21c -> Guidelines for Research & Development

Guidelines for Research & Development

Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Russia (Skyenet)	Posted: 05 Mar 2012 00.41.27
Dirty Zionist� Group: Mil Mod Posts: 2693 Member No.: 396 Joined: 14 Jan 2010	*Research and Development Guidelines* *Table of Contents* --------------------

Russia (Skyenet)	Posted: 05 Mar 2012 00.41.35
Dirty Zionist� Group: Mil Mod Posts: 2693 Member No.: 396 Joined: 14 Jan 2010	*Introduction* R&D is very simple in 21c. All it involves is getting down the details surrounding your project. A good R&D post contains the following, in some form or another: Name A good name for your project makes for a great start Description A short description, either history or just a basic laydown of the major features. General Characteristics A term I stole from Wikipedia, General Characteristics are the numbers of it all. Dimensions, powerplants, weapons. They don�t have to include everything, but the more detail the better. Timeline A date for when this project will be completed and ready for service. Be reasonable, look at some similar technology for a guideline. Alternatively, look below for some pre-found guidelines. Price The most important part and possibly the most difficult. Project costs are generally ignored by most, including myself. The important part is what the ship, aircraft or vehicle will cost. This is waived on certain types of units, like ICBMs or rifles, but as a general rule everything should have a price. If you�re unsure, say so and ask for input in the Price Guide. Also, incase it isn't obvious: Stealing the R&D of another person, either from this round or a previous round is not allowed without permission. In which case it should be in [quote] tags. --------------------

Russia (Skyenet)

Posted: 05 Mar 2012 00.41.47

Dirty Zionist�

Group: Mil Mod
Posts: 2693
Member No.: 396
Joined: 14 Jan 2010

A Researcher�s guide to 21c R&D
By JB

QUOTE

This forum exists for people to come up with new designs that they will ultimately be able to acquire for their military, space program or local 4H club.� The mechanism by which that happens is Research and Development, which you can think about as the process by which you go from a vague idea to a finished product.� I'm going to talk about some of the things you'll want to do when you decide to design something new, as well as some of the gotchas you'll want to watch out for.

First of all, despite the subtitle of this forum, you should consider it to be OOC.� Believe me.� You want the freedom to be able to hash things out without having to try to keep it all IC.

Now, let's say you've decided to design something.� Probably the first thing you need to think about is why you want to do it.� What is the purpose of this design?� This is probably the most important part of R&D.� If you can answer this question, in detail, then you can work out a good design to suit it.� If you cannot, then you'll end up with a conflicted, vague design.� The last thing you want is to spend money on a solution that's looking for a problem to solve.

Next you want to do a little brainstorming on the thing.� Think about what you're trying to design.� Are there existing designs that are similar to what you want to build?� If so, read up on them.� If not, read up on some of the alternatives.� The more information you know at this point, the better off you will be.

Now you're ready to work out some specs and a description of your design.� Take a look on Wikipedia and see what kind of specifications they have for the type of design you're working on.� If you're building a corvette, then look at other corvettes, for instance.� Work out some specs in a similar format - I personally copy the specs I care about from an existing Wikipedia page, then modify them.� At the same time, think about anything significant to your design that isn't covered in the specs.� Are you building an IFV that's amphibious, for instance, or a tank with a built-in water boiler for tea?� The more information you can come up with at this stage, the better off you'll be.

If you can come up with a good timespan for your project, and a final unit price for your design, add them.� Working out a good timespan, especially, can be difficult.� What I do is look at similar projects by countries with about as much industry/experience with this sort of design as my own country.� If all else fails, ask a mod for help.

Now, sit back and wait for some feedback.� You may or may not get it.� Eventually, one of the military mods will take a look at the design, and may comment on it.� Do take all the feedback seriously, without taking it personally, no matter who gives it.� CSJ, for instance, knows far more about tanks than I do, though he is not a military mod*.

If you're working out a fairly conservative design, similar to things that already exist, you may get no feedback at all.� If you don't, then you can probably assume that your design is good to go according to the timespan you've given.� To make sure, you might ping a mil mod and ask them to give your design a once over.

At other times, you might end up in a long conversation about your design.� This is a good thing.� Take the various feedback into consideration, and think about working up revised stats if you think it's appropriate.

So, in a nutshell, this is what you want to include in your design:

Design purpose
Specs
Description
R&D timespan
Unit price

Things to watch out for

There are a number of things that can make your design unsuccessful.� A few of them, off the top of my head, are:

Vagueness - The more concrete your design is, the better off you are.� Posting a design for a "generic HMMVW-replacement, but bigger", with no specs, will not get you a satisfactory mod ruling.

Nonrealism - If you're working out a design for a jetski that can fire tactical nuclear missiles, you might as well save yourself some time and not post it.� Likewise, anything with the words "force field"...

Pie-in-the-sky designs - Anything with the word "railgun" in it, for instance, is going to result in a big debate.� I guarantee it.� Now, if you really want to have a tank armed with a railgun, and you do your research, then you just might get your design accepted.� It will be a very tough job for you, though, and the timespan will probably be so long that you don't get to use the thing in game.

*As far as I can figure, the title of military mod is reserved for folks who know enough about the military to be dangerous, without knowing enough about human nature to run screaming when Sel suggests we take on the title of mod...

--------------------

Russia (Skyenet)	Posted: 05 Mar 2012 00.41.57
Dirty Zionist� Group: Mil Mod Posts: 2693 Member No.: 396 Joined: 14 Jan 2010	*Moderator Commentary* This round, again, we will be continuing the policy of not editing in an �approved� when your project has no problems. If there is a problem, we will edit in a comment and make a note of it in the Review thread to notify you that you need to review something. For outright vetoing R&D, like Serbia developing a railgun touting battlecruiser, we will employ a separate thread, where you may feel free to post rebuttals, but please keep it civil, and remember that we have the final say. --------------------

Russia (Skyenet)

Posted: 05 Mar 2012 00.42.08

Dirty Zionist�

Group: Mil Mod
Posts: 2693
Member No.: 396
Joined: 14 Jan 2010

Three examples of good R&D projects

QUOTE (Schwer�s Fleet Carrier)

Admiral Fyodor Ushakov Aircraft Carrier
New/Existing/Speculation

user posted image

The exact status of Russia's future aircraft carrier is completely up in the air. It's been talked about openly since '07 by Russian naval officers, news articles have been hinting about Russia's plans to buy one since '05, and Russia is in a position where it desperately needs some ego-stroking, and not many things stroke one's ego as well as an aircraft carrier (case in point: this board). These facts, combined with the knowledge that the recession didn't damage Russia too badly, makes me think it's a viable and ongoing project. It will be treated accordingly.

The schematics above belong to the Ulyanovsk class, but I seriously doubt the Russians want a supercarrier. I'm going to treat this as a fleet carrier instead. It will certainly include hard-learned lessons from the Kiev and Kuznetsov classes (especially the later's tendency towards environmental disasters), incorporate Russia's beloved nuclear propulsion, be capable of operating a navalized PAK FA at a later date, and feature a few cruise missiles. Because I'm Russia, goddammit.

[Price] The initial vessel will cost $3.6 billion, with each subsequent vessel costing $3.2 billion. These costs do not include the aircraft carried. The initial hull will take three years to build and spend one year in sea trials.

Vessel Specifications

Armament

Aircraft Carried: 82-85

Vessels

Specifications, pricing similar to JB's. Minor reduction in carried aircraft.

Why this is good:
This project has it all. A short background on the project and some information on why it exists, followed by the price of ships and the time to build one. Then follows very detailed specifications and a detailed timeline. It even has a picture. This is the best example of doing everything right with R&D I could find in the first thread I bothered looking in.

QUOTE (CSJ�s MBT)

Al-Khalid IA MBT
user posted image

A modernization program to bring original Al-Khalid and Al-Khalid I tanks up to the level of the similar Al-Khalid II, these incorporate a redesigned turret based on the Al-Khalid II. This includes improved autoloader, upgraded active protection system, and new sensors and electronics. It will also receive an armor upgrade, and overall represents a modest upgrade over the current Al Khalid I. It will, however, NOT have the Al-Khalid II's powerpack, relying instead on original engine. All existing Al-Khalid & Al-Khalid I tanks will eventually be upgraded to this standard. Because price of new units would be so close to the Al-Khalid II, this will likely not be exported as new-build, and only be offered as a future upgrade. Those willing to pay that much would probably opt for the sligtly more expensive Al-Khalid II anyway.

Specifications
Crew: 3
Weight: 47,000 kg
Length: 10.07m (gun forwards)
Width: 3.5m
Height: 2.4m
Armament: 1x125mm with autoloader, 1x12.7mm AAMG, 1x7.62mm CMG
Ammunition: 49x125mm, up to 8 AT-11 (replace 2 125mm each), 1500x12.7mm, 7100x7.62mm
Engine: Ukrainian KMDB 6TD-2 6-cylinder diesel for 1,200 hp (890 kW)
Power/Weight: 27.9 hp/tonne
Speed: 72 km/h road, 55 km/h off-road, 45 km/h cross country
Range: 500km
Cost: $1.25-1.5 million (upgrade of existing Al-Khalid tank)
Production Rate: 50 per year (standard), 100 per year (double shifts)

Timeline
2000: Al Khalid I finally enters serial production
2001: Al Khalid I enters service
~2004: Al Khalid II development begins
2011: Prototypes
2013: LRIP
2015: FRP

QUOTE (Another one of Schwer�s. A fighter this time)

Yak-150
New

user posted image

[Artist's concept of a landing Yak-150]

The Yak-150 is the final stage of the Yak-141 project. Begun during the Soviet Union to provide the Soviet Navy with a VTOL fighter, the Yak-141 project was shelved. It was later reactivated with involvement from Lockheed Martin. The project was eventually finished; experience with the project would lead to Lockheed Martin incorporating a STOVL variant in the F-35 project. The Yak-141 failed to achieve any export success.

The Yak-150 is an answer to that. With the retirement of Britain's Harrier 'jump jets' and the general lack of any capable VTOL aircraft on the international market, the Yak-150 seeks to fill a largely empty niche, decades-old Harriers not withstanding.

Relative to the Yak-141, there are few changes with the Yak-150. The most notable change is the upgraded avionics, incorporating both Eastern and Western style changes. Featuring the quality of systems that are typical of 4.5 generation aircraft, the Yak-150 has much greater combat viability than its predecessor. It also includes a slightly more potent engine, slightly larger fuel capacity, and a modest-but-respectable increase in munitions payload.

While the Yak-150 features minor design features to reduce RCS to a relatively low level for a 4.5 gen aircraft, being only slightly greater than that of the Rafale's best-estimated RCS, it will not feature any other stealthy characteristics such as an internal weapons bay. The aircraft is designed as a multirole fighter capable of taking off from any space it can physically fit in, whether on land or at sea, and is thus ideally suited to operation on large naval vessels. Despite theoretically being able to take off from any helipad a helicopter can use, landing a VTOL aircraft on the back of a minor surface combatant is ill-advised in calm seas, let alone battle conditions.

Specifications

Performance

Armament

The Yak-150, as is common with Russian planes, will also feature a two-seater variant for training (Yak-150UB). One quarter of all aircraft purchased by contract will be two seated variants unless otherwise specified.

Cost: $75 million

First available: late 2012

--------------------

Russia (Skyenet)	Posted: 05 Mar 2012 00.42.20
Dirty Zionist� Group: Mil Mod Posts: 2693 Member No.: 396 Joined: 14 Jan 2010	*Project Timeline Examples* BrahMos Cruise MIssile - Began 1999, First test in 2001, Entered Service 2005 Leclerc MBT - Began 1986, 1990 mass production, entered service 1992 F-16 Fighter - Began 1972, Prototype in 1973, First Flight 1974, Production 1976, Service 1979 F-15 Fighter - Began 1968, First flight 1972, Service 1976 Freedom-class LCS - Began 2004, Laid Down 2005, Commissioned 2008 Gerald R. Ford-class Carrier - Began ?, Laid down 2009, Expected to be commissioned in 2015 --------------------

Russia (Skyenet)	Posted: 19 Jul 2012 09.41.23
Dirty Zionist� Group: Mil Mod Posts: 2693 Member No.: 396 Joined: 14 Jan 2010	*Addendum: Requirements for R&D* This is a relatively short addendum meant to address some issues we had last round. *THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIONS DO NOT CONDUCT THEIR OWN MAJOR DEFENSE PROJECTS* They may participate in them. They may have some minor ones in certain areas. But very few nations have the ability to develop certain technologies. For instance there are three state-like entities in the world that can produce military jet engines. The United States, Russia, and EuroJet (A UK, Italy, Spain and Germany consortium). The latter only makes one. Therefore, if your nation does not already, or has not already, made something, it is unlikely it is able to just pick up and make it yourself. --------------------

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

0 Members:

« Next Oldest | Round 4.5 | Next Newest »

DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you