Military Strengths

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Archaic
Alecrast's pop is over 700 million. New Griffith has under 400 million, New Sheepsta has under 330 million. Furthermore, like I said, New Sheepsta's economy is rated as a Basket Case. Look at the site. "Economy: Basket Case". New Griffith has "Economy: Reasonable", and that's your best one. Reasonable is below "Average" BTW.

As I pointed out in the other thread, these ratings are messed up. I have reinstalled capitalism, but the program still tells me that private enterprises are outlawed . My economy has been slipping, even though my tax rate has been going down So don't put too much stock into it, to be fair.

[Whaleboy]

Agreed, I would personally take the NS ratings with a hefty pinch of salt. In RL with my policies, I would be an economic powerhouse, but when I last looked, I was fragile.

[Sheep]

Yeah I would have to agree with this. I don't know how many times I have allowed elections or made the common lot better, or helped the economy but I still suck.

[Whaleboy]

*See my previous posts on last page*

Is say 6% of national budget and 2.5% of population a reasonable figure?

[Sheep]

Will do when i have time hey.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Sheep
Yeah I would have to agree with this. I don't know how many times I have allowed elections or made the common lot better, or helped the economy but I still suck.

And I know exactly why, but I'm not going to tell you. Needless to say, I've pointed it out before, but you weren't exactly listening.

[Sheep]

hey Arachic, I have some information about how pitful you really are. Thanks Jamski. Anyways, leave me the hell alone. Just because I say something does not give you the right anymore to join in.

[Giovanni Wine]

Originally posted by elijah
*See my previous posts on last page*

Is say 6% of national budget and 2.5% of population a reasonable figure?

I think is prefectly reasonable.

Personally I placed mine 8% of the Budget, and my country was rated 13th as most per capita spending in defence.

IIRC Your country was not above mine, so 6% and 2,5% are prefectly reasonable to me, especially considering you are probably increasing your military after you have been attacked

Saluti

[Jack_www]

Well I have set up my nation, Jackson, so that the major expense of the government is defense, and that other areas come second. Main expenses are Defense first and Education second, and very little of anything else.

[Whaleboy]

Cool. I think we'll still keep our main focus on education, social welfare and health, although the military is now a concern. We now have a small, efficient military that is growing daily, with more and more equipment.

By the way, we kinda need some tanks! Anyone wanna sell?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
Is say 6% of national budget and 2.5% of population a reasonable figure?

Edit: has been discussed with ben personally, no need for any of this

[Whaleboy]

You take NS way too seriously. I know we RP around that, but there is a good degree of flexibility we can employ!

"6% of national budget"

Implies tax spending, not GDP.

My NS ratings seem to vary greatly day-by-day. Dont take what it says on mine as gospel, cos believe me its completely different to the policies I employ. If for 3 weeks, I have been building up my military, economy, R&D, then one can expect a reasonably large military.

"an income tax of 34"

Was 25% yesterday!!

I think my nation is buggy anyway, so again, more salt pinching oppotunities there.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
Dont take what it says on mine as gospel, cos believe me its completely different to the policies I employ. If for 3 weeks, I have been building up my military, economy, R&D, then one can expect a reasonably large military.

However, we must RP around our nations. NS shows our nation as it is, and it may not be as we envisioned it, but that is how it is. If we do not RP around that, then anyone can invent anything. I accept it needs a pinch of salt, but we must keep it based upon that.

[Whaleboy]

Agreed, I am just saying we dont need to adhere to it religiously. There is a degree of flexibility we can reasonably use, like you said, a "basket case" economy could be "fair", but not "thriving".

[Urban Ranger]

The Nooslandian navy will soon conduct a regular 3-day exercise off our coastal waters. Our neighbouring countries have already been informed of this, as no alarms should be raised over our various manuvers.

This exercise will include elements from the Home Fleet, First Fleet, and Second Fleet.

[GeneralTacticus]

Originally posted by elijah

By the way, we kinda need some tanks! Anyone wanna sell?

I'm sure Ferrozoica or Capitalstan could cut a deal with you, if you're interested. The primary Ferrozoican tank model has it's stats posted in the Miltiary Rankings thread; we can provide stats for Capitalstani models as well if you like.

[Whaleboy]

"The primary Ferrozoican tank model has it's stats posted in the Miltiary Rankings thread"

After looking at those, they will do nicely!! May we have 120 units, we can pay you with money or we can provide 50 Hastings-class long range fighters. These can fly in excess of Mach 5, with the usual armaments (including 2 rotary 40mm cannons, one machine gun turret on the rear, computer targetting, anti-aircraft missiles, air-to-ground missiles, air-to-space missiles, and cruise missile hardpoints). We can provide the standard sensor pallets, including Radar, infra-red, UV emissions, and alpha, beta and gamma ray detectors. Marijuania's elite fighter. Take your pick, the money or the planes

[GeneralTacticus]

We'll take the fighters, thank you. They should be very useful. You should have the tanks within a few days of the order being finalized.

[Whaleboy]

We are shipping the fighters on a military transport vessel, escorted by a battleship, 2 destroyers and 6 gunboats for obvious security reasons in this time. They will be with you shortly. We have also provided training equipment to get your people up to speed, as well as replacement parts.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by elijah
May we have 120 units, we can pay you with money or we can provide 50 Hastings-class long range fighters. These can fly in excess of Mach 5, with the usual armaments (including 2 rotary 40mm cannons, one machine gun turret on the rear, computer targetting, anti-aircraft missiles, air-to-ground missiles, air-to-space missiles, and cruise missile hardpoints).

[OCC]

Please tune down the specs on your fighter, thank you.

[/OCC]

[Urban Ranger]

According to information leaked to us from various sources, we were able to piece together data of "Thunderbolt," the new, highly classified Nooslandian MBT.

Weight: 50 (?) metric tons
Crew: 3

Engine:1500 hp diesel or 1750 hp gas-turbine
Max Road Speed: >90 km/h
Max X-country Speed: >55 km/h
Power/Weight: at least 30.0 hp/tn
Ground Pressure: 1.00 (?) kg/sq.cm

Weapons
Main Weapon: 152mm smoothbore (?!)
Ammunition: 40 (?) rounds for main gun, 8 rounds for SAM
Ammunition Types: APFSDS, HEAT, HEF, ?
ATGM through 135mm: most likely 817AM derivative
Auxiliary armament: 30mm chain gun, twin coaxial 12.5mm machine guns, SAM launcher
Smoke Screens: Smoke Grenades, Smoke Discharger

Equipment
Rangefinder: Laser
Night Vision: Computer Enhanced Thermal Imager
Fire Control: Optical; GLATIIS 2-T with intergrated Missile Guidance Capability
Jammers: IR & SACLOS Jammer, Radar Jammer
Onboard Computer: GLATIIS 2-T (?)

Active Protection System: "Nomad"

Front Armor (Turret): composite, very rounded
Front Armor (Hull): composite; 4th generation ERA
Side Armor (Turret): composite, very rounded
Side Armor (Hull): composite; 4th generation ERA
Rear Armor (Turret): composite, very rounded
Rear Armor (Hull): ?
Top Armor (Turret): ?

Some of the new innovations including:

-- a very low turrent with an autoloader and no crew
-- "Nomad" active protection system that guard against Arena is intended to protect tanks from antitank grenades and anti-tank missiles, including top-attack ones
-- new light weight composite armour, which rumored to be able to withstand a direct 120mm DU hit from 400 metres
-- chain gun to take out lightly armoured targets such as enemy APC's and attack helicopters

[Whaleboy]

Nice!

[Whaleboy]

"Please tune down the specs on your fighter, thank you"

At the higher altitudes where this fighter flies, the speed of sound is much less than ground level. If this figher flies at the equivalent of mach 5 at very high altitudes, then it is flying at perhaps mach 2, mach 2.5 at ground level, which is still pretty quick! The air-space missiles are modified air-air missiles that can be fired into low-earth orbit from a very high altitude. Useful for taking out enemy satellites.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by elijah
Nice!

[OCC]

In fact, that's just a slightly more advanced version of the new Russian MBT. Pretty powerful tank, that.

[/OCC]

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by elijah
At the higher altitudes where this fighter flies, the speed of sound is much less than ground level.

A bit, but not that much. Also, you still need to use a lot of fuel to maintain a Mach 5 speed, and there are other problems involved as well.

Originally posted by elijah
The air-space missiles are modified air-air missiles that can be fired into low-earth orbit from a very high altitude. Useful for taking out enemy satellites.

The thing is you shouldn't have a nigh invincible aircraft, since no normal AAM or SAM could catch you at that speed. Now, if you have only a handful of these, like the Russian Alpha nuclear attack sub, because they are so expensive and hard to make, I guess it's all right. Not if that's your main fighter craft, though.

[The Alpha is suppsed to be so fast that no normal torpedo could catch it.]

[Whaleboy]

" A bit, but not that much. Also, you still need to use a lot of fuel to maintain a Mach 5 speed,"

The speed of sound is proportional to the density of the atmosphere, which decreases exponentially with altitude. At very high altitudes, it becomes easier to maintain high speeds due to the lack of air resistance, so fuel consumption is not a major issue.

"there are other problems involved as well"

None major, none that cant be solved by good design. One thing in the aircraft industry is the tendency to solve problems, such that "other problems" (within reason) need not ground a good concept.

"The thing is you shouldn't have a nigh [on] invincible aircraft"

Its not invincible, at lower altitudes, it is less manueverable and not as fast. It has to rely on acceleration and its defensive weapons to get away. It may be a great fighter, but it is not ubertech, and it is not invulnerable to standard weapons in standard doses.

"no normal AAM or SAM could catch you at that speed"

Can be caught at lower altitudes (although getting past the rear gun wont be easy obviously). Rocket powered AAM's launched from the ground (you know those big beasts that look like ICBM's) can reach and catch it at high altitudes.

It is not invincible, it is just strong.

"The Alpha is suppsed to be so fast that no normal torpedo could catch it"

How fast exactly? That must be getting the Americans worried . Surely aircraft strikes can get it, as well as glancing blows by torpedoes. The problem with modern torpedoes is the propellor system. The dual props to prevent gyroscopic drift are inefficient at high speeds and presumably creates too many vortices. They would be better off by making a form of jet system, which would increase speed and range, enough to catch the Alpha. What seems like better tech (I am reluctant to call ubertech), can be countered by technology "mixed and matched" from other areas, to create a consistent technical capability.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by elijah
" A bit, but not that much. Also, you still need to use a lot of fuel to maintain a Mach 5 speed,"

The speed of sound is proportional to the density of the atmosphere, which decreases exponentially with altitude. At very high altitudes, it becomes easier to maintain high speeds due to the lack of air resistance, so fuel consumption is not a major issue.

While that is true, IIRC, the conventional Mach rating does not compare speed of your aeroplane with speed of sound at a particular height, but rather with the speed of sound at sea level.

Originally posted by elijah
How fast exactly? That must be getting the Americans worried .

40 knots supposedly. Of course, it is not very quiet at that speed, but it doesn't need to be. Another thing is the Alpha is rumoured to be able to dive below 3000m, so not only weapons can't catch it, they get crushed by the pressure as well.

[Whaleboy]

"the conventional Mach rating does not compare speed of your aeroplane with speed of sound at a particular height, but rather with the speed of sound at sea level"

If that is the case, then we adjust the spec accordingly. However, to do it by altitude makes more sense, as the different conditions at altitudes make flight different than at low altitude. Are you sure? The X-15(?) and the SR-71 were *rather* quick, at high altitudes, but at the same velocity at lower altitudes, they would have got a lower mach number IIRC?

*mental note... watch more Wings channel*.

"40 knots supposedly. Of course, it is not very quiet at that speed, but it doesn't need to be. Another thing is the Alpha is rumoured to be able to dive below 3000m, so not only weapons can't catch it, they get crushed by the pressure as well"

Ah! I was going to say. American WWII torps (the ones that constantly malfunctioned ) could travel at 41 knots IIRC.

Thats pretty deep, however, if they can go that deep, then that just proves it is physically possible, thus opens the floodgates to more subs at that kinda depth.

With regards to torpedoes, put the electronics in a heat-absorbing ceramic set in a spherical plastic case. Flood the rest of the torpedo with water at that depth, then one removes the problem of them being crushed.

One could also theoretically nuke the water above the sub, the shock waves of which would probably tear the ship apart, if not vapourise it if it is close enough.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by elijah
Ah! I was going to say. American WWII torps (the ones that constantly malfunctioned ) could travel at 41 knots IIRC.

The only US torps I have any knowledge of is the Mark 28 (I think it is called the Mark 28), which is the one in use. It moves at twentysomething knots, good enough to catch most ships and subs.

Originally posted by elijah
Thats pretty deep, however, if they can go that deep, then that just proves it is physically possible, thus opens the floodgates to more subs at that kinda depth.

The cost might be very expensive, so much that you could build two subs for the price of one of these.

Originally posted by elijah
One could also theoretically nuke the water above the sub, the shock waves of which would probably tear the ship apart, if not vapourise it if it is close enough.

Water spreads out the pressure quickly though.

[Whaleboy]

" The only US torps I have any knowledge of is the Mark 28 (I think it is called the Mark 28), which is the one in use. It moves at twentysomething knots, good enough to catch most ships and subs"

IIRC the world war II US torp was capable of travelling at 30 something knots at long range, 41 knots at shorter range. I cant explain why the newer ones are slower, but I trust the History channel!

"The cost might be very expensive, so much that you could build two subs for the price of one of these"

Which are useless if they cannot get to a sub that is superior. One machine gun, or 10 slingshots?

"Water spreads out the pressure quickly though"

True, but a thousand feet or so above, and the sub would be torn to pieces, or at least propelled to a deeper depth where it would be crushed, or a shallower depth where it can be destroyed by normal weapons. Nonetheless, I dont want to advocate the use of nukes so ill stop here!