NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I have not thought about it for months, but I'd really like to begin to standardize my military now to enhance my RPing quality. I do not know much about weapons and such, so I want some help with this. I need..

-Some sort of Main Assault rifle
-A good Side Arm
-Standard infantry grenades, armor, camoflauge, all that.
-A good Main battle tank.
-Some good fighters and bombers to make up my air force.
-And some good ships for my navy!

Help/Comments/Recommandations are greatly appreciated.

I can help you design something to suit your own needs, or if you'd like, you can browse my storefront for the items you need.

Aequatian Military Industries Storefront (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=414464)

A good assault rifle is the G36

Choose the Colt .45 or USP .40 as a sidearm

M84 frags, American camo, Kevlar, etc.

Are you looking for fast and cheap or slow, powahful, and expensive

You can buy some fighters from Soviet Bloc

As for Navy, search "Hamptonian Defense Corporation" or "Imperial Praetonian Shipyards"

The second one on the tanks thing.

:mp5: :mp5: how do you start a military??? :mp5: :mp5: :sniper:

MEET MY SMILEY ARMY

RL suggestions off the top of my head:

Assault rifle- FN FNC
Side Arm- Glock 20 in 10mm Auto caliber or Gyurza in 9x21mm Russian
Body armor- Spectra vests
Main battle tank- Leopard 2
Fighter jet- F16
Bomber: F15 I guess


NS suggestions: you can purchase the Holy Womble's A-91 rifle in our storefront (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=9067725) and take a look at the other infantry weapons we offer (not many so far but more will be avaliable soon).

Are you looking for people to offer designs on the various weapons and vehicles for you to bid on?

-FAMAS G2 Assault Rifle
-Five-Seven 5.7mm Pistol
-Any body armor/camo will be alright
-Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank
-Mirage 5 / Mirage2000 Interceptor, F-15 Ground Attack Aircraft, Eurofighter Multi-Role Aircraft, B-1 Lancer Heavy Bomber and Jaguar Recon/Support Aircraft
-Charles de Gaulle Class Aircraft Carrier, Horizon Class Destroyer, Cassard Class Air-Defense Frigate, La Fayette Class Stealth Frigate, D'Estienne d'Orves Class Escort Corvette

Check the link in my sig

The second one on the tanks thing.

Search "ST-29" if you want a tank like that then.

-Some sort of Main Assault rifle
-A good Side Arm
-Standard infantry grenades, armor, camoflauge, all that.
-A good Main battle tank.
-Some good fighters and bombers to make up my air force.
-And some good ships for my navy!


H&K G-36, FN SCAR, or SSG-550/551/552
A 9mm Beretta, or .50 Desert Eagle (if you really want to pack some heat)
The Land Warrior package is expensive, but real nice, for grenades, armor, commo, camo, etc.
I use the T-125 "Proletariat" MBT by MassPwnage, and I personally think it's one of the best realistic tanks out there.
F-16s are good for a mainstay fighter; F-22s or even F-35s are better if you can afford them. As for bombers, Space Union's B-300 Hurricane packs a ridiculous amount of payload into a formidable package. B-2s would be good to supplement them, I've used them on surprise night attacks before to great effect.
I would also recommend Imperial Praetonian Shipyards for your navy; their ships can be expensive, but you absolutely get what you pay for, the ships are top-notch.


Hope that helps!

-Five-Seven 5.7mm Pistol

I'll apologize for plugging my own product, but if THL's military was to go with the 5.7mm cartridge for its pistols, the CP21 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=381668) might be a better choice.

The CP21 has a capacity of 24 rounds compared to the Five-Seven's 20, and a fully automatic firing mode, albeit an unreliable one, compared to the Five-Seven's semi-automatic.

The CP21 can be purchased for a fairly low price with a free-with-every-purchase set of goodies, and has production rights available for only one billion dollars as well.

Main Assault Rifle- Vektor R4 (Blatant advertising, yes)
Sidearm- Heckler und Koch USP
Armour/Camo- Any set will do.
MBT- Leopard 2A6 (Best version of Leopard II out there)
Fighter- Eurofighter Typhoon/Saab Gripen/F-22 Raptor
Bombers- F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, A-10 Warthog, F-15K, Panavia Tornado GR1
Ships- Any US or European design will serve you well. As for NS, go with Praetonia.

-Something based on the H&K G36, or G11 if you want something more exotic
-Depends. For pistols 9mm or .45 or .40 should be good, though some uses the 10mm Auto; for an automatic PDW I'd go with the H&K MP7.
-Nothing too complex. Period.
-The Soviet Bloc ST-29 (I'm sure SB offers a variant known as the ST-29E1 for export) and its variants are probably one of the (if not the) best on the market for a MBT; for an infantry-support role, I'd prefer Verdant Archipelago's BV-17 Reiter.
-Unless you want something simple, I'd suggest either Soviet Bloc or Tyrandis' products (since mine are not for general export); for bombers, I'm inclined to recommend my B-108, though the suggestion is still null since since it's not really for general export. Alternatively, the B-300 is a fine heavy bomber.
-For starters and the beginners, either Sarzonia's or Isselmere's ships.

Link's in my sig. [/ego]

For main assault rifle, I'd go with the XM-8 (it's probably going to be adopted very soon since it's doing exceptionally well in field tests, which would drop the "X" from its name). The calibre (5.56 mm/45 calibre) doesn't have the greatest killing power, so you might want to go for a 7.62/51 variant.

As for side arms, if you want something RL, I'd look up weapons by Heckler and Koch.

There are a few good storefronts for standard armour, tanks, etc. One of the very best of the best in that regard is Soviet Bloc, though Praetonia's MBT is outstanding. Spectra fibre is stronger than kevlar, which is currently used by the U.S. Army. For camouflage, my preference is to tailor it for the type of fighting I expect to engage in, and then plan accordingly.

For main fighters, if you want RL, I'd go with the F-22A or the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Another nice option is the Eurofighter 2000 Typhoon. Isselmere and I both have aircraft storefronts. Tyrandis and Soviet Bloc also do very, very well with aircraft designs. My all-time favourite NS aircraft designer is Zoogiedom.

Finally, for ships, RL ships are woefully underarmed and underprotected when it comes to NS warfare. Besides my own storefront, I'd highly recommend either Praetonia's or Isselmere's. All three of us have created unique designs that have been the result of many man hours of research and careful planning.

Hope this helps!

Well, my oppnion comes down to this.

You should take a rifle that is a bullpup, that will save you space, and a soldier can manuver a bullpup easier. (A Bullpup rifle is one with the clip behind the main handel and triger assembly, such as the FAMAS G2).

For a sidearm, if you plan to use Sub Machine Guns, then I highly reccomend using weapons of the same calibre amunition. 10mm is good, and my personal choice (Glock 20), however the 9mm/.45 calibres are more common, and might make integration easier. In which case I would reccomend the Colt 1911 as a good base, or the Baretta 92.

Grenades are what you make of them, so for simplicity, I'd say go with what the US uses right now.
For Infantry Body armour, you really only have a few choices. You can go with your standard kevlar vest that police use, or you can go with the type of body armour the US Army Rangers (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/rba.jpg) use.
For camoflauge, it depends on your terrain. Personally, I think that imediatly picking up the standard US Army Woodland camo, as previously reccomended, is a bad idea. The pattern isn;t the best, and it's quite overused. I reccomend something like CANPAT, or MARPAT (Canadian digital camo, and it's Marine equivilant).

I have to agree with everyone here that a good main battle tank would be the Leopard 2, specificly the Leopard 2A6.

For Aircraft, go for a good all around Fighter/Bomber/Attack aircraft. The new US F-35 would be perfict for a good base. You probably don;t need or want long range bombers, but if you do, go with either the tried and tested B-52G, or Tu-95M, or something new like a B-1B. The B-1B
The Tu-95M and B-52G will give you plenty of range, but they're slow and big. The B-1B is supersonic, and stealthier, but doesn't have the same range. So it's preference on how far out you want to reach. Of course if you have access to airbases in allied countries, then range is less of an issue.

For a navy, I would suggest 3 or 4 carriers, not huge Nimitz ones, just decent sized ones. Check out the French Charles De' Gaulle to fill that.
You should have a Missile Cruiser per carrier, and here you can go 2 ways. Either the Russian Kirov class, which is big, heavily armed, and hard to sink. Or the US Ticonderoga class, which is more sophisticated, smaller, and faster, but less heavily armed or armoured. Both are nuclear powered, so if you don't want that, then go for missile destroyers.
Destroyers will be the backbone of your seaward fleet, you should have a few of these. 4 destroyers to a carrier is not a bad idea. Here I reccomend the US navy's Arleigh Burke class, they're missile destroyers.
Frigates should be your most numerous ship of all, as they are the smaller, cheaper, faster, and more common ships. how many you need is up to how much water you have to cover, but for a good, general purpose Frigate, look into the Canadian Halifax (or City) Class Frigates.

If you need any more help, just ask I'll be happy to keep babbeling.

First, decide what type of military you need. Do you want a defensive force, an aggressive force, or an armed force.

Second, decide what sort of logistical network your nation can support. If it's a big one, then you can go heavy -- though do not forget rapidly transportable light forces.

Third, pick the best, but also the most believable. Clan Smoke Jaguar offers some of the best, most believable equipment for all three major services. Sarzonia, Praetonia, and Hamptonshire have a wide selection of naval and support vessels lauded by much of the NS world (see above). The Freethinkers offer large and small ships that are amazing in the effort put behind them and design information. DontPissUsOff also has put a great deal of effort into his products. The Zoogie People, Omz222, Sarzonia, Soviet Bloc, and a few others offer a wide selection of aircraft. There are a fair number of people offering small arms, as well.

Look to see what information the person provides for each weapon system, judge what seems to good to be true, and decide what you truly need rather than what looks impressive.

I offer a selection of systems myself, available in the storefronts listed in my signature.

Best wishes.

I would recommend that you steer away from the conventional 9mm Luger/Para or the 9x21mm Russian as the primary ammunition used in your military's sidearm. While the 9x19mm and 9x21mm rounds are easy to come by and are used in a variety of weapons – seeing as they are the standard caliber ammunition for NATO and Soviet Bloc countries – they have been for the most part defeated by conventional body armor at all but the shortest of ranges. This leaves your soldiers at a disadvantage when left with a sidearm such as the Baretta 8000 or HK MP-5. While such weapons are still effective killing tools, they have lost much of their potential with the invention of continually stronger forms of armor – particularly the wanked MT and PMT armor you may likely encounter here in NS.

The solution to this dilemma comes in two different forms. The first and simplest – thus the one that many NSers have opted for – is to simply increase the muzzle velocity and weight of the round they fire. Instead of opting for a light, functional Sig-Sauer, they have chosen the path of heavier weapons like the Colt .45 – which is still quite functional, not to mention tried and true – or the Israeli Arms Desert Eagle .50 – which is impractical and has too much recoil for effective use. The disadvantage to this option comes in the weight of these weapons and in their magazine size: the Colt M1911 .45 weights just over one kilogram and carries seven rounds in a standard clip, and the Desert Eagle weighs just over 1.7 kilograms and carries a similar seven to nine shots. Comparatively, a Sig-Sauer P220 weighs 0.72 kilograms and carries eight 9x19mm rounds, and the Fabrique-Nationale Five-Seven (which I am advocating) weighs .62 kilograms and carriers a whopping twenty rounds of a 5.7x28mm caliber.

If you are willing to train soldiers in the use of a large-caliber weapon, by all means go for it. It is a cost-effective way to beat body armor and the major advantage is that the large round will keep a man down for good. The problem is that these rounds are less (though not as bad as the 5.7x28mm) versatile and often have to be manufactured separate from the ammunition used in Sub-Machine Guns.

The other option is to use an enhanced penetration solid-core bullet which is designed to beat body armor. The 5.7x28mm bullet is designed to do this. While not as effective as originally assumed, the 5.7mm round used in the FN P90 and FN Five-Seven has a high possibility of penetration at workable ranges (50-100 meters against effective body armor.) This gives it the penetration of a larger caliber weapon without the increase in weight and decrease in magazine size. The disadvantage of this is that the 5.7x28mm round has not been integrated into a large number of weapons systems – currently the two most noteworthy are the FN P90 and Five-Seven.

Either one you choose is good – I opt for the 5.7mm round, but the Colt M1911 is a wonderful weapon. Just please, for the love of God, don’t issue a .50 caliber or .44 magnum caliber weapon to your typical ground-pounders – the fact is that it is impractically heavy, big, and has recoil that is difficult for many professionals to handle.

----

I'll apologize for plugging my own product, but if THL's military was to go with the 5.7mm cartridge for its pistols, the CP21 might be a better choice.

The CP21 has a capacity of 24 rounds compared to the Five-Seven's 20, and a fully automatic firing mode, albeit an unreliable one, compared to the Five-Seven's semi-automatic.

The CP21 can be purchased for a fairly low price with a free-with-every-purchase set of goodies, and has production rights available for only one billion dollars as well.

Anyone who wants to see my reaction to your piece of work can look on the link you so kindly provided. I will tell THL, however, that she should not use it on principle alone - look at my response under his link for an elaboration.

my storefront doesn't have much for tanks or infintry weapons but it has some but its big on fighters and ships

question about what you want in your fleet of ships.

what do you think you will use more:

Subs
Carriers
Battleships
Just smaller ships like cruisers

What do you like on your ships:

Speed
Weapons
Stealth
Armor

What do you fear will do the most damige to your ships:

Subs
Aircraft
Other ships

if you answer these it will be easyer to help you pick out ships. oh and do you want expencive or cheap weapons.

look here if you wish to look yourself http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=414232&highlight=Storefront

First, decide what type of military you need. Do you want a defensive force, an aggressive force, or an armed force.

Considering my nations strong anti-war policies, I defiantly have a defensive military.

Considering my nations strong anti-war policies, I defiantly have a defensive military.


In that case you are going to have a navy defined mostly by Destroyers and Frigates. You won't need anything like a battleship, or nuclear attack sub. Smaller patrol subs are great though.
Your army should be more infantry focused. Mechanized Infantry will give you more mobility and firepower if needed (As in infantry in IFV's, like the M2 Bradley or BMP-3), and are great. You won;t need alot of tanks, although I think a few should be useful. 200 or so tanks will suit you perfictly.
You won;t need long range bombers for your air force, but I highly reccomend some good multi-purpose fighters.

It's always good to have the bulk of your armed forces manuverable, so mechanized infantry is great. And having some heavy units like tanks based in a central spot (Like your capital) with adequate rail transportation to most of your nation, or at least adequate roads, will allow you to react with them if you need.

As for infantry weapons, it's not much of a difference what you choose in regards to offensive or defensive. Just remember that you don't need anything really advanced like the Land Warrior idea, you just need guys with guns, and possibly some armour.

Well, I have not thought about it for months, but I'd really like to begin to standardize my military now to enhance my RPing quality. I do not know much about weapons and such, so I want some help with this. I need..

-Some sort of Main Assault rifle
-A good Side Arm
-Standard infantry grenades, armor, camoflauge, all that.
-A good Main battle tank.
-Some good fighters and bombers to make up my air force.
-And some good ships for my navy!

Help/Comments/Recommandations are greatly appreciated.
I'd suggest a little bit of thinking about what kind of impression you want your military to have-unless you're ready to run and play in squad-level action, it really doesn't matter what Assault Rifle you say you're issuing, as long as you can remember what caliber it is, and other posters know what you're talking about (or can google it quickly).
It's important to pick just one, though.

Sidearms: Sidearms seem to get more character-level "action" as set-pieces or accoutrements. A sidearm is more than just a means of shooting people, it says something about the image you want portrayed. Try to "Keep it real" by avoiding the giant-bore guns you need to be Ahnuld to shoot reliably. (i.e. stay away from just about anything "Magnum" bigger than .357 unless all your officers have ape-arms and thick skulls.) Good calibers include: .38 Special, .357 Magnum, 9mm, .40 Smith and Wesson, 10 mm Bren Auto, .41 Magnum (revolver), 11.25mm (.45 Colt) auto, and .40 Cor-Bon (if you wanna get a little bit exotic.)

Bores to avoid unless you've got an army that looks like the 1979 Denver Broncos Offensive Line:

.50 AE, .500 S&W, .44 Magnum. Anything bigger than .50 AE.

Calibre is chosen first usually in RL Procurement. Then, they go over designs.
Most auto-pistols available in a given RL caliber will work for a side-arm-the reliability issues of the early 20th Century have been, for the most part, solved, so you can go nuts there.
Try not to go too nuts, most pistol-jobs don't require select-fire, and most pistols don't carry the ammo for it. Those that do, are usually to large and heavy to be practical as general-issue sidearms. LOTS of NS armies seem to use the HK USP and derivatives, or the Browning patent-designs of various makes. There's a good reason for this-they work rather well.

If you go "Revolvers" instead (maybe choosing to go with a slightly different approach to combat) Smith and Wesson style designs by S&W, Rossi, and Taurus are all good guns IRL, reliable, and accurate for the price and good buys. On a Revolver, I'd go .41 magnum (roughly same kick as .357, which ain't all that much, but more downrange "Oomph" at the recieving end.) or .357/.38 (the .38 is for practice-rounds and zones where the increased penetration might not be a desirable trait.)

I'll second Novikov's words on camo and body-armour. You'll probably want to have those as "gimmes", try to stay inside RL considerations-most soldiers would lose significant mobility with better than Class-IV protection barring advancetech or PostModern materials sciences.

Leopard II is a good MBT for most MBT jobs, a lot of players prefer the M-1, and I run a light-tank-with-big-gun 120mm upgrade of the (RL) Cadillac-Gage Stingray design due to terrain issues. (the upgrade includes wider treads to lower the ground pressure, since most of my lowlands are swampy in summer and snow-covered in winter.)

For fighters, I'd actually go spendy, and get a Rafale, or Saab-39 Gripen. The Mirage series is forty-plus years old. On a budget, I'd go Saab 37 Viggen for short-field capability (Thrust-reversers, designed around turbofan engines from the start. eminently upgradeable, and might even be useful as a carrier-based bird, unlike the Mirage and Rafale series which require long airstrips and have slow turnaround at the ammo point.)
You can operate virtually all missions using a single or pair of multirole designs, but for a dedicated ground-attack bird, I'd still go with the A-10, it's got linger time to complete operations in low-intensity conflicts, and ordinance load to kill any armoured vehicle in high-intensity fights-all with unmatched durability and the ability to soak damage. Nothing like having a "Flying Zombie" supporting your pongoes... and unlike Novikov's suggested F-15E, the A-10 doesn't need a dedicated airport to fly out of or into, just a stretch of relatively flat ground firm enough to put the gear down on-such as a gravel or packed-earth roadway.
The infamous "Highway of Death" in Kuwait was done by A-10s.

For Heavy bombing missions, you can try the "Stealth" route at two billion a pop, (B-2 or variants thereof), the "Fast, let's try not to run into the trees" route with the B-1 Lancer (or the soviet versions), or the "Armed and flying very high, with escorts, you don't even hear it until it's hit" route with the B-52 or similar cousins. It all depends on three things:
1. What are you willing to pay for each successfully delivered bomb?
2. What's your fuel-budget look like?
3. How tightly do you think your enemy's air-defense and interceptor networks are, and how well can you imagine penetrating them using speed or Stealth?

The "Buff" (No, I won't explain the acronym) carries quite an array of defensive weapons-and has since its inception. It's very old-school in that it uses the same basic defense-plan that the B-29 used-fly really high, carry lots of guns.

Navy: Look at some of the package deals already referred to-this can give you a rough estimate of what you may need, based on your chosen "Map" combined with your chosen doctrine.

Well my suggestion is to look at th teh ninja's or ClansmokeJaguar storefronts, they have the numbers and all the specifics you need to have a standard military, it what I used

The Mirage series is forty-plus years old. On a budget, I'd go Saab 37 Viggen for short-field capability (Thrust-reversers, designed around turbofan engines from the start. eminently upgradeable, and might even be useful as a carrier-based bird, unlike the Mirage and Rafale series which require long airstrips and have slow turnaround at the ammo point.)

First off, the Mirage F1 (the oldest variant of the Mirage program) was first flown in 1981, making the Mirage program 24 years old. Other models of the Mirage - most representing significant increases in he aircraft's capabilities - have extended the life of the Mirage well into the first half of the 21st Century. Most recently, the Mirage 2000D - an all-weather attack aircraft comparable to the F-15 - was entered into French Air Force service in 1993, with the first flight two years prior. Comparatively, the F-15 program - used by a least one-third of the NS population by my estimates - entered service with the USAF in 1972, making it 33 years old.

On to the Rafale. Your claim that the Rafale requires a long runway is sadly mistaken. Not only is the Rafale M used in service aboard the Charles de Gaulle, but its land-based cousins (save the Rafale A) require under 400 meters of runway space for takeoff (that figure would be increased as more armaments are added to the aircraft, increasing its weight).

Now I won't argue with you that the Saab 37 Viggen is a fine aircraft, however it is even more dated than the F-15, entering Swedish Military service in 1971. That aside, it would make an excellent choice for THL's air force or the reasons you mentioned. However, do not discount other designs because of your personal preference. (I'm trying not to do the same thing just because I prefer the Mirage III/5/50 and Mirage 2000).

You won't need anything like a battleshipIf we were talking about planning a RL military that's defence-oriented, I'd agree with you. However, NS warfare is a completely different animal, with countries sending ships that make the Iowa look like a cute little toy. You would need at least a small squadron of battleships to serve as a deterrant against the bigger naval powers.

In general, however, I agree with your assessment. Destroyers (in particular, AA destoyers) and frigates (especially ASW frigates) are important. Patrol submarines are also an essential component. Be mindful that a diesel-electric submarine that's submerged is actually quieter than a nuclear submarine. Its main drawback is the fact that when it has to surface, it's extremely vulnerable. I would say THL would need a few attack submarines, but she wouldn't have to worry about getting ballistic missile subs or even guided missile subs.

THL would also need to get a good number of patrol aircraft and early warning aircraft for patrolling her shores.

Actually, ballistic missile submarines wouldn't be a bad idea as it would avoid having to place massive missile farms all over the countryside, which in a peace-loving country, would be a very popular move, whilst still being defence-orientated.

Offshore patrol craft, missile boats (to dissuade enemy invasions - they are small, cheap, and can be loaded with long range anti-ship missiles, their effect is sort of like mosquitoes on a summer's night), corvettes, frigates, and destroyers, as many have mentioned, are your best bet, with a few larger craft for further persuasion.

As for the Saab aircraft, the 37 has very short legs, something that the 39 has improved upon. For general service usage, the 39 is likely the most cost effective of the latest RL generation of aircraft. The Rafale is quite good, and the Eurofighter is superb as well as small.

Regarding aircraft: I strongly advise against purchasing any warplane not on par with the F-22A Raptor for the fighter and strike role. This includes the Rafale, Typhoon, and Gripen, as well any other 1980's-era equipment. The reason I say this is because NS-level military technology involves anti-air munitions that will eat conventional aircraft alive. Although the three fighters I mentioned before will do better than the rest in terms of survivability, their relative inexpense (relative to the Raptor) translates to reduced performance.

Here's a rough list of aircraft I suggest you purchase:

Air Superiority: Soviet Bloc's F-78 Sokol

Light/Medium Strike: Soviet Bloc's F/A-91 multirole, I forget the exact name

Tactical Bomber: Dunno about this one... The GR.Mk1 Tornado is probably your best bet, or the F-117A Nighthawk for stealth

Strategic Bomber: B-2B Spirit, or the B-300 that Space Union makes. I'm a tad hesistant about recommending the latter though, since all the engines it has results in an enormous heat signature

I would recommend the Zoogie People as an aircraft designer, but I don't think he's exporting his planes anymore. I have my own plane designs, as Sarzonia and Omz mentioned, but I personally would rather use SB's equipment instead.

Considering your problems with Sephrioth, I'd be more than willing to help build your submarine* or naval force -- including naval air power -- at reduced cost. Still, Soviet Bloc's equipment is very good.

[OOC: *I'd even be willing to do something terribly unusual for me and provide you with fully armed SSBNs.]

Well, personally despite their roots, I wouldn't call the Rafale, Typhoon, and Gripen 1980s-era. In fact, they are pretty much on par with the F/A-22 in terms of advances and features, save the stealthy design of the F/A-22. Similarily, though the aircraft themselves can be obsolete in NS, they do provide a great base for further upgrades. For example, one of the two primary air superiority fighters that my Air Force employs is an upgrade of the F/A-22, because of its versatility and capability as a stealthy air superiority platform.

As for both tactical and strategic bombers, OMASC has been designing bombers for nearly a year IRL, though the only one I offer for general export is the B-101A - my first supersonic bomber. Being an ally of the Omzian Republic is another matter, and I can offer the B-101D (Mach 3-capable bomber), B-105 (ultraheavy bomber), the B-106 (regional tactical bomber), and the slightly more famous B-108. Space Union's products are fine as well, and the B-300 itself IMO has made a great entrance into NS. The B-2 design, like many other stealth aircraft, do have their own disadvantages, being too expensive to operate, and having a rather small payload when compared to other heavy bombers.

As for tactical aircraft, I'd recommend Soviet Bloc and Tyrandis in general, though Clan Smoke Jaguar also specializes in some exceptional designs (that are not your regular ultramaneuverable air superiority fighter or jack-of-all-trades multiroles). As well, Isselmere and Sarzonia also offers excellent designs. Zoogie People is perhaps one of the best aircraft designers in NS' Hall of the Aircraft Designers, though he hasn't been particularly active ICly lately.

Hey, I got some body armor for you. It like full body armor with an gas mask to stop lethal gas. It like a full-body Kevlar vest. It light weight and easy to move in. Plus, it looks cool. Can use a back pack in it.

Transylvanian Body Armor (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/CountJWolf/TransylvanianBA.jpg)

A lot of people like to design a military from the ground up, in rich detail. My view is that you should spend your time on what you like. The United States of Allemande was designed to be a stereotypical "Atlantic" democracy (even though we're in the West Pacific), sort of a cross between the United States of America, Canada, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, or wherever in the "First World" my mind is at the time. The RP's I anticipated when I created Allemande were internal political (our forthcoming Presidential elections, if ever I get around to them) and adventure/exploration (MT space and the Pacific ocean bottom [MT/PMT], not necessarily in that order).

Yet from time to time I find myself involved in wars, peacekeeping operations, covert ops, international crises, etc. To design a military would be a waste of my time, but I need to be able to have one when I need it. So what I have to offer is...

The Lazy RP'ers Guide to the Military

The idea is simplicity itself: pick a nation whose technology resembles what you imagine your technology to be and whose size and wealth resemble your current size and wealth (you can always scale up easily, but scaling down might be a problem), and whose strategic stance resembles your own (aggressive, interventionist, defencive, internationalist, etc.). Now steal their military, making a few changes here and there to adapt them to your situation.

You can mix and match militaries as well. Right now my population and GDP are equal to that of the France, Britain, Germany, Italy, the Low Countries, and maybe Canada combined. So I could say to myself, "Self, your military will be equal to all those nations militaries combined, with some reorganisation to iron out the contradictions (kind of like corporate downsizing and reorganisation <GGG>)". Or I could say, "I'll take 2 Britains, a France, and an Italy, with a side of the Netherlands." Whatever totals to what I have in population, GDP, and military spending (always erring on the downside just in case).

Now all I have to do is grab a unit or three, or assemble a flotilla of ships, from my chosen countries, renaming and maybe organising things to provide a bit of national flavor. Do I want an elite unit like the SAS? A in-house merc company like the French Foreign Legion? A nuclear submarine from the Royal Navy, or France's best nuclear carrier? I've got it.

Now, the next part is where the hard work comes in: detail, detail, detail. Save a copy of everything you publish (I prefer PDF format, just printed to CD or disk). Now you can reference the stuff you make up on the fly. I sent the 10th Mechanised Brigade to the Harlack DMZ, so maybe I'll use them again. The DDG (i.e., guided missile destroyer) Jean Martaine is probably the only ship in all of NS to survive a close encounter with a nuke. Maybe it's still around, or maybe not. I could retire it to second-line service, or sell it to a puppet someday.

The point is, keep track of these things, because it will lend authenticity to what you do.

I don't mess with the details. I "invent" what I need ad hoc, and as long as it's believable and consistent with past statements, nobody's going to call me on it. Just be "fair" and make decisions based on your national position and character, and not on the needs of the moment.

Here's an example: when an unknown sub fired a Mk45 torpedo with an 11KT nuclear warhead at the Jean Martaine, I found myself in a position where I could have used a depth-charge barrage launcher like the Russian RBU systems to take the thing out. But NATO warships don't have that, so I had to try and work my way out of the jam with ordinary ASROC's and some seat-of-the-pants tactics. I made the comment at time, of course, that I really wished I'd had a system like the Russian one, and so next time I can credibly say, "Yeah, I basically do use NATO-like designs, but after the Jean Martaine incident..." See how that works?

Finally, in military RP's, I use a few back of the envelope rules that I'm sure some folks will consider controversial, but I'll lay them out there anyway. You may use or reject them as you see fit:
KISS = Keep it Small, Stupid: Small actions are easier to game than big actions. A brigade-sized fight or a divisional battle is a lot more fun than a mass army action. Some people take this further, and go in for small-unit actions in their RP. That's acceptable. Just operate on scale you can handle, and apply the artists' rule that "less is more".


The Law of GDP and Budgets: It's not the manpower, it's the money. In fin-de-siècle warfare, you can get a better grasp on the relative strengths on armies and nations by looking at their funding instead of their money. If one army has twice the manpower and the other has five times the financial support, I figure that the capabilities lean 5:1 in favour of the rich guy. The era of mass is behind us - militarily, this is an era of technology and training, and that means money. So count dollars to come up with capability and conduct your wars accordingly.


KISS (Again) = Keep it Short & Sharp: Modern armies can chew through ordinance stocks and supplies in mere weeks. The Yom Kippur war of 1973 is the classic case study of this: compared to WW II actions like El Alamein, the fighting in the Sinai and the Golan was many times more intense. This is again a function of technology: we can cook off our ammo, burn all our fuel, and exhaust our spare parts and manpower in a couple of fortnights, leaving everyone panting for breath. A long war - even a low intensity long war - taxes our resources like nobody's business (look at the U.S. in Iraq). For NationStates, this is good because a few weeks is all you can keep most RP's going.


Pursue and Agree to Limited Objectives: In light of the above, and the fact that nobody is going to agree to absolute defeat in an open RP, it's best to keep fights limited in scope and duration. A border action, a short naval battle or land campaign (like the Falklands/Malvinas campaign) - this is the nature of modern war. That, or a long low-intensity slog like Iraq. But a big hammer-and-tongs free-for-all (like the Iraq-Iran War), that's soooo 20th Century. True, sometimes the other guy doesn't want to limit it. This is one good reason to have nukes, or - failing that - powerful allies with nukes. You can force the other guy to the table to lock in a win or stop short a loss. Besides, that produces a negotiation RP, which can be a welcome change of pace from the military kind.
So I guess my overall rule is not to "gunwank" - IOW, unless you really like military affairs and salivate at the idea of lovingly building an army from the ground up, unit-by-unit, don't. It's the story that matters, not the Order or Battle.

In that case you are going to have a navy defined mostly by Destroyers and Frigates. You won't need anything like a battleship, or nuclear attack sub. Smaller patrol subs are great though.Don't discount the need for an attack sub or three to "show the flag". Sometimes you want to be able to send troops overseas on a rescue mission, or to make your presence known to someone else. Destroyers accompanied by frigates can signal a presence and provide a base of operations for small commando team (for counter-terrorism or evacuations), but if challenged you'll have no staying power. It takes a nuclear attack sub or a guided missile cruiser to make a statement that simply has to be taken seriously.

Remember, force is the means to an end. Diplomacy fails where there's no muscle behind it.

Exceptional analysis, and it is indeed important to pick the technology, equipment, and doctrine that suits one best as a nation in general. Since no nation is the same in many aspects (i.e. peaceful democracies vs. empires, or dominated by plains vs. dotted by mountains), it is very important to be flexible as opposed to going by the standard or the common trend. Though regarding KISS (isn't it "Keep it Simple, Stupid?") the basic philosophy is essentially true, large-scale action and strategy are nevertheless just as important as small unit action and tactics. As well, as repeated a sentence ago, keep it simple: technologies and equipment that are too complex, while excelling in combat, can be hassles in terms of logistics (just look at the Tiger and the Panther, for a prime example); similarily, when something goes wrong all of a sudden, things like large, complex combat operation plans will not go as successful as expected.

OOC:

Anyone who wants to see my reaction to your piece of work can look on the link you so kindly provided. I will tell THL, however, that she should not use it on principle alone - look at my response under his link for an elaboration.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with the CP21 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=381668). In execution however, there were two things very wrong with it.

At the begining of the design process, the FN Five-Seven was used as a base to work from - as the Five-Seven is the only RL 5.7mm pistol in existence, I do not believe that simply starting from it as a base to work from is a crime.

Working with the Five-Seven as a base, a number of new strengths and features were added:
(1) Fully automatic firing mode
(2) Longer barrel
(3) A 20% larger magazine

Also, a number of new weaknesses were added:
(1) More jam-prone, less reliable
(2) Heavier weight

The problem with the CP21 as it was however, was that while it now had a new set of characteristics, both strengths and weaknesses that differentiated it from the Five-Seven, the weaknesses in the design were not large enough. As well, the CP21 was too short to accomodate the longer barrel that I had wanted it to have. Therefore, after Novikov's pointing out of the flaws regarding weight and length, I performed the following:

(1) Made the CP21 much heavier
(2) Made the CP21 longer

I believe this fixes all of the design problems with the CP21. Whether you believe my intentions in putting the gun together were honest or not is up to you, but I want it to be known that I, from the start, wanted to give the CP21 strengths and weaknesses different from those of the Five-Seven. I must only admit that I failed to make the weakness of the equation prominent enough, but this was due to ignorance and not deliberate deception.

This having been said, I will post no more about the CP21 in this thread, since it isn't directly related to the matter at hand.

First off, the Mirage F1 (the oldest variant of the Mirage program) was first flown in 1981, making the Mirage program 24 years old. Other models of the Mirage - most representing significant increases in he aircraft's capabilities - have extended the life of the Mirage well into the first half of the 21st Century. Most recently, the Mirage 2000D - an all-weather attack aircraft comparable to the F-15 - was entered into French Air Force service in 1993, with the first flight two years prior. Comparatively, the F-15 program - used by a least one-third of the NS population by my estimates - entered service with the USAF in 1972, making it 33 years old.

On to the Rafale. Your claim that the Rafale requires a long runway is sadly mistaken. Not only is the Rafale M used in service aboard the Charles de Gaulle, but its land-based cousins (save the Rafale A) require under 400 meters of runway space for takeoff (that figure would be increased as more armaments are added to the aircraft, increasing its weight).

Now I won't argue with you that the Saab 37 Viggen is a fine aircraft, however it is even more dated than the F-15, entering Swedish Military service in 1971. That aside, it would make an excellent choice for THL's air force or the reasons you mentioned. However, do not discount other designs because of your personal preference. (I'm trying not to do the same thing just because I prefer the Mirage III/5/50 and Mirage 2000).


Wasn't the Mirage the basis of the 70's era Israeli Kfir?

I probably had the generation wrong, though.

I like the Vig, but I liek the Gripen more-at least, as an interceptor.
My source-data on the Rafale is a few years dated (looking at the book, published 1993), so you're probably right there too-one of the criticisms leveled at the Rafale by the Eurofighter board was its runway requirements and rearmament turnaround times.
(stats not GIVEN!! BASTARDS!!! I guess it's off to FAS.org...)
Turnarounds on the Jas-37 and 39 series show a base value of 11 minutes by conscript ground-crew at remote locations-that's refuel and rearm. There aren't a lot of planes can do that in 11 minutes with what amounts to amatuer ground crew (this indicates a further time-reduction with dedicated, trained professionals working at a proper airbase...)

NS ADA is only matched by NS ECM, and the unrealistic expectations of Stealth by NS players-most of them seem to think a B-2 is invisible even with the bomb-bay-doors open. (Hint: No. it's not.)
Since the F-15 went into service roughly the same time the F-14 did (Late sixties early seventies), both are still front-liner fighters today (along with the Lawndart-I mean, F-16...)
And given that THL has already stated "Defensive Military"-infiltration of enemy home-ground isn't an issue here. Interception of enemy aircraft and interdiction of enemy invasion forces is more pressing as an issue than bombing another nation's capital.
For those purposes, Stealth is a secondary or tertiary issue. The primary issue being the ability to intercept enemy aircraft (including, possibly, "stealthy" designs), engage them, RTB, and make the next sortie before the opposition can send backup.

Ground-crew turnaround time, reliability of engines, avionics, and weapons systems, and rapid reaction times are critical components here.

Wasn't the Mirage the basis of the 70's era Israeli Kfir?

My apologies for making a mistake. The statistics I found were in regards to the Mirage F1 CR Tactical Reconnaissance Fighter. Through a difference in development time, the Mirage F-2 was first developed, spawned into the Mirage III, Mirage 5, and Mirage 50, and then the Mirage F1 CR and Mirage F1 CT were released. I can not find statistics regarding the release date for the Mirage F-2 or the Mirage III/5/50, but the Kfir was developed off of the Mirage IIIE, placing it - and its other cousins - in service prior to 1973.

The Mirage F1 was, however, release in 1981, with the Mirage 2000 C and D being released in 1983 and 1993 respectively.

I like the Vig, but I like the Gripen more-at least, as an interceptor.

The Viggen and Gripen are both fine aircraft, particularly in the roles you place them in. I simply prefer the Mirage 2000 because there is more information given (in the NS universe, this is a godsend), it has a higher top speed, a marginally higher rate of climb, and can carry a larger weapons load. The disadvantage is that it is larger than the Gripen, needs a longer runway, and has a noticeably worse turn rate, meaning that the Mirage has the advantage only in the initial moments of a dogfight.

Either aircraft, however, is a effective tool and would serve admirably in any defensively-oriented air force.

My source-data on the Rafale is a few years dated (looking at the book, published 1993), so you're probably right there too-one of the criticisms leveled at the Rafale by the Eurofighter board was its runway requirements and rearmament turnaround times.
(stats not GIVEN!! BASTARDS!!! I guess it's off to FAS.org...)

I think the reason that those criticisms were brought up is because the Rafale is a uniquely French aircraft comparable to the Eurofighter, and thus stands as an affront to the Eurofighter being used in the French Air Force – the people making those criticisms are, after all, on the Eurofighter board. Plus, you book was written five years before the first production Rafale (Rafale B1) flew. Five years is a long time to refine an aircraft design.

Turnarounds on the Jas-37 and 39 series show a base value of 11 minutes by conscript ground-crew at remote locations-that's refuel and rearm. There aren't a lot of planes can do that in 11 minutes with what amounts to amateur ground crew (this indicates a further time-reduction with dedicated, trained professionals working at a proper airbase...)

That level of turnaround is disgusting. I’m not aware of the requirements for the Rafale C or the Mirage III / Mirage 2000, but I would expect them to be far higher than the 11 minute mark. If you could give me any statistics on the Mirage’s turnaround, I would be appreciative.

NS ADA is only matched by NS ECM, and the unrealistic expectations of Stealth by NS players-most of them seem to think a B-2 is invisible even with the bomb-bay-doors open. (Hint: No. it's not.)
Since the F-15 went into service roughly the same time the F-14 did (Late sixties early seventies), both are still front-liner fighters today (along with the Lawndart-I mean, F-16...)
And given that THL has already stated "Defensive Military"-infiltration of enemy home-ground isn't an issue here. Interception of enemy aircraft and interdiction of enemy invasion forces is more pressing as an issue than bombing another nation's capital.
For those purposes, Stealth is a secondary or tertiary issue. The primary issue being the ability to intercept enemy aircraft (including, possibly, "stealthy" designs), engage them, RTB, and make the next sortie before the opposition can send backup.

That’s a lot of stuff to consider, but I’ll try to summarize and respond as best I can.

Yes, generally aircraft released 1967-1977 are still capable front line units, lacking only in the areas of stealth, ECM, thrust-vectoring, and V/STOL capabilities – all of which are of a secondary nature within any defensive-oriented military. What should be considered then is what capabilities THL would want to look for in her aircraft, discounting stealth and infiltration capabilities, and focusing more on qualities that make the aircraft a good interceptor.

-In terms of sheer speed and versatility, go for the F-15 Eagle or the Su-35, or the Eurofighter.
-For a good naval aircraft, use the F-14 Tomcat, F-18 Hornet, Su-27K or the Rafale.
-For an excellent dogfighter, use the JAS-39 Gripen or the MiG-31.
-For a cost-effective multi-role aircraft, use the Mirage III/5/50 (or the Israeli F-21A Kfir) or the JAS-37 Viggen.
-For a good bomber-killer, try the MiG-23.
-For point-defense and ground support, the Mirage F1 CT and Mirage 5/50 are excellent.
-For light attack and reconnaissance, Mirage F1 CR or the Alpha-Jet.
-For a versatile trainer that can still be deployed into combat, Alpha-Jet.

Anyway, those are my suggestions. Take them or leave them.

(Also, if you take any of my suggestions, don’t mix the MiG and Sukhoi aircraft with Western designs, otherwise munitions will become a nightmare.)