That should be the next project done by 'Insane Idea's Incorporated'PeZook wrote:And Fingolfin, the thing isn't supposed to fire while in the air
edit: This reminds me, my own group of mad scientists have been really underused thus far...
That should be the next project done by 'Insane Idea's Incorporated'PeZook wrote:And Fingolfin, the thing isn't supposed to fire while in the air
Then I'm going to say that it might not be worth having such a helicopter. If you are going to mount a howitzer on a helicopter, you have to do many things to set up the helicopter for the firing exercise. The standard Helicopter landing wheels won't take the recoil, which means you have to set up one heck of an elaborate recoil system to ensure the landing gear can take the recoil. Otherwise, your landing gear will collapse from the sheer shock. What does that leave us? Using either a reduced gun, or take up considerable volume inside the helicopter, while adding significant weight, for the recoil system. Either way, you don't gain much out of this.PeZook wrote:First of all, you will need a Chinook-styled helicopter to feasibly mount a howitzer, an autoloader and proper chassis on it. A UH-60 can carry a 155mm howitzer in a sling, but its nowhere near tought enough to actually fire it, during transport or otherwise.
And Fingolfin, the thing isn't supposed to fire while in the air
It's an attempt to enhance mobility of artillery beyond sling-carried guns.
How is that insane? The AC-130 already fires a 105mm autocannon, and its high elevation grants it several advantages.Karmic Knight wrote:That should be the next project done by 'Insane Idea's Incorporated'PeZook wrote:And Fingolfin, the thing isn't supposed to fire while in the air
edit: This reminds me, my own group of mad scientists have been really underused thus far...
I really don't know.Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:How is that insane? The AC-130 already fires a 105mm autocannon, and its high elevation grants it several advantages.
I know . And it's about to get worse, too...PeZook wrote:Siege, the guy kinda has a point about San Dorado, though. I mean...it's no great secret the city has an excessive crime rate
Crap, yes I did. Give me a while, I'm going to bid on it.Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Siege, did you miss the tender I opened for the exhibition center in Arabiapolis?
Actually...not.Result: Caymans are gonna hold an election but since the terrorists killed the only person who can grant diplomatic immunity any election judges from other countries travel at their own risk and any new additions to embassy staffs are likewise not covered unless previously designated and now returning.
Unless I'm mistaken it's 2012.Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:BTW.. what year is it?
If you read my description, you would know that the Archer now mounts a 105mm on a synchrocopter platform that carries up to 30 shells at a cruising speed of 150km/h to a mission radius of 400km, and provides some cover against enemy fire to the crew of two. The landing gear is like a very heavy skid with shock absorbers. Altogether the unit price is about $15 million. How's that sound?Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Then I'm going to say that it might not be worth having such a helicopter. If you are going to mount a howitzer on a helicopter, you have to do many things to set up the helicopter for the firing exercise. The standard Helicopter landing wheels won't take the recoil, which means you have to set up one heck of an elaborate recoil system to ensure the landing gear can take the recoil. Otherwise, your landing gear will collapse from the sheer shock. What does that leave us? Using either a reduced gun, or take up considerable volume inside the helicopter, while adding significant weight, for the recoil system. Either way, you don't gain much out of this.PeZook wrote:First of all, you will need a Chinook-styled helicopter to feasibly mount a howitzer, an autoloader and proper chassis on it. A UH-60 can carry a 155mm howitzer in a sling, but its nowhere near tought enough to actually fire it, during transport or otherwise.
And Fingolfin, the thing isn't supposed to fire while in the air
It's an attempt to enhance mobility of artillery beyond sling-carried guns.
Ah, see I thought that was an implementation of the firing-while-airborne concept. The Longbow program, slated to be released next year, will mount a 120mm howitzer and a defensive machine gun (16mm).The other alternative is to mount the guns outside the copter and there was a study done on this. I didn't finish reading the whole 50-100 pages worth of study which Shep posted up in the HAB so I have no idea why it might not be implemented. For that to work, you probably have to ditch the autoloader, since that study was done on the possibility of mounting either 105mm or 155mm M777. I might add also that the improvements in mobility might not be much since you still have to spend time configuring the howitzer to fight, as the howitzer has no APU.
Probably at a cost to speed and fuel range and volume. 30 shells.. you better be using a Chinook and larger. I think the unit price will be slightly more. The helicopter isn't that cheap either.Ryan Thunder wrote:If you read my description, you would know that the Archer now mounts a 105mm on a synchrocopter platform that carries up to 30 shells at a cruising speed of 150km/h to a mission radius of 400km, and provides some cover against enemy fire to the crew of two. The landing gear is like a very heavy skid with shock absorbers. Altogether the unit price is about $15 million. How's that sound?
Eh? Those numbers for the guns is simply out of whack. No one uses a 120mm howitzer, nor a 16mm machine gun.Ah, see I thought that was an implementation of the firing-while-airborne concept. The Longbow program, slated to be released next year, will mount a 120mm howitzer and a defensive machine gun (16mm).
Shite... I didn't realize how heavy those shells were. The M107 on its own is more than 40 kg.Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Probably at a cost to speed and fuel range and volume. 30 shells.. you better be using a Chinook and larger. I think the unit price will be slightly more. The helicopter isn't that cheap either.Ryan Thunder wrote:If you read my description, you would know that the Archer now mounts a 105mm on a synchrocopter platform that carries up to 30 shells at a cruising speed of 150km/h to a mission radius of 400km, and provides some cover against enemy fire to the crew of two. The landing gear is like a very heavy skid with shock absorbers. Altogether the unit price is about $15 million. How's that sound?
Sorry, I meant 122mm. The 16mm machine gun is Miratian, (exactly double the calibre of Miratian assault rifles) and the gun mount would be relatively easy to fit a different weapon to. I'm not planning on making it remote-controlled, at any rate.Eh? Those numbers for the guns is simply out of whack. No one uses a 120mm howitzer, nor a 16mm machine gun.Ah, see I thought that was an implementation of the firing-while-airborne concept. The Longbow program, slated to be released next year, will mount a 120mm howitzer and a defensive machine gun (16mm).
Yet those obligations, often as not, provide a cap on the size of said delegations. In other words it is not a blanket agreement for as many personnel as one wishes to bring over. My point, and it may not be perfectly clear, is that you can't suddenly flood the county with outsiders without potentially running afoul of the authorities.PeZook wrote:Actually...not.
The principle of continuity means that obligations of a nation-state do not cease with the particular government which signed them: since conventions give diplomatic immunity to all members of the embassy staff, and do not require that new members of staff be approved by the receiving nation (unlike heads of the mission, ie. ambassadors, ministers and charge d'affairs), this means anybody can move staff members in or out of the country and they are all covered under diplomatic immunity. The only requirement is that the ministry (not minister) of foreign affairs be notified of their arrival and/or departure.
Nyah!
They would have been replaced only if there was someone with the authority to appoint replacements and since that is contained within the executive and not legislative branch. The folks serving at the deputy level would have to sort out seniority and a host of other issues and even then whoever steps into the role wouldn't have the full power of the minster as they are lacking the authority of the post.Steve wrote:All of the dead cabinent ministers, at least, would've been replaced by now by appointees, even if acting ones like retired department secretaries or deputy/assistant secretaries have to be put into place. A government will not just shut down operations. Nor would it suddenly be shed of obligations to international law when it comes to foreign nationals.
Frankly a lot of people might interpret this as Wilkonia attempting to scare international election monitors into staying away to prevent any "unfavorable" results in the coming election.,
You mean someone like President Truong, who was stated as alive and was considered an outgoing President until the death of the President-elect led to him remaining in office under emergency plans? Someone who would have power to appoint acting replacements to all slain Cabinent ministers?They would have been replaced only if there was someone with the authority to appoint replacements and since that is contained within the executive and not legislative branch. The folks serving at the deputy level would have to sort out seniority and a host of other issues and even then whoever steps into the role wouldn't have the full power of the minster as they are lacking the authority of the post.
Dagnabit I missed that, I was lumping him in with the opponent who was gunned down on the list of the slain, my bad.Steve wrote:You mean someone like President Truong, who was stated as alive and was considered an outgoing President until the death of the President-elect led to him remaining in office under emergency plans? Someone who would have power to appoint acting replacements to all slain Cabinent ministers?They would have been replaced only if there was someone with the authority to appoint replacements and since that is contained within the executive and not legislative branch. The folks serving at the deputy level would have to sort out seniority and a host of other issues and even then whoever steps into the role wouldn't have the full power of the minster as they are lacking the authority of the post.
Well I had a nice strategy but I missed the bit about Truong being alive so that will take some time for me to shift and yet keep everything in character since I'd rather not retcon my posts.And depending on your POV the Popular Front could be considered anti-Wilkonian, in that they want to alter the social system of the Caymans, destroy the political and economic influence of the oligarchs, improve the power of Organized Labor, and eliminate Corruption. That doesn't mean they'd immediately start attacking Wilkonian interests in office - their leaders are pragmatic enough to work with Wilkonia if it's willing to deal with them and provide support for their initiatives - but the Caymanian Left has anti-Wilkonian and anti-Tonkinese elements.
I figured that the Wilkonians would support the Liberals, the major Center-Left party, as the Nationalists' legitimacy has been in decline due to the electoral fraud and the scandals. The only problem is if the Liberals can attract enough voters to run things on their own or if they're going to be made to work with the Popular Front.
There's no hard cap, actually: staff size needs to be either agreed upon in a separate agreement, or be "reasonable". Of course, there are no provision for automatic consequences for sending "non-reasonable" number of staffers, such as denying them diplomatic immunity. If the receiving country decides the embassy staff is too large, the most they can do according to conventions is declare some of them persona non grata, and write an angry letter, rather than arrest them for violating a curfew or something.CmdrWilkens wrote:[
Yet those obligations, often as not, provide a cap on the size of said delegations. In other words it is not a blanket agreement for as many personnel as one wishes to bring over. My point, and it may not be perfectly clear, is that you can't suddenly flood the county with outsiders without potentially running afoul of the authorities.
It's a bunch of utter bastards lead by an Aidid-style warlord, in what amounts to Frequesue's version of Congo, and they're on the verge of being wiped clear off the map. My guess would be that they're not worth your bother.Stas Bush wrote:Who are these "Revolutionary Front" in Frequesque? Anyone worthwhile to throw bucks and weapons behind? No?
I table a movement to change them if they aren't;PeZook wrote:There's no hard cap, actually: staff size needs to be either agreed upon in a separate agreement, or be "reasonable". Of course, there are no provision for automatic consequences for sending "non-reasonable" number of staffers, such as denying them diplomatic immunity. If the receiving country decides the embassy staff is too large, the most they can do according to conventions is declare some of them persona non grata, and write an angry letter, rather than arrest them for violating a curfew or something.CmdrWilkens wrote:[
Yet those obligations, often as not, provide a cap on the size of said delegations. In other words it is not a blanket agreement for as many personnel as one wishes to bring over. My point, and it may not be perfectly clear, is that you can't suddenly flood the county with outsiders without potentially running afoul of the authorities.
Unless we assume diplomatic conventions in this world are significantly different than ours.
Nyah again!
Just a comment: the new price is something like 25 million, and mounts a 155mm howitzer as well as a pair of door guns (whatever sort of pintle-mounted machine gun you might want), increasing the crew to four.Ryan Thunder wrote:Uh... yeah, that Chinook idea is sounding rather more reasonable right about now...