Username:

Password:

Pages: 1 [2]
  Add bookmark  |  Print  
Author Topic: A short guide to military equipment priceing  (Read 677 times)
The Commonwealth of Rhodesia
Game Standards Moderator
Game Standards Board (GSB)
Superior Nation
*****

World Relations: 39
Offline Offline

Capital: Salisbury
Posts: 3,554


Sit Nomine Digna

ihazchezburger414@hotmail.com Posideion9000
WWW Email
« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2009, 03:53:38 PM »

The IMI gun is longer than the first-generation L/44 Rhinemetall gun but shorter than the second-generation L/55.

The process of launching a missile from a gun tube is an interesting one I don't know enough about. The 152mm gun/missile launcher of the M551 Sheridan and M60A2 both used straight grooves in the gun's barrel that the Shillelagh latched in to to prevent it from being spun by the rifling. The LAHAT seems to be something different that can be fired from 105mm and 120mm guns as well as from stand-alone pods and possibly from 105mm recoiless rifles, so it must use some sort of system to keep it from being spun, possibly a driving band.

I have no idea how the Russian 100mm and 125mm gun launched missiles work. As they're dealing with smoothbore guns I assume that they just don't worry about rifling.
Logged
Byzantium
European Coalition
Diplomatic Nation
****

World Relations: 8
Offline Offline

Capital: Constantinople
Posts: 753



« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2009, 04:32:18 PM »

Anorak foreplay?
Logged
HOE
African Superpower
*****

World Relations: 21
Offline Offline

Capital: St Petersburg
Posts: 1,931


Holy Orthodox Empire


Email
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2009, 05:13:20 PM »

They are propelled out with a small charge and i dont remember completely but i think they have a jacket that fall off after they leave the barrel.
Logged

The United Norse Federation.
African Union
African Superpower
*****

World Relations: -28
Offline Offline

Capital: Oslo
Posts: 1,492



Email
« Reply #18 on: June 26, 2009, 02:16:55 AM »

People are going to be looking at those prices and say to them selve "did i eat today" those prices really make you veiw life decsion a little better. i wish that wasn't the same at the gas pump in real life. "man i only got four tic-tacs i cant even do it"  cheesy
Logged

Central European Military Organization
Kingdom of Jeddah
Superior Nation
******

World Relations: 16
Offline Offline

Capital: Jeddah
Posts: 2,618


Population: 27,575,521


« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2009, 06:54:38 AM »

I was just basking in NSAfrica's great history, when I noticed Hobbeebia's super weapons page. I decided to click on it and read about Hobbeebia's WMDs. After seeing a few nuclear missiles, I got bored and was about to exit out, when I noticed this: 1 Terra-ton Missile. In case you dont know, a terra-ton is two steps above a megaton. It goes like this:

Kiloton
Megaton
Gigaton
Terraton

That would make Hobbeebia's "Terra missile" the most powerful object to ever be present on planet Earth. Tsar Bomba, the world's most powerful nuclear bomb, was only 50 megatons. Now, I know that a terraton nuclear missile is impossible. But what would something like that cost?
« Last Edit: July 10, 2009, 07:10:25 AM by Praugsia » Logged

لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله

Warlordia
War Moderator
Moderator
Superior Nation
***

World Relations: 56
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,422



« Reply #20 on: July 10, 2009, 08:04:41 AM »

Quote
But what would something like that cost?

A way too large chunk of the US military budget?
Logged
Aksum
Guest
« Reply #21 on: July 11, 2009, 01:04:29 PM »

Like making a teaspoon of dark matter would bankrupt the USA.  It's not that practical anyway.
Logged
Byzantium
European Coalition
Diplomatic Nation
****

World Relations: 8
Offline Offline

Capital: Constantinople
Posts: 753



« Reply #22 on: July 11, 2009, 08:45:01 PM »

Its not cost effective now, but it will be.
Logged
Pantycellen
African Union
Thriving Nation
***

World Relations: 8
Offline Offline

Capital: Aberystwyth
Posts: 471



« Reply #23 on: July 15, 2009, 01:45:16 PM »

A Terraton missile wouldn't be that useful anyway really, most missiles now rely on many small warheads to cover a large area rather then one big one on the simple grounds it's cheaper and more effective
Logged
Deutschland
Terran Space Alliance
Infant Nation
*

World Relations: 5
Offline Offline

Capital: Currently decentralised
Posts: 96


Email
« Reply #24 on: August 01, 2009, 11:22:02 AM »

I'd call a Tt-class warhead "comprehensively unfeasible". Pulling numbers out of my ass this is the equivalent of 10,000 full Tsar Bombas.

Assuming there are economies of scale at work here, getting 10Mt per ton of warhead might be feasible. We'll also have to assume we can keep the whole thing together long enough to actually release its energy in a reasonably short timespan (fireball duration would be somewhat long). So we'll be looking at a 100,000 ton warhead.

I suppose we could build an Orion-style delivery vehicle with reasonably modern tech and certainly less advanced tech than you'd need to build the actual bomb.

Back in the main NS board, getting this amount of boom would be reasonable futuretech. Any decent future military could pull it off, probably by using some sort of kinetic impactor. I think Yut strategic missiles had a yield in the 60 Tt range with a slightly reasonable rationale (all we needed was a good hyperspace engine).

But as for doing it in NSAfrica? Nah.
Logged
HOE
African Superpower
*****

World Relations: 21
Offline Offline

Capital: St Petersburg
Posts: 1,931


Holy Orthodox Empire


Email
« Reply #25 on: August 01, 2009, 01:19:28 PM »

Would be cheaper and more effective to build a spaceship, fly into space, attach thruster and guidance system, then send the whole thing towards earth.
Logged

The United Norse Federation.
African Union
African Superpower
*****

World Relations: -28
Offline Offline

Capital: Oslo
Posts: 1,492



Email
« Reply #26 on: August 01, 2009, 03:32:20 PM »

Orbital weapons are a pain in the ass.
Logged

Central European Military Organization
Warlordia
War Moderator
Moderator
Superior Nation
***

World Relations: 56
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,422



« Reply #27 on: August 02, 2009, 10:36:16 AM »

Orbital weapons are a pain in the ass.

Quite so.

Also, totally not within the realm of this game.

Smiley

Leave those for Nationstates: Cyberpunk.

Wink
Logged
The United Norse Federation.
African Union
African Superpower
*****

World Relations: -28
Offline Offline

Capital: Oslo
Posts: 1,492



Email
« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2009, 12:51:05 AM »

Orbital weapons are a pain in the ass.

Quite so.

Also, totally not within the realm of this game.

Smiley

Leave those for Nationstates: Cyberpunk
.

actually, if that was the case then ICBMs wouldn't be allowed either. Lasers not, big ass nuke, yes.

Wink
« Last Edit: October 15, 2009, 11:53:49 PM by The Nordic Union » Logged

Central European Military Organization
Deutschland
Terran Space Alliance
Infant Nation
*

World Relations: 5
Offline Offline

Capital: Currently decentralised
Posts: 96


Email
« Reply #29 on: August 14, 2009, 05:04:54 PM »

Well, yield per ton of mass won't approach H-bombs unless you can get it to a very decent clip. To comment on the War Mod that's prolly beyond your typical cyberpunk milieu, those guys are usually impressed by slow trips to the Belt (which will furnish you with kinetics if you don't mind giving the target months to years of warning).

Just keeping nukes in orbit for a handy bombardment option is probably closest to what we can do, and I really don't see NSAfrica nations producing the f*ckhuge satellites that would be needed to do that.

Would be cheaper and more effective to build a spaceship, fly into space, attach thruster and guidance system, then send the whole thing towards earth.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
  Add bookmark  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.5 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC
Copyright 2008 NSAfrica
Page created in 0.141 seconds with 19 queries.