Advertisement
by Shanghai industrial complex » Sun May 09, 2021 2:34 am
by Laka Strolistandiler » Sun May 09, 2021 4:42 am
Dtn wrote:Austrasien wrote:
A 50kt nuclear warhead will weigh less than 200lbs. You seem to be confused about everything you want.
Not to mention the MiG-701 was simply a rebadge of the Sukhoi T-60S bomber after the designer was forced to switch bureaus.
What kind of "Technician at Sukhoi Design Beaurau, university student at MAI" are we dealing with here?
I reserve the right to /stillme any one-liners if my post is at least two lines long
by Gallia- » Sun May 09, 2021 4:53 am
by Laka Strolistandiler » Sun May 09, 2021 4:55 am
Gallia- wrote:A 20 KT bomb is going to be about the same size and mass as a 227 kg GP bomb with a low drag body.
I reserve the right to /stillme any one-liners if my post is at least two lines long
by Gallia- » Sun May 09, 2021 4:57 am
by Dtn » Sun May 09, 2021 2:03 pm
Laka Strolistandiler wrote:Dtn wrote:
Not to mention the MiG-701 was simply a rebadge of the Sukhoi T-60S bomber after the designer was forced to switch bureaus.
What kind of "Technician at Sukhoi Design Beaurau, university student at MAI" are we dealing with here?
Well pal I’m no weapons technician- my unit deals with project design maintenance and field support (Отдел эксплуатации проектов, Отдел 50—3) . Also 701 shares little to no design features with later variants of T-60S. Yes, the initial concept might be somewhat look-alike, but what they developed into- nah.
IRL MiG-25RB could carry 2xFAB-500T bombs (each one 1100 lbs). As stated above, this plane would share only its general arrangement (компоновка, idk how to translate it in English, sorry) with MiG-25. It’s not like I’m trying to fit a bomb as large as the plane itself on a plane, who am I for that: Sylvanski?
by Laka Strolistandiler » Mon May 10, 2021 5:23 am
Dtn wrote:Laka Strolistandiler wrote:
Well pal I’m no weapons technician- my unit deals with project design maintenance and field support (Отдел эксплуатации проектов, Отдел 50—3) . Also 701 shares little to no design features with later variants of T-60S. Yes, the initial concept might be somewhat look-alike, but what they developed into- nah.
IRL MiG-25RB could carry 2xFAB-500T bombs (each one 1100 lbs). As stated above, this plane would share only its general arrangement (компоновка, idk how to translate it in English, sorry) with MiG-25. It’s not like I’m trying to fit a bomb as large as the plane itself on a plane, who am I for that: Sylvanski?
With your intricate knowledge of obscure Soviet paper planes, surely you know the MiG 70.1 in fact had two roles - a long-range interceptor and a strike aircraft. The only major difference was the avionics fit.
The later variant of the T-60S was the MiG 70.1. After Samoylovich left Sukhoi put together a new team that restarted development of the original and quite different TsAGI T-60 concept under the designation изделие 54.
This is deep lore indeed, in striking contrast with the innocent simplicity of your big MiG-25 with a single nuclear self-defense missile.
If you want a really obscure Russian project, an enlarged stealthy MiG-25 with strike capability would look almost exactly like...well, I'm sure you already know about it.
I reserve the right to /stillme any one-liners if my post is at least two lines long
by United Earthlings » Mon May 10, 2021 3:21 pm
Dtn wrote:NS as a whole has lost something like 80% of its userbase since it peaked in 2013. Traditional forums are becoming as obsolete as usenet and listservs.
The Italian battleships gained substantially more machinery space by removing the amidships turret.
Is it? It's about a 10% improvement in enthalpy compared to 285 psi and 50 degrees reheat typical of a Standard battleship. 600 psi and 825 is about 15%.
The Mahans were designed for 600 psi. They were limited to 400 because as Friedman's excellent US battleships design history states, "nor, in 1937, had sufficient experience with the new destroyers of the Mahan and later classes been accumulated."
In practice the new technology had teething problems that took some years to overcome.
I directly compared the machinery spaces of the USS New Orleans with the USS New Mexico. There's no physical way for the New Orleans plant to fit on the New Mexico. (Machinery volume actually remained remarkably consistent between the Nevada and Colorado classes but the layout varied considerably.)
Parsons turbines and White-Forster boilers were actually a retrograde step in technology and efficiency compared to American Curtis turbines and B&W boilers of the time in some respects.
Ships are more than just numbers that can be reallocated arbitrarily. Battleships have different requirements than cruisers, particularly treaty cruisers that heavily compromised protection and survivability. Or else why not just use destroyer engines? After all a WW1 four-stacker had about the power of a Standard battleship, and obviously the machinery weight was less than half 2500 tons or so since a Wickes was only ~1200 tons. Maybe this is all more complicated than we thought!
I'm not really being sarcastic. It's incredibly complicated. The number that probably comes close to describing a steam plant's efficiency in the way that you seem to be using it - thermal efficiency reducing weight and bulk - is heat rate. This makes sense, right? The more horsepower you get out of a btu the less surface area you need for your boilers, etc, etc.
How does this mesh with your impression of the development of steam power? To me it says even at the beginning of the turbine age we're seeing diminishing returns. In fact I suspect the inverse of this graph would nicely show the power of a ceteris paribus steamship over the years.
The shortest North Carolina design proposal was 640 feet with 50,000 shp making 22 knots - hmm.
You should carefully read the South Dakota class chapter to get a better idea of the difficulties in getting 25+ knots out of a shorter hull.
For example, the 1937 scheme D was a 680 foot design comparable in armament layout and armor to a Standard battleship. It made 24 knots on 75,000 horsepower. Your refit Standard will require greater horsepower due to being faster, having a shorter hull, and being less hydrodynamically advanced - with less available space.
I didn't say "defense spending," I said battleships. Battleships were a smaller, less demanding, less competitive, and necessarily more conservative market than civilian power generation.
The actual story of how and why the US adopted turboelectric and later high steam following developments in the civilian market is fairly interesting but only hinted at in Friedman.
by United Earthlings » Mon May 10, 2021 3:30 pm
Gallia- wrote:And yet you keep coming back here asking about things that are silly. Instead of accepting something as silly, and changing it, you keep using increasingly verbose justifications for the silliness. ):
Dtn wrote:Dubious choices justified by authorial fiat and your superior intellect has been a criticism of your posts for something like a decade?
Refitting a dozen battleships of the type described for 25 knots is a fairly dubious choice that would require an extraordinary set of "realistic" (ie, not arbitrary) justifications.
In the context of language, "flatulent" means inflated, pretentious, pompous, portentously overblown, or turgid - and has since before it was used for fart.
Semantics is the study of meaning, semiotics is the study of symbols. Besides transmitting meaning, language is a social act that necessarily conveys symbols about social identity through form and structure.
I believe this is one area that falls under the grammar rules [sic] known as "social semiotics."
Your affected language is carefully designed to convey that "you're smarter than the whole of NS and the sources they draw upon combined" "by proxy of being almost twice as old as the average NSer and that once I assimilate those sources into my collective combined with my already preexisting sources," to quote the classics.
The problem is it's full of acyrologia like "by proxy of being almost twice as old as the average NSer and that once I assimilate those sources into my collective combined with my already preexisting source" that obfuscate the meaning of your posts while conveying quite different symbolism than you intend. You might say that there's a significant* gap between the signifié and signifiant, made particularly noisome by your frequent use of the most obnoxious smileys.
*Yes, that was a actually a pun.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Mon May 10, 2021 3:33 pm
by United Earthlings » Mon May 10, 2021 3:37 pm
Dtn wrote:Really "isolationist megapower with no war in three centuries" is the most absurd aspect of United Earthlings, so it gets its own post.
What aphorism guided the design of the Standard battleships? How does Vegetius justify United Earthlings using facsimiles of a type carefully created in reflection of US strategic interests of the time? Are battleships purely technological artifacts?
There is obviously no such thing as "realism" in NS. Some fictional country using an F-35 isn't more "realistic" than a Harry Potter broom, and may very well be less so.
When we RP (lol) or even world-build, we're just telling a story. What makes a good story? Again, it comes down to author fiat.
Obviously everything that happens in a fictional story is authorial fiat, but a good story has plausible and internally consistent justifications that allow the audience to suspend disbelief and forget everything is just a contrivance. These justifications add conflict and drama to the story.
"United Earthlings has a large and incredibly skilled military with lots of tools designed for intercontinental power projection despite three centuries of pacifist isolation because of this Latin quote" is just bad storytelling. It's not an actual motivation with purpose, there's no conflict or drama, it's less "realistic" than My Little Pony - Rainbow Dash at least reacts to situations in ways that are relatable and make her an actual character.
IMO "realism" isn't about how many horsepower your battleship has - it's about plausible and internally consistent ways to tell a story via world-building. Ideally realism is just good story-telling. This thread is a niche application but whatever.
In reality the development of battleships is a good story. There's conflict and tension. It's not "We're going to do whatever it takes to make our battleships 25 knots for some reason because we think it's a good idea for some reason." There's no conflict or tension there.
I suspect the actual reasons the two iterations of the Commonwealth we know about are heavily-armed isolationists is a legacy from when people actually RPed and you didn't want to get shown up by Questers or someone, but it's ok. You just have to worry about Sharifistan now.
Of course there's the added bonus of just being able to tell us how badass United Earthlings is without showing anything but nobody here is exactly lighting NS on fire these days.
by Puzikas » Mon May 10, 2021 6:41 pm
United Earthlings wrote:War comes in many flavors
Sevvania wrote:I don't post much, but I am always here.
Usually waiting for Puz ;-;
by Austrasien » Mon May 10, 2021 6:42 pm
by Arroyo-Abeille » Mon May 10, 2021 6:42 pm
by Scandinavian Federated Alliance » Mon May 10, 2021 6:42 pm
by The Corparation » Mon May 10, 2021 6:43 pm
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by Daemyrs » Mon May 10, 2021 6:44 pm
Jedi8246 wrote:It suddenly occurs to me. If the Necron are all made of metal, wouldnt a giant magnet fuck their entire army?
by Scandinavian Federated Alliance » Mon May 10, 2021 6:45 pm
by Krigeinbrung » Mon May 10, 2021 6:47 pm
by Licana » Mon May 10, 2021 6:48 pm
Puzikas wrote:Gulf War One was like Slapstick: The War. Except, you know, up to 40,000 people died.
Vitaphone Racing wrote:Never in all my years have I seen someone actually quote the dictionary and still get the definition wrong.
Senestrum wrote:How are KEPs cowardly? Surely the "real man" would in fact be the one firing giant rods of nuclear waste at speeds best described as "hilarious".
by Scandinavian Federated Alliance » Mon May 10, 2021 6:50 pm
by Dtn » Mon May 10, 2021 10:21 pm
United Earthlings wrote:
In the original context when I first made reference to its use, I was talking about it clearly in the semantics sense.
Only through your sheer obstinateness have we reached the end of this semiotic road.
Are you satisfied now so we can digress this pointless side discussion and move back to the central thesis of my question?
United Earthlings wrote:To me when viewed in its entirety, that faster, shorter battleships are possible because available space isn't the defining issue, weight restrictions are as in the various design proposals are trading off one thing to gain another all to maintain a self-imposed weight limit of 35,000 tons displacement.
So, in that regard your right, my (refit) battleships will require greater horsepower which can be potentially offset by heavier, more powerful machinery, of course eventually a diminishing return will be reached. The question then becomes, how many knots can be gained until the trade in ever expanding weight of machinery renders it impractical.
United Earthlings wrote:
I know you said battleships and therefore considering the construction of battleships consumed a good percentage of a nation's annual defense spending, my question was valid.
However, I'll rephrase it for you.
Did battleship construction have no impact on technical innovation?
I also agree the history is quite interesting.
United Earthlings wrote:
I've never officially declared my nation a megapower, that's more you projecting your bias onto me then any officially stated record of fact by me. In fact, officially for quite a few years now (almost a decade) I've consider my nation more along the lines of a Middle Power, maybe a case can be made for at times a Regional Power, but on any given day on average a Middle Power it is.
War comes in many flavors, as I flesh out the history of my nation I'll work out the vagaries of that statement. For the time being consider it amended to the following: "Following the founding of the Commonwealth from the wake of a bloody and destructive civil war that saw the loss of 25% of the nation's prewar population, the new Commonwealth government adopted a policy of isolationism that eschewed foreign entanglements that would draw the nation and its people into another destructive (world) war. This policy would hold sway over the Commonwealth for many years and decades to come until finally, the influence of outsiders could no longer be ignored. Though the Commonwealth would play catch-up for the next few decades, the Commonwealth gradually establish its own dominant sphere of influence both through economic and military* means in its region. Though the policy of isolationism was abandon, its influence would continue to hold some sway within the foreign policy ideas embraced by the Commonwealth throughout the late 19th and into the 20th century."
Not counting the multiple war games and military exercises/maneuvers that take place every year as well as the time period before the establishment of the Commonwealth, since the establishment of said Commonwealth the nation has fought in not one conflict or war of aggression whether conventional or unconventional in nature. With over three centuries of uninterrupted peaceful relations with the entire world’s nation-states, an impressive feat few if any other nation-states can claim.
The Commonwealth has achieved this unprecedented stability through officially policies of neutrality {avoidance of entangling alliances}, isolation {enhanced by the nation being an island nation, hence no shared land borders to fret over this including never acquiring any colonies), a frightening economic powerhouse with global connections and finally, an overwhelming military presence with the Commonwealth on average spending 4% of its GDP on the nation’s defenses mostly on its impressive Blue Water Power Projection capable Navy.
With its mastery of economic dominance of the region, long standing democratic traditions and powerful military the Commonwealth remains the sole uncontested global power in its region.
A power few if any nations would wish to contest let alone stupidly challenge. Furthermore, those with dealings with the Commonwealth know first hand you either peacefully co-exist with the Commonwealth or face your own annihilation and/or possible extinction, there is no middle ground.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Mon May 10, 2021 10:23 pm
by Gallia- » Tue May 11, 2021 1:49 am
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:who the fuck cares
by European Federation Reunified » Tue May 11, 2021 2:01 am
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement