StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ryan, why don't you try something like deep sea research or something? For most of us, that is pretty low on priority at the moment (though there are funds going into that, but little beyond conceptual ideas) and most of us are working on space projects.

So you're pretty much telling me that anything we have already is there because it is entirely practical and efficient, and anything outside of that is easily defeated and/or pointless. How fucking boring is that? How's the leader of an (incredibly wealthy) third-world weapons-designing country supposed to feed his constituency when there's nothing new to build?

Ryan, you should think smaller and more mundane. Something like airdroppable AFVs or tanks optimized to fight in the brushfires of Frequesue would be a viable purchase for say, my military. A giant submarine carrier or whacky gunships would not. Besides, how is a landlocked country who's only access to the outside is through a single large river have much of a shipbuilding industry to start with?

Seriously, the arms market is pretty well established now. You can either sell to the FTO as a niche market, or you can decide not to sell at all. No goofy contraptions straight out of My Tank is Fight will change that.

Why y'all hating on Ryan? He should be free to pursue his dream of a giant submersible carrier launching VTOL supercruising V-22 gunships.

Well, here's my options:
- A jet-propelled gunship. Think of something like a Harrier, but designed to be employed like an Apache. Gets where you need it faster than a helicopter could, in theory, and slightly less vulnerable to AAA, I figure.
- Air-liftable AFVs. I guess it would end up being something like a Stryker but sans the infantry capacity. Pretty much a 120mm smoothbore turret on a small, medium-armoured and tracked platform. Crew of four: one drives, one handles the big gun, the other two handle the machine guns. All external weapons are remotely controlled from inside the vehicle, though they can be operated manually.
- Urban specialist tanks. Electrified armour, extended tread guards (I'm not sure why they don't cover them up as a matter of course already...), pintle-mounted automatic 20mm grenade launchers, extra armour overhead and underneath.
- A remote-controlled small-arms platform. It'd be there to augment regular troops by giving them an expendable remote-controllable companion with a gun.
- Subjective Individual Combat Weapon (joking obviously)
- Air-mobile artillery, ala those Soviet helicopters from RA2:YR. Flies around, lands, deploys big gun. It'd have a pilot/gunner plus a dedicated gunner, a remote controlled machine gun or automatic grenade launcher, and an artillery gun hanging out the back alongside the tail. Alternatively, the gun could go alongside the cockpit, but this could cause more significant problems for controlling the vehicle. I figure the entire chassis would have to be able to rotate (like a crane) for this to be feasible, otherwise they're going to have to pack-up, take off, land, and redeploy any time they want to point at something else. Alternatively, they could use guided artillery shells to give them a wider field of fire at long range, though they could still have an even wider field of fire if it just turned.

Lonestar wrote:Knock yourself out. But the sad thing is, in an attempt to break into a saturated arms market you've moved past "novel" and entered the realm of the bizarre.

Hey, Lonestar? I'm barely 20. I'm not an engineer. I've no idea how to determine whether any of this shit is actually feasible or not beyond guesswork, so I'm just throwing out designs I think would be cool and hoping some of them are actually workable.

If I go through the usual thought exercise where I look at something and ask "How could this be better?" this is the sort of shit that crops up.

Beowulf wrote:Why y'all hating on Ryan? He should be free to pursue his dream of a giant submersible carrier launching VTOL supercruising V-22 gunships.

Dude, it's either/or. There's no way in hell I could ever afford both at once in a reasonable time frame. From the sounds of it, the carrier alone would be something on the scale of the Manhattan Project for Miratia. I'm not pursuing that unless my economy gets bigger/I get a coastline.

The submersible carrier will be supremely vulnerable because it has to surface to launch and recover aircraft. And without a proper anti-air escort, well...it's toast.

Not to mention that for 30 billion I could buy a gigantic fleet of Yer Mom SSBN's which could put thousands of missiles on any target on earth, be faster and if one is sunk, 29 still remain. More firepower, less detectable, faster.

You could try airborne lasers, nobody's yet put any significant development into those, or maybe hi-tech electronics?

PeZook wrote:You could try airborne lasers, nobody's yet put any significant development into those, or maybe hi-tech electronics?

Man, I thought airborne lasers would've been a dime a dozen with you folks running things.

Well I'll work on that for certain since we know its useful. Given how much I was willing to spend on the SCVN project, I can still afford another project.

PeZook wrote:The submersible carrier will be supremely vulnerable because it has to surface to launch and recover aircraft. And without a proper anti-air escort, well...it's toast.

Of course, by that logic, a regular aircraft carrier will be supremely vulnerable because it's always on the surface. But that doesn't seem to slow anybody down purchasing a few of them. I have sub-launched anti-aircraft missiles anyways. Toss in a couple SSNs and there's your escort. Your very expensive escort, sure, but your very hard to find escort, otherwise.

Ryan Thunder wrote: Hey, Lonestar? I'm barely 20. I'm not an engineer. I've no idea how to determine whether any of this shit is actually feasible or not beyond guesswork, so I'm just throwing out designs I think would be cool and hoping some of them are actually workable.

If I go through the usual thought exercise where I look at something and ask "How could this be better?" this is the sort of shit that crops up.

Whoa there young man. Calm down. Here's a glass of Sunny D. feeling better? Good.

Now, listen here sonny-jim, the reason why people are commenting on all this is because, well, it looks as if you haven't done a thought exercise on it.

You mentioned submersible aircraft carriers. A quick wiki search would have revealed that there haven't been any since WW2, and the only possibility of a future submarine aircraft carrier has to do with small UAVs. Looking at this, we can infer:

(1)Navies since WW2 have found it impractical to deploy submersible aircraft carriers
(2)Any future plans are extremely limited in scope...the UAV would be build around the submarine rather than vice versa.


Now, secondly, you young whipper-snapper, some of the stuff you have mentioned is already in existence in game(the M8 is a Old Dominion air-capable tank, for example) or far along in development(Coyote and his Robot fetish for remote gun platforms). Since the amrs market is so saturated, have you considered, uhhh....commercial products?

Ryan Thunder wrote: Of course, by that logic, a regular aircraft carrier will be supremely vulnerable because it's always on the surface. But that doesn't seem to slow anybody down purchasing a few of them.

Actually, a normal carrier will be much harder to sink than a surfaced sub due to its higher freeboard and presumably greater size. Not to mention that a normal carrier costs much less than one of your giant sub-carriers, and thus is less of a big deal if it's sunk.

Another reason for why your proposed sub-carrier is laughable is your nation's geography. Your only outlet into the ocean is through a single large river, and one that runs through another country, no less.

Coiler wrote:

Another reason for why your proposed sub-carrier is laughable is your nation's geography. Your only outlet into the ocean is through a single large river, and one that runs through another country, no less.

Actually, he was talking about licensing the design to the sucker who wanted it.

Yes, that's right, he wouldn't build one himself, it would be on the Fool who bought the design to be the early adopter.

Ryan Thunder wrote: Of course, by that logic, a regular aircraft carrier will be supremely vulnerable because it's always on the surface. But that doesn't seem to slow anybody down purchasing a few of them.

No it won't, because:

1. It isn't confused in its role: an aircraft carrier is a sea control ship, and not being limited by ah pressure hull, sports far more high-powered sensors to control the airspace. The subcarrier's sensors will all need to be retractable, limiting their size and power.

2. It will have an order-of-magnitude more airplanes protecting it from the subcarrier's piddling little airwing of less than ten airplanes. A single supercarrier will be able to defend itself and attack the subcarrier at the same time, for twenty times less the price.

3. If you go dollar-to-dollar, 30 billion will buy an opposing country the carrier, its airwing and an entire surface action group to protect the investment, making the subcarrier's ridiculously small airwing even more impotent.

Ryan Thunder wrote: I have sub-launched anti-aircraft missiles anyways.

Everybody has them in some form, but they won't protect your surfaced subcarrier from a strike by 70+ aircraft a traditional supercarrier can throw at you. Not to mention that these subs will not be able to control the airspace around your surface carrier the way a STAR destroyer can with its massive phased radar array and dozens of AA missiles in VLS cells, to protect it from missiles and aircraft as it launches and recovers the planes.

You should think about it this way: what is an aircraft carrier supposed to do? Is a sub's stealth necessary for performance of this mission more than 60 extra airplanes you can load onto a surface carrier for 1/20 of the cost?

Furthermore, what is a sub's role? Is it cost-effective to dispose of most of a sub's offensive weaponry in order to trade it for 10 airplanes or less? Especially since 30 billion can buy you a couple dozen Shep-style massive carrier-killer SSGNs?

EDIT: And how the hell can you design a viable massive sub without any significant shipbuilding industry? It's not like you can draw up some plans in CAD and then sell them for a massive profit: there's mockups, test platforms for all the weapon systems and prototypes to consider first. Those steps are actually the most important ones, unless you expect to have all the pioneer systems to work perfectly the first time round

PeZook wrote:And how the hell can you design a viable massive sub without any significant shipbuilding industry? It's not like you can draw up some plans in CAD and then sell them for a massive profit: there's mockups, test platforms for all the weapon systems and prototypes to consider first. Those steps are actually the most important ones, unless you expect to have all the pioneer systems to work perfectly the first time round

Yeah, I dropped the project in favour of airborne lasers and air-mobile artillery.

Just a question out of ignorance; how much money would you expect something like airborne laser R&D to cost, anyways?

No idea.

So...are we doing this visit of yours?

P.S.

The LRO-1 satellite has just entered polar orbit around Selene. And that's a real Kaguya photo

I'd actually be interested in supporting the development of his "Siege Choppers". While I have doubts as to their plausibility (especially if they'd really be better than just normal artillery pieces), at least the concept is cool and potentially useful for a military like mine with its conflicts that demand great mobility. Besides, a nation like his could practically design and build them, while he couldn't build his giant subcarriers.

PeZook wrote:No idea.

So...are we doing this visit of yours?

P.S.

The LRO-1 satellite has just entered polar orbit around Selene. And that's a real Kaguya photo

You do know the OD already sent up a lunar probe, right?

Quick Question for Stas, Czechmate, or one of the FTO guys: Where is the ASRF's capital/CSR Naval Base?

Lonestar wrote:
You do know the OD already sent up a lunar probe, right?

Uh...no? Does Coyote?

Karmic Knight wrote:Quick Question for Stas, Czechmate, or one of the FTO guys: Where is the ASRF's capital/CSR Naval Base?

Livorno. It's on the coast (naturally). And it's AFSR now.

PeZook wrote: Uh...no? Does Coyote?

I can't help it if he doesn't pay attention. But I sent up a Clementine knockoff early on.


Right here, in fact.

Ryan Thunder wrote:

PeZook wrote:And how the hell can you design a viable massive sub without any significant shipbuilding industry? It's not like you can draw up some plans in CAD and then sell them for a massive profit: there's mockups, test platforms for all the weapon systems and prototypes to consider first. Those steps are actually the most important ones, unless you expect to have all the pioneer systems to work perfectly the first time round

Yeah, I dropped the project in favour of airborne lasers and air-mobile artillery.

Just a question out of ignorance; how much money would you expect something like airborne laser R&D to cost, anyways?

Ask some of the MESS who are already doing such a project

Anyway here's the thing virtually every major power block or international agency(SNC, MESS, FTO, FASTA, BIOCOM, etc) specializies to some degree because infrastructure requirements are freakin huge. Space programs like FASTA and the MSA are spending literal billions of dollars BEFORE you count the cost of the launch vehicle itself. Right now a conservative estimate of the Delta II program that I've run has the price tag in the $10 Billion range...and I can't even get beyond GeoSynch with that. The Delta IV and Ares programs will cost similair amounts because for each new launch configuraiton you have to build new pads, new towers, new ground control facilities, you have to build and test new software, you have to build and test new hardware, then you have to launch a few dummy rockets before you actually risk putting valuable cargo aboard. In other words you can spend a half a decade and a couple billion just getting ready to launch your first rocket in a series.

Look at naval architecture. The MESS "STAR" program encompassed a whole host of new technologies (smaller nukes, IPS power, and new sensor and C4I infrastructure). The program as a whole has spent on the order of $5 trillion dollars...and so far its delivered a grand total of 8 ships. When I'm finished I will have, over the course of 30 years (10 r&d 20 production), spent close to $20 trillion. Now in turn it means that the WIlkonian and other MESS navies have a huge advantage in naval weapons and sensor tech for the next quarter century but its still a shitload of money.

Wilkens, you can launch DSP-2 if you want, aimed at Venus.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Wilkens, you can launch DSP-2 if you want, aimed at Venus.

Oops, yeah let me work that up. 'Course I needed to verify that the 5000 series worked first anyway so DSP-2 can be the first valuable cargo.

Tell you what Ryan, come up with a prototype ABL that I can stick on a Hustler, and Alaska will buy into it. In Spades.

Beowulf wrote:Livorno. It's on the coast (naturally). And it's AFSR now.

Where along the coast, nearer you or me?

Also, ASFR - Autonomous Frequesuan Socialist Republic?

Why waste large amounts of money on bizarre and impractical gadgets like submersible carriers when you can make large amounts of money doing third-world militaries a service by converting some of their old tanks into brand-spanking new APCs and CEVs? Now, I'm pretty damn sure I wasn't the only one who had that idea...

Shinn Langley Soryu wrote:Why waste large amounts of money on bizarre and impractical gadgets like submersible carriers when you can make large amounts of money doing third-world militaries a service by converting some of their old tanks into brand-spanking new APCs and CEVs? Now, I'm pretty damn sure I wasn't the only one who had that idea...

BTW, go pick up your Type 212A subs.