NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Kazarogkai]

The primary reason Burkian Faso can field a relatively large force is that Burkina Faso is extremely poor. A European military cannot fiddle with some imaginary "Quantity vs. Quality" slider to reduce their costs to the level of Burkina Faso.

European doesn't always equal wealthy, he for all we know could be dirt poor like Moldova, which mind you has an even lower military budget than he does and yet still has an active military numbering about 7000 troops.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Moldova only has a lot of troops because Moldova is closer to Burkina Faso than Belgium

[The Akasha Colony]

The primary reason Burkian Faso can field a relatively large force is that Burkina Faso is extremely poor. A European military cannot fiddle with some imaginary "Quantity vs. Quality" slider to reduce their costs to the level of Burkina Faso.

European doesn't always equal wealthy, he for all we know could be dirt poor like Moldova, which mind you has an even lower military budget than he does and yet still has an active military numbering about 7000 troops.

Except... his factbook mentions he has a GDP per capita of over $70,000? This would place it in the top 5 wealthiest nations in the world on a per capita basis.

Even without that knowledge, the fact that this nation is located in the middle of the most wealthy and developed part of Europe is a fairly good indication on its own of expected income levels.

[Gallia-]

Moldova only has a lot of troops because Moldova is closer to Burkina Faso than Belgium

Burkina Faso has fewer regular troops than Ireland, per capita, so it wasn't even a great example by Kaza. ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

India is the obvious one, being the proverbial (and literal) elephant in the room.

[Atlantica]

Would it be possible to operate a Saab GlobalEye-mounted jet on a 100,000-ton aircraft carrier, assuming the jet is more or less the same size with the, say, E-2 Hawkeye?

[Kazarogkai]

European doesn't always equal wealthy, he for all we know could be dirt poor like Moldova, which mind you has an even lower military budget than he does and yet still has an active military numbering about 7000 troops.

Except... his factbook mentions he has a GDP per capita of over $70,000? This would place it in the top 5 wealthiest nations in the world on a per capita basis.

Even without that knowledge, the fact that this nation is located in the middle of the most wealthy and developed part of Europe is a fairly good indication on its own of expected income levels.

Good point, Location doesn't always necessarily equal wealth though. I for some reason distinctly remember a poster mentioning being a surviving pagan country and I believe it was him. That would have a pretty negative historical effect on his economy due heavily in part to forced isolationism.

[The Akasha Colony]

Would it be possible to operate a Saab GlobalEye-mounted jet on a 100,000-ton aircraft carrier, assuming the jet is more or less the same size with the, say, E-2 Hawkeye?

I have some questions about whether you could safely mount a GlobalEye system on an E-2-sized jet in the first place. The GlobalEye antenna is nearly the length of E-2's fuselage on its own and the Global 6000 has 50% greater wing area than E-2. You'd also need to figure out how to reduce the height. E-2's radome is wide but quite flat compared to GlobalEye and it still has a retraction system to reduce height for carrier stowage.

But obviously, if we assume that this is possible for the sake of the question then one can only presume it would be possible to operate.

Good point, Location doesn't always necessarily equal wealth though. I for some reason distinctly remember a poster mentioning being a surviving pagan country and I believe it was him. That would have a pretty negative historical effect on his economy due heavily in part to forced isolationism.

It is indeed that nation. But at the same time, that in and of itself introduces an element of un-realism: it is extremely unlikely that a relatively sparsely populated island that is closer to mainland Europe than Ireland or Iceland would somehow be able to resist conversion to Christianity while all of the territories around it were converted. Which means we ultimately end up needing to just take the factbook at its word to sort out these contradictions.

[Atlantica]

Would it be possible to operate a Saab GlobalEye-mounted jet on a 100,000-ton aircraft carrier, assuming the jet is more or less the same size with the, say, E-2 Hawkeye?

I have some questions about whether you could safely mount a GlobalEye system on an E-2-sized jet in the first place. The GlobalEye antenna is nearly the length of E-2's fuselage on its own and the Global 6000 has 50% greater wing area than E-2. You'd also need to figure out how to reduce the height. E-2's radome is wide but quite flat compared to GlobalEye and it still has a retraction system to reduce height for carrier stowage.

But obviously, if we assume that this is possible for the sake of the question then one can only presume it would be possible to operate.

Sorry, I guess the premise was wrong to a degree. Assuming modifications are made and we're using the Global 6000, would it be possible to operate the GlobalEye system safely as an element of the carrier air wing?

[The Akasha Colony]

Sorry, I guess the premise was wrong to a degree. Assuming modifications are made and we're using the Global 6000, would it be possible to operate the GlobalEye system safely as an element of the carrier air wing?

I doubt a Global 6000 would fit on a 100,000 tonne carrier of similar configuration to a Nimitz. It's almost twice as long as a Hawkeye and significantly longer than even an A-5 Vigilante, which was a big girl in her own right. Not to mention the greater wingspan.

C-130s have demonstrated their capability to operate from a supercarrier and have both a greater MTOW and much greater wingspan than a Global 6000, but they were never expected to be stowed belowdeck which would be a requirement to operate as part of the carrier air wing.

If the elevators, hangar, and flight deck were reconfigured to fit a Global 6000-class airframe I would imagine the spot factor would be huge. Each AEW&C bird would displace 3-4 other planes from the air wing. Handling it on deck would also be a big hassle, it would require clearing large sections of the deck to recover and either refuel or stow in the hangar.

[Atlantica]

Sorry, I guess the premise was wrong to a degree. Assuming modifications are made and we're using the Global 6000, would it be possible to operate the GlobalEye system safely as an element of the carrier air wing?

I doubt a Global 6000 would fit on a 100,000 tonne carrier of similar configuration to a Nimitz. It's almost twice as long as a Hawkeye and significantly longer than even an A-5 Vigilante, which was a big girl in her own right. Not to mention the greater wingspan.

C-130s have demonstrated their capability to operate from a supercarrier and have both a greater MTOW and much greater wingspan than a Global 6000, but they were never expected to be stowed belowdeck which would be a requirement to operate as part of the carrier air wing.

If the elevators, hangar, and flight deck were reconfigured to fit a Global 6000-class airframe I would imagine the spot factor would be huge. Each AEW&C bird would displace 3-4 other planes from the air wing. Handling it on deck would also be a big hassle, it would require clearing large sections of the deck to recover and either refuel or stow in the hangar.

I see. At this point, I guess my best bet would be keeping the E-2 Hawkeyes/Yak-44e.

[New Vihenia]

I see. At this point, I guess my best bet would be keeping the E-2 Hawkeyes/Yak-44e.

Or build a new radar tailored for them.

[The Akasha Colony]

I see. At this point, I guess my best bet would be keeping the E-2 Hawkeyes/Yak-44e.

There is no particular reason you would be required to operate the full-size GlobalEye system. As a phased array radar it can be scaled up and down by adding or removing modules. Though unlike E-2's old-school rotating radome, the Erieye radar system has blindspots fore and aft. It is possible to avoid this shortcoming through the use of a end-fire array such as the one used in the Boeing 737 AEW&C, which has 360 degree coverage with a fixed array.

[Gallia-]

A BAe 125 with a Erieye mounted ventrally would work, if you've got the 1960s British brass balls needed to stomach a ventral antenna aircraft. At that point your big dick energy is so high you probably don't need an AEW though. The ideal, of course, is to avoid rotodomes or ventral fairings and go straight for a fore and aft configuration like the Phalcon, or the Hawker P.139 AEW, as these provide the greatest coverage in three dimensions for the least mass.



Unfortunately it results in fat/ugly aircraft, which is why it's never appeared except in brutally pragmatic cultures.

[Laritaia]

Well aside from it's oppressive ugliness the fact that the radar basically never worked had a small amount to do with why it never became a real thing.

[Vadia]

I've been looking around and for the life of me can't find any comparisons of the Su-17 to the F-5 Freedom Fighter.

One is an aircraft exported to a lot of nations by the soviets, and the other is an aircraft exported to a lot of nations by the US; you think someone would be comparing them.

What's going on? Does anyone have an idea of the major differences between both aircraft?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I've been looking around and for the life of me can't find any comparisons of the Su-17 to the F-5 Freedom Fighter.

One is an aircraft exported to a lot of nations by the soviets, and the other is an aircraft exported to a lot of nations by the US; you think someone would be comparing them.

What's going on? Does anyone have an idea of the major differences between both aircraft?

The F-5 is more garbo than the Su-17. That's all you need to know. The only redeeming feature of the F-5 are the 4 AIM-9M's.

[Taihei Tengoku]

One is a light fighter derived from a jet trainer, the other is a heavy attack aircraft developed from another heavy attack aircraft.

[Vadia]

One is a light fighter derived from a jet trainer, the other is a heavy attack aircraft developed from another heavy attack aircraft.

I have this heavy book that compares the F-5 to the F-20 and the F-5E to the MiG-21 and the Hawk MK200. By comparing pages it seems the F-20 is considerably better, with around the same speed, but greater climbing rates and a lot more ordinance strapped to it.

This confuses me because the MiG-21 is ancient, and the F-20 compares reasonably well to the early F-16 Vipers.

What exactly would be the Soviet version of the F-20 or F-2, if not the Su-17? MiG-21? Sukhoi Su-34? J-11? J-7?

[Gallia-]

Well aside from it's oppressive ugliness the fact that the radar basically never worked had a small amount to do with why it never became a real thing.

It doesn't invalidate the layout itself tho.

It's weird how the radar didn't work tho since UK made a bunch of gud'uns.

[Taihei Tengoku]

One is a light fighter derived from a jet trainer, the other is a heavy attack aircraft developed from another heavy attack aircraft.

I have this heavy book that compares the F-5 to the F-20 and the F-5E to the MiG-21 and the Hawk MK200. By comparing pages it seems the F-20 is considerably better, with around the same speed, but greater climbing rates and a lot more ordinance strapped to it.

This confuses me because the MiG-21 is ancient, and the F-20 compares reasonably well to the early F-16 Vipers.

What exactly would be the Soviet version of the F-20 or F-2, if not the Su-17? MiG-21? Sukhoi Su-34? J-11? J-7?

The Soviets didn't have a version of the F-5, so they wouldn't have a version of the F-20. They should be considered on their own terms rather than as mirror images of Western planes.

[Crookfur]

I suppose the closest to an Eastern F-20 would be the more recent Chinese mig-21/j-7 derivatives like the jf-17

[Vadia]

I suppose the closest to an Eastern F-20 would be the more recent Chinese mig-21/j-7 derivatives like the jf-17

Isn't the JF-17 meant to complement the F-16s in Pakistan? Hmm, okay.

I have this heavy book that compares the F-5 to the F-20 and the F-5E to the MiG-21 and the Hawk MK200. By comparing pages it seems the F-20 is considerably better, with around the same speed, but greater climbing rates and a lot more ordinance strapped to it.

This confuses me because the MiG-21 is ancient, and the F-20 compares reasonably well to the early F-16 Vipers.

What exactly would be the Soviet version of the F-20 or F-2, if not the Su-17? MiG-21? Sukhoi Su-34? J-11? J-7?

The Soviets didn't have a version of the F-5, so they wouldn't have a version of the F-20. They should be considered on their own terms rather than as mirror images of Western planes.

SU-25 compares to A-10, MiG-35 compares to F-16, Su-27 to F-15. I know this because one of these planes in each group is invented to go up against the other, to outdo the other, or to match the other.

I know it's not exact exact, but a heavy air-superiority fighter is just that, and a lighter fighter/bomber combo is also just that.

[Gallia-]

SU-25 compares to A-10, MiG-35 compares to F-16, Su-27 to F-15. I know this because one of these planes in each group is invented to go up against the other, to outdo the other, or to match the other.

I know it's not exact exact, but a heavy air-superiority fighter is just that, and a lighter fighter/bomber combo is also just that.

None of this is really true, though. You should just look at the actual planes instead of trying to invent analogies. For example, Su-25 is a "trainer-turned-combat-aircraft" so it would actually, by analogy, be closest to F-5. Naturally, since analogy arguments are a starting point for dealing with the absolute unknown, rather than an ending point for the well-known, this doesn't tell you a lot about the plane or its performance. Since Su-25 is extremely well known, though, there is literally no reason you shouldn't be able to deal with it in its own terms rather than needing to make analogies, unless you don't know anything about planes at all.

In which case I would recommend reading their Wikipedia articles or something I guess as a starter.

[Vadia]

SU-25 compares to A-10, MiG-35 compares to F-16, Su-27 to F-15. I know this because one of these planes in each group is invented to go up against the other, to outdo the other, or to match the other.

I know it's not exact exact, but a heavy air-superiority fighter is just that, and a lighter fighter/bomber combo is also just that.

None of this is really true, though. You should just look at the actual planes instead of trying to invent analogies. For example, Su-25 is a "trainer-turned-combat-aircraft" so it would actually, by analogy, be closest to F-5. Naturally, since analogy arguments are a starting point for dealing with the absolute unknown, rather than an ending point for the well-known, this doesn't tell you a lot about the plane or its performance. Since Su-25 is extremely well known, though, there is literally no reason you shouldn't be able to deal with it in its own terms rather than needing to make analogies, unless you don't know anything about planes at all.

In which case I would recommend reading their Wikipedia articles or something I guess as a starter.

The F-5 is a light fighter and the SU-25 is a ground attack craft or "heavy attack aircraft". Most trainer aircraft I know, are more about being nimble then speed, which is what ground attack craft and light fighters are typically like.

I doubt you would use a F-15, F-22, or F-14 as a trainer.

Another thing to factor in, is that trainers could just be simpler and cheaper aircraft, which ground attack craft and light fighters are.

The RPG-18 and LAW rocket are very similar, and both are very well known. Saying they are comparable would actually tell you a lot of things about how they both work, but I'm starting to suspect you would say otherwise.

[Gallia-]

I doubt you would use a F-15, F-22, or F-14 as a trainer.

Like I said, read the Wikipedia articles or something. It's clear you don't know a lot about airplanes, otherwise you wouldn't be making silly analogies like these.