Prime minister Johns

I have been around since long before the karma war. This game has become part of my life. I have been part of the GPA , NPO , NpO and IRON and I guess I am happy in IRON since I have been there the longest.

Also CNRP is dead, what is left is a collection of fossilized posts from several years ago. It would be cool if we could reboot that aspect of the game and get it going again.

I remember there used to be around 30k nations.

That might be amusing. The first GOONS were cool, the second GOONS were OK but not as good as the first episode , hopefully the final part of the GOONS trilogy will be epic .

I remember those days , CN was much larger back then.

I still have a picture of the Legion flag (Doitzel variant)

2,752

This is pretty accurate , I have been in the GPA , NPO & NpO and now I am in IRON. The tides of in game politics push me along from place to place.

There are archives , so it is all good. Besides the precious historical video is still safe.

One last salute o/

Congratulations on this milestone. I am really happy you have made it this far.

I still have a photo he took of his nipple... you know ... for reasons...

It would not have to be a reset , CN 1.0 could continue and 2.0 could be a separate game. Also I doubt anything like this will happen , but if it did it would be awesome.

It is this area, I seem to recall having this area originally so I want it back and since nobody has claimed it ...

Can we go to Dairy Queen afterwards?

I am claiming Queensland in Australia.

I am back for the time being , I thought about coming back for a long time but there have been a great many demands on my time IRL and I simply have not had the time for CN. So , did you manage to burn the place to the ground while I was gone or is it worth starting again (7th time lucky) ?

Ruler Name: Prime minister Johns Resource 1: Reset available Resource 2: Reset available Trade Group: I I have a reset available so I am very flexiable with my trade resources. However I need a trade circle within 15 days of this post.

1. That's why we invented SSBNs, also the moment you launch an ICBM the thing lights up like a christmas tree to anyone who bothers looking. Once you have launched the ICBM it does not matter if the launch platform and missile are lit up like Christmas trees, shooting the plane won't stop the missile and it has served it's function. And an ICBM will light up like a Christmas tree regardless of the launch platform it was launched from. 2. Unlike a SSBN however the plane is easier to detect and the speed advantage also counts for interceptor aircraft in the supersonic and hypersonic ranges whereas an attack submarine is much slower and ASW in general is not as quick. As you pointed out it also lacks the capability to stay in the air for longer durations whereas a SSBN can stay submerged for as long as it takes the crew to use up its resources. This is why I will also be using SSBNs as well, only one or two of my missiles will use this method so I can avoid the flaws of SSBNs I pointed out in my previous post. 3. They're however not protected against interceptor aircraft and fighters in general so the survivability is most likely smaller than that of a B-2. That is why it will have a fighter escort and fly with the support aircraft of my forces if it is deployed. And it will be able to mount countermeasures packages such as chaff & flares (I believe many C5's & C130s have these in RL).

1. How stealthy can C5 made for it to be a useful stealth launch platform? Low radar observability by replacing the structure & shell with composites is the possible limit. There is a difference between stealthy and true stealth. And low observability is enough of an advantage to be strategically useful. 2. Even in a stealth aircraft how can something as massive enough to carry a massive ICBM have thermal stealth? At the range the weapon will be fired thermal stealth will be unnecessary. It will be firing over the horizon... way over the horizon, considering the weapon has intercontinental range. well beyond the maximum theoretical limit of IR detection. 3. Even if you have created a perfect stealth platform wont the measure of stealth be lost during the launch time when the cargo bays are opened for some time? Going for perfect stealth would be over-engineering the problem. And a dedicated cargo hold for an ICBM could get the missile out of the aircraft in less than 20 seconds, and after the missile is in the air shooting the delivery vehicle will do nothing to stop the missile. The diminished stealth caused by deploying the missile is a moot point. 4. Submarine launched missiles serving its primary purpose of having secondary strike capabilities are employed so that even if primary land based missile silos are taken out, they provide a strike option that is harder to engage. What secondary strike capability can your system provide considering its very low endurance and obvious dependence on land? Having a airborne platform would increase the elusiveness of the platform. It would be able to evade the "super" SOSUS networks in place by simply not being in the water to be observed by SOSUS. I remember from playing previously the SOSUS grids that could diagnose engine faults in SSNs from across the planet by their sound and provide a pinpoint location of that sound with an exact description of the ship that made it. I would rather not have all my eggs in the one basket when it comes to secondary strike considering the ease at which SSNs can be countered. 5. Considering C5s primarily require land based runways and considering a strategic weaponry like this would operate most likely within friendly air space ( an assumption) how would they be more advantageous than a land silo launched or a mobile TEL launched ICBM in terms of reaction speed and flexibility? There is always international airspace that the plane can loiter in, it would not be exclusively deployed in friendly airspace. It's probable deployment area would be with the other support aircraft such as AWACS & Airborne command posts near the theater of operations, and it would have fighter cover to counter the interceptor threat it would face. 6. Considering airborne platforms are more vulnerable to weather phenomena than land based or sea based platforms how useful would such a system be? At high altitude most weather phenomena can be avoided, most commercial aircraft fly at 35k feet (well within the flight ceiling of a C5) and avoid most of the weather systems such as storms and phenomena such as supercells and hurricanes are easily observed and a course can be plotted around them. And the odds of a hurricane being present at the spot it needs to be during an operation that requires exact positioning are quite low. The best way of not being observed is to be beyond the range of observation, which this aircraft will accomplish. It is a different design philosophy.

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1316255767' post='2802169'] It's feasible, but the question would be "Why that path? What's the strategy?". [/quote] Why this path? Why not? And this tech will be built on for other purposes such as air launched satellite delivery systems at a later point, but that is a whole other idea that I will explore in depth when the appropriate time comes. What is the point? Well OOC the advantages of this system are numerous but the most obvious ones are... 1: A highly mobile & elusive launch platform is a hard target to hit on a first strike. 2: A stealthy airborne launch platform would provide similar strategic & tactical advantages to a "boomer" submarine, with the added benefit of speed at the expense of endurance. 3: An air launched missile has many advantages over a free fall bomb, such as a vastly improved stand off range enhancing the survivability of the launch aircraft by enabling the weapon to be launched outside the range of anti-air defenses. Of course this system will have disadvantages but on balance I feel the system is viable as part of a larger strategy of which this system would be part of a triad of launch systems which would include airborne nukes, nuclear missile submarines, and land based deep earth silos.

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1316249845' post='2802151'] Well you just answered your own question. It can be done, it HAS been done. But just never made it to active service. So if its feasibility your after, that would be an obviously no. [/quote] That is because another system was chosen, I am thinking of going down the path not chosen. Stealth technology is also available and can and has been applied to vehicles as large as a naval vessel (Using the La Fayette class frigate (last ship inc class launched in 2002 IRL) as my guide & the B2 bomber (Introduced 1997 IRL), my tech covers everything up to and including 2007 (actually late November 2008 if you want to get technical)), so this leads me to part two of my idea. Making a stealth aircraft that will be a dedicated launch platform for a minuteman type missile. The concept will basically be a stealthy c5 galaxy. I am not asking for tech that has not been already been proven to exist before my tech limit, just for a slightly different application of that tech.

Ok I am going to break the mold and actually ask before implementing an idea to see if it is feasible. I am considering introducing an air-launched ICBM system for some of my nuclear capacity, I have done extensive research and discovered that in the 1970's the USAF successfully tested the idea of launching a minuteman ICBM out of the cargo hold of a C5 Galaxy . [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It7SQ546xRk"]link[/url]

The republic of Novus Niciae recognizes the Republic of Sumatra and wishes to exchange embassies with them. Nike Niciae Secretary of State , Novus Niciae.

I would like to ask that OOC only comments in a IC thread in the IC section of the forum be accompanied by some kind of an IC response as well. It irks me that the first comment in my first RP thread is just rules lawyering with no IC content.