NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, most of you who know of me know that I am primarily an FT player. However, I have been thinking of playing as an MT nation as well, and I haven't done it in ages.

This is basically me turning to you guys who are MT more often than not, and just wanting your opinion on this:

AIR FORCE
F-22 Raptor (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/19/FA22_Raptors_Oct2005.jpg) OR Eurofighter Typhoon (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Eurofighter_Typhoon_2.jpg) – Primary Aircraft
F-15E+ (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/RAF_F-15E_Strike_Eagle_Iraq_2004.jpg) – Strike Aircraft
A-10 Warthog (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/A10Thunderbolt2_990422-F-7910D-517.jpg) – Ground Attack


AH-64D Apache (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Apache_Longbow_Gesamtansicht.JPG) – Attack Helicopter
CH-47F Chinook (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Chinook.hc2.za677.arp.jpg) – Heavy-lift helicopter
EH101 Merlin (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Westland.eh101.merlin.fairford.arp.jpg) – Transport/ Search and rescue
UH-60 Black Hawk (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Black_hawk.jpg) – Assault Helicopter
MH-53J Pave Low (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/MH-53J_Pave_Low_III.jpg) – Special Forces aircraft only


B-52 Stratofortress (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Aspect.ratio.b52.arp.jpg) – Long Range Strategic Bomber
B-1B Lancer (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/B1s.jpg) - Primary Strategic Bomber - NEW ADDITION


C-5 Galaxy (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Usaf.c5.galaxy.750pix.jpg) – strategic deployment aircraft
C-130J Super Hercules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C-130_Hercules_over_Santa_Cruz_Island.jpg#file) OR A400M (http://www.avions-militaires.net/images/photos/a400m.jpg) – tactical deployment aircraft
A330-220 (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a330_200/images/A33020MRTT_1.jpg) Multi Role Tanker Aircraft - Tanker


RQ-4B (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Globalhawk.750pix.jpg) Global Hawk – High Altitude Unmanned Recon
MQ-1 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/RQ-1_Predator.jpg) Predator/ Boeing X-45C (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Boeing_X-45A_UCAV.jpg) – Unmanned small attack craft


U-2 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Usaf.u2.750pix.jpg) / SR-71 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird.jpg) – High altitude spy plane – little used since introduction of satellites.
Boeing 737 'Wedgetail' (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c0/Aust_Wedgetail.jpg) – AWACS
Hawk Mk 128 (http://www.jetfly.hu/rovatok/repules/katonai/tipusok/oktato_piac_060717/hawk-128_1.jpg) – Trainer aircraft


NAVY
Aircraft Carriers:
CVF ‘Hybrid’ (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvfimages/cvf-bae00-hybrid1.jpg) (UK)

Aircraft:
F-35 JSF (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/db/Sdd_f35test_009.jpg) – Primary Navy Fighter
EA-18G ‘Growler’ (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Cobrachen_Ea-18g.jpg) - ECM aircraft
Super Lynx (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/35/LynxHAS3.jpg) – ASW
E-2C (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/DN-SD-04-13416.jpg) Hawkeye – Advance warning and electronic warfare
Nimrod MRA4 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/ZJ517.jpg) – Maritime Recon and ASW
Sea King (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Seaking_German-Marines_GNU-FDL.jpg) – ASW/SAR helicopter

Destroyers & Frigates:
Type 23 ‘Duke’ class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HMS_Richmond_F239_%28Type_23_class_frigate%29.jpg) (UK) – Frigate – anti-sub and anti-surface
Type 45 ‘Daring’ class (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/Type45sampson.jpg) (UK) – Destroyer –Anti-Air


Corvettes:
Visby class corvette (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/HMS_Visby_and_HMS_Helsingborg.jpg) – Patrol boats

Minesweepers:
Sandown class (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cf/HMS_Walney.JPG)(UK) - Minesweeper

Submarines:
Astute-class (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b7/BAES_Astute.JPG) Attack Subs (UK) – attack submarines
Ohio-class (http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/narmain/narmain_files/ohiosub.jpeg) ballistic subs (USA) – Nuclear-equipped submarines

Auxs:
Frank S. Besson (http://www.timawa.net/images/pn/lsv.jpg) class LSV (Logistic Supply Vehicle) (USA)
Albion class LPD (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/HMSBulwarkL15.jpg) (Landing Platform, Dock) (UK)

ARMY
MBT:
Challenger 2 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Challenger2.jpg) – Main Battle Tank

Artillery:
MLRS (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/Army_mlrs_1982_02.jpg) – Long range rocket artillery
AS-90 (http://www.carwood.co.uk/Images/Photos/MilitaryServices1.gif) Braveheart – Close Fire Support
M777A1 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ac/M777_howitzer_rear.jpg) – Light Artillery

AFC’s:
Warrior (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/WARRIORIFV.jpg) – more for open fields
Bradley M3 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/1BFV01.jpg) – balance between the other two
Stryker 8 wheel combat vehicle (http://digitalprognosis.com/album/images/iraqpics/the-stryker.jpg) – more for use in urban environments

Additional:
Bedford MK 4 (http://www.vass.co.uk/pics/sm_bedford_mk_and_mk4x4.jpg) - Truck
Land Rover 110 (http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/Angleterre/Exhibition/DSEI_2005/pictures/Land_Rover_Defender_110_DSEI_2005_ArmyRecognition_01.jpg) Defenders – normal patrols

Soliders:
H&K 416 5.56mm Assault Rifle (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/66/HK416_D145RS.jpg) (standard rifle) - utilising the 14.5" barrel, with possiblility of rechambering to 6.5mm - EDITED
H&K USP (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/USP_Full_Size_45_caliber.jpg) 9mm Handgun (standard sidearm)
M249 SAW (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/200111418531M249withM15A2BFA.jpg) 5.56 Light Machinegun (two per squad)
M40A3 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/M-40A3.jpg) or L96 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Ai_sm.jpg) 7.62mm sniper rifle + L86 (http://www1.linkclub.or.jp/~geta/image/guns/lsw003.jpeg) 5.56mm (LSW)(sniper teams)
AG36 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/XM320.jpg) 40mm Grenade Launcher
51mm (http://www.army.mod.uk/img/equipment/pw/51mm_mortar.jpg) and 81mm (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m-29-dvic508.jpg) Mortars
Remington 870 (http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/rem870mcs_18.jpg) 12 gauge shotgun (see also (http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/rem870mcs_ax.jpg)
LAW 80 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/LAW80.jpg) and M72 LAW (http://world.guns.ru/grenade/m72law-1.jpg) (66mm)
MILAN ATGM (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/army/infantry_images/infantry_weapon_milan.jpg) - anti-tank
FIM-92 Stinger (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/stinger_03.jpg) MANPAD - Anti-Air
Land Warrior (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/march/images/p20_ArmyLandWarrior.jpg) system with BOWMAN communications (incl. DragonSkin armour)
British Army 2000 DPM (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Brtish_dpm.jpg) style combat clothing.

You Have some pretyy high end weapons to be using DPM as your Camo... Why not go modern and use Cadpat or heck.... there is even a Digital version of DPM availble for the Airsoft Market.

lose the Super-Hornet its expensive, slow and short ranged. If you want to use RL tech then go with the Mig-35, its better in just about every way. otherwise, see Super-Tomcat 21 (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f14_13.html) which is to the F-14D as the Super-Hornet is to the F/A-18

also, you might want to check out the F-15E+ (http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/10/05/Navigation/177/209633/%e2%80%98Not+your+father%e2%80%99s+Oldsmobile%e2%80%99+Boeing+F-15E%2b+Super+Eagle.html) instead of the F-15E

I actually think his approach is better. Strict MT, use of USUK tech. While a combination of tech would allow, of course, to choose better machines for each role (and I agree that MiG-35 and Su-30MKI are really better than F before 22), the advantage in total operational effectiveness is not as high to compensate for potential logistics and service cost increase.
Super-Tomcat is also a proposal, so I'd rather call it MT+0 - technically feasible, but exact performance is yet unknown. In my opinion, the margin also doesn't pay off for potential caveat.


To Snakes Eaters, I'd also think about whether use of B-2 is necessary. In fact this is a highly secret and very unique plane, so it's generally a purely US national weapon, not general epoch hallmark. It will never be sold to anyone, it's hard to produce, and hard to come up with the same idea; moreover, it is not produced anymore, and for serious reasons. Not that it is inacceptable, but there is something, a little, out-of-line with its generic use. It suffers from Golden Fish syndrome (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Golden_Fish), as each B-2 costs more than Ohio class submarine (which is a much better weapon), and there are only 20 such planes in the US and world. There never will be more, so a MT nation also shouldn't use them as primary bomber.
It is, in a kind, something closer to X- plane than to a series-produced one. It is not completely unreplaceable, and F-22 plus B-1B usually can carry out the same role, if used properly. It's, of course, up to you to decide; it wouldn't be wrong to use it, but the game will look better with a bit more conventional set without it, in my opinion.

hmm, forget to check the bombers, I was angry over the whole Super-hornet thing (seriously, if nothing else, lose that abortion of a congressional compromise)

I am not a fan of the B-52, it just keeps flying and flying and flying and now its fifty years old, I refuse to believe we can't do better, oh wait! We can, Behold, the B-1B 'Bone' (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b-1b/)
Faster, heavier armed, newer, stealthier, more maneuverable. the only thing lacking is unrefueled range, and in the age of in-air refueling, who cares about that?
In fact, it gets better mileage on the fuel it does hold, there's no reason to be using a fifty year old airframe when there's a new one available that beats it in just about every stat that matters.

In navy: I would use more U.S. LPHs/LPAs over the British LPDs America practically invented beach landings and they still do it the best.

for Army: Ditch the XM-8 hardcore all it is is a plastic G-36 with a proprietary accessory rail rather than the standard Picatinny arsenal rails that just about every other western weapon on the planet uses (including NS) It was ditched for a reason. The G-36 is a fine weapon, and I'm personally a fan of the HK-416. Heck, even the M-16A2 is better than the XM-8, and the M4 beats both hands down.

kill the Stryker and switch it for the CV-90. And I'm disturbed at your lack of MANPADS and ATGMS
The Starstreak will do you no wrong for the former and the Javelin will fill your need for the latter.
Switch the interceptor armor for DragonSkin armor and you sir now have the best armed forces the modern real world can offer.

Replace C-130 with C-17.

Adopt a 6.5 mm not based upon the 5.56 x 45 (IE, not Grendal)

A 6.5 /w/ cartridge length between 50 and 55 mm should do nicely.

Others recommend the plain old 6 mm for political and practical reasons.

I'm not going to bother pestering you about my storefront, people will either buy from it or not.

SU-27/35/37 wups MiG-29 any day of the week
Better range, more power, more manuverable...
And can still give a MiG-35 a run for its money...

Thought the SU-47 can really tear stuff up...
(too bad it is slower than most planes)

When you can run rings around everything in the sky, who needs to be the fastest aircraft in the sky? The Harrier proved this in the Falklands war..

As for the equipment, might I suggest ditching the Falcon? It isn't really all that effective as a interceptor, you might be better off just to use the land version of the jsf for that role, instead.

[OOC: Snake Eaters, I'd suggest taking a peek at this thread by Illior (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=494339).]

You Have some pretyy high end weapons to be using DPM as your Camo... Why not go modern and use Cadpat or heck.... there is even a Digital version of DPM availble for the Airsoft Market.

I like to stick with some British things. DPM is one of them. CADPAT or MARPAT are good... but I don't like the idea of pixellated camo. Just a personal thing.

~snip~, both posts
Hmm, good points. The F/A-18F was inserted to fill in gaps caused by the F-35... I may phase them out entirely, apart from the 'Growler'... and even that may be ditched, and I'll stick with the EA-6B Prowler. EDIT: Kept the Growler.

I did look at the G36, along with the M16A2, the M4, and the HK 416. All are fine weapons, and I may change it so that my army better reflects the modern day. If the L85 were more reliable in anything other that European woodland conditions, I would go for it hands down. Weighty, to be sure, but more accurate than any other rifle currently in widespread service. Notice the wording, by the way. EDIT: I went away and did some more research. I already knew about the HK 416, which is essentially the M4 but with the system of the G-36, as opposed to the system of the M16A2 which required more cleaning. You'll notice that I went for the longer barrel, to improve accuracy, but that's not to say 10" barrels aren't used by tank-crews and the like.

I've kept the B-52 because of the reliablity of the aircraft in it's role. The airframe is old, to be sure, but it being replaced by the B-1B. Eventually, the B-52 will be phased out altogether, at least that's the plan

The Albion-class is more than capable of what I need from it at this point in time.

The CV-90 is a tracked vehicle. I may as well just use the Warrior in both roles. The only issue is that in urban combat, tracked vehicles are just, if not more vulnerable, than wheeled vehicles. You can blow out a tire on a wheeled vehicles, and it can keep going. You blow out a track on any tracked vehicle, you've disabled it. I'm keeping the Stryker because it can operate in areas where the Warrior would be at a disadvantage.

I realised the lack of anti-tank and anti-air capability after I posted the list. Although the Starstreak is going to be included, I don't know about the Javelin. The MILAN is more widely used, and therefore is more easily acquired.

I did some research regarding the Dragon Skin against the Interceptor, and I think I will be changing to the Dragon Skin as soon as possible.


~snip~
The C-17 is a strategic heavy lift aircraft. The C-130 or the A400M are tactical lift aircraft. The C-5 fufills the role of the former, and the other two remain.

The 6.5mm cartridge is very similar in basic design to the 5.56m, and they are essentially interchangable on systems such as the M16 by replacing the uppers and recievers. I can see why you think I should change to such a calibre, as it offers greater stopping power whilst not suffering from excessive recoil in full automatic.

The C-17 is a strategic heavy lift aircraft. The C-130 or the A400M are tactical lift aircraft. The C-5 fufills the role of the former, and the other two remain.

The 6.5mm cartridge is very similar in basic design to the 5.56m, and they are essentially interchangable on systems such as the M16 by replacing the uppers and recievers. I can see why you think I should change to such a calibre, as it offers greater stopping power whilst not suffering from excessive recoil in full automatic.

The C-17 was actually meant to do away with the Strategic/Tactical Logistics system (called hub and spoke in civy terms) in favor of direct transit.

It has the heavy loadout of the C-5 and the rough field capabilities of the C-130 for a reason. Because it is supposed to do both missions in one sortie...

This was because it was found that many places cannot handle strategic logistical aircraft, and would then have to rely on otherwise underpowered and overloaded airframes such as the C-130*, or sacrifice equipment (such as the M-1 Abrams).

*Overloaded and underpowered if it would be carrying an M-1 for example (which is too wide)

And you are writing of the 6.5 x 43 mm Grendal, I'm speaking of the 6.5 x 55 mm Remmington Magnum, this is not interchangeable with the 5.56 NATO, and provides better ballistics than the 7.62 NATO at all ranges and conditions.

The C-17 was actually meant to do away with the Strategic/Tactical Logistics system (called hub and spoke in civy terms) in favor of direct transit.

It has the heavy loadout of the C-5 and the rough field capabilities of the C-130 for a reason. Because it is supposed to do both missions in one sortie...

This was because it was found that many places cannot handle strategic logistical aircraft, and would then have to rely on otherwise underpowered and overloaded airframes such as the C-130*, or sacrifice equipment (such as the M-1 Abrams).

*Overloaded and underpowered if it would be carrying an M-1 for example (which is too wide)

And you are writing of the 6.5 x 43 mm Grendal, I'm speaking of the 6.5 x 55 mm Remmington Magnum, this is not interchangeable with the 5.56 NATO, and provides better ballistics than the 7.62 NATO at all ranges and conditions.


I think you're talking about the 6.8 x 55 Remington, which is easily interchangable thanks to a modified upper reciever, and is superior to the 5.56 and 7.62 in ballistics terms. It was developed for the USSOCOM, and then was adopted more wide-spread in the wake of an excellent trial.

As for the C-17, I think the SEAF will maintain a small force of them, as a rapid response force when armour is going to be needed straight away.

I think you're talking about the 6.8 x 55 Remington, which is easily interchangable thanks to a modified upper reciever, and is superior to the 5.56 and 7.62 in ballistics terms. It was developed for the USSOCOM, and then was adopted more wide-spread in the wake of an excellent trial.

Nope, NS designed round based upon the 6.5 mm Remmington Magnum, a (belted) civiallian hunting round.
Currently only offer in 120 grain bullets in real life at this time, and pretty rare.

Mostly a wildcatted handload if you run across it.

You are thinking about something else, the 6.8 mm SPC? (which is only 44 mm long, and frankly, sucks even when compared to the Grendal.)

6.8 SPC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_mm_Remington_SPC)

6.5 Remmington Mags:
http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.6-5mm-remington-magnum.html
http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/65rm.html

It didn't catch on because of its association with he hard kicking 6.5 mm Winchester magnum, and because it won't fit a "standard" American action.

Just thought I'd educate you on the subject.

Popular 6.5 mm cartridges listed on Wiki (meaning those that actually sold well).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5_x_55_Mauser

Ooo, calm down. So I misread the detail.

And thinking about it, considering I've included no NS tech in the list so far, do you actually think I'm going to break with tradition. For now, we'll stick with the 5.56, with other calibres being looked at to replace it at a later stage.

Ooo, calm down. So I misread the detail.

And thinking about it, considering I've included no NS tech in the list so far, do you actually think I'm going to break with tradition. For now, we'll stick with the 5.56, with other calibres being looked at to replace it at a later stage.

Well, you could use the 6.5 x 55 mm Mauser, which saw some use in a swedish assault rifle. Pretty succesful I might add...

AG-42B (http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl17-e.htm)
Only replaced recently by a soviet copy of the G3...