P/MT OOC Discussion and Argument Thread

[Licana]

K-Stan, use your words to write new CD/20mins posts. :/

[Kaukolastan]

K-Stan, use your words to write new CD/20mins posts. :/

no u
/fail

Final Off-Topic: I'll be out tonight, but post probably tomorrow night.

Actually, 20 Minutes is kind of on topic, being my gratuitous abuse of definitions and fact for propaganda purposes. BEND OVER, LOGIC! HERE COME K-STAN'S DEPARTMENT OF DOUBLESPEAK! "Nuclear weapons (lower case) are not Nuclear Weapons (upper case) when they're our nuclear weapons."

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Heh heh.
There's actually surprisingly little nuclear physics in my nuclear physics degree.

The nuclear module doesn't start for a week or two, and this is the second week of lectures.

[Transnapastain]

K-Stan, use your words to write new CD/20mins posts. :/

Use your words to write new CD/20mins posts

WRITE NEW CD/20MINS POSTS

[The Corparation]

quote="Kaukolastan";p="7295079"]

In response to the above posters fears of crashing nuclear powered aircraft, I would like to put forth all of the incidents where the USAF fucked it up and crashed aircraft with full payloads of nuclear weapons without too serious an incident. Several of these incidents were over foreign soil and didn't cause anywhere near the extreme incident you put forth. Since a reactor the size of what Golomun proposed wouldn't contain that much more nuclear materials then a few high power nuclear bombs, I'm doubtful that the nuclear materials involved in a small reactor would create an insurmountable problem in the event of a crash.

Since a reactor the size of what Golomun proposed wouldn't contain that much more nuclear materials then a few high power nuclear bombs

more nuclear materials then a few high power nuclear bombs

more nuclear materials then a few high power nuclear bombs

... I'm just gonna let that one sit. Imagine how that would play on the news.
[/quote]
My point wasn't that reactors would have more, it was that they'd be about the same size.

Additionally, nuclear weapons are designed NOT to blow up. They're solid weapons that are specifically designed to only do anything reactive if a precise series of events are carried out. A reactor would be, by its nature, RUNNING during flight, which means more chance for "bad things" (but not a ka-splosion - THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN, see Axis Nova's post). Even then, you are correct. The amount of actual damage done by a sudden dispersion of radioactive materials over a metro center (you know, near airports) would be very minor, speaking in terms of raw population and infrastructure loss. However (and this is a big "however"), people do not operate on sheer numbers and cold logic. Just think how this will play out. Three Mile Island was a minor nuclear accident. Fukushima was an "Accident with Local Consequences" (4 on the International Nuclear Event Scale) until international pressure caused Japan to re-evaluated it to a "Major Accident", and no single reactor ever crossed over a 5. Three Mile stagnated American nuclear process. Fukushima sent the nuclear industry in Japan into a tailspin.

I never said nuclear bombs were designed to do so easily.You're putting words into my mouth. Nuclear reactors running would still spew out a similar amount of radioactive materials in a crash compared to a bomb of similar size. It running doesn't change the amount of radioactive materials inside. Besides these aren't civilian planes flying out of and over cities, these are bombers flying out of military bases and probably over the ocean.

Oh, and as for "incidents where the USAF fucked it up" you mentioned? Let's look at the most recent. In 2007, the US accidentally flew (flew, not crashed) six AGM-129 ACM nuclear cruise missiles were loaded onto a B-52 and transported from Minot to Barksdale. The "without too serious an incident" you mentioned? Let's look at the list of the People Who Done Got Smacked:

• Fifth Maintenance Group Commander - fired
• Fifth Bomb Wing Commander - fired
• Second Operations Group Commander - fired
• Four Unnamed Senior NCOs in Fifth Bomb Wing - fired
• ENTIRE FIFTH BOMB WING - stripped of certification to handle nuclear materials, special weapons, and carry out missions
• Chief of Staff of the Air Force - fired
• Secretary of the Air Force - fired

For those of you not from the USA, that list caps with the top officer of the entire Air Force and the civilian leadership of the Air Force (who only answers to the Secretary of Defense and the President). I'd call that list pretty damn serious.

That's not actually that serious a reaction, compared to what you put forth, namely a massive international incident and possible war. Its bad sure, but the firings like that are mostly just a show to please the public.

Now, let's look at how many civilian nuclear incidents there have been in the past twenty years: Wikipedia says 9.

Compare this to aircraft crashes. There were 130 in 2010. There were 211 in 1999. Let's be generous, and go with the lower number. 130 crashed per year.

If you're putting nuclear engines in planes, each of those crashes will have one to four engines on it. Let's be nice and assume one reactor per plane.

That's 130 nuclear accidents a year.

Oh, yeah, that will go over well.

[/quote]
Because every single plane crash will involve nuclear military aircraft. FACT: There's shitloads more planes then nuclear facilities. FACT:More planes=More accidents. FACT: aircraft have laxer safety standards then nuclear plants do. FACT If you put a nuclear reactor into a plane the standards for that plane will be jacked up to the insane perfectionist standards of a nuclear reactor.

IN conclusion, I would like to add the fact that a nuclear reactor has in fact flown aboard an aircraft before, performed admirably, and without incident.

[Golomun]

you know, all that I see about this is most of you saying it is doable in 10 to 25 years only if you ignore political bullshit and revert the 1950's mentality towards molten salt reactors.
to me that sounds like mid to late P/MT; unless you reverse time and change history in order to prevent the disasters that stagnated the industry for the past 50 years.
then you would have a paradox since everyone would have embraced the idea of reactors to power jet engines; thus causing this conversation to cease to exist.

The Corparation is right about the USA doing this whole thing before

never knew the article existed until a few moments ago

EDIT: another reason for a molten salt reactor instead of a regular reactor is not only because of less radiation, meltdown proof, 300 year radiation for the thorium instead of thousands, does the same job at better efficiency, designed to be smaller than ever, but that you can turn it on and off like clock work!

BTW did you guys see the 2008 video yet? it is quite educational *sips tea*

[The Soviet Technocracy]

A fusion reactor could possibly be made smaller and lighter, but imo only relatively compared to a nuclear reactor. I think having fusion reactors that would fit in an aircraft are really high PMT, verging on FT almost.

Now, a spacecraft, on the other hand, is another thing entirely; indeed, I have a spaceplane that uses a combined cycle fusion engine. Also, for operating in space, fusion torches rock.

That being said don't try to launch directly using a torch or you will melt your spaceport.

iirc fusion reactors are too big to be put on airplanes and missiles

the smallest require like 10m^3 of space

that's a lot

also, closed cycle nuclear engines have been proposed irl and are technically feasible in MT and PMT, unlike fusion

[Axis Nova]

No, you fail, because that engine setup is on a heavy bomber, not a fighter like you want.

[Kazomal]

So, right now I've got an MBT, an Urban Combat Tank, and an IFV. I'm making the IFV a bit of a monster, specifically designed to engage multiple targets at multiple elevations in an urban environment, with a 40mm CTWS gun for hard targets, 2 7.76 MGs and a box for AAGM/ATGM. It has a good deal of armor, for an IFV, with all-around 45mm protection, add-on REA, and an active protection system. I'm still trying to figure a realistic carrying capacity for that much hardware.

Should I ditch the AAGM and leave that to my more mobile and numerous Humvee-type LAVs and dedicated AA vehicles?

Also, I'm trying to set it up so that I have both a tank and an "escort tank" type thing, similar to the Russian BMPT in urban environments. My MBT is 4-5m wide, depending on add-on armor and skirt. Do I even need a dedicated urban combat tank, or will my MBT make the nut? Is it too wide to be practically used in urban warfare? Can my IFV fill the role of "escort" tank in urban environments, or should I let my IFV be an IFV and make my urban combat tank my escort tank?

By the by this is a rich nation with a first-rate military in a slightly PMT region with frequent conflict.

[Golomun]

No, you fail, because that engine setup is on a heavy bomber, not a fighter like you want.

wait, wah? how does he fail? how does I fail? your the one who failed to grasp what were saying!!

because that engine setup is on a heavy bomber, not a fighter like you want.

don't be a child, were using the bloody "setup" as an EXAMPLE of what HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE

WE CAN put it on a fighter, its all based on scale!
WE CAN do it in 5 to ten years, its only a matter of time!

BUT ONLY IF A NATION IGNORES POLITICS REGARDING NUCLEAR ENGINES.

That's why I am putting my nations history down as the ones who ignored the politics in the 1960's and actually fallowed through.
man, I think your just mad because I proved its doable and a few agreed with and even helped me to boot.

So, right now I've got an MBT, an Urban Combat Tank, and an IFV. I'm making the IFV a bit of a monster, specifically designed to engage multiple targets at multiple elevations in an urban environment, with a 40mm CTWS gun for hard targets, 2 7.76 MGs and a box for AAGM/ATGM. It has a good deal of armor, for an IFV, with all-around 45mm protection, add-on REA, and an active protection system. I'm still trying to figure a realistic carrying capacity for that much hardware.

Should I ditch the AAGM and leave that to my more mobile and numerous Humvee-type LAVs and dedicated AA vehicles?

Also, I'm trying to set it up so that I have both a tank and an "escort tank" type thing, similar to the Russian BMPT in urban environments. My MBT is 4-5m wide, depending on add-on armor and skirt. Do I even need a dedicated urban combat tank, or will my MBT make the nut? Is it too wide to be practically used in urban warfare? Can my IFV fill the role of "escort" tank in urban environments, or should I let my IFV be an IFV and make my urban combat tank my escort tank?

By the by this is a rich nation with a first-rate military in a slightly PMT region with frequent conflict.

Sir, more Dakka is never a bad thing.
and to design a multi-role tank with missile launchers will cut down on costs and logistics, plus you don't need to have a support truck in case one breaks down, just take the part from another tank just like they did back on ye ol' WWII Sherman Tanks. Thats how we won the war buddy, over engineering of any one thing instead of setting a standard for a whole mass of things leads to downfall of your army.

my point is: Since building a single type of tank for all the work is a good thing, go for it !

also 4-5m is the width of a one lane road or the size of some alleys
(which are 6m wide at min. for most alleys if your going to invade down-town Vancouver IRL)
<.<....>.>...
yes I posted that CSIS, stay calm, no one is invading, we are just using it as a fictional example... damn echelon system..

[The Soviet Technocracy]

No, you fail, because that engine setup is on a heavy bomber, not a fighter like you want.

Is this bomber the size of a house?

It's going to end up looking like a Pregnant Guppy tbh.

Just do fission. At least that has been done on aircraft before.

[The Corparation]

No, you fail, because that engine setup is on a heavy bomber, not a fighter like you want.

Is this bomber the size of a house?

It's going to end up looking like a Pregnant Guppy tbh.

Just do fission. At least that has been done on aircraft before.

Hey the Pregnant Guppy is an excellent aircraft, with stylish lines. Much nicer then the nerwer Air Bus beluga. Poor thing looks like it snapped its back carrying heavy loads unlike the Guppies which stand tall and proud.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

So, right now I've got an MBT, an Urban Combat Tank, and an IFV. I'm making the IFV a bit of a monster, specifically designed to engage multiple targets at multiple elevations in an urban environment, with a 40mm CTWS gun for hard targets, 2 7.76 MGs and a box for AAGM/ATGM. It has a good deal of armor, for an IFV, with all-around 45mm protection, add-on REA, and an active protection system. I'm still trying to figure a realistic carrying capacity for that much hardware.

Should I ditch the AAGM and leave that to my more mobile and numerous Humvee-type LAVs and dedicated AA vehicles?

Also, I'm trying to set it up so that I have both a tank and an "escort tank" type thing, similar to the Russian BMPT in urban environments. My MBT is 4-5m wide, depending on add-on armor and skirt. Do I even need a dedicated urban combat tank, or will my MBT make the nut? Is it too wide to be practically used in urban warfare? Can my IFV fill the role of "escort" tank in urban environments, or should I let my IFV be an IFV and make my urban combat tank my escort tank?

By the by this is a rich nation with a first-rate military in a slightly PMT region with frequent conflict.

4.2m wide is considered very wide for a tank. Many are typically under 3.8-3.9m. Even the legendary MCA-7 series is only 4.2m wide, which is the same width as the British Challenger 2 with fat skirt armour plates.

Giving Main Battle Tanks SAMs or anti-air guns is regarded by many as diluting their role, and giving them specific firepower for a foe they need rarely face and that can be done better by specialised AA vehicles that should be attached to your armour units anyway. ATGM boxes on tanks is also hit-and-miss if you listen to the patrons of NS's MBT thread. The preferred method is internally-carried GLATGM (Gun-Launched ATGM) rounds. It reduces capacity of regular rounds, but a GLATGM is far more valuable and capable than a regular tank round in the anti-tank role. Some are able to target helicopters too.

[Kazomal]

So, right now I've got an MBT, an Urban Combat Tank, and an IFV. I'm making the IFV a bit of a monster, specifically designed to engage multiple targets at multiple elevations in an urban environment, with a 40mm CTWS gun for hard targets, 2 7.76 MGs and a box for AAGM/ATGM. It has a good deal of armor, for an IFV, with all-around 45mm protection, add-on REA, and an active protection system. I'm still trying to figure a realistic carrying capacity for that much hardware.

Should I ditch the AAGM and leave that to my more mobile and numerous Humvee-type LAVs and dedicated AA vehicles?

Also, I'm trying to set it up so that I have both a tank and an "escort tank" type thing, similar to the Russian BMPT in urban environments. My MBT is 4-5m wide, depending on add-on armor and skirt. Do I even need a dedicated urban combat tank, or will my MBT make the nut? Is it too wide to be practically used in urban warfare? Can my IFV fill the role of "escort" tank in urban environments, or should I let my IFV be an IFV and make my urban combat tank my escort tank?

By the by this is a rich nation with a first-rate military in a slightly PMT region with frequent conflict.

4.2m wide is considered very wide for a tank. Many are typically under 3.8-3.9m. Even the legendary MCA-7 series is only 4.2m wide, which is the same width as the British Challenger 2 with fat skirt armour plates.

Giving Main Battle Tanks SAMs or anti-air guns is regarded by many as diluting their role, and giving them specific firepower for a foe they need rarely face and that can be done better by specialised AA vehicles that should be attached to your armour units anyway. ATGM boxes on tanks is also hit-and-miss if you listen to the patrons of NS's MBT thread. The preferred method is internally-carried GLATGM (Gun-Launched ATGM) rounds. It reduces capacity of regular rounds, but a GLATGM is far more valuable and capable than a regular tank round in the anti-tank role. Some are able to target helicopters too.

My IFV has a 40mm CTWS gun. Can that fire a GLATGM that can actually do it's job?

I'd like my IFV to focus on infantry and light armor threats, hence I would rather not sacrifice regular main gun ammo for anti-tank ammo, but I would like the capacity to exist, hence the box with quartet of TOWs, or some such.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

4.2m wide is considered very wide for a tank. Many are typically under 3.8-3.9m. Even the legendary MCA-7 series is only 4.2m wide, which is the same width as the British Challenger 2 with fat skirt armour plates.

Giving Main Battle Tanks SAMs or anti-air guns is regarded by many as diluting their role, and giving them specific firepower for a foe they need rarely face and that can be done better by specialised AA vehicles that should be attached to your armour units anyway. ATGM boxes on tanks is also hit-and-miss if you listen to the patrons of NS's MBT thread. The preferred method is internally-carried GLATGM (Gun-Launched ATGM) rounds. It reduces capacity of regular rounds, but a GLATGM is far more valuable and capable than a regular tank round in the anti-tank role. Some are able to target helicopters too.

My IFV has a 40mm CTWS gun. Can that fire a GLATGM that can actually do it's job?

I'd like my IFV to focus on infantry and light armor threats, hence I would rather not sacrifice regular main gun ammo for anti-tank ammo, but I would like the capacity to exist, hence the box with quartet of TOWs, or some such.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were going to strap ATGM boxes to an MBT. No, they're perfectly acceptable for an IFV, especially if you want it to resemble a BMP-T in role. 40mm is too small to mount even HEISAP rocket warheads on 'GLATGMs', they wouldn't be worth it at that size. IFVs, if more BMP-T than BMP/M3, could also suitably mount SAMs in place of a dedicated and generally vulnerable SPAAG/SPSAM platform.

[Kazomal]

My IFV has a 40mm CTWS gun. Can that fire a GLATGM that can actually do it's job?

I'd like my IFV to focus on infantry and light armor threats, hence I would rather not sacrifice regular main gun ammo for anti-tank ammo, but I would like the capacity to exist, hence the box with quartet of TOWs, or some such.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were going to strap ATGM boxes to an MBT. No, they're perfectly acceptable for an IFV, especially if you want it to resemble a BMP-T in role. 40mm is too small to mount even HEISAP rocket warheads on 'GLATGMs', they wouldn't be worth it at that size. IFVs, if more BMP-T than BMP/M3, could also suitably mount SAMs in place of a dedicated and generally vulnerable SPAAG/SPSAM platform.

Yeah the BMP-T was my model for this IFV. Good to know I'm on the right path.

[Galla-]

Is this bomber the size of a house?

It's going to end up looking like a Pregnant Guppy tbh.

Just do fission. At least that has been done on aircraft before.

Hey the Pregnant Guppy is an excellent aircraft, with stylish lines. Much nicer then the nerwer Air Bus beluga. Poor thing looks like it snapped its back carrying heavy loads unlike the Guppies which stand tall and proud.

As tall and proud as a chubby chaser model.

Guppy is one of the most revolting planes ever created in aesthetic terms.

[Abruzi]

Tag.

[Arkania 5]

Tagaroo.