MSTO Thread (OOC, CLOSED)

by **Miklania** » Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:21 pm

Indeed. In the old MSTO we decided to use NATO STANAGs as our main ordnance standardization system, cause the work was already done for us in more detail than any of us care to go into, as well as the fact that most if not all of our stuff already meets said requirements. I would like to make new systems like the naval missiles.

We also need to decide on a nation for the Speaker, as the votes previously held were useless.

by **Polar Svalbard** » Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:44 pm

I propose Collin Fritzz my delegate from the Foreign Relations thread, he has a certain assholish flair, https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p26490471

by **Miklania** » Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:46 pm

Polar Svalbard wrote:I propose Collin Fritzz my delegate from the Foreign Relations thread, he has a certain assholish flair, viewtopic.php?p=26490471#p26490471

Yes. This is exactly what we need. Now, what are your opinions on making missiles?

by **Polar Svalbard** » Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:51 pm

Miklania wrote:
Polar Svalbard wrote:I propose Collin Fritzz my delegate from the Foreign Relations thread, he has a certain assholish flair, https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p26490471

Yes. This is exactly what we need. Now, what are your opinions on making missiles?

We can get our companies to work together and all get rights on producing this equipment.

by **Miklania** » Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:10 pm

Polar Svalbard wrote:
Miklania wrote:Yes. This is exactly what we need. Now, what are your opinions on making missiles?

We can get our companies to work together and all get rights on producing this equipment.

Thats the idea. I propose that we start with an SM-2 replacement, with a larger version equivalent to an SM-6. My favorite base to start with (for aesthetics) is the Seadart missile.

by **Franco-Albion** » Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:24 pm

Miklania wrote:
Polar Svalbard wrote:We can get our companies to work together and all get rights on producing this equipment.

Thats the idea. I propose that we start with an SM-2 replacement, with a larger version equivalent to an SM-6. My favorite base to start with (for aesthetics) is the Seadart missile.

As a long-range system? I'm content with that. I'm yet to finalise any long-range systems - the JAMM family is only short/medium range.
The quasi-Sea Dart gets a thumbs up from me.

by **Miklania** » Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:38 pm

Franco-Albion wrote:
Miklania wrote:Thats the idea. I propose that we start with an SM-2 replacement, with a larger version equivalent to an SM-6. My favorite base to start with (for aesthetics) is the Seadart missile.

As a long-range system? I'm content with that. I'm yet to finalise any long-range systems - the JAMM family is only short/medium range.
The quasi-Sea Dart gets a thumbs up from me.

Excellent. Are you fine if we standardize the Mk 41/57 as the large VLS of choice? It is more versatile than the Sylver or other British systems.

by **Franco-Albion** » Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:04 pm

Miklania wrote:Excellent. Are you fine if we standardize the Mk 41/57 as the large VLS of choice? It is more versatile than the Sylver or other British systems.

Personally, I'm not sure we need to. We CAN if its necessary, but I was planning on incorporating Sylver in a PAAMS style layout.

by **Miklania** » Tue Nov 10, 2015 6:17 pm

Franco-Albion wrote:
Miklania wrote:Excellent. Are you fine if we standardize the Mk 41/57 as the large VLS of choice? It is more versatile than the Sylver or other British systems.

Personally, I'm not sure we need to. We CAN if its necessary, but I was planning on incorporating Sylver in a PAAMS style layout.

I don't see why you couldn't use a Mk41 derived system for PAAMS. Perhaps it would be more practical to use the Standard as the base, I was reading and it turns out ramjet powered missiles have few advantages over advanced rocket powered ones, and they can't hold as good seekers (for the same size missile), so the Seadart/Talos might not be the best starting point for a missile family.

by **Doppler** » Tue Nov 17, 2015 6:24 pm

Okay we need to get this IC thing up and going stat. What else do we need to do now?

by **Franco-Albion** » Fri Nov 20, 2015 4:15 am

Miklania wrote:
Franco-Albion wrote:Personally, I'm not sure we need to. We CAN if its necessary, but I was planning on incorporating Sylver in a PAAMS style layout.

I don't see why you couldn't use a Mk41 derived system for PAAMS. Perhaps it would be more practical to use the Standard as the base, I was reading and it turns out ramjet powered missiles have few advantages over advanced rocket powered ones, and they can't hold as good seekers (for the same size missile), so the Seadart/Talos might not be the best starting point for a missile family.

If we're still talking about anti ballistic systems, the Amster Block I and Block II will be Sylver deployable. We don't need to have the same missile systems to be effective - the communications and tranfser/use of data is the important bit.

by **Miklania** » Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:24 pm

Unfortunately FA has decided to leave. As we never really got anywhere IC, we are just going to retcon his replacement by Segentova.

by **Polar Svalbard** » Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:26 pm

by **Segentova** » Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:27 pm

This is Segentova, checking in!

by **Miklania** » Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:30 pm

Segentova wrote:This is Segentova, checking in!

Welcome to the fold my good sir.

by **Segentova** » Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:31 pm

Miklania wrote:
Segentova wrote:This is Segentova, checking in!

Welcome to the fold my good sir.

Pleased to be here, anything happening currently?

by **Miklania** » Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:32 pm

Currently we must decide how to fix things that are related to FA. The location of the Headquarters is probably the most important issue.

by **Segentova** » Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:34 pm

Miklania wrote:Currently we must decide how to fix things that are related to FA. The location of the Headquarters is probably the most important issue.

A) Can we stop talking like that... I don't feel like being a sir today.
B) I volunteer.

by **Doppler** » Tue Dec 08, 2015 7:00 pm

Your too close to them commies though. Miklania is the farthest away and has multiple allies to protect it from invading forces.

by **Segentova** » Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:34 am

Doppler wrote:Your too close to them commies though. Miklania is the farthest away and has multiple allies to protect it from invading forces.

That's true, he's the farest away and we're basically surrounding him. So if the commies wanna take out the base then they'll have to go trough all of us.

by **Polar Svalbard** » Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:03 am

You know, since Mik and Doppler are going to be overrun, during IW2 do we want to have the MSTO temporarily relocate to Polar Svalbard or Segentova?

by **Doppler** » Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:33 pm

Polar Svalbard wrote:You know, since Mik and Doppler are going to be overrun, during IW2 do we want to have the MSTO temporarily relocate to Polar Svalbard or Segentova?

I was actually thinking Polar would be the best. It's the furthest. It would know far ahead in case of invasion. Plus we should make the addition of having smaller MSTO meeting places in each country.

by **Polar Svalbard** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 2:18 pm

So... would you guys like to use my space program's equipment in order to help me pay?

by **Segentova** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 8:31 am

Maybe we should go on to military-talks?

by **Doppler** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:36 am

We should actually start planning here. We need to start with the opening,who is involved, how it will go, the outcome, losses and all that.

MSTO Thread (OOC, CLOSED)

Who is online