NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Laywenrania]

*sits here and asks myself, why I introduced 6x49 for all my squad level weapons...*

... you chose the that round diameter and case length because it was exactly in the middle, didn't you?

It's based on the 1990 soviet Universal Cartridge.
http://world.guns.ru/machine/rus/unifie ... -mm-e.html
(I guess I was young, naive and mislead by the "unified"? xD)

[Rhodesialund]

... you chose the that round diameter and case length because it was exactly in the middle, didn't you?

It's based on the 1990 soviet Universal Cartridge.
http://world.guns.ru/machine/rus/unifie ... -mm-e.html
(I guess I was young, naive and mislead by the "unified"? xD)

The Soviets, going by some fan wankery if the Soviet Union didn't fall apart, would have most likely gone with a larger cartridge to replace the 7.62x54mmR in the 5.45x39/7.62x54mmR dynamic.

It is possible they could have gone with the 9.3x64mm Brenneke as a Medium Machine Gun cartridge (This is my prediction since there is a variant of the SVD called the SVDK that uses this cartridge). You might see a similar trend in the US today with the testing and development of the Lightweight Medium Machine Gun by General Dynamics using the .338 Norma Magnum cartridge.

[Halfblakistan]

What would be a sensible flagship for an archipelago like the Philippines, only in the South Atlantic? Maybe something like the Chakri Nubaret... it would basically be a cool presidential yacht with STOVL capabilities and a landing dock. I thought enhanced minehunting and -laying capabilities would be useful. Could use some help drafting a design on paper.

[Autonomous Eastern Ukraine]

What would be a sensible flagship for an archipelago like the Philippines, only in the South Atlantic? Maybe something like the Chakri Nubaret... it would basically be a cool presidential yacht with STOVL capabilities and a landing dock. I thought enhanced minehunting and -laying capabilities would be useful. Could use some help drafting a design on paper.

What time period we talking about?

[Halfblakistan]

What would be a sensible flagship for an archipelago like the Philippines, only in the South Atlantic? Maybe something like the Chakri Nubaret... it would basically be a cool presidential yacht with STOVL capabilities and a landing dock. I thought enhanced minehunting and -laying capabilities would be useful. Could use some help drafting a design on paper.

What time period we talking about?

Present day.

[Laywenrania]

It's based on the 1990 soviet Universal Cartridge.
http://world.guns.ru/machine/rus/unifie ... -mm-e.html
(I guess I was young, naive and mislead by the "unified"? xD)

The Soviets, going by some fan wankery if the Soviet Union didn't fall apart, would have most likely gone with a larger cartridge to replace the 7.62x54mmR in the 5.45x39/7.62x54mmR dynamic.

It is possible they could have gone with the 9.3x64mm Brenneke as a Medium Machine Gun cartridge (This is my prediction since there is a variant of the SVD called the SVDK that uses this cartridge). You might see a similar trend in the US today with the testing and development of the Lightweight Medium Machine Gun by General Dynamics using the .338 Norma Magnum cartridge.

Well, my nation previously used 7,5x54 similar to the french ww2 cartridge and similar a 7,5x40 on the AK variant, later on switching to 5,6x40.
Historically I went more with smaller, but high velocity cartridges on p.e. tanks, so I think this could also transfer to a replacement for the ammunition beeing rather beeing a smaller variant, therefore the 6x49. Though I also have some 9mm weapons like the VSS, they're more for special forces and subsonic...
Though the replacement of the 5,6x40 with the 6x49 may be not the best decision and maybe I file it under "weird army experiments for new weapons" and stick with the 5,6x40 on squad level and 7,5x54 for DMRs and Heavy Machine guns. Since the 7,5x54 MAS is pretty modern and rimless, I probably have no need to replace it the next years...

What time period we talking about?

Present day.

Presidential Yacht? Is it a military flagship or a semi-military one also used for your higher ranks?

[Halfblakistan]

A flagship for the military, but with more political prestige than actual firepower. Check out the Chakri Naruebet. STOVL carriers are pretty outdated, but maybe a landing platform dock could be useful for multiple roles?

[Arthurista]

A flagship for the military, but with more political prestige than actual firepower. Check out the Chakri Naruebet. STOVL carriers are pretty outdated, but maybe a landing platform dock could be useful for multiple roles?

If you want something very versatile, something like the Spanish Juan Carlos I is probably the best option. It has a ski-jump for STOVL fighters, plus a well-deck for landing craft. If you want something more carriery, iirc the Italian Cavour has ro-ro facilities for vehicles and can transport tanks in its hangar, but it's primarily intended to operate Harriers/F-35Bs.

If you want something older/cheaper the Invincible was pretty much designed as a dual-role carrier/LPH.

[Arthurista]

What does an army actually gain by transitioning to BCTs, compared to, say, forming combined arms brigade groups on an ad hoc basis by distributing support assets from a divisional 'pool'? Is it not actually more flexible that way, allowing brigade groups to be tailored and task organised for the mission at hand, instead of pre-packaging them?

[Austrasien]

What does an army actually gain by transitioning to BCTs, compared to, say, forming combined arms brigade groups on an ad hoc basis by distributing support assets from a divisional 'pool'? Is it not actually more flexible that way, allowing brigade groups to be tailored and task organised for the mission at hand, instead of pre-packaging them?

Train as you fight. If you anticipate your Brigades acting with high autonomy on a regular basis, giving each the necessary subunits organically ensures they will always be training with them.

Though it is possible and probably more practical to go half way: Brigades with the bare bones necessary for independent operations and division units providing essential supply/fire/intelligence/security/whatever support when and where it is most needed.

[Gallia-]

What if you had two armies tho?

One colonial. With battalion battlegroups.

One big. With atomic battlegroups.

[Austrasien]

What if you had two armies tho?

One colonial. With battalion battlegroups.

One big. With atomic battlegroups.

What is an atomic battle group but a battalion battle group with extra heavy armour????

[Gallia-]

What if you had two armies tho?

One colonial. With battalion battlegroups.

One big. With atomic battlegroups.

What is an atomic battle group but a battalion battle group with extra heavy armour????

About a billion dollars more taxpayers money.

Better mount them in trucks just to be safe. For the budget, not the soldiers.

[The Batavia]

Tag, would anyone care to explain what this really is? It looks interesting.

[The Corparation]

Tag, would anyone care to explain what this really is? It looks interesting.

In theory this is a place for people who RP to ask questions and get advice regarding what is and isn't realistic when it comes to military matters. In practice this is sperg central. NS's premier circle jerk for people who get hard at the sight of a well organized pretend army and spend hours making spread sheets detailing exactly how much their fictional military spends on toilet paper.

We do still offer advice though if you need it, but it should be noted that you are not guaranteed to like our advice.

[Halfblakistan]

Would it be sensible to convert a container ship into a Landing Helicopter Dock? Would that even be feasible? How much would it cost to upgrade and what kind of armament and landing capability should it have? I know that Cuba converted a fishing trawler into a "frigate" and Iraq converted a civilian airliner into an AEW platform, so I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. Of course, I could be wrong, which is why I'm asking.

I know that these are all highly speculative questions, but I'm curious as to what y'all think!

[The Akasha Colony]

Would it be sensible to convert a container ship into a Landing Helicopter Dock? Would that even be feasible?

It is fairly easy to make basic conversions to allow a merchantman to handle helicopters; all you need to do is put some flat metal sheeting on deck to create a landing platform and add some sheds or containers to house the support equipment.

But cutting a well deck into a ship that was not designed for it is an extremely expensive endeavor. Adding a well deck would require rebuilding the stern completely since freighters generally don't have the flat, boxy stern that is necessary to accommodate a well deck in the first place, nevermind the needed structural changes to actually create the deck. And then you'd need to rebuild the interior so that any vehicles cargo, or whatever carried onboard would have easy access to this deck to be embarked on landing craft.

How much would it cost to upgrade and what kind of armament and landing capability should it have?

There's no universal answer to this question because it depends on the ship in question and the needs of the nation undertaking the modification. A 3,000 TEU ship will obviously be very different from a giant 18,000+ TEU monster like a Maersk Triple E. And how these modifications would be made depends on what requirements are specified by the contracting nation. How extensive the helicopter facilities need to be depends on how many helicopters are planned to be used, which in turn depends on how many helicopters are available. How large the well deck needs to be depends on how many and what type of landing craft are expected. Armament depends on expected use and available funds.

So perhaps the closest answer is that it will cost what you're willing to pay, and you simply won't pay for the things you don't need or don't have the money for.

know that Cuba converted a fishing trawler into a "frigate" and Iraq converted a civilian airliner into an AEW platform, so I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. Of course, I could be wrong, which is why I'm asking.

Tacking things on to a ship or plane is not particularly difficult. The Cubans basically just bolted some guns, missiles, and electronics onto their fishing trawlers and welded a flat deck structure to the rear for helicopters. Converting airliners to AEW&C is quite easy; that's how the USAF got their E-3s. The problem in this case is that you need to actually modify the structure of the ship itself to accommodate a well deck for landing craft.

[Halfblakistan]

Would it be sensible to convert a container ship into a Landing Helicopter Dock? Would that even be feasible?

It is fairly easy to make basic conversions to allow a merchantman to handle helicopters; all you need to do is put some flat metal sheeting on deck to create a landing platform and add some sheds or containers to house the support equipment.

But cutting a well deck into a ship that was not designed for it is an extremely expensive endeavor. Adding a well deck would require rebuilding the stern completely since freighters generally don't have the flat, boxy stern that is necessary to accommodate a well deck in the first place, nevermind the needed structural changes to actually create the deck. And then you'd need to rebuild the interior so that any vehicles cargo, or whatever carried onboard would have easy access to this deck to be embarked on landing craft.

How much would it cost to upgrade and what kind of armament and landing capability should it have?

There's no universal answer to this question because it depends on the ship in question and the needs of the nation undertaking the modification. A 3,000 TEU ship will obviously be very different from a giant 18,000+ TEU monster like a Maersk Triple E. And how these modifications would be made depends on what requirements are specified by the contracting nation. How extensive the helicopter facilities need to be depends on how many helicopters are planned to be used, which in turn depends on how many helicopters are available. How large the well deck needs to be depends on how many and what type of landing craft are expected. Armament depends on expected use and available funds.

So perhaps the closest answer is that it will cost what you're willing to pay, and you simply won't pay for the things you don't need or don't have the money for.

know that Cuba converted a fishing trawler into a "frigate" and Iraq converted a civilian airliner into an AEW platform, so I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. Of course, I could be wrong, which is why I'm asking.

Tacking things on to a ship or plane is not particularly difficult. The Cubans basically just bolted some guns, missiles, and electronics onto their fishing trawlers and welded a flat deck structure to the rear for helicopters. Converting airliners to AEW&C is quite easy; that's how the USAF got their E-3s. The problem in this case is that you need to actually modify the structure of the ship itself to accommodate a well deck for landing craft.

A great response, thank you.

After reading this article, I realized that it would be truly disruptive to convert a used container ship into a drone warfare carrier with 3D printing capabilities. The only problem I can forsee in that situation is prohibatively high R&D costs, but that wouldn't be a problem for a more developed country than my own. I'll work on a draft design and post it in "Your Nation's Warships."

[Gallia-]

"truly disruptive"

it's a boat LoL

[The Soodean Imperium]

The hull is not a terribly complex or expensive component of a modern warship. If you're a developed country with a strong shipbuilding industry (Cuba isn't), then it's generally easier to just go ahead and design and build a hull to suit your needs, as opposed to re-purposing something else. Especially if you plan on giving it the latest radar, weapons systems, and so forth.

[The Akasha Colony]

After reading this article, I realized that it would be truly disruptive to convert a used container ship into a drone warfare carrier with 3D printing capabilities. The only problem I can forsee in that situation is prohibatively high R&D costs, but that wouldn't be a problem for a more developed country than my own. I'll work on a draft design and post it in "Your Nation's Warships."

It will ultimately be less disruptive than the article claims, for a number of reasons.

This may come as something of a surprise, but building a small drone is already well within the capabilities of an aircraft carrier. They already carry large machine shops staffed by skilled machinists capable of manufacturing a huge array of spare parts, ship fittings, and most other things needed to keep the ship and air wing operating. The spares that are beyond their scope are the more complicated things like engines and electronics that have to be manufactured using specialist equipment and special alloys. But even moving this production capability aboard a carrier doesn't fundamentally change things.

And perhaps most importantly, you haven't fundamentally changed anything: you still have aircraft flying from ships. Whether the aircraft came from a land-based factory or was manufactured onboard has never been relevant to the people being bombed by that aircraft. The ship still needs supplies, just rather than pre-made spares ready to be installed, they're delivered as blocks of metal and plastic etc. that have to then be fabricated into the desired configuration.

[Rhodesialund]

Here's a translated poster of ISISs homemade launchers that I found. Enjoy!

[Arkandros]

After reading this article, I realized that it would be truly disruptive to convert a used container ship into a drone warfare carrier with 3D printing capabilities. The only problem I can forsee in that situation is prohibatively high R&D costs, but that wouldn't be a problem for a more developed country than my own. I'll work on a draft design and post it in "Your Nation's Warships."

It will ultimately be less disruptive than the article claims, for a number of reasons.

This may come as something of a surprise, but building a small drone is already well within the capabilities of an aircraft carrier. They already carry large machine shops staffed by skilled machinists capable of manufacturing a huge array of spare parts, ship fittings, and most other things needed to keep the ship and air wing operating. The spares that are beyond their scope are the more complicated things like engines and electronics that have to be manufactured using specialist equipment and special alloys. But even moving this production capability aboard a carrier doesn't fundamentally change things.

And perhaps most importantly, you haven't fundamentally changed anything: you still have aircraft flying from ships. Whether the aircraft came from a land-based factory or was manufactured onboard has never been relevant to the people being bombed by that aircraft. The ship still needs supplies, just rather than pre-made spares ready to be installed, they're delivered as blocks of metal and plastic etc. that have to then be fabricated into the desired configuration.

Just to add onto this, I would argue that the quality and capability of any drone constructed on a carrier would be significantly worse than one built by, say, Lockheed. The machine shops on a carrier just wouldn't be capable of producing something like a "long range stealth bomber drone" described in the article without sacrificing a considerable amount of hangar space to very specialized and basically single purpose equipment, like a carbon fiber fabrication shop. Also, considering that drones can be built on land and then delivered in just as much (or probably less) space than the raw materials required to construct one, you'd get more plane per delivery with prefabricated parts.

[Laritaia]

with 3D printing capabilities.

any value said idea had was completely invalidated by this


3D printing is not a replicator from Star Trek, it takes a long time to produce even the smallest and simplest of parts and is massively expensive.

people who waffle on about how its going to revolutionize X sector of Y industry/technology by allowing on demand production have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.


3d printing is an incredibly useful tool that truly can speed up the design and development process but this belief that it has some sort of magical power to reduce the time and cost of actual manufacturing is only serving to make people heavily disappointed when they find out what it's actually like.

[Halfblakistan]

with 3D printing capabilities.

any value said idea had was completely invalidated by this


3D printing is not a replicator from Star Trek, it takes a long time to produce even the smallest and simplest of parts and is massively expensive.

people who waffle on about how its going to revolutionize X sector of Y industry/technology by allowing on demand production have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.


3d printing is an incredibly useful tool that truly can speed up the design and development process but this belief that it has some sort of magical power to reduce the time and cost of actual manufacturing is only serving to make people heavily disappointed when they find out what it's actually like.

I totally disagree. People in countries littered with mines (and amputees) are being given [url]printed prosthetics[/url]. A Russian-American company (probably owned by Trump) is experimenting with printed houses. The technology may not be cost-effective in an MT setting, but it would in a PMT or FT setting. I'm not saying it's a panacea, but it could be a useful tool in the militaries of a lot of countries, real and imaginary.

It will ultimately be less disruptive than the article claims, for a number of reasons.

This may come as something of a surprise, but building a small drone is already well within the capabilities of an aircraft carrier. They already carry large machine shops staffed by skilled machinists capable of manufacturing a huge array of spare parts, ship fittings, and most other things needed to keep the ship and air wing operating. The spares that are beyond their scope are the more complicated things like engines and electronics that have to be manufactured using specialist equipment and special alloys. But even moving this production capability aboard a carrier doesn't fundamentally change things.

And perhaps most importantly, you haven't fundamentally changed anything: you still have aircraft flying from ships. Whether the aircraft came from a land-based factory or was manufactured onboard has never been relevant to the people being bombed by that aircraft. The ship still needs supplies, just rather than pre-made spares ready to be installed, they're delivered as blocks of metal and plastic etc. that have to then be fabricated into the desired configuration.

Just to add onto this, I would argue that the quality and capability of any drone constructed on a carrier would be significantly worse than one built by, say, Lockheed. The machine shops on a carrier just wouldn't be capable of producing something like a "long range stealth bomber drone" described in the article without sacrificing a considerable amount of hangar space to very specialized and basically single purpose equipment, like a carbon fiber fabrication shop. Also, considering that drones can be built on land and then delivered in just as much (or probably less) space than the raw materials required to construct one, you'd get more plane per delivery with prefabricated parts.

I guess it would just be easier to just make the drones modular and store the parts on the ship. Still, the idea of a drone warfare carrier is pretty cool.