NationStates Jolt Archive

I know this sounds like a General thread, but I've been thinking of a thread of which newbs can look up and pick the best RL equipment to use in their armies until they can afford the storefronts. Anyone else thing this is a good idea?

Probably a good idea. However, as I know very little of quality RL gear, someone else must do it.

Excellent idea; take all this advice with a grain of salt...

Carriers - Most young nations can't afford a Nimitz or Kitty Hawk. Medium carriers (Charles De Gaulle, Clemenceau, Kuznetsov) are often useful for young blue-water navies, but still often fairly expensive. Light carriers are decent for young brown-water navies.

Cruisers - Usually too expensive and not worth the additional cost compared to destroyers; don't buy them until you're old enough to spend enough.

Destroyers - The Kongo class (Japanese AEGIS destroyer) is nice for AD, as is the Arleigh Burke. However, both are expensive - maybe try the Horizon class? I'm not great with MT DDs...

Frigates - maybe use corvettes/ASW destroyers?

Corvettes - purchase these over FFGs; they're usually cheaper, and (especially some of the Israeli designs) often rather good.

Subs - SSKs and SSGNs, or, if a young blue-water navy, SSGNs and Los Angeles or Virginia-class subs. SSGNs are simply too cost-effective to not advise purchase.

Aircraft - Buy a cheap AEW&C/AWACS plane; it's a tremendous force-multiplier. Beyond that, unsure.

Tanks - the Abrams is not orders of magnitude better than other MT tanks; further, light tanks can be rather good. Other than those notes, I'm unsure what else to say.

IFVs - get light tanks and APCs instead, maybe?

Rifles - AK-47s (cheap and quick to build/train with)

Most young nations probably don't realize that they can manufacture any RL weapon they wish, as the designs aren't considered copyrighted. Perhaps that should be mentioned in a sticky?

American stuff...

...is terribly expensive. Young nations have small defence budgets and thus can't always afford to buy US gear. Try Israeli, South African, and maybe European gear perhaps?

Carriers: I generally agree with The Beltway on his take. The first light carrier I designed was based on the Clemenceau. If you're looking at cost-effectiveness, you might want to look at the Russian "aircraft carrying cruisers" as a possibility. You can also check out the British Invincible class or their Future Aicraft Carrier concept.

Cruisers: They're not being widely used anyway, but for a brand new navy, they probably aren't what you need anyway.

Destroyers: I'd look at the Arleigh Burke or the British Daring.

Frigates: They're your ASW horses, so I'd pick one that's good for the task. I might also go British here.

Submarines: In the early going, you probably won't be able to afford a nuclear powered boat. If you're RPing a small naval force, I'd focus on a SSK or a boat like the German Type 212 or Type 214. The Air Independent Propulsion they use would be very useful. Once you start getting to a point where you can afford nuclear boats, I'd look into the British Astute or the upcoming U.S. Virginia.

For aircraft, I'd use either the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) or the F-22 Raptor. Other good possibilities include the Eurofighter Typhoon or perhaps the JAS 39 Gripen. With attack helicopters, I used the Mi28 and the American AH-64 when I designed one.

Nope, I'd go with F-16s and other cheaper aircraft, the F-22A is a very expensive bird to start with. For APCs, something like a BMP-1/2/3 or a M113 are good places to start.

They may be cheap, but they won't last long in a battle against NS equipment. At least the more expensive equipment would give you a slightly greater chance at survival.

Here is my overveiw of 'small states purchasing'
and it in many ways maintains.

First off you'd prolly get whooped anyway.

Geurrilla warfare is really the only way as far as defence for small states because you are outnumbered.

So called 'terrorism' and spy operations. That is having secret rings and operatives able to 'by suprise' attack infrastructure behind enemy lines or cause disruption, get work as media print bad news, and be political in gaining supporters who don't know the power behnd the person.

Secretly hire mercenaries or agents to do this for you. Hire their population secretly if posible. Operate 'criminal fronts' in other states. You would be amazed at what a long term damaing gas can do if placed in the right place, or even bad business like filling supplies with bio or chemical agents and selling them to an enemy state.

Chemical weapons are 'relatively' easy to produce especially older ones like mustard gas etc.. even bleach bombs ect can be made from common household cleaners.

Penetrating Infanty. talk about modern SAMS' and RPG's ATW as antiair and tank. ultimtely by heavy forces your going to be bombed to the stone age anyway because without highgrade interceptors you can't reach them...

buildings.. build EVERYTHING underground.. except perhaps for some communications towers.. however you can get arond this by having an array instead of central points.. and mobile arrays at that, cell phones etc. non centralized networks, distributed resources for food growth and water processing, that is don't westernize your resources they are not efficient especially security related. PS underground housing is more economic, and it will largely reduce the chance economically devestating 'urban' conflict'

organize 'civil resistance' that is let them take your land but have plans for chopping them to peices when they are spread out rather than a centralized force, it is far easier to organized 'outnumbering' suprise attacks once they need to defend the infrastructure.

Don't give them anything. Don't develop your state... import if there are economic opertunities, 1. they will have to build your infrastructure and this causes more and more of a resource drain on them, also if you are an ecomonic state rather than a resource state, all your resources are your people and holdings in other states.

Snipping, train your soilders as 'ambushers, covert operators, and demolitionists' I personally don't get suicide attacks but it is partly correct in using explosives personally I would be more centered to get a machine pistol to them so they could escape or something of the sort.

Diplomacy, you need to have strong allies. You arn't going to be able to inforce your waters out side of principle with rafts if they have super destroyers.

My navy is mostly subs and missle frigates/corevets .. however i have some large submersible carriers as well (my defence spending is rediculous though)

have battle plan s secret caches. don't have airfeilds that are known, for instance why not place a number of secret underround installations next to 'superhighways' that are able to act as runways?

have lots of trees and other cover, disguise buildings, have a secondary secret government such as NSC type council that 'really' runs the state under directives from the 'official' government when it can still send them.

ideology of supranationalism

freindly global face

do NOT go to war unless part of a coalition that will after and during the war protect your arse. joint alliances, that arn't likely to drain your resources.

GET DONATIONS

I also see the need for atleast a 12mm round for infantry cause anythin less doesn't offer the stoppin power against modern armors. also having a variety of ammunication wouldn't hurt also thermite type mortars and shells might come in handy.

oh and don't do biological weapons too dangerous. Chemical weapons on the other hand are more controlable. A few dirty bombs might be within reach but probably not worth it to use on your own territory.

Preorganize a resistance operation, and don't use an economic system that is translatable, except at the governmental structure, i.e .something like marxism rather than capitalism that way all they'll be able to do is rape your resources instead of your reserves. don't stockpile on your own land, set up reserves in other states this way you have resources even after you are invaded.

Make sure you can deal with local population such as pirates or coupes etc. and have a monintored border policy don't waste reources on aircraft, spend it on antiair systems such as patriots.. but those things are expensive.. 1 cruise missle runs like half a million dollars. Make sure they dont' get economic gain from it. I.e. man portable, secret undergrond installations, foreign storage and networks.

Carriers - Yes Nimitz and those supercarriers are no easy task for young nations. Smaller carriers like the Kuz, Charles De Gaulle, Cavour, Wasp, are very good.

Cruisers - You can find some good ones from the European states, Germany especially, as well as the great though sort of dated Ticonderoga class.

Destroyers - For air defense there are some great ones available from the European state as well (Type 45). For anti-sub the AEGIS is very good as well as for air defense. There are some good ones though, especially the new one for Singapore.

Frigates - You can find some good escort ships all around. The Perry's are old so stick with something from Singapore or European.

Corvettes - The Russians have had some very good corvettes.

Subs - Diesel-electric go with the German U-214. If you want nuclear you can't go better than the Virginia. The Seawolf is rather expensive and the Virginia offers more for the buck. The Improved 688 is no slouch either but not as quiet as the most modern Akula II, though the Seawolf owns that. For a boomer stick with the Ohio. It is cheaper to keep running and more versatile than the Typhoon. It is also VERY quiet.

Aircraft - There's so much to choose from. Don't go with stuff that has a large radar signature. The F-22 (though expensive) is awesome. The JSF and the Typhoon are no laughing matters either. The Su-35 is alright as well as the Su-30s but they still have big RCS signatures from those huge air intakes.

Tanks - The Abrams is great but the Merkava and the Leopard 2A6 are probably better. If the Abrams were to get the upgrade gun then it would be a lot better. It is also heavy too, which can be a problem.

IFVs - Bradley's are good, so are some of the European systems. Go Israeli maybe.

Rifles - AK-47 is probably one of the toughest weapons and the simplest. However, the 5.56 x 45mm offers longer range though not as much stopping power. H&K makes great rifles as well as FN. I love the M16 and M4 but they are rather old, a lot of newer, better stuff, although the newest M4 variants are VERY versatile and have ranges longer than the AK.

I can't comment on any of the other categories, but for aeroplanes, you'll definitely want the power of the F-22A.

In all honesty, it should be much cheaper in NS dollars, because it's mass produced in huge quantities. The only reason why the RL version is so costly is because the USAF limited purchase of the wonderful things forced Lockheed Martin to jack-up the per unit cost.

For air to air engagments, you really can't have anything less (not even RL 4.5 gen fighters), because the massive force multipliers given to the Raptor and NS aircraft render the older planes obsolete.

I can't comment on any of the other categories, but for aeroplanes, you'll definitely want the power of the F-22A.

In all honesty, it should be much cheaper in NS dollars, because it's mass produced in huge quantities. The only reason why the RL version is so costly is because the USAF limited purchase of the wonderful things forced Lockheed Martin to jack-up the per unit cost.

For air to air engagments, you really can't have anything less (not even RL 4.5 gen fighters), because the massive force multipliers given to the Raptor and NS aircraft render the older planes obsolete.

Yeah, the current price of the F-22 is about $187M for 180 airplanes. Originally, when the ATF program came about they invisioned 750. Imagine the cost at that number, it would be less than the F-18E probably.

Actually, regarding the Horizon & Daring, these actually cost about as much as an Arleigh Burke or Kongo, and have a very notable downside. While the Aster missiles are better for engaging seaskimming missiles, the ships only carry a total of 48 missiles (32 Aster 30 & 16 Aster 15), while the Arleigh Burke and Kongo carry 96 cells, and can easily have over 100 SAMs, with room to spare, when employing some 4-pack ESSMs.
Since volume of fire plays a major role in NS warfare, the simple fact that these vessels can pump out twice as many missiles for the same cost makes them quite lucrative as air defense vessels. And with their ASW capabilities and their variable missile loadouts, these are probably among the best general combatants for new players.
The best air defense capability is found in the PAAMS vessels. The best ASuW is definately the Sovremenny. Don't know the best ASW for sure though. But all-around, the Arleigh Burke and Kongo win.

Nope, I'd go with F-16s and other cheaper aircraft, the F-22A is a very expensive bird to start with. For APCs, something like a BMP-1/2/3 or a M113 are good places to start.
I started off with the F-22....

Yeah, the current price of the F-22 is about $187M for 180 airplanes. Originally, when the ATF program came about they invisioned 750. Imagine the cost at that number, it would be less than the F-18E probably.
that sounds like the per aricraft price... cuz F/A-22s are definatly not 1 mil each


go with us, israeli or british stuff if u want to stay RL

You forgot to include German in there.

Also, Russia (antishipping missiles and the ships that use them) and South Africa (Artillery) each have a key unit type that no one can touch them on.

I personally like the French stuff quite a lot. Not used as much as US/UK gear, mostly because of the fact vast majority of NS'ers are from those two countries. This allows you to maintain a little bit of originality even when using RL equipment. The quality isn't a problem neither, methinks.

As a MBT, updated version of Leclerc. Always forgotten when people start yabbling about Leopards, Challengers and Abrams', but thought by many to be at least equal, if not even better, than these.

As a Service Rifle, Famas-2. A damn good, compact, accurate and reliable bullpup 5.56 assault rifle.

For sniping, FR-F2, one of the very best sniper rifles there are for the standard 7.62x51 NATO.

For transport, VAB and its updates. Six or four-wheeled vehicle, capable of carrying a full 12-man squad and equipment. Fast and versatile, though the protection is not as good as in tracked IFV's such as Warrior or Bradley.

For reconaissance, AMX 10RC. A wheeled light tank, actually. 105mm cannon, fast and capable of taking quite adequate amount of punishment. Did very well in the Gulf War.

For artillery, their new CAESAR 155mm arty system that isn't even in use yet (first deliveries planned for 2007) is a good option. People usually forget about artillery and talk only about MBT's and other sexy toys, but artillery is still a quite damn important part of the firepower of ground forces.

French equipment is good, and can be competetive, but for the most part, I would not quite list it among the best. Okay, I'll state the Forbin (HORIZON) destroyers and Rafale aircraft are an exception. They do truly rank with the best. But incindentally, both involved working with other nations.

The Leclerc is a very good tank, but it's only real advantages are in fire control and low weight. It's not as well protected as the contemporaries you mention and is also rather cramped inside. Neither of which is a good thing. It's also about the most expensive tank currently on the market.

In artillery, the CAESAR is a nice system, but there are a few very similar units already in service that match or exceed it, such as the FH77BD. The best overall artillery is South African, which has a strong advantage in range and accuracy, with competitive rates of fire and mobility.

AMX-10RC. Again, there are numerous vehicles with similar capabilities that are newer and more capable (these are due for retirement soon). The Italian Centauro, the South African Rooikat 105, the US Stryker MGS and LAV-105, all can match or exceed the AMX-10RC.

The VAB is a general purpose APC, not IFV. It's competitive, but showing its age and not in any way superior to the multitude of other designs on the market.

The FR-F2, again, is a solid weapon, but is easily matched or exceeded by most of its contemporaries. It's really nothing spectacular. According to those who've used it, it's limited by the standard scope (only 3.8x), and the accuracy is about 1 MOA on a good day. The really good sniper rifles easily exceed 1 MOA and have at least a 6x scope as standard. I'd say the PSG-1, M40A1, M40A3, WA2000, M85, and L96A1 all eat it for breakfast, and most other true military sniper rifles at least match it. One could also argue that a rifle chambered fo the 7.62x51mm NATO is inherently not the best sniper rifle out there. There are several better rounds for the role (.300 Winchester Magnum comes to mind).

Same goes with the FAMAS. A solid design, but no real performance advantages over its contemporaries, and whether chosen or not depends on the desire of the nation. The design has some advantages, but they only really show out in certain situations.



Remember, when going for the best stuff, you can't just select something that looks good, you have to compare it to other, similar systems.

Soviet era equipment is very cheap and pretty reliable. You can buy yaks and other planes and helicopters and replace the weaponry. Willink is good for this. Also if you want to be evil buy from Raven Corps-- cheap tanks, and other stuff.

Some of the more modern AK weapons are impressive and not that expensive AK74M, etc.

The AIP diesel submarines produced by the soviet union have open market price of about 100 million much cheaper than any sub listed here. Amaru 1650. The Yuan submarine is another example.

There are ways to convert armor platforms. If you have automobile manufacturing you can easily make a cheap armored jeep with light weapons. This is called a technical, some can mount 105mm guns, and 20mm antiaircraft guns. Bulldozers and other heavy equipment can be modified into light tanks.

Also fast passenger ferrys and catamarans can be turned into troop transports and weapons platforms with some armoring. You can design modular platforms with different weapons for this. The Incat australian models are ideal for this. They go fast. The base cost is about 50-100 million for the nonmilitary version. Militarize it and you have nice platform. Some double hulled powered catamarans can sail around the world in one shot without refuelling.

Fast patrol boats like the XFAC-- extra fast attack craft are ideal for a new navy, they can mount a couple of SSMs, or SAMS and have 20MM antiaircraft guns are fast, versatile and dangerous. Rebuild the hull make it so it can in deeper water and you can swarm, ram, board, and suicide attack the behemoth navies.

Grenades are easy to produce, so are mortars, and some one shot rockets. A 6 shot rapid fire rotary grenade launcher is about the same price as an AK74M.

Also a conscripted army can be broken down into specialties giving you large amounts of specialized troops.

India, Russia, and China have some very interesting weaponry which is cheap and easy to manufacture. These are my thoughts.

Surprisingly enough, I go for Yugoslavian stuff, though often taking projects incomplete at the time of the break-up and carrying them to a conclusion, sometimes by co-operation with other states, and by looking at minor developments, even if they've not gone to production, in the Balkans and Romania. We've got upgraded Maljutka, and Bumbar anti-tank guided missiles; cheap short and mid-range MLRS with high rate of fire, quick emplacement/displacement, and submunition warheads though maybe not the best guidance systems in the world; we've a lot of buried or partly-buried military, government, and industry centres in the Balkan mountains just as in reality; radically upgraded tanks related ultimately to T-72; Hawk-equivalent jet trainer/light attack-fighters; and the Novi Avion cheapskate Rafale; basic helicopter gunships with ATGMs; modernised Sava MANPADS essentially upgraded all-aspect-capable Strelas; and, built domestically, it's all tens of percent cheaper than it would be to buy foreign equipment that's only a few percent more effective.

However, I'm really here to note the dangers on a related issue to some defence plans mentioned. I have to be aware, running Yugoslavia, that the territorial defence forces, which can make life hell for an invader, can also come back to bite you in the rear, if you're going to RP realistically. The SFRY's regional popular units ended up providing constituent states with the means to resist federal authority and fight the People's Army. Likewise, Albania's potentially nightmarish bunker defences provided no help to the government when the end finally came... from within, that was despite positioning of many pillboxes to cover villages and supposedly discourage dissent.

A lot of good defence ideas end up being totally irrelevant when it comes to the crunch, and that's not said to discourage anybody from playing the little guy, just a reminder to consider more than one threat, and the new threats that can actually be created by preparing to face your existing fears.

Too melodramatic? Sorry :)

Don't upset the people you're trying to protect, unless you feel like playing a revolution in your country!

WARNING // PATRIOTISM/ANTI AMERICA BIAS AHEAD // READ ONLY IF YOU HAVE AN OPEN MIND //

Aircraft Carriers
Okay, I have to admit, the US has some shiny CV(N)s and I wish our government would get its finger out of social welfare's arse and build us a navy befitting of Her Majesty's Royal Navy. Anyway, enough of that, onto carriers.

You definetly want a CV. A new nation is probably not tech-advanced or rich enough to use nuclear propulsion and fuel for something as large as a CVN, and so therefore, we must use standard propulsion. It's just as fast, weighs a bit less (in total: remember nuclear propulsion has to be properly protected) but uses more fuel. I'd suggest the British CVF (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/cvf.htm) - it's cheaper than the US variants, more powerful than Clemenshit and Chuck De Gaulle, and carries more aircraft than the Russian one. (unless you really don't wanna use the CVF because you're a commie or something, use Orel Ulyanskov. Or whatever it's called.) So that's that sorted.

Missiles
SAM
Sea Wolf. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/sea_wolf.htm) Definetly. It's the only missile designed in the world to shoot down anti shipping missiles, its success rate is super, and it pwns. Secondary to this you probably want some yankee dealy.

This is also neat. (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2211)

ASuM
Right. The obvious choice is Harpoon - easily fitted to most ships and inexpensive - but it's not. Harpoon has a low penetration and its slow - Yakhont (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ss-n-26.htm) is big and bulky, yes, but it's MUCH better. Its fast and it is powerful. Its about the only RL missile that has the capability to kill NS stuff.

Btw, don't use tomahawk. It's shit.

Escorts
Kongo. It seems most NS destroyers are based off the Kongo, although not many have heard of it. Anyway, she's a neat ship. For frigates.. bleh.. Neutrashimy (sp? lol) or Type 22. T22 is old, yes, but she roxor. Roxor with great justice.

what about czech 262's - 1950s model its so easy and cheap for the nations.

Mp40 and the MG 42.... hmmmmm sexy.....

Some sort of MLRS, from most nations, would probably be best for artillery, given the high volume of fire those systems can put out.

For small arms, as long as the guns you use are reliable and powerful enough, I think that you'll be fine...

Unfourtunatly, Questers, the United States Air Force kicks the Royal AF's ass. :D

What about that new forward swept wing fighter that's due out soon from Russia?

No, MRLs cannot replace tube artillery. They're far more expensive to operate compared to the firepower delivered (consider that a single MLRS rocket costs about a dozen times as much as a similar-ranged 155mm shell), and are only good for burst bombardment. In sustained, they take too long to reload.
Also, most MRLs are significantly less accurate than tube artillery.

No, MRLs cannot replace tube artillery. They're far more expensive to operate compared to the firepower delivered (consider that a single MLRS rocket costs about a dozen times as much as a similar-ranged 155mm shell), and are only good for burst bombardment. In sustained, they take too long to reload.
Also, most MRLs are significantly less accurate than tube artillery.

It is also Easier to make a retalitory strike against an MRLS than an Artillry peice, due to the long Smoke trail left by a Rocket or Missile

When you are firing the MLRS kilometers away, what comes out from the rocket motor of a rocket won't make a difference. Counterbattery fire is typically done with the help of a counterbattery radar, so whether it is a shell or rocket, it doesn't make a difference.

I'm also surprised as to how SRBMs are used little in NS conflicts - while expensive and bulky, they can deliver great firepower per strike with a large warhead, and is a viable weapon to use for attacking ground targets. ATACMS is a famous example.

For APC's/IFV's the best thing you can use from RL is the Stryker. Small nations REALLY should use them alot (I did in Saharistan) because they're cheap, highly reliable against the same other small nations you'll be fighting (against a 140mm tank cannon... erm.... not so much), and you can move alot of them really fast.

Fuck the Bradley, wheels are the way to go.

Well, if you're looking at an RL air superiority fighter, you might wanna take a look at some of the stuff that hasn't gone into service due to political reasons. For example, the YF-23 Black Widdow II is actualy superior to the Raptor in terms of stealth and other things...

For APC's/IFV's the best thing you can use from RL is the Stryker. Small nations REALLY should use them alot (I did in Saharistan) because they're cheap, highly reliable against the same other small nations you'll be fighting (against a 140mm tank cannon... erm.... not so much), and you can move alot of them really fast.

Fuck the Bradley, wheels are the way to go.
The thing about the Stryker is that its significantly more poorly armored than the Bradley. For an IFV, I'd take a Bradley over that thing any day.

The thing about the Stryker is that its significantly more poorly armored than the Bradley. For an IFV, I'd take a Bradley over that thing any day.

On the battlefield, yeah, the Stryker can be beaten pretty easily by a Bradley. But the Bradley is so intensive on the garage staff that smaller nations would have an easier time with the Stryker.

That said, the Stryker is still a new unit. Wait a while. The 105mm cannon they had on the Mobile Gun System is hard to fire while it's moving; but I've got a feeling they'll work it out in the next version of it.

I hate NS equipment. Its used by people who have too much time on their hands.

Thats why I have almost completely pulled out of MT.

I'm curious why I've never seen the XF-32 (Boeing's JSF entry), but have often seen the YF-23. Of course, small nations often cannot afford the F-22 or F-23...

Reusing experimental designs is always useful; I do it all the time for my aviation storefronts. I haven't yet included the A-12 or B-70, but that's only a matter of time, I suppose.

IFVs are most likely not worth it; get light tanks instead, and use APCs for your troops.

Directly comparing the Bradley and the Stryker as if they serve very similar roles is flawed because they don't... As for an air force aircraft, assuming that it is going to be used in NS by someone who can't afford developing one, I'd choose the Eurofighter over the Raptor due to lesser purchase and maintenance costs, yet still maintaining many of the features that makes it a very potent multirole aircraft.

Directly comparing the Bradley and the Stryker as if they serve very similar roles is flawed because they don't...

Exactly. The Bradley is the frontline combat vehicle. The Stryker is better fitted for Forward Special Forces and Peacekeeping.

I hate NS equipment. Its used by people who have too much time on their hands.

Thats why I have almost completely pulled out of MT.

No, it's used by the great majority of the NS community. Most of the FTers use SW, ST, and BFG tech because they lack creativity.

The thing about the Stryker is that its significantly more poorly armored than the Bradley. For an IFV, I'd take a Bradley over that thing any day.

Good thing the Stryker is a light armoured vehicle, while the Bradley is an IFV. :)

No, it's used by the great majority of the NS community.

Agreed. But I dont know how this counters my point. You DO have too much time on your hands.

+++Use Italian and German designs for early to mid-stage MT armies. Usually, if it's American, people have a fit, but I've yet to see anyone complain about other RL nations' designs. ;D

EDIT: Sorry about the size.

For starting out, I say beginners should use Western equipment (which was exactly what I did during my initial days). It's the best thing that can stand up to more NS standard equipment. And as for people that have too much time on their hands Frozopia....maybe because they like to be creative, and having too much time on one's hands isn't so uberly evil?

No but time can be better spent. Alot more better spent.
But then I can hardly talk, I'm a frequent Rper, so ignore my hypocriticism.

No but time can be better spent. Alot more better spent.
But then I can hardly talk, I'm a frequent Rper, so ignore my hypocriticism.
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f16/MattShipwrighter/Funny%20Shit%20and%20Other%20Stuff/hobby.jpg

Riiiiiiiiight.
Very......informanitive.

Theres helluva alot better hobbies than rping.
But enough. I think this RP was started to debate Real life weapons.

I agree with part of what Frozopia said.
I use MT equipment, Russian equipment to be exact.
Not because I lack imagination, no because I lack time and enjoy the ease of imagining what my troops would look like.

I dont think there are many people here who know as much as I do about Russian army systems(Especially the Mi-28), thing is, I dont use that knowledge. For me all weaponry is equal.
RP means roleplay, I play the role of one or more officers who make the decisions in times of war. I'm here to roleplay, not to discuss tech.

Thats just my 2 cents, sorry for the interruption

Theres helluva alot better hobbies than rping.


Who are you to determine what hobbies are better than others?

OOps I said RP above instead of thread. My bad.

And to Mckagan, all I can say is I have an opinion.

But moving on

Unfourtunatly, Questers, the United States Air Force kicks the Royal AF's ass. :D

What about that new forward swept wing fighter that's due out soon from Russia?

Only in equipment and numbers :P

The point is, you may not be here to discuss tech, or not have the time to research/create your own, but some of us do, and if you can't respect that (cough Frozopia cough) then you don't really have a place in this thread or in most MT RPs.

then you don't really have a place in this thread or in most MT RPs.

Thats incredibly unfair on people who lack the time to create their own weapons. The thing is that people can say "Oh my thermo powered tanks beat M1A2's easily, so you are going to lose" and I have no respect for that at all.

that sounds like the per aricraft price... cuz F/A-22s are definatly not 1 mil each


go with us, israeli or british stuff if u want to stay RL

Hence why I said the current price for the F-22 is 187M for 180 aircraft. Not for the whole program. I don't imagine what 750 would cost each, probably 1/2 what they actually cost.

187M for 180 aircraft? Do you have a source on that?

Thats incredibly unfair on people who lack the time to create their own weapons. The thing is that people can say "Oh my thermo powered tanks beat M1A2's easily, so you are going to lose" and I have no respect for that at all.

So, buy from a freakin' storefront, there's plenty of them. If you don't like people designing custom weapons and tech, than leave NS, because that's what people do here. Now if you please, stop hijacking my thread here.

So, buy from a freakin' storefront, there's plenty of them. If you don't like people designing custom weapons and tech, than leave NS, because that's what people do here. Now if you please, stop hijacking my thread here.

Whoa... hold on there, we don't want this to degrade into flaming...

I agree with Frozopia... I certainly do have too much time considering I'm designing my own ships ^_^

Anyway, Russian equipment is what poor nations should use. The USSR had very little money compared to the US and had to have cheap efficient weapons. These are best for starting out. Also, the problem I have with NS home-grown stuff being "better" than RL stuff is that if it was so much better than RL stuff surely it wouldn't be MT. Just thought I'd have my say...

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f16/MattShipwrighter/Funny%20Shit%20and%20Other%20Stuff/hobby.jpg

ob·ses·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-sshn, b-)
n.
1. Compulsive preoccupation with a fixed idea or an unwanted feeling or emotion, often accompanied by symptoms of anxiety.
2. A compulsive, often unreasonable idea or emotion.
3: An unhealthy and compulsive preoccupation with something or someone

;-)

Soviet/Russian technology is actually not all that inferior to Western technology [although I dislike Soviet/Russian tank technology, but that doesn't stop the fact that they had very good tanks, and sometimes even superior tanks]. The idea that Russian technology is poor comes from the fact that the Soviets sold all their old technology to third world nations - but the notion that frontline Soviet equipment is bad is untrue.

I think Lay's figure of 180 million a pop for 180 aircraft is pretty accurate. I read a news story about how the USAF is stuck paying out the ass for the Raptor because Congress wouldn't let them purchase the expected production run of ~300, so Lockheed Martin had to increase the price-per-plane. If the company didn't, they would actually have lost money because of all the millions they spent in R&D for the thing.

As for the Typhoon, I don't like it simply because the philosophy behind its design is rather flawed. From what I've heard, the European consortium building the fighter had an original plan to develop a true 5th generation aircraft, but the Germans balked at the expected cost. As a result, the current design is easily superior to in-service designs like the Eagle and Flanker, but terribly outclassed by the F-22. Also, its combat radius is rather low compared to its contemporaries.

However, the multirole nature of the Eurofighter does make it a viable option to developing air forces, in lieu of acquiring dedicated strike and air superiority designs. Omz is right about it being more affordable and logistics friendly than Raptor.

I thought it sounded more like the U.S. is procuring 180 aircraft for the total amount of 187M dollars.

Thats incredibly unfair on people who lack the time to create their own weapons. The thing is that people can say "Oh my thermo powered tanks beat M1A2's easily, so you are going to lose" and I have no respect for that at all.
Don't like "NS tech" or don't like the fact people "design" their own stuff? You don't have to do anything, but leave the rest of us who do like designing that stuff alone and don't rag on us for it. :rolleyes:

Whoa... hold on there, we don't want this to degrade into flaming...

I agree with Frozopia... I certainly do have too much time considering I'm designing my own ships ^_^

Anyway, Russian equipment is what poor nations should use. The USSR had very little money compared to the US and had to have cheap efficient weapons. These are best for starting out. Also, the problem I have with NS home-grown stuff being "better" than RL stuff is that if it was so much better than RL stuff surely it wouldn't be MT. Just thought I'd have my say...

My nation is (somwhat) Russian based, I use russian names so its obvious that i'll use Russian equipment too. This is (http://users.pandora.be/bdc/Tadj/zafp.jpg) what my guys look like, with the gasmasks and assault vests, they are as cool as AMFs sentinels except... they are real, it doesnt require much imagination for You too find out what my troops look like.

The USSR has been gone for 16 years now, Russia has moved on and its not because the Government lacks the funds to get its army up to date that Russians dont make good equipment.

Next, I go back to what the Macabees said, Russian T34's raced to Berlin, North Korean T34's were decimated in their first encounter with enemy armour. Next to the quality of the equipment, there is also the quality of the personel manning them.

People can design whatever they like, they just shouldnt pretend/act that their stuff is better than mine because they made some stats about it. In an RP each person(no matter his size) and his equipment is equal for me.

Sorry for my second interruption, Velkya, wont do it again(Hey, it has a few RL equipment facts in it)

So, buy from a freakin' storefront, there's plenty of them. If you don't like people designing custom weapons and tech, than leave NS, because that's what people do here. Now if you please, stop hijacking my thread here.
Lol, Frozopia's pwned.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-cost.htm

This is pretty good source. They have what they would cost @ 368 units and that is about 92.4m at full-rate. Pretty impressive. Imagine 750!

Ooh. Useful, wish I'd seen this when I started.

This gets an idea churning: (for MT starters only)

When you first start NS, you aren't really a country, just a faction rising to power within a country. (no real army or anything)

Your membership increases, and the more it increases the more likely you'll want to post the turnover into a country. At which time you procure NS grade weapons like crazy.

While you wait for that to happen, play around RPing events that don't involve your country. At the same time figure out what history and geography you want, along with what weapons you want, if you can't find them you'll stil have time to invent them.

If I knew what I know now I'd most likely have started my country off a slightly militant group (CIA ish) armed almost solely with CZ-75 automatics.

[Stops, looks at the last post, sighs]

This thread is dead, isn't it?
Now what am I to do, I already posted...

I can't unbump it, and I might as well leave this post up to tell anyone who see this to let it die.