap one module off the APG-83 and tuck it to APG-81 and vice versa. Both are single engine but anyone knows that F-135 cannot be swapped with GE or PW that powers F-16's.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Browsing some materials. There appears to be argument to "buy latest variant of F-16 to adapt to 5th gen F-35".

I'm curious how true this could be ? Like in my view, both airplanes are of completely different league and underlying thoughts that commonality between them be it technical, logistics or even doctrine is practically nil. Both have AESA radars but that doesnt mean one can snap one module off the APG-83 and tuck it to APG-81 and vice versa. Both are single engine but anyone knows that F-135 cannot be swapped with GE or PW that powers F-16's.

An interesting idea. I myself have heard it argued that the F-15X should be bought. I'd have to do some more research on the topic to provide my opinion but I would have to tentatively agree that the F-16 and the F-35 are in different leagues. It's like placing a division A college football team against an NFL team. Sure, it's football but one is so much different than the other that the game wouldn't be fun to watch.

[United Earthlings]

Thinking about removing IFVs from my TOE altogether. As they converge with tanks in complexity and cost an IFV seems to be a diversion of various scarce inputs (fire control sets, trained armor crews, 1,000hp+ drivetrains) from main battle tanks to a generally weaker vehicle.

Fair point about the convergence, however, if you ever intend to fight a large scale mechanized conventional war, your infantry officers and soldiers probably aren't going to be all that pleased with your politicians taking away their fire support and protected transportation.

I expect in the future you’ll see more and more instances of other countries copying what the Russians did to create their T-15 Armata HIFV.

And given the state that exists in the larger NSverse, this is one reason why I had my nation design its own version of an HIFV and took the additional step of just having my nation reclassifying them as IFTs or Infantry Fighting Tanks since in some cases that have the weight, protection and firepower of a tank. Or at least the one I specifically created did.

Back to your original point though, what’s going to replace your IFVs as the preferred method of transport for your mechanized infantry or are you also thinking about doing entirely away with mechanized infantry itself?

Well to try and send this thread in a more sane direction. I've been watching lots of warship history videos and that got me thinking. Naval battles on rivers were a huge deal in ancient times. Rivers were for all intents and purposes your superhighways before roads were cool. And that has not really changed up until very recent times when railroads developed to supplant and eventually somewhat replace them. So in light of that what is the largest warship I could reasonably put on a large river (think Danube, Nile, Ganges etc) and have it not just physically fit but actually be functional and capable of fighting others of its kind in naval battles? Period in question is 1880-1930. Anything beyond that and aircraft just end up being too much of a threat.

River Monitors and River Gunboats can get quite large, furthermore since some naval shipyards were originally built quite a ways upriver, if the draft is shallow enough and/or the river bottom deep enough from drudging I don’t see any reason a 8,000 to 10,000 ton shallow bottom warship couldn’t be built towards the latter part of the time period in question you laid out.

That stated, depending on the time period in question, a good river monitor will probably be anywhere from a few hundred tons up to 2,000 tons.

Browsing some materials. There appears to be argument to "buy latest variant of F-16 to adapt to 5th gen F-35".

I'm curious how true this could be? Like in my view, both airplanes are of completely different league and underlying thoughts that commonality between them be it technical, logistics or even doctrine is practically nil. Both have AESA radars but that doesnt mean one can snap one module off the APG-83 and tuck it to APG-81 and vice versa. Both are single engine but anyone knows that F-135 cannot be swapped with GE or PW that powers F-16's.

Without having read the “arguments” myself I couldn’t say for sure, but it sounds like a combination of a couple of things.

1. Cost difference…both unit cost and cost per flight hour.
2. An inability to acquire the F-35…due to export restrictions, but not the F-16 {Taiwan and its circumstances come to mind as one example}.
3. A continuation of early reports that the F-35 couldn’t dogfight, I.E. was not effective when engaged in VREs. This has been debunked as false, but once an idea sticks in some people’s minds, in never goes away even with confronted with information that contradicts their initial view(s).
4. The F-35 operating in a bomber role carrying an exterior payload, therefore negating its stealth which then ties into point number 1. If the F-16 can detect the F-35 before the F-35 can detect the F-16 since both have advanced radars and electric warfare packages, why spend more money to acquire a fifth generation fighter that isn’t all that stealthy. That logic path I’ve read and seen before may be part of the rational of the person’s opinion your browsing thru.
5. Marketing hype…

[Triplebaconation]

Browsing some materials. There appears to be argument to "buy latest variant of F-16 to adapt to 5th gen F-35".

I'm curious how true this could be ? Like in my view, both airplanes are of completely different league and underlying thoughts that commonality between them be it technical, logistics or even doctrine is practically nil. Both have AESA radars but that doesnt mean one can snap one module off the APG-83 and tuck it to APG-81 and vice versa. Both are single engine but anyone knows that F-135 cannot be swapped with GE or PW that powers F-16's.

I wouldn't take it literally. The F-16 will be around for a long time, even in the USAF, and future upgrades or models will use technologies derived from the F-35 instead of the exact same subsystems.

[Manokan Republic]

Browsing some materials. There appears to be argument to "buy latest variant of F-16 to adapt to 5th gen F-35".

I'm curious how true this could be ? Like in my view, both airplanes are of completely different league and underlying thoughts that commonality between them be it technical, logistics or even doctrine is practically nil. Both have AESA radars but that doesnt mean one can snap one module off the APG-83 and tuck it to APG-81 and vice versa. Both are single engine but anyone knows that F-135 cannot be swapped with GE or PW that powers F-16's.

Yeah the F-35 is far superior, and as far as attack aircraft go, the F-22 is probably the best in existence. It had something like a 221 to 0 kill ratio in training exercises vs. other aircraft, it just couldn't be beat. The main reason for the F-16 is if you need numbers or if you are a lesser advanced nation, who is buying the supplies of a larger nation and thus has to go with hand me downs, although in the modern day F-35's are being passed around like candy so that doesn't seem like much of an issue. It depends on the time frame as well, is it post-modern, or is it like in 2010 when F-35's were rare etc., then you might go with the F-16.

The F-15E is a good fighter aircraft, but still pales in comparison to the F-22, and the only real advantage is has over the f-35 is it's declassified top speed, which may not even actually be higher than the F-35 in real life, and is largely irrelevant anyways. Something like the F-22 probably only comes around once in a while in military history, and reminds me of the M1 Abrams, except that the Abrams was far more vulnerable to mines and missiles, and likely is not even as good as the F-22 is relative to other aircraft.

[Austrasien]

Thinking about removing IFVs from my TOE altogether. As they converge with tanks in complexity and cost an IFV seems to be a diversion of various scarce inputs (fire control sets, trained armor crews, 1,000hp+ drivetrains) from main battle tanks to a generally weaker vehicle.

RWS doe

[The Dolphin Isles]

Could the use of a catamaran hull help with the shallow draft requirements of river combat? While maybe not a good choice for the and of armored monitor ships, it could maybe work for earlier times.

[The Akasha Colony]

Could the use of a catamaran hull help with the shallow draft requirements of river combat? While maybe not a good choice for the and of armored monitor ships, it could maybe work for earlier times.

A wider, flatter monohull is better than a catamaran if shallow draft is of primary concern. Especially since in a river, the higher speed allowed by a pair of fine catamaran hulls is probably unnecessary. This is why actual riverboats, even extremely large ones, have been wide, flat-bottomed monohulls.

[New Vihenia]

Without having read the “arguments” myself I couldn’t say for sure, but it sounds like a combination of a couple of things.

1. Cost difference…both unit cost and cost per flight hour.
2. An inability to acquire the F-35…due to export restrictions, but not the F-16 {Taiwan and its circumstances come to mind as one example}.
3. A continuation of early reports that the F-35 couldn’t dogfight, I.E. was not effective when engaged in VREs. This has been debunked as false, but once an idea sticks in some people’s minds, in never goes away even with confronted with information that contradicts their initial view(s).
4. The F-35 operating in a bomber role carrying an exterior payload, therefore negating its stealth which then ties into point number 1. If the F-16 can detect the F-35 before the F-35 can detect the F-16 since both have advanced radars and electric warfare packages, why spend more money to acquire a fifth generation fighter that isn’t all that stealthy. That logic path I’ve read and seen before may be part of the rational of the person’s opinion your browsing thru.
5. Marketing hype…

It actually starts from here

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08JA ... qwr7CqrQTc

This wikileaks page explain a cable regarding our aircraft procurement potentials from the united states. Particular interest is from here :

"the F-16s would place Indonesia in line to acquire the
Joint-Strike Fighter in the future."

and back in social media there were people propagating argument that F-16V is needed to "learn" to operate the F-35. Which to me doesnt make any sense at all considering all things i mentioned before.

My take is LockMart or US is basically wants more cash, wanting us to purchase Both F-16 and F-35.

[Gallia-]

F-16V is a GD product. The State Department probably said "if you buy our F-16V's we'll put the foot in the door to get you F-35s if you want 'em" with a implied caveat like "don't buy Su-35" or something.

Turkey's F-35's gotta go somewhere because Poland sure as heck isn't buying all of them.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

F-35's to ROCAF, along with B-61's
!!!!

[Gallia-]

your han nationalism is showing~ uwu

[Manokan Republic]

It's possible that countries believe export versions of the F-35 will be greatly hampered, and so they'd rather stick to the F-16. Although imo this is a bad idea, as the F-35 is way more powerful able to carry at least twice the payload and easy to repair which, even without stealth, is a fantastic improvement. It has sensors that detect if there's damage or parts are stressed making it a lot easier to locate potential damage, and it's designed so parts are far easier to replace and you don't have to remove entire parts just to get at certain parts that break often. It's said that maintenance time to flight time isn't 10 hours or more like most aircraft, but 5 hours or less, which is half the maintenance time. That also sounds pretty awesome.

[Kalaron-A]

It's possible that countries believe export versions of the F-35 will be greatly hampered, and so they'd rather stick to the F-16. Although imo this is a bad idea, as the F-35 is way more powerful able to carry at least twice the payload and easy to repair which, even without stealth, is a fantastic improvement. It has sensors that detect if there's damage or parts are stressed making it a lot easier to locate potential damage, and it's designed so parts are far easier to replace and you don't have to remove entire parts just to get at certain parts that break often. It's said that maintenance time to flight time isn't 10 hours or more like most aircraft, but 5 hours or less, which is half the maintenance time. That also sounds pretty awesome.

Manokan, Buddy, you OK? I'm an Americaboo too but those numbers sound pretty massively optimistic and I recall hearing more than one horror story about getting repair parts/the auto-monitoring system.

[Gallia-]

Don't forget the F-35 can vertically takeoff horizontally.

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

Hey y'all! I've got a couple questions!
1.How would an inland navy in, for example, a Balkanized, but fairly advanced and developed, (possibly reindustrialized) Great Lakes region operate? What sort of craft would be viable?
2.If adopting a Bas 90 type system in the 21st century (Bas 20?) and wanting to use a 5th gen aircraft, would the F-35B be the best bet, or would it be possible to modify an F-35A to do shorter takeoffs like the Gripen?

[Gallia-]

F-35B would be fine yes.

[Velkanika]

This is your friendly reminder that the "overpriced" F-35A costs $5 million dollars less than the Grippen and about half as much as a new F-16V Block 70/72.