NationStates Jolt Archive

Feel free to steal these ideas for your own storefronts. Let me know and I’ll be the first in line.

1. Long range interceptors: Like the battleship, the long-range interceptor aircraft is no longer “relevant” in the real-world – but in NationStates, the interceptor would be a critical piece of any nations airborne arsenal.

I’d love to see a nation build a fast and powerful interceptor – possibly modeling it off the SR-71 Blackbird – Mach 3 with a long range, high altitude, medium payload capability – giving it the needed features to bring enemy bombers raining down well outside national boundaries.

2. Logistic support vehicles: Often overlooked in NS is the need to actually transport those millions of soldiers and their equipment.

NS needs a seller of all things logistical – trucks, ships, aircraft etc.

Specifically (LAND): XM1108 Universal Carrier, the M548A3, the Armored Medical Treatment Vehicle (AMTV), and a whole line of Hemetts (seen here: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/hmett.htm.

Specifically (SEA): Sea lift capabilities are weak in NS – suppliers should be pushing for three key vessels – the RO/RO Pre-positioning ships, Amphibious Assault Ships, and large landing ships. Of course, most navies in NS fail to even buy or build the tenders that supply ships with oil, food, parts etc. Certainly there is a market for each of these in NS.

Specifically (AIR): Most nations will state that they own heavy lift air capacity – but really the numbers are far short of what would be needed for the likes of a Berlin Airlift operation. Galaxies, Herc’s, and the like are crucial – but so are heavy lift helo’s (including container-capable helo’s).

Also – ever been to an airport and seen all those special vehicles whipping around the tarmac? Well, no one in NS builds any of those. Interesting. (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/tunner.htm)


Specifically (OTHER): Shipping containers – you know, the big metal boxes that can go on the back of a truck or the cargo hold of a ship or plane – armies live or die based on the arrival of these things. The creative builder or seller will make their version out of honeycombed Kevlar – particularly for ordinance shipping.

3. Diesel-Electric Subs: Will out stealth any nuke – particularly in the shallows around the shoreline. Those that buy or build DE subs for coastal protection have a big advantage.

4. Air Defenses: I’ve seen nations build hundred of PAC 3 launchers, and then claim they’ve got a fortress-like nation. In reality, a nation requires a more 3 dimensional air-defense system, with systems of various ranges to cover everything from ballistic missile threats, to slow-flying, low-altitude tomahawks – and everything in between. If you’re a seller, don’t just sell the top draw stuff – the guy on the ground needs AA guns to Patriots AND everything in between to have a safer sky.

5. Can’t find the link right now, but in the 1980s there was a US military proposal to convert 747s into Tomahawk dispensers. With a rotary launcher, each jet could carry almost 100 cruise missiles, and fire its capacity in about 20 minutes. Cheaper and more powerful than any submarine and easily defended this aircraft has been a critical part of the Wolfish bombing force for a long time – but no one else in NS has these planes (to my knowledge).

Some comments, because Im bored:

1) I know nothing about planes so ok.

2) Some people do make these things, but most of us just assume they're there. Mostly because it's kinda boring and partly because they aren't that 'esoteric'. They're just trucks, so you can assume your army has an adequate version.

3) That's a point, although modern nuclear subs are getting better. Plus they're more versatile.

4) You have a point, but why guns?

5) That sounds quite good. I'll have to investigate that.

I sell logistics vehicles...at least a few anyway.

As for the tomohawk despenser, I use more ground-based launchers.

As for the interceptor, the LRRA already flies something that fills that role, the Zas-42.

But the logistical containers etc...I think people figure they already have them.

1) I do have a long-range interceptor, and I am putting them up for sale as soon as I am finished with the naval section of my storefront.

2) Once again, I keep that in mind, and when the naval and aviation sections of my storefront are completed, I am moving on to those.

3) I have more diesel-electric subs for sale then nuclear ones.

4) I just hired Credonia to design one for me.

5) That's a new one for me, I think I'll use that in the future.

1. I'm pretty sure a lot of nations operate long range interceptors. It's true that a lot over look many important military technologies, though, owing apparently to their passing from common use in the real world, which, as you indicate, is totally different to the NS world, from a tactical standpoint.
Dra-pol practices a Standard Fighter Defence Strategy designed by comrade Director Secretary Hotan, for which we operate a number of different types of fighter aircraft. The PAAF flys masses of Fishbed and Flagon variants, with the latter meant for defensive interception of enemy, using radar-guided AAMs and the former for close-in engagement of enemy fighters during Drapoel offensive operations (Dra-pol's military is designed specifically to fight on the Korean peninsula, rather than to be some vague super force with no clear doctrine as many seem to be). We then have imported modern point interceptors, apparently designed with Swedish fighters in mind but deprived of their multi-role capability born of smaller budgets and less serious needs than exist in NS, and faster, longer-range interceptors.
I think my point was that 1. seems to revolve around the idea that people ought to pay more attention to their nation's specific tactical needs. Yeah, so, uhm, that's all good then. Fair point.

2.As was said, I think that a lot of people more or less consider a truck a truck and suppose them included in whatever's going on. Of course, I'm not sure that they always think about getting these thousands of trucks to wherever the rest of the army's going...
Again, Dra-pol's very specific field of interest in regards of potential military engagement means that we're a bit apart from the norm in this regard. Most Drapoel soldiers and militiamen spend most of their time carrying stuff, loading stuff on to underground rails, and carrying more stuff.
I think there's a growing number of logistics vehicles on sale around NS.

3. At last count, the Unified People's Navy sails 950 D/E submarines and no nuclear submarines, though there exists the possibility of a small number of purchases. We acquired the design and several examples of one of two fielded classes of D/E sub from another nation, so we know they're using plenty.

4. Air defences, yeah. A pride of the Drapoel military- the world's most dense air defence grid, with everything from 7.7mm machineguns to long-range anti-AWACs type SAMs. It might not be the most advanced, but that's because we're an isolationist sham communism with a narrow technological base and limited funds for acquisitions.
Why guns? Because in an integrated multi-tier air defence grid, high-altitude SAMs force aircraft down where low-tech, cheap, easily maintained and operated guns can rip them apart. It happened in Vietnam, with scores of US jets being shot down by gunfire, often optically guided.

5. Eh... well, that's not quite so broad or fundamental a point as the rest now, is it? Heh, we have none of these things... no need for them, as Dra-pol isn't interested in stomping around the planet blowing up other people's houses and things. Weird, that!
The Drapoel leadership would tell you that tunnel warfare is far more fundamental than cruise-missile carrying airliners can ever be.

Long live not stomping around the planet and blowing people's houses up!

I think that might be what you and me have in common, Dra-pol. My military can't go anyplace in force, except around LRR. I have six overseas capable armored divisions, and ten overseas-capable light infantry divisions, and 60 infantry divisions, which would take several months to transport one given their amount of vehicles (with the current state of LRR overseas logistics) and the fact that they just don't work outside of LRR terrain.

'What? Its not raining, snowing, sleeting, or foggy and wet! Run!"

I suppose we could get a couple of infantry-heavy Assault Divisions to Japan or... LRR, mainly with Cholima Class hovercraft assault vehicles, but we couldn't support them out there, so there's no point trying.
I wonder if many others use hovercraft, besides run of the mill American LCACs.
(Mine countermeasure vessels? Submarine rescue ships?)

OOC: I use Ekranoplans as my naval logistics unit. While they can't carry as much as traditional ships, their greatly improved speed (300 mph cruise) makes up for it. Also, they carry much more than things like the C-17 Globemaster, making them the best of both worlds.

I suppose we could get a couple of infantry-heavy Assault Divisions to Japan or... LRR, mainly with Cholima Class hovercraft assault vehicles, but we couldn't support them out there, so there's no point trying.
I wonder if many others use hovercraft, besides run of the mill American LCACs.
(Mine countermeasure vessels? Submarine rescue ships?)

I use catamaran/air cushion ships. They're sort of like hovercraft, but have catamaran hulls. Very fast, fuel efficent, and light on the water. I've got the Son House (which I've mentioned a few times), and I also use the Oksoy as a minesweeper. Good ships the both of 'em, although LRR's characteristically stormy seas mean that plain hovercrafts don't get much use, with ship designers leaning towards CAC and self-righting single hulls.

Where in the world do you get that Electro Diesel Submarines are more stealthy then a nuke sub ??

Just curious but a Diesel, engine makes a HUGE sonic signature and without the Diesel power the battery life and the life of the sub would be in the range of a few days. This leaves the sub to run on the surface and would be quite noticeable to both Sat-Intl and surface sonic wave detection.

I have made notice to a few people in regards to the very subject of logistics. But since most people are so facinated by the "I will shoot my 5,000 nukes at your Nation" approach to tactical combat, they fail to understand the complexity in attacking another Nation by any means other then launching a bunch of dumb ICBM's at each other.

Which by the way are easily deafeted if you have any sort of RP skills at all.

What? You are claiming diesel electric submarines are less stealthy then nuclear submarines when historical evidence shows otherwise?

1) I operate 75 seventy-two-aircraft interceptor wings that do exactly what you describe. I've also developed extremely long-range AAMs to go with those aircraft.

2) Except for what's organic to my divisions, which LRR has graciously supplied to me, I don't worry much about logistics.

3) Not necessarily true, at least not in NS. I have a noise absorbsion technology that'll make a nuclear sub at least as quiet as any D/E sub.

4) I agree completely. My primary SAM is multi-purpose (meaning that it can operate anywhere from medium to extended range), but I also have AA guns around my Citadel fortifications.

5) I believe Clan Smoke Jaguar, or someone, sells something a lot like this. Personally I have a strategic bomber that can double as a huge missile-slinger, but a converted 747 would work for a lot of fairly new nations.

1. We operate a few hundred DP-21A/B/C/G version Electronic Warfare and Long-Range Interceptor aircraft. Their extended range and extreme-long range munitions allow them to perform multiple roles including national defense, defense of overseas aerial forces, and fleet defense.

2. We currently produce our own logistical vehicles (ranging from utility vehicles to heavy trucks to specialized tractors to catamarans to hovercraft and even massive logistical ships) and have purchased LRR trucks to complement our aging URALs and UAZs.

3. Currently, our nuclear submarines are quieter than diesels in many aspects due to the design of a new pump system, new coolant system, etc. (major noise makers on a nuclear submarine). Sound absorption technology as well as design features also decrease its active sonar signature.

4. Our national air defense network is a mix of rural air bases, mobile AA guns, stationary SAMs (long, medium, short), mobile SAMs (long, medium, short, MANPAD), stationary AA guns, stationary radar systems, mobile radar systems, stationary communication relays, mobile communication relays, and hidden air defense systems (underground, etc.).

5. We use a similar aircraft although its a heavy modification of the Tu-95 (NATO Designation- 'Bear') which can carry up to 3 dozen of the missiles. Most of the time we rely on naval assets and land assets for the cruise missile launch platform.

I have use a modified SR-71, I call it the SR-75 Hellbird. It reaches around Mach 3 and flies little higher than the SR-71, only I dont use it for an interceptor. I use it for a bomber. Because it has such a large area under the plane, I loaded up with cluster bomblet dispensers(that remain attached to it). I mostly designed it to deliver chemical and biological cluster bomblets....

Feel free to steal these ideas for your own storefronts. Let me know and I’ll be the first in line.

1. Long range interceptors: Like the battleship, the long-range interceptor aircraft is no longer “relevant” in the real-world – but in NationStates, the interceptor would be a critical piece of any nations airborne arsenal.

I’d love to see a nation build a fast and powerful interceptor – possibly modeling it off the SR-71 Blackbird – Mach 3 with a long range, high altitude, medium payload capability – giving it the needed features to bring enemy bombers raining down well outside national boundaries.

OOC: TJF-11 Raven is dead on the money for that one. Take a look at my naval expansion thread for details.

3. Diesel-Electric Subs: Will out stealth any nuke – particularly in the shallows around the shoreline. Those that buy or build DE subs for coastal protection have a big advantage.

Tahar Joblis has an extensive submarine program; we acknowledge our advanced conventional submarines, including fuel cell and other advanced battery systems, to be necessarily quiet.

OOC: An electric submarine with no reactor will always be a bit quieter given the same technologies. Unless your cancellation technology is utterly and absolutely perfect... i.e., unreal.

4. Air Defenses: I’ve seen nations build hundred of PAC 3 launchers, and then claim they’ve got a fortress-like nation. In reality, a nation requires a more 3 dimensional air-defense system, with systems of various ranges to cover everything from ballistic missile threats, to slow-flying, low-altitude tomahawks – and everything in between. If you’re a seller, don’t just sell the top draw stuff – the guy on the ground needs AA guns to Patriots AND everything in between to have a safer sky.

We categorically deny that our theatre and strategic missile defense systems include aeroplane, dirigible, satellite, ground based gun and missile systems of short range, long range, medium range, and target projectiles in sizes from HARM missiles to ICBMs.

5. Can’t find the link right now, but in the 1980s there was a US military proposal to convert 747s into Tomahawk dispensers. With a rotary launcher, each jet could carry almost 100 cruise missiles, and fire its capacity in about 20 minutes. Cheaper and more powerful than any submarine and easily defended this aircraft has been a critical part of the Wolfish bombing force for a long time – but no one else in NS has these planes (to my knowledge).

OOC: AKA heavy dang bomber on a civilian frame. I think it's been done a few dozen times, and some heavy bombers in NS have a comparable capacity.

Squornshelous has one model of Hunter/Killer D/E for sale at the Squornshelous Naval Storefront (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=350527).

Consider this an OOC posting only:

1. The Omzian Air Force operates "wings" (ICly we don't like to share our exact numbers - more like the Chinese PLA, perhaps) of the F-125 Rapier interceptor. Most of them are armed with long-range AAMs (adaptable to both interception of slow and low flying cruise missiles or high-flying stealthy recon aircraft with different software settings), but there are also projects to allow it to carry anti-satellite/ballistic missile warhead missiles, EW and photographic reconissance pods, or even small "micro-satellites" launchable to space. Pilots of these specially designated wings (which also operates F/A-22s and F-15Cs in some cases) are also trained for close-in engagement incase long-range engagement fails.
Even the Air Militia (basically like the US Air National Guard except we have more or less trainings and less aircraft) operates older F-24 Antares interceptors.

2. Aside from heavy air (we operate a range of cargo aircraft), sea lift, and the standard trucks, we have also converted used large armored vehicles to fuel and cargo carriers for urban operations mostly, and armored trucks. The use of rail is also emphatized by us, and for that matter, we have quite a few tunnel diggers.

3. The Omzian Navy operates "tens" (again, ICly the Omzian Navy is unwilling to share numbers and names of submarines and coastal patrol craft) of diesel electric submarines within the Navy reserve, plus those powered by hydrogen cells. Although our newer nuclear submarines are quieter than advanced DE subs, we use DE subs primarily for coastal protection, although the Omzian Navy Underseas Warfare School also definately teach DE sub commanders and crews about long-endurance missions off shore, and are prefectly capable of operating in various missions (Omzian hydrogen cell-powered subs have sank both surface ships and nuclear submarines in a previous engagement near the Omzian coast).

4. The Omzian Air Defence Command's "ground-based" part is a massive web. The Omzian Air Defence operates various types of SAMs (long-range multipurpose SAMs, medium-range SAMs including heavily upgraded Patriot PAC-2s and Militia-used heavily-upgraded SA-2s, some short-range SAMs for defence of bases and important facilities), AAAs (the regular Army and National Guard uses primarily self-propelled ones, though towed and Humvee-mounted ones of smaller caliber are also popular and are used, and the Militia also operates various towed AAAs of up to 57mm caliber), and even ballistic missil interceptors. Communication and detection systems are also advanced and different from each other by their nature.

5. The Omzian military has, beside "Arsenal ship" type vessels and large SSGNs, have various air-based missile platforms from converted strategic bombers to converted cargo aircraft and even specially-designed air balloons. Although the Omzian military is less optimistic about bringing up and maintaining such force of massive cruise missile carriers once again, these will be expected to serve for years into the future.

About the long range intercerpter:
i havent looked into it, but i believe a interceptor version of the SR-71 was designed from the begining, but wasnt ever produced. i believe ive seen pictures of it, but i dont know much more.

By the way, would it be possible to mount a 70mm recoilless rifle and 2 or 3 machine guns on a v-22 osprey to create a VTOL gunship?

The SR-71 was originally designated the YF-12, it was designed to carry three large, long-range guided nuclear AAMs to take down Soviet bombers. The problem with the design was that it was faster than the missiles during the initial launch phase, so when the missile would activate its rocket it would ram into the YF-12.

The SR-71 was originally designated the YF-12, it was designed to carry three large, long-range guided nuclear AAMs to take down Soviet bombers. The problem with the design was that it was faster than the missiles during the initial launch phase, so when the missile would activate its rocket it would ram into the YF-12.

thats odd because wouldnt it act like the second stage in a rocket and go even faster

1) I use and sell LRIs, specifically a modified MiG-31M, which I use for long-range attack of both fighters and bombers, as well as cruise missiles.

2) Logistics - I build them too, from a large merchantile marine for use in time of war to cargo planes to ZIL-131s.

3) Diesel subs are just over a third of my total sub fleet, mostly for patrol work but some sortie further out to sea on occasion.

4) I like Soviet Air Defence. 'Nuff said.

5) Meh, that's a matter of opinion. I'm converting Delta-IVs to SSGNs right now, 'cos I prefer the use of Naval cruise missile carriers to airborne ones.

2. Logistic support vehicles: Often overlooked in NS is the need to actually transport those millions of soldiers and their equipment.

NS needs a seller of all things logistical – trucks, ships, aircraft etc.

Specifically (LAND): XM1108 Universal Carrier, the M548A3, the Armored Medical Treatment Vehicle (AMTV), and a whole line of Hemetts (seen here: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/hmett.htm.

Specifically (SEA): Sea lift capabilities are weak in NS – suppliers should be pushing for three key vessels – the RO/RO Pre-positioning ships, Amphibious Assault Ships, and large landing ships. Of course, most navies in NS fail to even buy or build the tenders that supply ships with oil, food, parts etc. Certainly there is a market for each of these in NS.

Specifically (AIR): Most nations will state that they own heavy lift air capacity – but really the numbers are far short of what would be needed for the likes of a Berlin Airlift operation. Galaxies, Herc’s, and the like are crucial – but so are heavy lift helo’s (including container-capable helo’s).


Specifically (OTHER): Shipping containers – you know, the big metal boxes that can go on the back of a truck or the cargo hold of a ship or plane – armies live or die based on the arrival of these things. The creative builder or seller will make their version out of honeycombed Kevlar – particularly for ordinance shipping.

4. Air Defenses: I’ve seen nations build hundred of PAC 3 launchers, and then claim they’ve got a fortress-like nation. In reality, a nation requires a more 3 dimensional air-defense system, with systems of various ranges to cover everything from ballistic missile threats, to slow-flying, low-altitude tomahawks – and everything in between. If you’re a seller, don’t just sell the top draw stuff – the guy on the ground needs AA guns to Patriots AND everything in between to have a safer sky.


Actually, my storefronts sells Logistics & AA's.

thats odd because wouldnt it act like the second stage in a rocket and go even faster

Nope, this is actually true, what happens is that the blackbird is creating a high pressure envelope around the aircraft. When you try and launch something from the aircraft at speed the "thing" is kind of free floating in a vaccum within the envelope. Say you have a milisecond or two until the rocket motor fires and the sr71 has already moved several hundred feet while the "thing" has moved with it it has lost some velocity of its own since it is essentialy just an "ejected" object from the moving aircraft. As the "thing" ignites its rocket, powerplant whatever it has to produce enough thrust to break through the high pressure envelope generated around the aircraft at high speed. So unless you have one hellof a powerplant on that missile what happens is that it falls behind the aircraft, buffeted by the envelope until it "lights up" then while still inside the partial vaccum in the envelope basically runs into the launch aircraft.

The drone version of the SR71 had severe problems with launching the piggy back drone for this very reason, it would disengage but before the powerplant could generate enough power to break through the envelope it would strike the aircraft causing the loss of both.

The SR71 would have to go into a 10,000 foot dive just to get enough angle to allow the drone to breach the envelope under its own power, but this prove to be too risky at high speed.

This is why the SR71 was never used as a bomber or interceptor.

Basically the "motor" must produce more thrust then the aircraft at speed to break away from the aircraft. When you have an aircraft flying at Mach 3, then your missile must be able to accelerate to Mach 3+ immediately upon launch which produces an ENORMOUS amount of stress on the structure of said "thing".