SDNWorld Redux: Moderator proclaimations.

[MKSheppard]

Shep's hugeish SSAN have existed for a long time, but it can't have propeller-less propulsion system. No pump-jets. A propeller, and a far noisier one as well due to the size.

Um, the UK uses a single pumpjet on it's 15,680 ton SSBNs with total SHP of 27,000~ SHP.

Two pumpjets gives me 54,000~ SHP, which is more than enough; since I'm not trying to break speed records with these boats.

[MKSheppard]

I also find it quite hilarious that someone whose total GDP is half that of the United States; is maintaining eight carrier battle groups (the US with twice the GDP has 12) -- and he has the gall to complain about my forces.

Moreover with his munitions development costs

Did it escape your brain that I keep referring to Japanistani FMRAAMs whenever I describe them? I buy into Japanistani R&D for almost all of my major weapons.

why does he field the USAF level airforce and future weapons (with not even having the budget for it!)?

I was unaware that operating F-106 Delta Daggers upgraded to MiG-31 levels and F-105 Thunderchiefs again upgraded, and 40+ year old Stratojets again upgraded was "USAF level air force" -- I was still flying fucking F-84 THUNDERJETS until I struck a deal to replace them with Su-17s from Japanistan.

Meanwhile, I think the total number of F-22s that have been deployed to the New Continent by the MESS exceeds the number built in real life.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I'm not stripping Shep's SSANs, because nobody complained when the OOBs were fluid, so he has them. You're right, he probably shouldn't, but then again, he does have the posts to be an Imperium. His cheating around the edges in response to being demoted is to be expected.

Of course, I've also decided that it will take 15 years for Shep to get primitive gun-type fission devices and another 5 to get a thermonuke and another 5 after that to get a respectable force of thermonuclear weapons mated with some semblence of a real delivery system, so there is no strategic nuclear threat from Shepistan for the next 25 years and more like 30 before he could actually threaten to do what he did in the last game.

Also, for the sake of the game I may intervene using the powers of Q if he starts strategic use of bio-weapons.

None of us knew what he was planning until towards the end of Aug. Much less what the Boats were capable of, because he mentioned here that he wanted to rework them a little:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... an#2871873

Problems have emerged with my Super SSAN. Reworking the design to be better laid out to actually go through most harbors.

It was only on the 1st Sept, which I believe around the same time when the you stated that OOBs were set in stone, that he stated explicitly that they were made of Titanium, and that they had 5 hulls. Not even the Typhoon submarine, the largest known Submarine ever to be in service, was made of Titanium.

[MKSheppard]

None of us knew what he was planning until towards the end of Sept. Much less what the Boats were capable of, because he mentioned here that he wanted to rework them a little

My first concept was for a a double hulled traditional submarine on the basis of the old Nautilus/Triton designs -- but when I did the numbers, they were too big to pass through harbors without major dredging; so I had to redo them to have side by side pressure hulls like the Typhoon so that they could fit through ports without dredging.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Just tonight Shep told me he wasn't sure if they were made out of titanium, and they don't appear to have used any deep-diving capabilities yet, so I question that he seriously meant that. I was assuming they were steel.

[MKSheppard]

Just tonight Shep told me he wasn't sure if they were made out of titanium, and they don't appear to have used any deep-diving capabilities yet, so I question that he seriously meant that. I was assuming they were steel.

They've dived to 3,000 feet; that's about right there with the Alfa Class. Secondly, you don't need titanitium to get deep diving capabilities; you just have to be willing to devote more of your displacement to the pressure hull's weight -- that's why Ti was so attractive to the Soviets; it allowed deep diving depth at little weight; crucial for 40+ knot submarines.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, the US could probably (and has before), maintained 15 CVBGs and a training carrier, so it's hardly impossible for a power half the GDP to do half that, though the scalar costs make it unlikely. Kaetjhasti, which is far more rigorous than anything in this game, operates five CVBGs on a GDP about 35% that of the US, with a long maritime legacy tradition (and even they briefly dip to four CVBGs during the replacement cycle), and do spend 5% rather than 3% of their GDP on defense.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Moreover with his munitions development costs

We had Beowulf handle munition development, as you did with Skimmer?

[MKSheppard]

We had Beowulf handle munition development, as you did with Skimmer?

I was more referring to Wilkens claim that there's no way I could afford FMRAAMs, etc.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Just tonight Shep told me he wasn't sure if they were made out of titanium, and they don't appear to have used any deep-diving capabilities yet, so I question that he seriously meant that. I was assuming they were steel.

If it weren't made of Titanium, won't he be more easily detectable by MAD detectors? Moreover, he has to be close to the surface, and not at maximum depth to launch his missiles.

[K. A. Pital]

I also find it quite hilarious that someone whose total GDP is half that of the United States; is maintaining eight carrier battle groups (the US with twice the GDP has 12) -- and he has the gall to complain about my forces.

This is a ridiculous complaint, Shep. The USSR had 1/3rd-1/2nd of the US GDP back in 1980 and it constructed 4 Kiev-class, 2 Kuznetzov-class and laid down one Ulyanovsk with a plan to make three.

Of those "carrier battlegroups" only 4 are with large carriers (2 Ulyanovsk, 2 Kuznetzov) and only 2 are capable of working as an open-seas group (2 Ulyanovsk). The 4 other battlegroups are mostly coastal defense augments with not even complete orders! Did you even read my god damn Navy sheet? Only Ulyanovsk are equal to a Nimitz-class, while Kuznetzov and Kiev are really lacking carriers.

My Navy is the USSR Navy according to the "1980-2005 Soviet Navy 1400 ship plan". End of story, I don't need "US GDP" to operate essentially two true CVBGs, two capped and two groups with ersatz-carriers like a modified Kiev.

The US has shitloads of open-seas, nuclear carrier battlegroups.

Don't even try to pick on me. My GDP surpasses the USSR one and yet my military is a pale comparison - especially as the only thing that's more powerful than the Soviet military is my Navy, and I did spend a lot on it.

Um, the UK uses a single pumpjet on it's 15,680 ton SSBN

Pumpjets, especially low-noise ones, are advanced technology. Not many boats even use it, and the ones that do are mostly very advanced silent craft (Seawolf, Alrosa, etc.). Or did Japanistan help you out with constructing pumpjets as well?

...though the scalar costs make it unlikely

I operate just what the USSR planned to operate by year 2005 and nothing more. In fact, while the US operated 15 true carrier groups, I opeate only 2 Nimitz-equivalent nuclear carriers and all the rest are small cruisers with flight decks, severely hampered by the small deck and such. I don't operate 8 nuclear carriers of the Nimitz class. Not even four. The US does.

See for yourself, Duchess. Minus one Ulyanovsk and two Kirovs, that's what the USSR had actually built up to 1993.

[phongn]

If it weren't made of Titanium, won't he be more easily detectable by MAD detectors? Moreover, he has to be close to the surface, and not at maximum depth to launch his missiles.

MAD doesn't work very well, in general.

[Steve]

Uh, Stas, I think Shep was talking to Wilkens, who does operate eight CVBGs.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I also find it quite hilarious that someone whose total GDP is half that of the United States; is maintaining eight carrier battle groups (the US with twice the GDP has 12) -- and he has the gall to complain about my forces.

This is a ridiculous complaint, Shep. The USSR had 1/3rd-1/2nd of the US GDP back in 1980 and it constructed 4 Kiev-class, 2 Kuznetzov-class and laid down one Ulyanovsk with a plan to make three.

Of those "carrier battlegroups" only 4 are with large carriers (2 Ulyanovsk, 2 Kuznetzov) and only 2 are capable of working as an open-seas group (2 Ulyanovsk). The 4 other battlegroups are mostly coastal defense augments with not even complete orders! Did you even read my god damn Navy sheet? :lol: Only Ulyanovsk are equal to a Nimitz-class, while Kuznetzov and Kiev are really lacking carriers.

My Navy is the USSR Navy according to the "1980-2005 Soviet Navy 1400 ship plan". End of story, I don't need "US GDP" to operate essentially two true CVBGs, two capped and two groups with ersatz-carriers like a modified Kiev.

The US has shitloads of open-seas, nuclear carrier battlegroups.

Don't even try to pick on me. My GDP surpasses the USSR one and yet my military is a pale comparison - especially as the only thing that's more powerful than the Soviet military is my Navy, and I did spend a lot on it.

Um, the UK uses a single pumpjet on it's 15,680 ton SSBN

Pumpjets, especially low-noise ones, are advanced technology. Not many boats even use it, and the ones that do are mostly very advanced silent craft (Seawolf, Alrosa, etc.). Or did Japanistan help you out with constructing pumpjets as well?

...though the scalar costs make it unlikely

I operate just what the USSR planned to operate by year 2005 and nothing more. In fact, while the US operated 15 true carrier groups, I opeate only 2 Nimitz-equivalent nuclear carriers and all the rest are small cruisers with flight decks, severely hampered by the small deck and such. I don't operate 8 nuclear carriers of the Nimitz class. Not even four. The US does.

See for yourself, Duchess. Minus one Ulyanovsk and two Kirovs, that's what the USSR had actually built up to 1993.

Uhm, I'm not complaining about you, Stas, because the Kaeties also operate 6 short-decks themselves, the four 20,000 ton Rangatira class CAHs and two Bazan built 27,000 ton carriers they use for training and as a jury-rigged LHA respectively. Quite the contrary, actually.

The Kaetjhasti defense budget is in the 200 billion range out of an economy slightly larger than Japan's, of course, but they have a major nuclear deterrent which nobody in the game does. They do however provide a model for a Great Power scale nation with defense spending like most in the game.

[Sea Skimmer]

If it weren't made of Titanium, won't he be more easily detectable by MAD detectors? Moreover, he has to be close to the surface, and not at maximum depth to launch his missiles.

Well non magnetic steels have been used in some diesel submarines since the 1950s, the only major disadvantage is significantly higher cost, abet still lower then that of titanium. Titanium was mainly used for certain Soviet subs because it was lighter then steel, and because the Soviets literally did not take economic factors into account at all when the decision was made to adapt the material for the Alfa class.

MAD is almost worthless over, the latest USN model of the SH-60 ASW choppers does not carry it at all, and it wont be on the new P-8 patrol plane either as far as I can tell. Not carrying it leaves more room for other equipment and increases endurance since they add a fair bit of drag.

Basically you have to cross over the target sub within a few hundred feet to detect it… which makes it useless for area searches. Meanwhile not only does it detect subs, it will also detect shipwrecks, iron meteorites on the ocean floor, subtle changes in the earth’s magnetic field a thousand miles under the surface and a whole lot of other non submarine contacts. The result is really high false alarm rate and crews who quickly tire of monitoring the system and wasting fuel circling to check every spurious contact.

Airborne MAD is useful mainly for localizing a contact like a diesel sub that was already noticed on sonar, but has gone and hidden on the bottom and cannot be easily detected even with active pinging. That’s not a huge issue when coping with something the size of an SSAN, which will always want to be in deep water.

[CmdrWilkens]

I'm not requesting a strip...and sorry if it seems that way. My point is that he has some, claimed, incredibly high performance figher and bomber craft and he is runningthem for pennies against what a modern airforce spends.

Fuck you.

I costed out the costs for my airforce quite well, they've been available for everyone to see:

Air Forces Total Budget: $39.57 billion
Air Forces Yearly Procurement Budget: $2.77 billion
Air Forces Yearly R&DTE Budget: $2.77 Billion
Air Forces Military Pay: $6.19 Billion
Air Forces O&M Costs: $16.37 billion
Air Forces Infrastructure Costs: $11.46 billion
Air Forces Budget: $13.16 million surplus

In the case of my F-106Hs, it costs me $6.75 million yearly to maintain each plane in an operational status. When you take into account infrastructure costs -- $0.70 dollars spent in Infrastructure per dollar of O&M costs is the average for the US Military; it comes out to a total of $11.47 million spent each year to fly a F-106H. Then add in the costs for the 39,000 people who man the seven F-106H groups.

The real cost saving is in manpower costs -- If I had a per capita GDP of $40,000~ like the US; I'd have to pay $49 billion in manpower (salaries and benefits) for my Air Force alone, but since my PC GDP is only $5,000; I only pay $6 billion each year.

Fuck you back. The USAF FY09 budget was $143.9Bn of which $37.6Bn was for personnel costs. If we take your pay ammount to be your personnel costs then your remaining budget is $33.38 Bn and the USAF is $106.3Bn. Again USAF operates 5778 aircraft for all forces (A, NG, and R) you operate 4794 (A and R). That's STILL a huge disparity. If you only look at Readiness/Maintenance funding you spend $16.37 to operate your aircraft and the USAF spends 33.2. You are spending half as much to operate an airforce that is almost as large...somebody is cutting corners somewhere. Your average fleet age is actually likely NEWER than the USAF since your fighters/incterceptors/bombers are all several series past when they were retired in real life. Also you don't operate transport aircraft aside from your tankers wheras Air Mobility Command operates 12 freaking wings of tranposrt aircraft. Your total number of planes are therefore significantly more weighted towards combat aircraft which should incur more costs for maintenance but don't appear to be.

Again I don't give a rats ass how many planes you have but you are spending pennies on maintenance compared to the age, size, and combat bent of your fleet without even counting the adiditional costs incurred with maintaining your entire BOMARC apparatus which doesn't even factor in to this so fuck you back. You can keep every single plane you've declared but getting them in the sky should be a whole other matter.

[Sea Skimmer]

No, transport planes fly WAY fucking more then combat aircraft, because they have a major peacetime role other then training flights, so they end up costing much more to operate. This is especially the case of the US military which in case you didn’t notice, operates and air supplies bases all over the globe on a massive scale. It also helps that every one of Sheps bombers is subsonic, and thus the high bypass turbofan engines they use are inherently cheaper to fuel and maintain then afterburning turbofans needed for fighter planes and supersonic bombers. The B-56 wasn't chosen for no reason.

Not to mention… FY2009 is a double wartime budget so whatever it says about operating costs are not very good indicators to start with. Not all funding for Iraq and A-stan comes from those supplemental, quite a bit goes into the normal budgets.

[MKSheppard]

Fuck you back. The USAF FY09 budget was $143.9Bn of which $37.6Bn was for personnel costs. Again USAF operates 5778 aircraft for all forces (A, NG, and R) you operate 4794 (A and R). That's STILL a huge disparity. If you only look at Readiness/Maintenance funding you spend $16.37 to operate your aircraft and the USAF spends 33.2. You are spending half as much to operate an airforce that is almost as large...somebody is cutting corners somewhere.

The USAF FY09 budget of $117 billion is broken down as:

$37.6 for people (316,600) 32%; $118,700 for each guy; comparable to US Per Capita Income of $40k multiplied by 2.95
$33.2 for O&M (3,874 aircraft Active + 378 Reserve + 1,128 NG; 5,380 total) 28%; $6.1 million for each aircraft on average.
$5.2 for infrastructure 4.4%
$19.6 for Research and Development 16.75%
$12.7 for Procurement of stuff 18.29%

The Shepistani Air Force Budget of $39.5 billion is broken down as:

$6.19 billion (Military Pay - 765,000 active duty) - 15.67% - $8,000 per guy roughly; that's comparable to my per capita in come of $5,000 times 1.6.
$15.39 billion (Operations and Maintenance) - 38.96%; or $3.2 million per plane.
$10.74 billion (Infrastructure) - 27.19%
$3.09 billion (R&DTE) - 7.82%
$4.15 billion (Procurement) - 10.51%

Course there are discrepancies here; but note how I'm spending TWICE as much on infrastructure as the USAF; that makes up for lower per plane costs -- it all evens out;

USAF: $38.2 billion for O&M + infrastructure for 5,380 planes
Shepistan: $26.13 billion for O&M + infrastructure for + 4,794 planes.

Secondly, I point out to you that nearly a thousand of my reserve planes are......MiG-15/17s and F-84 Thunderjets. Wow; those are so expensive to fly.

Also note how my R&DTE and Procurement percentages are lower, much lower than the USAFs? There's a reason I buy into Japanistani programs a lot.

Your average fleet age is actually likely NEWER than the USAF since your fighters/incterceptors/bombers are all several series past when they were retired in real life.

That also means cheaper operating costs; you realize? 30+ year old aircraft are enormously expensive to keep running...

without even counting the adiditional costs incurred with maintaining your entire BOMARC apparatus which doesn't even factor in to this so fuck you back.

Actually, the BOMARC apparatus is factored into my spreadsheet; it costs me $1.4 billion in direct operating costs; around $2+ with infrastructure spending factored in, and consumes 160,200 men; a full whopping 20% of my total air force manpower.