NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Gallia-]

SH-3 is for ASW not SAR. Sorry I should have specified. I don't really see any advantage that SH-60 has that SH-3 doesn't besides forcing "commonality" down the throat of the U.S. Navy. Unless UTTAS has some really badass hover performance or something I don't really see why you would use him over something like SH-3 for hunting subs since SH-3 is just so much bigger, i.e. more room for stores and electronics.

H/e I guess if HH-65 is n minutes faster than HH-52 then that is a really bigge improvement. Is it just not possible to make a relatively high speed amphibious helicopter or would it be better to use an amphibious jet plane instead of HH-52?

Super Frelon seems to be the fastest amphibious helicopter and he goes barely 150 mph.

My apologies. I assumed you were talking missions like coastal patrol since you used the name for the coast guard version of the HH-65 instead of the name AS565 Panther. When it comes to naval warfare, I would say that the ability for a helicopter to float is not really needed for anything other than heavy lift helicopters meant for deploying or receiving troops in boats which can just be done by hovering really low like a Chinook. For rescue missions, helicopters with rescue divers and small boats deployed from other ships are good enough if not better. There is really just no need sit on the water. For ASW activities, just attach a rope/cable to the sonar buoy like they do now.

As for the question on a size requirement for float helicopters, I think it is just a height and width stability issue. You just need to look at the ratio of width/length to height of ships and helicopters in pictures/videos and then remember that while the engine and all that are in the bottom of a ship, they are on the top of a helicopter which makes it a lot harder to stabilize as well. On top of that, aircraft are pretty small and top heavy compared to sea-worthy ships and will be in danger of flipping if the sea state is acting up even a little.

Nooo. I was asking about HH-65 vs. HH-52 for SAR and SH-3 vs. S-70 for ASW.

I sort of assume since SH-3 is bigger and therefore swoler than S-70 in lbs carried it is just better by default. Someone else brought up the point that S-70 probably fits into CG/DDG hangars while SH-3 was only (AFAIK) used in CVN hangars and the USN has an MH-53E squadron for mine-hunting, so maybe a modern SH-3 is an MH-53 with an ASW kit?

I also assume perhaps wrongly that AW101 is more or less a modern SH-3? In size anyway.

[Sudbrazil]

I recently got into a RP that involves combat in Siberia, while I am a South American nation,, so few questions have surfaced:

Would it be unreasonable for container ships to be modified to serve as improvised helicopter carriers, and if not, could an attack helicopter be disassembled into large parts, put into containers, then taken out, reassembled, and operated from a proper FOB or helicopter carrier?

Could the concept of an Escort Carrier be resurrected as a stop gap for a nation that is unwilling or unable to spend too much on proper aircraft carriers?

Well, you could operate helicopters off any kind of flat surface. It's not going to be ideal, particularly with container ships given the compartmentalization below decks for containers and a total lack of any sort of elevator system for moving anything below decks. You're going to be stuck with whatever can sit on deck. Unless you plan on gutting the interiors and installing lifts but then I don't think you're in improvised territory anymore.

I can't comment on the rest of your question but I would curious why a poor (or at least unwilling to spend money on a military) nation would be going to war across the globe.

Thank you. I guess I'll keep the helicopters in containers and operate them from a FOB, if I manage to install one.

As for the improvised carrier, sincerely, that was the only RP I could get into, I didn't actually think about a reason to go there besides "screwing with the damned pinko commies funding local guerillas". So, I guess I'll try to materialise some of the ideas I'd had floating around.

The nation is not poor, or unwilling to spend money. The problem is that the aerial suppression the attacking coalition was relying on (bombing the local airstrips to hell) failed, and it would be too expensive to make a fully fledged aircraft carrier just to go whack on some Slavic jets, and it would also take too much time. I guess that's alright.

[The Dolphin Isles]

Nooo. I was asking about HH-65 vs. HH-52 for SAR and SH-3 vs. S-70 for ASW.

I sort of assume since SH-3 is bigger and therefore swoler than S-70 in lbs carried it is just better by default. Someone else brought up the point that S-70 probably fits into CG/DDG hangars while SH-3 was only (AFAIK) used in CVN hangars and the USN has an MH-53E squadron for mine-hunting, so maybe a modern SH-3 is an MH-53 with an ASW kit?

I also assume perhaps wrongly that AW101 is more or less a modern SH-3? In size anyway.

Ah. I see now. My b

It shouldn't be a size issue as the SH-3 is actually smaller than the MH-60. SH-3 fuselage is 54 ft 9 in (16.7 m) and height is 16 ft 10 in (5.13 m). S-70 fuselage is 64 ft 10 in (19.76 m) and height is 17 ft 6 in (5.33 m).

In the end, I think it comes down to speed. The SH-3 has a maximum speed of 166 mph (267 km/h) while the S-70 has a max speed of 224 mph (361 km/h) which is about a 35% increase in speed. I am not entirely sure if the sensor suite had to be cut back due to payload restrictions though, so that would have to be taken into account.

The MH-53E Sea Dragon is a bit of a different beast though. The CH-53E can go 196 mph (315 km/h) which closes the speed gap a good bit. However, it's much larger than those two airframes. Its length is 99 ft 1/2 in (30.2 m) and its height is 27 ft 9 in (8.46 m).

The AW101 might be a good choice if you need more payload for the sensor suite though. It's 64 ft 1 in (19.53 m) in length and 21 ft 8¾ in (6.62 m) in height. However, you do cut the speed down to 192 mph (309 km/h).

[The Dolphin Isles]

Thank you. I guess I'll keep the helicopters in containers and operate them from a FOB, if I manage to install one.

As for the improvised carrier, sincerely, that was the only RP I could get into, I didn't actually think about a reason to go there besides "screwing with the damned pinko commies funding local guerillas". So, I guess I'll try to materialise some of the ideas I'd had floating around.

The nation is not poor, or unwilling to spend money. The problem is that the aerial suppression the attacking coalition was relying on (bombing the local airstrips to hell) failed, and it would be too expensive to make a fully fledged aircraft carrier just to go whack on some Slavic jets, and it would also take too much time. I guess that's alright.

I have to say from personal experience that building a carrier is very nice to RP, so could just kind of manufacture a reason for having one haha. I did that even though I have a small military compared to the rest of my region, but I still got a few smaller and less modern carriers just so I can have RP options outside of my islands for expeditionary forces and beating up evil-doer terrorists. You could say it is to protect your interests overseas now and into the future or something too and turn it into some big show of natural pride

You don't have to go all out either if you're just looking for a token force (just know that it will probably be treated like that by others as well), so you have something to roleplay with either. The Italians have a cute little carrier called Giuseppe Garibaldi that can carry 18 aircraft including harrier VTOL jets. You will probably be struggling horribly against any land-based airframe from the past few decades, but the aircraft shouldn't be looking for fights anyways. It would only cost 375 million euros too if my calculations are right. The Spanish Juan Carlos I adds in a troop/material carrying capacity as well as 25 aircraft. It comes in at a lovely price of 462 million euros. You can also always go with a small amphibious assault ship of some sort if all you want is a helicopter platform. It would help with carrying your troops and their vehicles too.

[Gallia-]

I'm just of the impression that SH-3 has more payload capacity because it's slightly larger and whatnot. I'm not sure how well it would actually work nor am I sure what makes a good ASW helicopter. I'm pretty sure hover performance is a factor and hover performance and climb rate are closely related, so UTTAS should theoretically be an exceptional dipping sonar helicopter, which is all I want SH-3 to do TBH. SH-3 is also cuter in navy grey than SH-60, which is sort of hideous/disgusting.

---

Also is a VLO jet whose sole purpose in life is penetrating heavily defended areas and attacking nuclear weapon delivery means (i.e. silos, LCCs, nuclear ammunition storage areas, and mobile TELs) a good or bad idea? Since he is a carrier aircraft he is also going to be able to carry anti-shipping missiles and deliver sticks of iron bombs to flatten orphan schoolchildren mechanized Zuun HQs like Russia because PGMs are too valuable to waste on buildings built to "civilian" standard...or something. I mean sure this sounds like B-2 but I can assure you it is not B-2.

It's just a different mission than A-12 AFAIK. His job was less "loiter above the enemy and oogle his pantsu shots with a hi-rez FLIR" and more "bomb Osirak". The other difference is that he co-exists as a single VLO aircraft within a stable of non-VLO, 4.whatever+++++ jets. So the inverse of the USAF sorta. Which has F-22, F-35, B-2, B-21...and F-15E.

Mostly because subtlety isn't in my vocabulary and VLO is too subtle IMO. And the lack of BIG ORDNANCE makes F-22 look a little puny and petite like a girly plane. I mean, otokonoko are great and all, but F-22 is like an otokonoko that is an ironic otokonoko because he is actually a swole muscle man with big hair and beard wearing a schoolgirl outfit.

tl;dr Self-escorting VLO SAM and nuke killer carries Gen 4.n fighter team for eternity.

Unless I do something stupid and give Galla an ugly VLO fighter like the Northrop AFX which looks a bit manly in that he is sorta like Su-57-ish but good canards. Which means retconning the current Gallan NG jet.

But that's fine since this guy looks more Macross than the F-15XX and he has god's own aeronautical appendage, chines, without being hideous like YF-23.

So then Galla's tactical fighter and bomber fleet goes from Ye-8s/V-1100/F-15 (but chines?)/A-6/F-14 to Rockwell AFTI/"X-32" but slimmer and CTOL/Northrop "AX"/Lockheed NATF(AFX?)/Northrop ATA/Lockheed NATF(AFX?)? Maybe a "fighter" that goes M3+ to be a interceptor IDK like GIUK Gap interceptor for long range recce and destruction of bombers I guess?

tl;dr How do I retain a zillion cute plens without consolidating into "attacker", "fighter", and "bomber" and having to choose between B-2/F-22/Chibi!B-2 like some kind of min-maxing scrublord.

[Purpelia]

Well you could always invent some sort of political reasoning. Like say they are all supported by different parts of the military each backed by government and private industry interests that you can't squash because they have bribed one official too many with money and the fear of being labeled as that guy that shut down teh jobz.

[Gallia-]

In the grimmest future the Azov Battalion destroys all of Russia's T-90s with Javelin missiles.

Mr. Trump bring back XM2001 and Block III Abrams while you're arming Ukraine with Javelin -Es. Pls Mr. Presidente pls. And bring back A/FX too.

[Sudbrazil]

I have to say from personal experience that building a carrier is very nice to RP, so could just kind of manufacture a reason for having one haha. I did that even though I have a small military compared to the rest of my region, but I still got a few smaller and less modern carriers just so I can have RP options outside of my islands for expeditionary forces and beating up evil-doer terrorists. You could say it is to protect your interests overseas now and into the future or something too and turn it into some big show of natural pride

You don't have to go all out either if you're just looking for a token force (just know that it will probably be treated like that by others as well), so you have something to roleplay with either. The Italians have a cute little carrier called Giuseppe Garibaldi that can carry 18 aircraft including harrier VTOL jets. You will probably be struggling horribly against any land-based airframe from the past few decades, but the aircraft shouldn't be looking for fights anyways. It would only cost 375 million euros too if my calculations are right. The Spanish Juan Carlos I adds in a troop/material carrying capacity as well as 25 aircraft. It comes in at a lovely price of 462 million euros. You can also always go with a small amphibious assault ship of some sort if all you want is a helicopter platform. It would help with carrying your troops and their vehicles too.

462 million Euros? Noice. That's a fraction of my military budget, so I guess I could spend the nation's surplus money on one. Thanks again mate.

Edit: Now that I checked the nation Sudbrazil's based on had an old aircraft carrier, with CATOBAR and all that jazz. I guess I could try to restore it, and have the Juan Carlos as a slightly expendable alternative.

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

I know i might sound naive saying this, but do conscripts in countries such as Israel and France get paid.

[Tule]

I know i might sound naive saying this, but do conscripts in countries such as Israel and France get paid.

Don't know about France but Israel, Finland and South Korea all pay their conscripts the equivalent of around 10-20 Euros per day.

[Purpelia]

I know i might sound naive saying this, but do conscripts in countries such as Israel and France get paid.

They get paid some sort of minimalistic wage but they also get bed and board for free so it sort of works out.

[Immoren]

I know i might sound naive saying this, but do conscripts in countries such as Israel and France get paid.

In Finland conscripts get allowance that's based on how many days they've been serving and currently it is

5,10€/day (6,28 USD/day) for 1–165 days
8,50€/day (10,47 USD/day) for 166–255 days
11,90€/day (14,65 USD/day) for 256–347 days

[Auverland]

I was thinking of giving my nation's main ground-attack aircraft a 57mm autocannon mounted in the nose. Given that my nation has mid-late WWII-era technology and no jet engines, would this be feasible or should I use smaller guns for this?

[Taihei Tengoku]

An auto-loading 57mm gun is well within what happened in WWII, though "big cannon planes" turned out to be marginally useful compared to high performance planes with gunpods or (better) bombs and rockets

[Auverland]

An auto-loading 57mm gun is well within what happened in WWII, though "big cannon planes" turned out to be marginally useful compared to high performance planes with gunpods or (better) bombs and rockets

Yeah, I was also thinking of giving said ground-attack aircraft a healthy supply of hardpoints for mounting gun pods, bombs, and rockets. The 57mm would be mounted directly in the fuselage, with two hardpoints at the base of the wings for holding (for each hardpoint) either one bomb of varying weights, three rockets, or a gun pod. There will also be two additional hardpoints for adding additional bombs and rockets. In addition to that, there will be two smaller guns (likely 12.7mm or 15mm) in each wing.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Big gun planes usually were shrink-wrapped around the gun, unless this is a big naval bomber or something.

[Hayo]

I was thinking of giving my nation's main ground-attack aircraft a 57mm autocannon mounted in the nose. Given that my nation has mid-late WWII-era technology and no jet engines, would this be feasible or should I use smaller guns for this?

Yes, it is feasible.

There was a variant of the Mosquito that had an automatic version of the QF 6-pounder. The cannon held 21 rounds and fired ~55 RPM. It was used in a naval attack role against U-Boats. The British ultimately replaced the cannon with RP-3 rockets.

You also have the B-25G and B-25H, which carried a 75mm gun with no autoloader and 21 rounds of ammunition (which would be manually loaded by the navigator). This was also used for naval attack.

The Hs-129 carried a 75mm Pak 40 with autoloader and 12 shot magazine. This plane was used in limited numbers for ground attack. The Germans also mounted large cannons to the Me-410 and the Ju-88. They also experimented with putting a 50mm autocannon on the Me-262, for attacking large bombers.

An auto-loading 57mm gun is well within what happened in WWII, though "big cannon planes" turned out to be marginally useful compared to high performance planes with gunpods or (better) bombs and rockets

Yeah, I was also thinking of giving said ground-attack aircraft a healthy supply of hardpoints for mounting gun pods, bombs, and rockets. The 57mm would be mounted directly in the fuselage, with two hardpoints at the base of the wings for holding (for each hardpoint) either one bomb of varying weights, three rockets, or a gun pod. There will also be two additional hardpoints for adding additional bombs and rockets. In addition to that, there will be two smaller guns (likely 12.7mm or 15mm) in each wing.

Like Taihei said, that is a bit much for a WWII era plane. You probably need to either choose between a large cannon or lots of hard points (or go with a large aircraft).

[Scandinavian Nations]

Yeah, I was also thinking of giving said ground-attack aircraft a healthy supply of hardpoints for mounting gun pods, bombs, and rockets. The 57mm would be mounted directly in the fuselage, with two hardpoints at the base of the wings for holding (for each hardpoint) either one bomb of varying weights, three rockets, or a gun pod. There will also be two additional hardpoints for adding additional bombs and rockets. In addition to that, there will be two smaller guns (likely 12.7mm or 15mm) in each wing.

This is not WW2 tech, nowhere near it.
WW2 tech for a single was a big gun and a bomb, or a big gun and 2 (smaller) bombs. Separate variant with a small gun and 2 rocket pods.

Armament the size you're proposing would be twin+ territory for WW2 tech - in which the big gun would most likely never come in use.
Don't try to bring multiroles into the WW2 era, the limitation on them wasn't that people were too dumb to think of the idea.

[Auverland]

Yeah, I was also thinking of giving said ground-attack aircraft a healthy supply of hardpoints for mounting gun pods, bombs, and rockets. The 57mm would be mounted directly in the fuselage, with two hardpoints at the base of the wings for holding (for each hardpoint) either one bomb of varying weights, three rockets, or a gun pod. There will also be two additional hardpoints for adding additional bombs and rockets. In addition to that, there will be two smaller guns (likely 12.7mm or 15mm) in each wing.

This is not WW2 tech, nowhere near it.
WW2 tech for a single was a big gun and a bomb, or a big gun and 2 (smaller) bombs. Separate variant with a small gun and 2 rocket pods.

Armament the size you're proposing would be twin+ territory for WW2 tech - in which the big gun would most likely never come in use.
Don't try to bring multiroles into the WW2 era, the limitation on them wasn't that people were too dumb to think of the idea.

Yyyyyyyyyeah... This is wank-tastic, now that I read it over. Back to the drawing board!

[Auverland]

Also, in the event that I get around to making the ground vehicles of Auverland, could it be feasible to use armoured cars instead of air-dropped tanks like a Tetrarch or an M22 Locust?

[Iltica]

Those weren't meant to be "dropped" like newer airborne tanks, they come in on towed gliders.

Anyway, wouldn't it be basically the same thing except they have wheels? Or are you asking about using armored cars not built especially for that?

[Gallia-]

I was thinking of giving my nation's main ground-attack aircraft a 57mm autocannon mounted in the nose. Given that my nation has mid-late WWII-era technology and no jet engines, would this be feasible or should I use smaller guns for this?

Yes it's perfectly feasible.

[Auverland]

Those weren't meant to be "dropped" like newer airborne tanks, they come in on towed gliders.

Anyway, wouldn't it be basically the same thing except they have wheels? Or are you asking about using armored cars not built especially for that?

Yeah, I was planning on having them flown in by glider. I don't know why I said "dropped".

[Iltica]

I guess if you can find or build an armored car under 7600 kg (about 8.4 tons) that fits in this box, have at it.
Unfortunately, most armored cars from back then were quite tall, the only ones I'm confident will fit are the Diamler Dingo and maybe the Sd. Kfz. 222 but it might be too long. It would probably be best to have a purpose built one.

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

In the grimmest future the Azov Battalion destroys all of Russia's T-90s with Javelin missiles.

Mr. Trump bring back XM2001 and Block III Abrams while you're arming Ukraine with Javelin -Es. Pls Mr. Presidente pls. And bring back A/FX too.

What is af/x?