NationStates Jolt Archive

I am playing The Kingdom of Thailand in the World at War RP
and this is the military Ive put together so far - was hoping for some critique from you more experienced RPers in this area - Is what I have logistically plausable? Its my first time building an army.

If this pans out well Im using it as a model for Greater Beijings Defence Force.
http://s6.invisionfree.com/theworldatwar/index.php?showtopic=1004

Based on my NS Stats here
http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=Greater+Beijing
____________________________________________________________
For the last 2 decades Thailand has been building an airforce and navy that can defnd its borders and have succeeded in this task. The Quantity and Quality of our ships and warplanes have greatly surpassed the capacity of our immediate neighbors from Myanmar to Vietnam.

This has been acomplished by trade agreements with richer more advanced nations within the Indian Ocean Alliance and with western countries. We have procured production rights to Air Dominance Tactical fighters. And have been able to modify and upgrade these designs since initial aquisitions with more lethal capabilities.

The Thai Royal Airforce is fully equiped with the state of the art in strategic bombers, intellegence platforms, heavy transports, extended range refuelers, air-superiority advanced tactical fighters and excellent precision attack/fighters. And in suficient numbers now that we are confident we can defend ourselves and even our allies from massed armies and navies.

The Thai Royal Navy is also prepared to meet the challenges of a World at War with a well balance swift fleet of advanced destroyers, cruisers and carriers designed to project the power of the Thai Royal Airforce and to protect its Carrier Assets.

But without an Army a Nation cannot acomplish anything substantial in any engadgments - so although funding has been limited in comparision to the Thai Navy and Airforces the Thai Royal Guard and Army has done an excellent job managing its resources. To offset the small size of Thai Royal Ground Forces we've gone into designing large special forces and covert, black ops capabilities besides the traditional massed ground force. We've also combined Air and whenever possible Sea elements with ground forces. The result is the Joint Forces Doctrine of the Thai Army.

Smaller Divisions with excellent Air, Armour, Mobility and where possible Naval capabilities.

Current Defence spending is divided up in general into 3 main areas:
[1] - 28% - Personnel expenses, mainly including pay, food and clothing of military and non-military personnel.
[2] - 20% - Maintenance of activities, mainly including military training, construction and maintenance of facilities and running expenses.
[3] - 52% - Equipment, including research and development, procurement, aquisitions, apropriations, transportation and storage. In terms of the scope of logistic support, these expenditures cover not only active service personnel, but also militia and reserve requirements. In addition, a large amount of spendings are used to fund activities associated with social welfare, mainly pensions for retired officers, choice of schools and kindergartens for children of military personnel, training personnel competent for both military and civilian services, supporting national economic construction, and participation in emergency rescues and disaster relief efforts.

85.595 bln - personnel
Current average salary of Royal Thai Joint Forces - 55000
Current total in the armed services - 1222783
percentile in the armed services of the total population - 00.25%

61.139 bln - maintenence
Training, manuvers and excercises - 29.31 bln
Construction and maintenence of facilities - 17.47 bln
Upgrade Program - 8.379 bln
Running expenses - 5.98 bln

158.962 bln - equipment
Stuff, not much though


[OOC = got military spending up to 5% - I think Ill bump it up one more notch and try to balance everything around it.]


The Royal Thai Army Division
A Thai Royal Navy detachment of a Patrol and fast attack Corvette Squadron[Costal stationed divisions only] - 2100 Combat and Technical Personnel
RAH-1A/D Squadrons, [5 - 8D/2A per squadron], Heavy [combat/transport] HUAH-1[20] - 180 Combat and Technical Personnel
A Thai Royal Airforce Detachment of a strategic aerospace vehicles[Heavy Lift Transports[4] and Logistic-Intellegence Support Platforms[2], Strategic heavy stealth bomber[1], Air-superiority/advanced tactical fighters[4], Multirole VTOL Attack/fighters[6], Unmaned Combat Aerospace Vehicles[44 - about 2 per manned fighter and 4 per Strategic Aerospace vehicle] - 178 Air Combat and Technical Personnel
An Armored Batallion, A/HBT[8], MBT[26], LBT[72], Heavy Agility Jeeps[240], APC[310] - 4618 Combat Personnel
4420 Airborne Infantry - 1870 Mobile Infantry - 1310 Royal Thai Engineers
A total of 14676 Combat, Engineering and Technical Personnel
Additional support, logistical, technical, engineering, consultant and maintenence personnel per division - 161436[about 11:1]
Grand total per division - 176112

Currently 3 Royal Thai Army Divisions serve the Kingdom
1 charged with the security of the north and the capital and the other 3 with the south - they work in concerted, well coordinated methods with the Royal Navy and Airforce.

Mobile Infantry, Airborne Infantry are equiped with the latest AR-42s, OICWs, modular M-8 Light weight assualt rifles and a domestically produced 10mm AP

Royal Thai Engineers are practiced in the methods of demolitions and quick-build tactics - including but not limited to laying down reinforced landing strips and new airbases in the time it takes for a transport, fighter or bomber wing to complete a sortie.


Royal Thai Navy[not finished]
_________________________________________________________________

4 Carrier groups form the primary core of the Thai Royal Navy
4 Nimitz Class
2 Phumiphon Adunyadet Class
1 Krung Thep Mahanakhon Class
All have global reach and are escorted by an advanced and diverse group of lighter mobile frigates and more heavy and advanced capital class warships.

Krung Thep Mahanakhon
4 Promethean Battlecruisers
2 Alpha Class Arsenal Heavy Cruisers
12 Hades Class Destroyers
22 Corvettes
5 Delta Class Quickstrike Submarines
and a fleet of support ships

Phumiphon Adunyadet
2 Promethean Battlecruisers
2 Alpha Class Arsenal Heavy Cruisers
8 Hades Class Destroyers
27 Corvettes
14 Delta Class Quickstrike Submarines
and a fleet of support ships

Chinnawat Rathasapha
2 Promethean Battlecruisers
2 Alpha Class Arsenal Heavy Cruisers
10 Hades Class Destroyers
34 Corvettes
6 Delta Class Quickstrike Submarines
and a fleet of support ships

The Nimitz Group
4 Nimitz Class Nuclear Carriers
9 Promethean Battlecruisers
3 Neoluna Class Warships
2 Alpha Class Arsenal Heavy Cruisers
48 Hades Class Destroyers
112 Corvettes
8 Delta Class Quickstrike Submarines
and a large fleet of support ships

Costal Defence Divisions are equiped with 56 Hades Class Destroyers and 612 Corvettes



Royal Thai Airforce
_________________________________________________________________

Strategic Aerospace Vehicles
The multibillion dollar intercontenental birds upon which our entire modern air capabilities ly.

Heavy Lift Transport
Load - 250 troops and 180 tons of equipment
Maximum speed - mach 0.8
Cruise speed - mach 0.7
Range - Global unrefueled
Power - Fuelcells
Propulsion - 4 TJPL nextgen magnetic turbofan jets

Logistic-Intellegence Support Platforms
Roles - Airborne Command Centre for air operations and support/refuel tanker for UVACs and all Fighters
Maximum speed - mach 0.8
Cruise speed - mach 0.7
Range - Global unrefueled
Power - Fuelcells
Propulsion - 4 TJPL nextgen magnetic turbofan jets

Strategic heavy stealth bomber
Roles - Heavy bomber or Cruise missile platform
22 Cruise missiles or equivalent mass of conventional or unconventional arms.
Maximum speed - mach 2.1
Cruise speed - mach 1.7
Range - Global unrefueled
Power - Fuelcells
Propulsion - 2 combined-cycle TJPL nextgen magnetic turbofan-ramjets.




Director General of Joint Thai Forces and Chief of Foreign Affairs
General Myan Yongchaiyut - Phuket, Thailand

bump?

while I am no expert, and claim limited knowledge in the area of organization, I have to say it's one of the most realistic accounts of a nation's armed forces. Everything seems to work for me.

Thanks - I should also mention this World at War RP has an upper limit of 2015

With international cooperation could 3 variants of heli-jets and 2 variants of a multi-billion dolar heavy lifting body psuedo-spaceplance be developedwithin this time limit?

Depends on detailed operational capabilities

Depends on detailed operational capabilities

Would a general statement of capabilities be good enough?


Equipment and Arms of Thai Joints Forces

Heli-Jets



Attack Heli-jets have the capability of supercruising to the combat zone at mach 1.8, max speed of 2. Has the RCS of a small flock of large birds, not really stealthy in the modern sense.
In combat it can delever the firepower comparable to an a US Apache AH for extended periods of time - its rapid deployment capabilities however donot translate into rapid exit or escape capabilities because it takes time and some altitude presently to switch back to full jets once in attack-helicopter mode.

Reconnasance Heli-jets have the same rapid deployment and return capabilities as the AHJ but with stealth and an excellent sensor and intellegence suite. Essentially functioning as the foward recon position for an air, AHJ, infantry or armour squadron. Can effectively defend itself, and is even capable of eliminating an armour squadron, but cannot function in this role for extended periods of time efficiently. RHJs and AHJs are grouped in squadrons per the Thai Joint Forces Doctrine usually 2 RHJs for every 6 AHJs.

Heavy Heli-jets fills the role of troop and material transports while maintaining some of the rapid deployment capabilities of the AHJ and RHJ. The HHJ can transport upto 1 MBT and infantry squad simultaneously, a pair of LBTs and infantry squad, a squad of heavy agility jeeps and infantry squad, an airborne company, a mobile infantry company, or a well equiped Royal Thai Engineering company - but cannot do so and achieve supercruise speeds - heavy load speeds comparable to a Galaxy, but still capable of setting down and lifting these loads vertically and underfire while capable of supressing enemy fire independantly and performing close air support with roughly the same weapons as the AHJ but is a much larger target than the AHJ and RHJ and has an RCS similar to a US Blackhawk.

AHJs, RHJs and HHJs have combat radius' roughly the same as US Apache, Commanche, and Blackhawks respectively but can be refueled inflight negating this strategic concern.



Strategic Aerospace Vehicles
The multibillion dollar intercontenental birds upon which our entire modern air capabilities ly.



Heavy Lift Transport
Load - 1200 troops and 1170 tons of equipment
Maximum speed - mach 1.8
Cruise speed - mach 0.7
Range - Sub-orbital Intercontenental
Power - Fuelcells
Propulsion - 4 nextgen turbofans[initial lift and landing requirements], 2 VASIM Rocket driven Heliconcore Scramjets

Heavy Bomber - Intellegence/Logistics - Airborne Command Centre
Roles - Cruise missile platform, modern ewacs, refueler, mobile air-operations coordination and command center.
210 Cruise missiles
650 extended range Air-to-Air missiles
20mm point defence autocannons in resesed turreted mounts
Maximum speed - mach 1.9
Cruise speed - mach 1.1
Range - 11 hours at max speed, 1 week at cruise and non-combat manuvers
Power - MW range light-weight uranium tetra-fluoride vapor core/MPD electric generator and Fuelcells
Propulsion - 4 nextgen turbofans[initial lift and landing requirements], 2 VASIM Rocket driven Heliconcore Scramjets

Would a general statement of capabilities be good enough?


Um..... those Heli-jets look like something that will take the USA with an almost unlimited funding to achieve.....

One thing to remember is that international cooperation = more fuss.

Also, with the sort of capabilities you are giving these units, it seems to me that you would require three different, separate models instead of just three variants of one.

[QUOTE=Greater Beijing]Would a general statement of capabilities be good enough?
QUOTE]

Um..... those Heli-jets look like something that will take the USA with an almost unlimited funding to achieve.....

One thing to remember is that international cooperation = more fuss.

Also, with the sort of capabilities you are giving these units, it seems to me that you would require three different, separate models instead of just three variants of one.

Thats right they are more like diferent projects altogether - expensive in the extreme - and the first generation of these things would be extremely high maintenence too - we would have to maintain a small combat force and bloated equipement and maintenance budget.

Do you think its worthit?

For the Strategic Aerospace Vehicles.....

Considering the speeds, you'd have to cut down the capacities of the transports by about half, at least; and the range of the bombers are way too large as well.

Thats right they are more like diferent projects altogether - expensive in the extreme - and the first generation of these things would be extremely high maintenence too - we would have to maintain a small combat force and bloated equipement and maintenance budget.

Do you think its worthit?

The problem is that it isn't likely that this sort of stuff could be developed by 2015. Virtually impossible for it to go into production.

Another thing is, an ultra-expensive unit, like perhaps the Raptor, is worthwhile when it can achieve overwhelming superiority over its enemies. With the firepower of only the Apache, and being not very stealthy, the Attack Heli-jets, which would definitely be many times more expensive than AH-64, does not seem like it will be worth its price.

For the Strategic Aerospace Vehicles.....

Considering the speeds, you'd have to cut down the capacities of the transports by about half, at least; and the range of the bombers are way too large as well.

speeds adjusted - I want to maintain the load capacity.

The problem is that it isn't likely that this sort of stuff could be developed by 2015. Virtually impossible for it to go into production.

Another thing is, an ultra-expensive unit, like perhaps the Raptor, is worthwhile when it can achieve overwhelming superiority over its enemies. With the firepower of only the Apache, and being not very stealthy, the Attack Heli-jets, which would definitely be many times more expensive than AH-64, does not seem like it will be worth its price.

Perhaps if unlimited funding between an international developement agreement is available its production cost can be kept down.

With the Strategic Aerospace Vehicles, however, there is no way to reduce its production cost.

combat range of the bomber adjusted - I need more input

The problem is that it isn't likely that this sort of stuff could be developed by 2015. Virtually impossible for it to go into production.

Another thing is, an ultra-expensive unit, like perhaps the Raptor, is worthwhile when it can achieve overwhelming superiority over its enemies. With the firepower of only the Apache, and being not very stealthy, the Attack Heli-jets, which would definitely be many times more expensive than AH-64, does not seem like it will be worth its price.

What if its rapid deployment capabilities were combined with over twice the apaches firepower?

The payloads are simply unreasonable. The size of that bomber would be of the order of 100m or something. 650 AIM-120 AMRAAM, for example, would weigh 97,500kg. 210 Tomahawks amounts to 302,400kg.

What if its rapid deployment capabilities were combined with over twice the apaches firepower?

Well, I thought you were talking about developments by 2015.

okay

not realistic for the current World @ War RP

But I think Ill still use it for my defence forces which begins its buildup around 2025 - although I would probably have to withdraw from the International Fleet if I ever used this force.

So how can I rewrite this with 2015 equipment?

The payloads are simply unreasonable. The size of that bomber would be of the order of 100m or something. 650 AIM-120 AMRAAM, for example, would weigh 97,500kg. 210 Tomahawks amounts to 302,400kg.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/greater_beijing.jpg
the fighters are in the foreground. Wingspan a little larger than a 474, legnth would be about 3-4 times.

The cost of these things when they first go into production would be around 3 bln

Um... is that a spaceship???

F/A-22s and 23s are chasing it - not in space

its shape is similar to lifting body, spaceplanes, but maybe a little more feathered than bullet looking.

So how can I rewrite this with 2015 equipment?

nevermind ill work it out tomarow after school - or on friday afterwork.
Thanks for the wake up call - just too tight to fittogether by 2015.

I could use stuff heading for production today - but not stuff thats not even on the drawing board yet. :D

So how can I rewrite this with 2015 equipment?

for Heavy Lift Transport:
A more reasonable load is about 400-500 troops. Even with that you can still transport a full division with just 20 planes, so don't be too unrealistic. Besides, you can have a faster transport like this.

for Heavy Bomber:
Whole idea is irrational. Absolutely anything can blow something like this out of the sky. Best thing is to decrease payload to, say, 30 cruise missles, which cuts down the size, and then to increase the speed, so as to make sure it doesn't get shot down too easily. Essentially an Aurora kind of set up.

for Heavy Lift Transport:
A more reasonable load is about 400-500 troops. Even with that you can still transport a full division with just 20 planes, so don't be too unrealistic. Besides, you can have a faster transport like this.

for Heavy Bomber:
Whole idea is irrational. Absolutely anything can blow something like this out of the sky. Best thing is to decrease payload to, say, 30 cruise missles, which cuts down the size, and then to increase the speed, so as to make sure it doesn't get shot down too easily. Essentially an Aurora kind of set up.

How about keeping the same size - but like the Aurora, mach 5-7 while maintaining the capabilities except the huge load. 30 Cruisemissiles and how many air-to-air missiles would you say is reasonable?

How many vehicles are presently in a US Armor Brigade? I was thinking about cutting my quantities by half.

How about keeping the same size - but like the Aurora, mach 5-7 while maintaining the capabilities except the huge load. 30 Cruisemissiles and how many air-to-air missiles would you say is reasonable?

How many vehicles are presently in a US Armor Brigade? I was thinking about cutting my quantities by half.

Why would you need that sort of size without that huge load? BTW, highly unlikely that a nation like Thailand would be able to get something akin to Aurora by 2015, and that makes a huge plane with Aurora-like capabilities virtually impossible.

Generally, it is pointless for bombers to have AAM, especially when you are that huge. It is essentially a 'either they can't see/touch us or we die' sort of thing. Heavy bombers like this simply can't take on agile fighters like F-22; the extra payload and space needed would only hamper operational cpailities.

Actually, on second thought, why do you want to pace that much cruise missiles on bombers anyway?

This is what I think you should pursue for your power projection capabilities:

a.) stealthy bomber able to penetrate most enemy defenses with a 'limited' payload - B-1, B-2

b.) heavy bomber capable of delivering munitions against ground targets, or serve as launch platforms for cruise missiles - B-52

This is because after some research, a high speed bomber with high payload appear to not be plausible by 2015. Getting the speed alone is a stretch even for the US, and Thailand is far from able to compete with America.

You could argue your case, but I think unless you can come up with a new technology for production, your vehicle would be incrementally better than what is now available. Ie faster, bigger, better technology and avionics, better defence, more capable missiles, IT, combat system etc, and off course a bigger price tag ;)

as for armament you wouldn't bother with guns, you'd probably have two or four AAM, massive ECM, chaff, flares, technology, as well as low range terrain following radar.

realistic armament for a heavy bomber would either be high altitude dumb bombs (say 40 1000 lb bombs would do a bit of damage), or 6 or 8 cruise missiles which have a range of about 800km so you'd only need to get close enough to dump and burn before the home fire air force know your there, say a lo lo lo mission, or a hi lo hi mission if you've got short range ASM jobbies.

you whole vehichle is about 200 to 300 metric tonnes, you don't really want an airframe too much bigger than that for a high speed bomb.

Your transporter though is a little unreasonable on size. For efficiency purposes, most transporters are relatively slow, the major transporter used around the world by allied nations is the c130 hercules, fuel efficiency, range and capacity make it no.1, the US also uses the c141 starlifter and c5 galaxy as well as smaller field transporters with STOL capacity. super fast super big transporters have not really been called for, as the defence of the transporter is in its escort aircraft.

so you could probably keep your 1000 person transporter (about batallion strength) and keep say a couple of gun placements, but drop the speed to say 600 to 800 km/hr




by comparison heres the latest the US has to offer
----------------
Prime contractor: Northrop Grumman Corporation
Nation of origin: USA
Function: Strategic stealth bomber
Crew: 2/3
Year: 1989
In-service year: Complete delivery by 2000
Engine: Four General Electric F118-GE-110 non-afterburning turbofans, 19,000 lb thrust each
Wing span: 52.43 m
Wing Area: 465.5 m2
Length: 21.03 m
Height: 5.18 m
Weight: 168434 kg
Ceiling: 16765 m
Speed: 1103 km/h
Range: 18,520 km with one air refuel
Armament: Up to 80,000 lb including 16 B61/B83 nuclear bombs, 80 Mk82 1,000 lb bombs or 16 Mk84 2,000 lb bombs, 36 M117 750 lb fire bombs, 36 cluster bombs, or 80 Mk36 1,000 lb sea mines
Unit cost: 800-1300 million USD


The variable geometry B-1 bomber was designed as the successor for the elderly B-52. The B-1A was cancelled, partly because the high- flying bomber was obsolete, and partly for political reasons. The B-1B Lancer version, more optimized for low-altitude attacks and stealth, is now built in small numbers.

Type: B-1B
Function: bomber
Year: 1986
Crew: 4
Engines: 4 * 13600 kg G.E. F101-GE-11
Wing Span: 41.67 m/23.84 m
Length: 44.81 m
Height: 10.36 m
Wing Area: 181.16 m2
Max.Weight: 216364 kg
Speed: 1375 km/h
Ceiling: 14600 m
Range: 12000 km
Armament: 29030 kgs
Unit cost: 200 million USD

Type: B-52H
Function: bomber
Year: 1955
Crew: 6
Engines: 8 * 75.6 kN P&W TF-33-P-3
Wing Span: 56.39 m
Length: 49.05 m
Height: 12.40 m
Wing Area: 371.60 m2
Max.Weight: +221353 kg
Speed: 957 km/h
Ceiling: 16765 m
Range: 16093 km
Armament: up to 58 500-lb or 42 750-lb bombs in weapons bay and 12 750-lb bombs at each of the two underwing pylons. Or conventional or nuclear free-falling stores internally and two AGM-28A or -28B Hound Dog missiles (B-52 G & H). Four ½ inch guns in MD-9 tail turret, or one 20-mm ASG-21 rotary canon (B-52H)

---------------------

Okay howabout this

Equipment and Arms of Thai Joints Forces

Heli-Jets



project terminated and classified

Strategic Aerospace Vehicles
The multibillion dollar intercontenental birds upon which our entire modern air capabilities ly.



Heavy Lift Transport
Load - 250 troops and 180 tons of equipment
Maximum speed - mach 0.8
Cruise speed - mach 0.7
Range - Global unrefueled
Power - Fuelcells
Propulsion - 4 TJPL nextgen magnetic turbofan jets

Logistic-Intellegence Support Platforms
Roles - Airborne Command Centre for air operations and support/refuel tanker for UVACs and all Fighters
Maximum speed - mach 0.8
Cruise speed - mach 0.7
Range - Global unrefueled
Power - Fuelcells
Propulsion - 4 TJPL nextgen magnetic turbofan jets

Strategic heavy stealth bomber
Roles - Heavy bomber or Cruise missile platform
22 Cruise missiles or equivalent mass of conventional or unconventional arms.
Maximum speed - mach 2.1
Cruise speed - mach 1.7
Range - Global unrefueled
Power - Fuelcells
Propulsion - 2 combined-cycle TJPL nextgen magnetic turbofan-ramjets.

updated to reflect current military budget and I abandoned the concept of combat and recon Heli-Jets - although I will use a domestically produced and equiped RAH's and HUAH's similar to comanches and blackhawks respectively

Our air-superiority fighters are domestically equiped F/A-22s
Our multirole VTOL attack/fighters are domestically equiped JSF F/A-35s
Our UCAVs are domestically developed and equiped vehicles comparable to X-45s
And our Strategic Aerospace Vehicles will not change.

Size of Armoured Bn reduced
Number of division support personnel increased.

Load of heavy lift SAVs decreased

I could really use some feedback here.

Navy updated.

For the current complete model visit this link at the World@War thread

http://s6.invisionfree.com/theworldatwar/index.php?showtopic=1004

More feedback and critisism is of course still welcomed.