StarDestroyer.Net BBS

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 12:03am 

That's what me and Beowulf were discussing last night. Basically if you can put a missile or gun on it, it's a fighter. AEW and transports are seperate (I'd include Electronic Warfare as fighters since they'd have HARMs and all) however, the numbers should be reasonable.

My question is on helicopters. Would that be included in whatever your "armor/motorized deployment comparable to" whoever is, or would things like Apaches and such also have to come from the fighter total?

EDIT: For my view, I take Jet Fighters as fixed-wing attack aircraft (so props would be counted to if you felt so inclined), while the helicopters would come from the army's motorized deployment.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 12:09am 

I assumed that all jet fighters counted as one jet aircraft; to avoid "look, I have 1,400 nuclear armed bombers!" rar!

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 12:09am 

The 150/300/600 cap is for Jet Fighter Craft only as it has been detailed as such in the OP.

I believe AEW and chopper deployment, as well as UCAVs and UAVs shouldcome from a general capability of an army of the corresponding size (Tsardom in your and mine case).

Same for bombers, so no "I'm the new LEMAY off the start grid!" shit.

Though I suggest using a mandatory bomber cap and Zor to write that down

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 12:12am 

I can go with that. Incidently it would be nice to have some mechanism to not declare a conference over in what, 12 hours? Maybe we should consider slowing the time-scale, at least when it comes to major international conferences like this so people don't just get totally left out again before somebody declares it "over"?

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 12:14am 

It was my understanding that only the first DAY of the Conference has passed.

Yes, I support slowing down the timeflow a bit for the conferential purpose

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 12:15am 

The Conference can continue.

Urm. I need to ask the more numerically-inclined members for help in numerating my military

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 12:25am 

The Republic of Shepnukistan

Land Area: 1 million Square Kilometers
Population: 60 million
GDP: $1.5 Trillion

Army and Airforce: All-Volunteer Military.

Army:

Main Battle Tanks 3,500 M1A1D Abrams (conversion to M1A2s underway for national guard service); 4,500 M1A2 Abrams, 540 M5 Grierson (ATAC) -- full procurement of 7,000 M5s is underway at the rate of 720 tanks annually; when complete, the M5 will replace all Abrams in active service.

Infantry fighting vehicles 3,000 M2A2 Bradleys, 4,102 M2A3 Bradleys; 500 M6 Meades -- full procurement of 7,000 M6s is underway; at a rate of 700 annually.

Air Defense Artillery 60 x PATRIOT Batteries defending all major areas. Soon to be supplemented by MIM-173C ASAT batteries. Planned expansion to ABM system in future.

Artillery pieces (kinds detailed later) 7,500

Air Force: 805 Combat Aircraft

Air Defense Command
3 x Fighter Wings (70 x F-22As Each)
6 x Heavy Air Refuelling Squadrons (19 x KC-10s Each)

Total: 180 F-22As, 114 KC-10s (294 A/C Total)

Strategic Air Command
5 x Bomb Wings (35 x B-1As Each)
2 x Strategic Reconnaisance Wings (35 x RB-1Cs Each)
1 x Strategic Fighter Wing (70 x FB-22Bs)
1 x Reconnaisance Wing (70 x RF-22Cs)
10 x Heavy Air Refuelling Squadrons (19 x KC-10s Each)
1 x Strategic Command Squadron (6 x E-4B)

Total: 175 B-1As, 190 KC-10s, 70 RB-1Cs, 70 FB-22Bs, 70 RF-22Cs and 6 E-4Bs (511 A/C Total)

Navy:


Typical Ships in the ROS navy.

3 x Ford Class CVNs (air wing consists of 12 x F-24 Tomcat Plus, 24 x F-35 Lightnings, 12 x A-12 Avenger IIs, 6 x RA-12 Avenger IIs, 6 x S-3 Vikings, and the appropriate number of helos and HAWKEYES). Due to turnaround limitations only one CVN and it's Air Wing are deployable at any time; however, in a crisis this can be surged to two deployed CVNs and wings.

31 x Nuclear Powered AEGIS CGNs

30 x DDG-51s (being phased out as fast as CGNs can be built; but mainly kept for sending stuff into hostile environments where a CGN is too overkill)

20 x Virginia Class SSNs

Special Branch: [classified]

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 12:25am 

So everybody is fully aware, as this is from a Testing thread so it won't be there forever:



We'd already been planning this (hence my request for the close proximity of our nations), this just makes it more official.

EDIT: Hey Shep, wrong thread doofus.

Although, this brings up a question I've been having. Obviously, there aren't some 500 or so Arleigh Burke DDGs running around. However, those ships at least exist. Since we are operating off "modern day" technology, what is the limit for having, at the outset, equipment that doesn't even exist yet, or never even has so much as a functional prototype?

I have no problem, for instance, in reviving the A-6E Intruder or the F-14D. But seeing as how the "Attack Super Tomcat 21" never even made it off the drawing board, should we actually be fielding squadrons of the things?

I'm thinking we should have some kind of ruling on just how extrapolative our given technology should be. With everything else having to be researched in some reasonable timeframe.

Of course this would go too with those who have those big railguns and shit already deployed.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 12:31am 

You are a Tsardom. Basic AFV counts for Tsardom are 2x British Ground Forces and as such if you take the maximum would be identical to my army numbers.

As for aviation, it's trickier since you select types of fighters and their place of deployment, and a CVN eats up some of your jets.

P.S. Yea just remember this is COMMENTS thread I really need Crossroads to change the title

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 12:34am 

I'm seeing "OOB" in the title, so...

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 12:36am 

I'd imagine that if it's actually feasible within our existing industrial base for the time; it can work; e.g B-1A derived variants; but no B-70s, because the tech for Mach 3 bombers was lost in the interregnum.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 12:38am 

Wait, B-70 tech lost? What about a simple T-4, it was actually built. I just wonder what kind of planes I could have for bomber wing. It's really important.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 12:40am 

Essentially yeah; or degraded to the point where we can't build a lot of them in x amount of time. You could build a couple of them nowadays; but it would take an immense amount of effort to do so; industrially, since so much of the aerospace base has reoriented away from working with stainless steel and various other high temperature metal alloys towards lightweight composites (cough 787)

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 12:43am 

The T-4 100 is not a B-70 analogue but more of a Xf-108 Rapier analogue; could I field it? It's old and fixed wing.

EDIT: hahaha we do sound like some wicked arms control commitee

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 12:49am 

Well the B-1A is an actual flying aircraft. If you want to fit that with new aviaoncs or whatever, I can see that.

But the A-12? They never even had a working aircraft. And an AEGIS CGN that doesn't even exist in the Real World but you have 31 of them?

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 12:53am 

What would be a proper Kirov CGN equivalent? I mean, I tried to use Soviet equivalents for every thing (and ended up using Ulyanovsk for a true CVN, which was begun but not completed).

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 12:56am 

We have the Ticonderoga CG. Which I think would be close enough. It just has no reactor. If you want a Tico with a nuclear power plant, you'd have to design it for yourself.

As for the CVN, well I'll be honest I don't know enough about the Russian military to say, so I've kinda been letting it go. I'd say though, if it was designed and construction had begun, then you could build one, but as for starting out I'd say you're probably limited to whatever they had for a CV if you choose to go with Russian technology.

That's the thing: if Shep wants a CGN, nothing is stopping him from using one that already exists, like a Kirov or one of the older USN ones. Just like, for you, if you want a CVN there's the Nimitz and Enterprise. But just trying to combine the two when neither exists seems a little off to me.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 01:01am 

The thing is the Ulyanovsk is the only true CVN Russia could field, it's a Nimitz analogue. A lesser ship would be smaller, not a true CVN and technically should cost less.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 01:06am 

I suppose, as a compromise, the onus should be on the person wishing some type of technology that has never existed in practical use to justify why they should get it magicked up. Your CVN, which I understand was designed and ready to go and only stopped because they didn't want to pay for it, could be good to go. Though such a thing, since it was never field tested, should not be expected to work perfectly. You may well find there are bugs on your CVN that the designers didn't catch, as you are effectively field testing unproven technology.

The same goes for anything else. Assuming a piece of technology to just "work" is foolish, especially if it never was fielded in the real world. Hell, if I wanted to equip my nation with first-run F-14As I could, but I would also have to accept the compressor stall problem. Such would be the same if you want to field technology that is unproven: you can't expect it to work perfectly. The problem being we don't know the kinks, so it'll be largely up to the Player's honesty in dealing with the fact you're making something operational that was never fully tested.

EDIT: Shep brought up a good point oin infrastructre, too. If we have the modern ability to support something (like a CVN) you could be expected that your nation would have that. But if we don't (like the aformentioned B-70) then sure you can field it, but if it breaks you're shit out of luck until you build the infrastructure yourself.

Basically what I'm trying to do is keep things somewhat realistic here, and not just give larger nations a huge advantage over smaller ones, especially by virtue of what we're magic-ing into existance. If you want it but it doesn't exist, build (and of course, design and test) it. If it existed on paper or got partially built or something and you want it, sure maybe, but accept the fact there will be bugs. If you want something that used before, discontinued, and now the infrastructure to support it is gone, you could use it, but if it breaks you're screwed until you've rebuilt it yourself from scratch.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 01:12am 

There are bugs on Ulyanovsk since there ahve been bugs on earlier ersatz "miniCVNs", so I acknowledge the project to be not bug-free and it's not a superweapon it's just a CVN.

The T-4 100 craft have been field tested (much like Valkiryie or Rapier), so I retain them (just 3 so far - the number of testbeds actually made).

I assume we should really stick more with tested stuff, i.e. getting something from a real built - or at least attempted to get built - test bed that worked should be the first priority.

Something purely off blueprints should be avoided, and is not allowed for the initial military/tech base procurement beaming this up the rules.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 01:21am 

I agree fully. I think a good rule of thumb is this:

If it has entered full, operational service in some capacity, then it should be allowed in numbers consistant with your allowed OOBs.

If it entered some kind of building, or actual testbed design stages (working models, but not operationally activated) you could have it in limited numbers, and you'll have to acknowledge they don't work perfectly. If you want to field them operationally you can try, but don't expect things to go as planned.

If it exists only on paper and never got even to a working prototype, you can assume to have the plans for it (saving you some time) but testing and troubleshooting is on you.

If it doesn't exist period, you have to design it from scratch.

EDIT: And as per the B-70 comment above, if it existed but is no longer in active use and the support structure behind it as now lasped into non-existence, you can field it but your ability to repair, maintain, and/or replace this item will be severely limited until such time as your nation has built the required support for it.

Incidently this will affect me as well, since I had intended to use F-35s. But since they're not operation and still in testing, I could have maybe a few squadrons of them as Test and Evaluation units, but I certainly can't equip them fully out in my field forces using my 300 Jet Fighter allowance (though even testbeds such as these will deduct from it).

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 01:23am 

They had working radar and IR subsystems; I've seen them at the Historical Electronics Museum near BWI.



There's nothing functionally different between a CG-47 and the CGN-42 class really; one is a bit longer to accomodate teh reactor; they both share the same computer and radar systems...

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 01:25am 

Um... what does this mean for my twin mothership submarines?

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 01:26am 

I assume that the number of testbed-derived operational technology should not be allowed to constitute a large fraction of one's aviation park. For example, I don't stuff my fighter force with S-47 test beds but wield a measly dozen out of the general 300 fighter cap.

Yes, if the thing ONLY exists as blueprints, you should build it.

I'd actual go further than that and state that space technology beyond ordinary booster rockets has to be built if not designed. Even if testbeds are available. So Buran and Shuttle exist but you build them if you want to, not get a free space card.


Retcon them as a smaller class. Like I retconned Shady's and Deathdealers F-22s as a ploy to scare off larger nations.

I assume the costs and terms of developing such a thing like a Submersible CVN is freaking enormous; thre are real world projects ofthathowever, so you definetely should give it a shot

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-04-08 01:32am 

What about the airframe, and actually testing that under carrier conditions? Since it never happened full-scale, your A-12 fleet is going to be the very first ones doing this. Expect problems.

And if we go with what me and Stas are discussing, since it barely existed beyond paper (as the aircraft itself) you can't have it as a fully operational fighter in numbers. At best you'd have some testbeds, though with the A-12 I'd say you'd need to build it yourself.



Perhaps. But if you want to try and go that route, you will at the least not be able to have a VLS system on there. You'll basically be limited to a pre-VLS CG-47, at best (though I guess you can upgrade computers and stuff, but hey, glitches happen). Plus since all I can find on the CG-42 is that it was cancelled and unbuilt, you're going to have to provide justification for fielding 31 of the things.