Designing drone army defence for a loosely populated planet

[newjerseyrunner]

One more thing. I don't play with income tax, but with property tax. A rising star businessman would appreciate that, while old money - not specially. ;)

But then you have no way to redistribute wealth once companies figure out how to use less land. In that situation, Microsoft would probably have every employee work remotely and not even have a campus. Without a campus, and no taxes on their gains, Microsoft would be a one way direction for money. You also would then have no limit on investors.

If I invest 1 million dollars in Walmart stock and just let it sit there for a year, I could then sell it back for 1.2 million. I literally did nothing, I made no benefit to Walmart or it's employees, or it's customers, and I did no work for them, yet I managed to draw a significant amount of money out of it for myself. If I only needed to pay property tax, I'd rent a tiny little apartment, buy a computer with a fast connection and do nothing but leech off of other companies success. People and banks do that now and it's causing problems, if they weren't taxed on those capital gains, the class gap would be far wider. I think you would end up with a plutocracy of people who can basically buy money and a proletariat who can't afford to invest.

I think the society should feature the employee-owned company paradigm. I think you'd be able to keep enough of an economy that drone production would be constant.

 

[Czcibor]

But then you have no way to redistribute wealth once companies figure out how to use less land. In that situation, Microsoft would probably have every employee work remotely and not even have a campus. Without a campus, and no taxes on their gains, Microsoft would be a one way direction for money. You also would then have no limit on investors.

If I invest 1 million dollars in Walmart stock and just let it sit there for a year, I could then sell it back for 1.2 million. I literally did nothing, I made no benefit to Walmart or it's employees, or it's customers, and I did no work for them, yet I managed to draw a significant amount of money out of it for myself. If I only needed to pay property tax, I'd rent a tiny little apartment, buy a computer with a fast connection and do nothing but leech off of other companies success. People and banks do that now and it's causing problems, if they weren't taxed on those capital gains, the class gap would be far wider. I think you would end up with a plutocracy of people who can basically buy money and a proletariat who can't afford to invest.

Sorry, wrong translation. The intended term was "Progressive net-worth tax", with top marginal rate of 5%. (but no income tax, so if business is really profitable it should not be so bad)
Also a high land value tax, based on value of not developed land. Turning "owning a land" more into "leasing a land from gov". (this tax is loved by economists as at least theoretically should be neutral, easy to collect and almost impossible to evade).
With total control of transaction, also progressive consumption tax.

In this case with Walmart, the tax would not be bad... But it would also be due in a bad year...

I think the society should feature the employee-owned company paradigm. I think you'd be able to keep enough of an economy that drone production would be constant.

I see a few policies to facilitate that, including both gov enforced automatic saving program (gov would give? No! :D ), system of cheap business loans for individuals and gov owned sovereign wealth funds willing to invest some money in a start up. Add to it hyperactive anti-monopoly agency, willing to cut to big companies into smaller ones. Should be more or less achieved, but it would be quite far from great ideas of creating cooperatives ;)

 

[Drakkith]

I read that a new thing from a hungarian technican helped shot down stealth bombers above ex Yugo. Czibor you have talked about blimps. I think they are low tech and quite stealthy, maybe they could be used for recon, and probably making unexpected missile strikes.

In what possible way would a blimp be stealthy? They are HUGE targets, very slow, and anyone that looks out a window would see them from miles away.

"Win"? I think that you express here a bit narrow definition of victory. Like a total war, until complete destruction of one side. No ex. sabre rattling with limited clashes, in which one could convince enemy, that victory would be too expensive to be worth it.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. What's the 'national strategy' in case of an attack? Is it to just strike back fast and hard and try to convince whoever is attacking that it isn't worth it?

Anyway. I think that you here operate under one incorrect assumption. That I need such cheap army to win a war with a modern military power. No. Think other way. There is some industrial potential. There is some human capital. There are some vehicles that can be converted. There is public opinion worried that country would be defenceless and tasty for any invader, so even some meagre money budgeted. Just what to buy to have any firepower?

That's what we've been trying to explain. You have a tiny, tiny nation and you only have a tiny, tiny portion of their national budget to work with to build an armed forces. It doesn't matter what kind of equipment you go with, they don't have enough resources to do much of anything. You can have advanced drones and planes and missiles and tanks if you want. You just can't have anything but a handful of them. If, instead, you go with more basic technology, you can have more equipment and weapons, but they will be less effective in combat. Cheap, fast, speedy buggies with anti-tank rockets sound nice, but they are absurdly easy for an enemy to destroy and will not be useful on anything but fairly open, level ground. They are also very limited in what combat roles they can perform. That's one reason main-battle-tanks are so useful. They can operate in literally almost any terrain or environment imaginable with little-to-no reduction in combat performance for most of the combat roles.

Whoever is in charge of building up the armed forces should know all this, which is why we are telling you this. Not to say, "No, you can't do that", but to say, "Well, if you do that, this is what will happen" or "this is what is required for what you want to do". We're operating under the assumption that you want a realistic army given the conditions you specified in your original post. Well, that's what you're getting. It's up to you to take what we've said and build your story around it, keeping what you want and throwing out what you don't want.

Strong gov (for both good and bad) and heavy property tax keeps even oligarchs in line. Add to it meritocratic system of governance (yes, only those who pass test can vote), bbc style main media and very competitive political system. ("competitive" - a few major parties, high turnover of them)

Hmmm. Highly-competitive political system doesn't seem to jive well with the "big brother" style of government you've been suggesting so far. But if you can justify it in-story, go ahead.

 

[Czcibor]

In what possible way would a blimp be stealthy? They are HUGE targets, very slow, and anyone that looks out a window would see them from miles away.

Making blimps stealthy seems like epic level challenge. Funnier idea are hydrogen filled balloons with simple electronic serving as data relay station / spy satellite. Yes, easy target. But they are cheap and can easily be sent above any fighter altitude.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. What's the 'national strategy' in case of an attack? Is it to just strike back fast and hard and try to convince whoever is attacking that it isn't worth it?

What's the national strategy of Russians who recently regularly fly next to NATO airspace? Really starting a war? Or just show off and sabre rattling? For which you need army, but you don't need to fire single shot.

Yes, such fast and painful counterstrike would be mostly the strategy, especially that gates, that are expected to have limited transport capability. Strategy, part 2. Total mobilization of everything. Assuming that military buys some time - immediately conscript whole generation. Have production capability immediately switched to military equipment. (for this there are drills)

Hmmm. Highly-competitive political system doesn't seem to jive well with the "big brother" style of government you've been suggesting so far. But if you can justify it in-story, go ahead.

Iranian theocratic democracy don't fit well with 2nd in the world number of sex reassignment surgery. And in my country there is no longer right vs. left conflict, but soft line libertarian vs. socialistic right wing. I'm afraid that already reality is somewhat unrealistic.

You know ex. death penalty fits well with a totalitarian regime. But it also fits very well Texas :D

On a different topic there is a discussion whether one can squeeze political ideas in one, or tops two axis. What did you say there? ;)

How it fits? Both fit general vision, shared by citizens of country which select policies based on effectiveness. In case of politics, it involves:
-removing all political contribution from politics
-selecting possible political candidates based on their test score, and after that present them to people for expressing their views and potential approval
-voting algorithm allowing multiple parties to enter parliament
-single transferable vote, which allow people to vote for small parties without risk of their vote being wasted

In case of "Big brother":
-it gives serious boost to tax collection
-keeps crime rate really low
-is part of concept of transparent society, where transparency works both way, like in case of police brutality or corruption
-people get used to it, abuses were low, so inertia works in its favour

 

[Drakkith]

I can't follow your explanation of their political system. I'm barely familiar with politics and government systems to begin with.

 

[GTOM]

I also thought about high flying balloons that has a low radar cross section.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Given that anti satellite missiles that can be fired from jets have existed since the 80s I don't think a high flying balloon is going to be difficult to destroy.

 

[Czcibor]

Given that anti satellite missiles that can be fired from jets have existed since the 80s I don't think a high flying balloon is going to be difficult to destroy.

Difficult? Not. But that would be a classical case of using Tomahawk missile to destroy an adobe.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Difficult? Not. But that would be a classical case of using Tomahawk missile to destroy an adobe.

Depends on how important it is for the aggressor to remove the defender's intelligence. Expending a few missiles to destroy balloons might be overkill in terms of munitions but it achieves the goal.

 

[Czcibor]

Depends on how important it is for the aggressor to remove the defender's intelligence. Expending a few missiles to destroy balloons might be overkill in terms of munitions but it achieves the goal.

Sure, but such baloons would be used in google style to provide internet to remote locations, so there would be plenty of them on stocks. If one starts to target them, then it would be no big deal to try to send more of them. ;)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Sure, but such baloons would be used in google style to provide internet to remote locations, so there would be plenty of them on stocks. If one starts to target them, then it would be no big deal to try to send more of them. ;)

So you want an invading army that is simultaneously much more powerful but has problems shooting down balloons...the inconsistencies in your setting are starting to add up if I'm honest and it's getting frustrating.

 

[GTOM]

My point was that those ballons are hard to locate due to low radar cross section.

 

[Czcibor]

So you want an invading army that is simultaneously much more powerful but has problems shooting down balloons...the inconsistencies in your setting are starting to add up if I'm honest and it's getting frustrating.

I didn't say anything like "want an invading army that is simultaneously much more powerful but has problems shooting down balloons". You said that... and reached a conclusion that's silly. OK. But why are you blaming me for that?

My only point is that shooting such balloon (using medium range A2A missiles to get something at altitude of 50 km) would be damn expensive in comparison to cost of such a balloon. And that they should be able to flood with them. Thus planned strategy should involve using them on high scale, either to have working communication / reconnaissance system or to extract high cost on an invader who would decide to eliminate them from all relevant areas. Do you consider this part as inconsistent?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It's the implication of what you've said so far. You have a small settlement with a pretty low tech army (given that this is supposedly in the future on another planet) and you've talked about an invading army that presumably has prepared and has higher technology. It doesn't matter that balloons are cheaper than rockets if they're critical to defence then the invading army bring weapons appropriate to taking them out. And given what they are it would be pretty damn easy.

But why don't you tell us what your enemy is meant to be like? What exactly are these low tech, low population, isolated people meant to be defending against?

 

[Czcibor]

It's the implication of what you've said so far. You have a small settlement with a pretty low tech army (given that this is supposedly in the future on another planet) and you've talked about an invading army that presumably has prepared and has higher technology. It doesn't matter that balloons are cheaper than rockets if they're critical to defence then the invading army bring weapons appropriate to taking them out. And given what they are it would be pretty damn easy.

But why don't you tell us what your enemy is meant to be like? What exactly are these low tech, low population, isolated people meant to be defending against?

No-one. High tech adversary exist only in minds of paranoiac military. Pending on military exercise, they mostly imagine such enemy as someone who uses early XXIst century military equipment or somewhat improved it, usually in a creative way.

That's a post apocalyptic setting, when they finally meet other group of survivors (some of them hostile) they discover that most of them suffered serious technological regress, some in spite of numerical superiority. Which theoretically is reassuring, but also means terrible mismatch between what they need and what they have stockpiled.

 

[Drakkith]

My only point is that shooting such balloon (using medium range A2A missiles to get something at altitude of 50 km) would be damn expensive in comparison to cost of such a balloon. And that they should be able to flood with them. Thus planned strategy should involve using them on high scale, either to have working communication / reconnaissance system or to extract high cost on an invader who would decide to eliminate them from all relevant areas. Do you consider this part as inconsistent?

Absolutely. If the balloons are cheap enough to mass produce in this way, then they aren't going to do much to the enemy except for spy on them. But you aren't going to stick more than a handful in any area of the sky, because it's a waste of resources to put dozens of spy balloons in the same area. At that point it becomes a huge gain to the attacker to take them out because it denies their enemy intelligence, despite the fact that the cost of the missile might be more than the balloon.

Now, if you start sticking weapons onto the balloons you immediately increase their cost so much that it becomes a net gain to the attacker to expend a single missile to take them out.

 

[snorkack]

Irrelevant. This world is not the USA. It might have somewhere around 1% of the USA's GDP.

Which USA?
The USA that built DC-3s and Liberty ships, the USA of 1940s, had something like 40 % the population of 2015 USA, and 30 % of the per capita GDP. Total, not much over 10 % of the GDP of 2015 USA.

If you matched 1945 USA against 2015 Canada, who would win?

Again, Canada engaged in a lot of military defense of their sparsely settled north. They built Mid-Canada line, Distant Early Warning line, and outposts ahead like Eureka and Alert. And engaged in High Arctic relocation of Eskimos.

None of which ever worked. Soviet bombers never did fly over Canadian Arctic.

So, Canada had 1/15 of a planet to guard. How to guard a whole planet?

Also, the Poles should know something about An-2 - your PZL is producing them.
They are highly individual... yet inherit a lot from DC-3. Fuselage cross-section is the same - as is the engine.
How would you design a bush plane done right with 2015 technology?

 

[Czcibor]

Absolutely. If the balloons are cheap enough to mass produce in this way, then they aren't going to do much to the enemy except for spy on them. But you aren't going to stick more than a handful in any area of the sky, because it's a waste of resources to put dozens of spy balloons in the same area. At that point it becomes a huge gain to the attacker to take them out because it denies their enemy intelligence, despite the fact that the cost of the missile might be more than the balloon.

Now, if you start sticking weapons onto the balloons you immediately increase their cost so much that it becomes a net gain to the attacker to expend a single missile to take them out.

In case of enemy trying to shoot such balloons, there would be a attempt to send them in excessive amount. Arm them? As default policy not. But if enemy starts ignoring them and fly nearby - arm a few out of hundred of them.

(presumably such cat and mouse game would end in enemy getting some proper weapon like laser or destroying hidden launching sites)

Anyway. As minimum plan such state needs at least two main models - bush plane and big passenger plane. The task is to suggest:
-how to balance military / civilian / cargo / passenger needs (Yes, I know that there would be general drawbacks, but thinking about specific)
-how to reuse possibly many parts?

Ideas:
1) Use the same engine, just 1 in the bush plane and plenty in the big one (just the math don't work here, mentioned An-2 has 1000hp, while Boeing 377 4*3500hp, so 14 times more) Pack 6 rotors and bind to each 3 engines? (Or have a bigger engine for the bush plane?)
2) To balance needs civilian version would be very rugged, resistant but have rather bad mileage
3) Save on windows in big passenger plane
4) For military purposes install double engines in the bush plane and put stronger frame,
5) As bush plane no longer rely on pilot vision it can have it wings lower
6) There is no longer pilot needing protection, thus spread around a few computers on board that would control it. Make the system able to operate with just one computer left.
7) Big passenger plane would only use normal airports, while the bush plane would have the landing gear very flexible.
8) Put the exit from the big passenger plane at the end to get easier conversion for cargo?

 

[Drakkith]

In case of enemy trying to shoot such balloons, there would be a attempt to send them in excessive amount. Arm them? As default policy not. But if enemy starts ignoring them and fly nearby - arm a few out of hundred of them.

If you put in the resources necessary to mass-produce these balloons, along with the resources to make sure that most of them can be armed if necessary, then you've taken away a substantial amount of your already limited resources from the rest of your military.

I also think you're seriously overestimating how effective these balloons will be. They're not fast. So getting them where they need to be is going to take a lot of time. If they fly at high altitude, which they would have to do in order to avoid man-portable AA missiles and AA artillery (flak guns and the like) then they need long-range weaponry, which is expensive to manufacture and tends to weigh in on the heavy side, limiting the amount of armament it can hold. The combination of very slow speed and limited armament makes them a poor-quality weapon system. One that is MUCH more expensive than the anti-air missile used to take it out. (cost of balloon+electronics+multiple missiles/bombs > cost of single missile)

In addition, you seem to be stuck in this idea of having weapons systems and vehicles that are cheaper than the enemies own weapons used to take them out. This is, in my opinion, a very faulty idea at its core. For one, even if it's true, it's only going to matter for a protracted engagement. And by protracted I mean one lasting on the order of years. It has to last long enough to exhaust the enemy of his current stockpile of weapons and run his economy into the ground. That takes a LOT of time. Your own economy also needs to be able to sustain the production of these types of vehicles and weapons and your military needs to be able to soak huge losses and still not buckle, as the equipment is going to be destroyed in large numbers. It also hinges on the assumption that an enemy hasn't just made huge stockpiles of weapons and equipment themselves. Note that there's a difference between overwhelming an enemy with large numbers of cheap vehicles and weapons, and trying to rely on the cost of taking out your equipment being too high for the enemy. You may not have enough equipment and vehicles to do the former even if the latter is true.

One thing I find odd is that we've really only talked about air-power. There's been a distinct lack of discussion of ground vehicles and equipment, which is, in my opinion, much more important given that the atmosphere is three times as dense as Earth's. Look at the drag equation:

Here, the little p is the density of the fluid (air in this case). That means that you're getting roughly three times as much drag at any velocity as aircraft here on Earth do. So your aircraft have to expend more fuel to go the same distance at the same speed, experience more stress on their air-frames, and have their maximum speed reduced substantially.

This also means that combat range is generally reduced across the board. Everything from missiles to artillery to infantry rifles are going to be MUCH shorter ranged. Now this... THIS is something I would have your forces capitalize on. It is unlikely that an invading enemy is going to have practiced for combat in, and developed their weapons for, an atmosphere with three times the density of Earth. I can't say much on if different tactics could be used, but surely the native people would develop their equipment to partially compensate for this, either through improved aerodynamics or through completely different designs. For example, mortars might be able to be made with some sort of lift-generating surface or a cheap propulsion unit (I'm thinking of something equivalent to a simple model rocket engine) to increase their range while not substantially increasing their cost or complexity of production or use.

As for things not related to the atmosphere, but to general production, I think you're looking down the wrong path. Instead of complicated equipment that can be modified, I suggest simple designs that are cheap to produce and maintain. Simplify your logistics by using only a few different types of aircraft and vehicles so that you can get the maximum benefit from mass production. (It's cheaper to tool one big factory or three smaller factories to produce a single type of aircraft or truck than it is to tool three factories to produce three different types of aircraft or trucks) This has the added benefit of being effective regardless of what type of enemy invades and also makes it MUCH easier to get redundant factories up and running if you need to, as you may already have spare parts that you can use to jump-start production of a factory on hand AND the equipment/knowledge to make those spare parts.

The downside is, I believe, that you're a little less flexible. But, given the conditions your people are in, I'd say it's well worth it.

1) Use the same engine, just 1 in the bush plane and plenty in the big one (just the math don't work here, mentioned An-2 has 1000hp, while Boeing 377 4*3500hp, so 14 times more) Pack 6 rotors and bind to each 3 engines? (Or have a bigger engine for the bush plane?)

That's unlikely to be useful. Large planes need larger thrust, and its much more efficient to use a couple of larger engines than many smaller engines as far as I know. I'm sure there's a 'sweet spot' where the size of the engine vs the size of the aircraft reaches an optimum.

2) To balance needs civilian version would be very rugged, resistant but have rather bad mileage

I would think the reverse would be true. Fuel is expensive (especially in this atmosphere) and the only time I can see someone going for 'ruggedness' over fuel economy is if they're planning to take off and land from dirt/gravel/grass runways. I can't imagine that all these mining towns and whatnot don't have small airfields with simple, concrete runways. This would be even more important if your entire traffic-control system and planes are computer-controlled. A single landing location, with all the necessary equipment for all-weather landings, would greatly increase the safety and efficiency of air transportation compared to trying to land on shoddy runways in random fields and whatnot.

4) For military purposes install double engines in the bush plane and put stronger frame

The airframe is essentially 'built-in' to the aircraft. You can't just put a stronger frame in. That requires disassembling most of the plane and its airframe and rebuilding it from the ground up. You're probably better off just having a completely different aircraft that's actually designed to be used in combat, which is nothing like a bush-plane. The unfortunate truth is that military aircraft designed for combat are designed so differently from civilian aircraft that there's literally no point in trying to convert civilian aircraft to a combat role. You might get away with converting for a support role, such as adding military-grade radar and communications equipment to civilian planes, but leave the combat to the actual combat-designed aircraft. (Which don't need to be the expensive, heavy aircraft we generally see. See the bottom of the next paragraph)

Note that many examples of successful conversions, such as the AC-130 gunship, are modifications to aircraft that would never be called 'bush planes'. There's just not a lot you can do with an aircraft that only weighs a few tons. For comparison, an F-16, a relatively lightweight fighter aircraft, carries up to 7.7 tons of weaponry, which is more than the entire weight of an aircraft that I would classify as a bush plane. That's not to say that extremely lightweight aircraft are useless. There are several extra-lightweight designs that have potential, as this page lists, but they are designed solely for the military, not for civilian landings in the 'boonies', which is what we call the 'bush' here in the states.

8) Put the exit from the big passenger plane at the end to get easier conversion for cargo?

It's a relatively trivial thing to add a door on the side of the aircraft to let the passengers out. Besides, many civilian cargo aircraft already include large rear/nose cargo doors.

 

[Czcibor]

I mostly think in line of modular construction.

If you put in the resources necessary to mass-produce these balloons, along with the resources to make sure that most of them can be armed if necessary, then you've taken away a substantial amount of your already limited resources from the rest of your military.

I also think you're seriously overestimating how effective these balloons will be. They're not fast. So getting them where they need to be is going to take a lot of time. If they fly at high altitude, which they would have to do in order to avoid man-portable AA missiles and AA artillery (flak guns and the like) then they need long-range weaponry, which is expensive to manufacture and tends to weigh in on the heavy side, limiting the amount of armament it can hold. The combination of very slow speed and limited armament makes them a poor-quality weapon system. One that is MUCH more expensive than the anti-air missile used to take it out. (cost of balloon+electronics+multiple missiles/bombs > cost of single missile)

Standard balloon. Just hanging an extra equipment. (which would put it lower) Just hang a standard rocket launcher.

In addition, you seem to be stuck in this idea of having weapons systems and vehicles that are cheaper than the enemies own weapons used to take them out. This is, in my opinion, a very faulty idea at its core. For one, even if it's true, it's only going to matter for a protracted engagement. And by protracted I mean one lasting on the order of years. It has to last long enough to exhaust the enemy of his current stockpile of weapons and run his economy into the ground. That takes a LOT of time. Your own economy also needs to be able to sustain the production of these types of vehicles and weapons and your military needs to be able to soak huge losses and still not buckle, as the equipment is going to be destroyed in large numbers. It also hinges on the assumption that an enemy hasn't just made huge stockpiles of weapons and equipment themselves. Note that there's a difference between overwhelming an enemy with large numbers of cheap vehicles and weapons, and trying to rely on the cost of taking out your equipment being too high for the enemy. You may not have enough equipment and vehicles to do the former even if the latter is true.

Why only in protracted engagement? I mean if there are already plenty of cheap, mass produced stuff stockpiled, then it matters from day one. (I'd say that it matters the most on first few days of conflict, because in case of fierce combat against high tech, reasonably prepared enemy they could go down quite quickly...)

I absolutely agree that in case when enemy has his huge stockpiles too, then the strategy (and any other) is doomed.

One thing I find odd is that we've really only talked about air-power. There's been a distinct lack of discussion of ground vehicles and equipment, which is, in my opinion, much more important given that the atmosphere is three times as dense as Earth's. Look at the drag equation:

Here, the little p is the density of the fluid (air in this case). That means that you're getting roughly three times as much drag at any velocity as aircraft here on Earth do. So your aircraft have to expend more fuel to go the same distance at the same speed, experience more stress on their air-frames, and have their maximum speed reduced substantially.

I thought about it, but there are advantages of that.
-One can take off with really low speed (1/sqrt(3)) of the same construction on Earth, what facilitates using rugged airports or substandard engines
-If one want to avoid that problem - he needs to fly higher (just the lower amount of oxygen would matter)
-if one brought his cool fighter jets optimized for normal pressure and tried to use them below the radar... would cry

This also means that combat range is generally reduced across the board. Everything from missiles to artillery to infantry rifles are going to be MUCH shorter ranged. Now this... THIS is something I would have your forces capitalize on. It is unlikely that an invading enemy is going to have practiced for combat in, and developed their weapons for, an atmosphere with three times the density of Earth. I can't say much on if different tactics could be used, but surely the native people would develop their equipment to partially compensate for this, either through improved aerodynamics or through completely different designs. For example, mortars might be able to be made with some sort of lift-generating surface or a cheap propulsion unit (I'm thinking of something equivalent to a simple model rocket engine) to increase their range while not substantially increasing their cost or complexity of production or use.

Concerning this general range reduction I thought. Heavier bullets, but with more elongated core.
Idea of rocket assisted mortar -cool.

As for things not related to the atmosphere, but to general production, I think you're looking down the wrong path. Instead of complicated equipment that can be modified, I suggest simple designs that are cheap to produce and maintain. Simplify your logistics by using only a few different types of aircraft and vehicles so that you can get the maximum benefit from mass production. (It's cheaper to tool one big factory or three smaller factories to produce a single type of aircraft or truck than it is to tool three factories to produce three different types of aircraft or trucks) This has the added benefit of being effective regardless of what type of enemy invades and also makes it MUCH easier to get redundant factories up and running if you need to, as you may already have spare parts that you can use to jump-start production of a factory on hand AND the equipment/knowledge to make those spare parts.

The downside is, I believe, that you're a little less flexible. But, given the conditions your people are in, I'd say it's well worth it.

I'm mostly looking mostly the way of modular design. And playing with final refurbishment

That's unlikely to be useful. Large planes need larger thrust, and its much more efficient to use a couple of larger engines than many smaller engines as far as I know. I'm sure there's a 'sweet spot' where the size of the engine vs the size of the aircraft reaches an optimum.

Presumably. Just I don't know, as big part of big WW2 engines were achieved just by squeezing quite many of pistons in one engine, like ex. 28.
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_R-4360_Wasp_Major )

I would think the reverse would be true. Fuel is expensive (especially in this atmosphere) and the only time I can see someone going for 'ruggedness' over fuel economy is if they're planning to take off and land from dirt/gravel/grass runways. I can't imagine that all these mining towns and whatnot don't have small airfields with simple, concrete runways. This would be even more important if your entire traffic-control system and planes are computer-controlled. A single landing location, with all the necessary equipment for all-weather landings, would greatly increase the safety and efficiency of air transportation compared to trying to land on shoddy runways in random fields and whatnot.

Big aircraft - for sure on such landing strips, or in good old fashion on a few specially prepared landing strips on road. But I thought about bush plane as something much more flexible... supplying far away farms, flying ambulance, crop dusting

The airframe is essentially 'built-in' to the aircraft. You can't just put a stronger frame in. That requires disassembling most of the plane and its airframe and rebuilding it from the ground up. You're probably better off just having a completely different aircraft that's actually designed to be used in combat, which is nothing like a bush-plane. The unfortunate truth is that military aircraft designed for combat are designed so differently from civilian aircraft that there's literally no point in trying to convert civilian aircraft to a combat role. You might get away with converting for a support role, such as adding military-grade radar and communications equipment to civilian planes, but leave the combat to the actual combat-designed aircraft. (Which don't need to be the expensive, heavy aircraft we generally see. See the bottom of the next paragraph)

Note that many examples of successful conversions, such as the AC-130 gunship, are modifications to aircraft that would never be called 'bush planes'. There's just not a lot you can do with an aircraft that only weighs a few tons. For comparison, an F-16, a relatively lightweight fighter aircraft, carries up to 7.7 tons of weaponry, which is more than the entire weight of an aircraft that I would classify as a bush plane. That's not to say that extremely lightweight aircraft are useless. There are several extra-lightweight designs that have potential, as this page lists, but they are designed solely for the military, not for civilian landings in the 'boonies', which is what we call the 'bush' here in the states.

I've seen the list... there are all jets. Do you think that starting their production jet engine just for one model would be worthy?

Because my idea was an air inferiority fighter:
-close air support (so a helicopter function)
-ambushing tanks or any other driving stuff (so a helicopter function)
-fighting with enemy fighters that nap-of-the-earth to avoid SAM (their superior radar, speed, missile range would be mostly negated, and combat would be just chaotic)
-the only normal air combat - in case of huge numeric superiority - each armed with one long range rocket (usually wielded by SAM) with a few expendables that only role is detecting the enemy.

Because it's a drone and piloting ability don't matter much, while friction matters - what about bush plane that instead transport passengers in horizontal positions?

F-16 specs:
"Maximum speed:
At sea level: Mach 1.2 (915 mph, 1,470 km/h)
At altitude: Mach 2[2] (1,320 mph, 2,120 km/h) clean configuration"
So at 3 atm... somewhere around 500 km /h?

I think that there are 2 arguments for mostly leaning towards rocket artillery:
-high gun velocity is terribly penalized
-gun artillery - cheap shot, expensive gun; rocket artillery - expensive shot, cheap launcher (so usually gun would be cheaper in long run, but they have limited faith in survivability of their equipment)

 

[Drakkith]

Standard balloon. Just hanging an extra equipment. (which would put it lower) Just hang a standard rocket launcher.

Okay. But it's going to have to get real low to get a decent shot, which puts it well within range of every AA weapon in existence, and given its slow speed and large size makes it very, very vulnerable.

(You're aware that a rocket is an unguided weapon, right?)

Why only in protracted engagement? I mean if there are already plenty of cheap, mass produced stuff stockpiled, then it matters from day one. (I'd say that it matters the most on first few days of conflict, because in case of fierce combat against high tech, reasonably prepared enemy they could go down quite quickly...)

As I said, there's a subtle but important difference between making your equipment so cheap that the enemy spends more by destroying it than you lose by having it destroyed, and having a large enough force of cheap equipment to actually repel an invasion. (That's what they're planning to do at least)

The first part, that it's going to cost the enemy more to destroy your equipment that you spent on said equipment, helps lead to the 2nd part, but doesn't guarantee it.

I'm mostly looking mostly the way of modular design. And playing with final refurbishment

That's probably fine for things like transport and support aircraft, but I don't think it would work for combat aircraft. I'm no aerospace engineer, but I'd think the differences between the civilian world and the combat world are far too much to try to re-purpose civilian aircraft for.

Do you think that starting their production jet engine just for one model would be worthy?

No idea.

Because it's a drone and piloting ability don't matter much, while friction matters - what about bush plane that instead transport passengers in horizontal positions?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

A few clarifying questions:

1) we've spoke about the economy and how it's small size might be boosted by automation. Assuming a generous starting GDP of $10 billion how much more does automation get you? Twice as much? Three times? More? The answer depends on how much you're willing to automate. It will also help you better pin down what this nation can afford (sort of).

2) What's the nature of the portals? Can anything pass through or is equipment required? How many are they and what size (can some fit airplanes)? These would be of great strategic importance.

3) What is this enemy like? What's their motivation, technology, numbers etc. Perhaps more importantly what's their intelligence like and how well prepared are they for local conditions (atmospheric pressure being key)?

 

[Drakkith]

3) What is this enemy like? What's their motivation, technology, numbers etc.

They don't know. They're building a military for a 'just in case we get invaded' scenario.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

They don't know. They're building a military for a 'just in case we get invaded' scenario.

Hmm what's that saying? Armies are always best equipped to fight the last war? That may apply here. ;)

A thought occurs regarding the atmosphere, at increased pressure gasses accumulate in the body. Don't have time to do a proper search right now but oxygen toxicity may be a big problem for the local population. I assume there's an authorial solution to this like the locals have developed medical regimens to cope with this. The enemy may not have this and securing that knowledge may be a priority.

 

[Czcibor]

Okay. But it's going to have to get real low to get a decent shot, which puts it well within range of every AA weapon in existence, and given its slow speed and large size makes it very, very vulnerable.

(You're aware that a rocket is an unguided weapon, right?)

I thought that in times of fledging AI it would be not so big deal. Being inspired by Saddam Hussein, who ordered a big packages of Play Stations, I think about guided missiles that use mobile phone electronic.

As I said, there's a subtle but important difference between making your equipment so cheap that the enemy spends more by destroying it than you lose by having it destroyed, and having a large enough force of cheap equipment to actually repel an invasion. (That's what they're planning to do at least)

The first part, that it's going to cost the enemy more to destroy your equipment that you spent on said equipment, helps lead to the 2nd part, but doesn't guarantee it.

I see that subtle difference, but US-like military spending without any known enemy is somewhat unrealistic. So keep something and have production capabilities to build army in case of a war threat. But it would just mean shoddy army goes big...

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I mean that aircraft normally has to be tall enough to fit a chair with pilot. If one don't need that, then he could make the aircraft flatter. When I tried to look for very fast aircrafts or gliders with really good glide ratio, they had fuselage really elongated. Under 3 atm there would be an extra effort to make aircraft really aerodynamic, thus something like this should be adopted. However, it means that passengers wouldn't sit but lie down.

 

[Czcibor]

Hmm what's that saying? Armies are always best equipped to fight the last war? That may apply here. ;)

Good point. :D

A thought occurs regarding the atmosphere, at increased pressure gasses accumulate in the body. Don't have time to do a proper search right now but oxygen toxicity may be a big problem for the local population. I assume there's an authorial solution to this like the locals have developed medical regimens to cope with this. The enemy may not have this and securing that knowledge may be a priority.

Simpler - 7% of oxygen. Engines need more air, and high altitude aircraft have a problem...

 

[Czcibor]

A few clarifying questions:

1) we've spoke about the economy and how it's small size might be boosted by automation. Assuming a generous starting GDP of $10 billion how much more does automation get you? Twice as much? Three times? More? The answer depends on how much you're willing to automate. It will also help you better pin down what this nation can afford (sort of).

Around 1000$ per citizen? Like in poorest Subsaharan Africa countries or Renaissance Italy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

I thought in line of self driving vehicles, houses built out of prefabricated modules by heavily automated cranes, etc. And GDP per capita in PPP being somewhere around 50% greater than contemporary first world. Yes, I know disaster with economies of scale, however:
-abundant natural resources; (cheap hydropower, cheap wood, tolerant emission standards outside the capitol)
-80 years of slow tech development;
-high human capital
-high investment rate
-high productivity of one big city (I may link papers showing that big cities are more productive)
-plenty of minor efficiency booster (like for example low corruption, tiny crime, low commuting time thanks to squeezing citizens into high buildings and connecting everything by metro, gov works online)

2) What's the nature of the portals? Can anything pass through or is equipment required? How many are they and what size (can some fit airplanes)? These would be of great strategic importance.

Can be opened on demand by a psion. No practical size limit, an aircraft carrier would go. There would be however seriously reduced total amount that could be transported within limited time, so a big invading army should face a choke point (actually the last one turns out later to not be specially correct concerning their adversaries...)

3) What is this enemy like? What's their motivation, technology, numbers etc. Perhaps more importantly what's their intelligence like and how well prepared are they for local conditions (atmospheric pressure being key)?[/QUOTE]

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Simpler - 7% of oxygen. Engines need more air, and high altitude aircraft have a problem...

Ok so you've retained Oxygen partial pressure but what is the rest of the atmosphere composed of? Because if it's nitrogen trying to breath on the surface of your planet will induce almost instantaneous nitrogen narcosis. In fact even if the nitrogen concentration was the same as Earth (~78%) at three atm you're going to have impaired reasoning and capability. If its 92% then the effects will be bordering on even greater cognitive impairment. I can't find much information on what the long term effects would be, probably because no one has ever been in that type of environment for significant times, divers simply ascend which fixes the problem. It wouldn't surprise me if there was long term damage however.

Around 1000$ per citizen? Like in poorest Subsaharan Africa countries or Renaissance Italy?

So you're working with $10 billion GDP then? How much of that is held by the government? How much of that is spent on military matters? Finally why don't you look up the cost of some modern or recent historical equipment and see how much you can afford?

Can be opened on demand by a psion. No practical size limit, an aircraft carrier would go. There would be however seriously reduced total amount that could be transported within limited time, so a big invading army should face a choke point (actually the last one turns out later to not be specially correct concerning their adversaries...)

I take it the enemy has "psions"? The fact that the portals are closed naturally is an issue for the defenders. They could build a fortress around one and all the enemy would have to do is open if for a few seconds whilst they throw a nuke through and close it before it goes off a second later.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It occurs to me you may have been objecting to the 10 billion GDP figure rather than going for it. I mainly threw it out there due to the NK comparison but digging into it more...well its interesting to say the least. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(graphical) I noted down the 16 nations that have between 9 and 12 million inhabitants (it would have been 8 to 12 but there are no 8s). Then I grabbed the GDP of each one and plugged it into a spreadsheet. As you might expect there's a large range with Belgium having the largest at $434 billion and Niger the lowest at $11 billion.

At first this might seem that you could model your nation on Belgium however, as has been discussed several times in the thread no nation exists in isolation. Everyone trades to make the most of specialisation and to acquire resources they don't have. As an example of this 5 of the 6 richest in that list are EU members having the advantage of the EU common market and political support, they make up two thirds of the wealth in that list. Interestingly cuba, Belarus and Angola (all former or current communist states) make up another 28%.

So really when it comes to assembling your figures you really need to take into account the lack of trade as a huge factor. That could be somewhat offset by the type of economy you run and better technology but it's still a huge issue. As a reader I'd probably retain suspension of disbelief at around $100 billion, not much more though.

 

[Czcibor]

Ok so you've retained Oxygen partial pressure but what is the rest of the atmosphere composed of? Because it it's nitrogen trying to breath on the surface of your planet will induce almost instantaneous nitrogen narcosis. In fact even if the nitrogen concentration was the same as Earth (~78%) at three atm you're going to have impaired reasoning and capability. If its 92% then the effects will be bordering on even greater cognitive impairment. I can't find much information on what the long term effects would be, probably because no one has ever been in that type of environment for significant times, divers simply ascend which fixes the problem. It wouldn't surprise me if there was long term damage however.

That's equivalent of 6 m underwater. Nitrogen narcosis starts occurring somewhere arround 30 m.

So you're working with $10 billion GDP then? How much of that is held by the government? How much of that is spent on military matters? Finally why don't you look up the cost of some modern or recent historical equipment and see how much you can afford?

No I just considered this number as a bit unfitting idea of having any industry. ;) No, I'm working with something in line with 75 000 $ / per capita, thus somewhere around 750 bln.
For gov - somewhere around 60% of that, so 450 bln (yes, mixed economy). For military - around 0.5% of GDP, however in any double use project military would only put part of the expenditure. (so for SAMs they had to pay, but not for big aircraft) So effectively this military share would be somewhere around 1% of GDP. Standing army of 300. They are well paid, and train hard - let's say they cost 0.5 bln per year. So there should be at least 3 bln left per year for purchase of expensive toys for military. Multiply it by at least 20 years - 60 bln in cheap battle drones, SAMs, mine fields, fortifications, stashes of weapons, etc.

I take it the enemy has "psions"? The fact that the portals are closed naturall is an issue for the defenders. They could build a fortress around one and all the enemy would have to do is open if for a few seconds whilst they throw a nuke through and close it before it goes off a second later.

And according to Soviet plans of storming Western Europe send soldiers into area that was just cleared using a nuke? ;)

No building real fortress. However it would cause logistic troubles that could be exploited.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That's equivalent of 6 m underwater. Nitrogen narcosis starts occurring somewhere arround 30 m.

Look at the link, nitrogen narcosis starts at 2-4 bar which is almost the same as 2-4 atm.

No I just considered this number as a bit unfitting idea of having any industry. ;) No, I'm working with something in line with 75 000 $ / per capita, thus somewhere around 750 bln.

That's an extreme economy for a nation with supposedly 21st century technology. That places it in the top twenty richest nations in the world by nominal GDP and near the top three countries in the world by GDP per capita! I thought your automation technology was meant to be rather simple? For a nation with absolutely no imports or exports this strains belief. Its your story so have it that high if you want but you seem to be keen for this to be as realistic as possible. The only way you can make this figure work is if you propose some really advanced technology.

For gov - somewhere around 60% of that, so 450 bln (yes, mixed economy). For military - around 0.5% of GDP, however in any double use project military would only put part of the expenditure. (so for SAMs they had to pay, but not for big aircraft) So effectively this military share would be somewhere around 1% of GDP. Standing army of 300. They are well paid, and train hard - let's say they cost 0.5 bln per year. So there should be at least 3 bln left per year for purchase of expensive toys for military. Multiply it by at least 20 years - 60 bln in cheap battle drones, SAMs, mine fields, fortifications, stashes of weapons, etc.

Note what Drakkith said about maintenance of military equipment, it isn't free to store things. It can get ridiculously expensive. In any case by odd coincidence $7.5 billion is the military expenditure of North Korea:
http://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp

And according to Soviet plans of storming Western Europe send soldiers into area that was just cleared using a nuke? ;)

No building real fortress. However it would cause logistic troubles that could be exploited.

*Shrug. A small tactical nuke on a military installation could be very useful without much fuss. Nuke one portal, storm through and if you really don't want to hold the area due to fallout march your force to the nearest other portal to outflank the garrison there. You still haven't really told us about this enemy though so it's hard to judge.

 

[Czcibor]

It occurs to me you may have been objecting to the 10 billion GDP figure rather than going for it. I mainly threw it out there due to the NK comparison but digging into it more...well its interesting to say the least. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(graphical) I noted down the 16 nations that have between 9 and 12 million inhabitants (it would have been 8 to 12 but there are no 8s). Then I grabbed the GDP of each one and plugged it into a spreadsheet. As you might expect there's a large range with Belgium having the largest at $434 billion and Niger the lowest at $11 billion.

At first this might seem that you could model your nation on Belgium however, as has been discussed several times in the thread no nation exists in isolation. Everyone trades to make the most of specialisation and to acquire resources they don't have. As an example of this 5 of the 6 richest in that list are EU members having the advantage of the EU common market and political support, they make up two thirds of the wealth in that list. Interestingly cuba, Belarus and Angola (all former or current communist states) make up another 28%.

So really when it comes to assembling your figures you really need to take into account the lack of trade as a huge factor. That could be somewhat offset by the type of economy you run and better technology but it's still a huge issue. As a reader I'd probably retain suspension of disbelief at around $100 billion, not much more though.

This acquiring resources is not a big deal. I mean that would be a trouble if they were contained in some tiny region.

With advantage of common market - I fully agree. However there is a crucial thing - social capital. Sweden (9.6 mln) and Greece (11 mln) - both are in the EU :D . And I'm far from those people who glorify Scandinavian model as an idea that can be transplanted into different societies. Rather with advanced enough society can decide to build nice welfare state and it would more or less work, while less advanced society can just vote to have high entitlements but would be unwilling to pay for that, or hope that politicians would reward voters with gov jobs.

For story reasons this society and country would clearly be in top ones, a bit above Scandinavians or Singapore. Actually no handwavium used here. The group of survivors was made out of selected applicants. And society had some time to evolve.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

This acquiring resources is not a big deal. I mean that would be a trouble if they were contained in some tiny region.

...You said they mostly live in one city? Even if they have outlying towns they'd have to be spread across potentially thousands of kilometres. That means you're going to have to have long supply chains to bring back goods and ship supplies to these places which is going to be quite expensive. Not to mention fragile, how long would your city survive if the enemy took out a few of these outlying towns? Also how many people does it take to operate an assortment of mines, quarries, oil fields etcetera? Especially as procedures, tools and workers in one field (i.e. chalk mining) might be totally inappropriate in another (i.e. uranium mining).

With advantage of common market - I fully agree. However there is a crucial thing - social capital. Sweden (9.6 mln) and Greece (11 mln) - both are in the EU :D . And I'm far from those people who glorify Scandinavian model as an idea that can be transplanted into different societies. Rather with advanced enough society can decide to build nice welfare state and it would more or less work, while less advanced society can just vote to have high entitlements but would be unwilling to pay for that, or hope that politicians would reward voters with gov jobs.

For story reasons this society and country would clearly be in top ones, a bit above Scandinavians or Singapore. Actually no handwavium used here. The group of survivors was made out of selected applicants. And society had some time to evolve.

Sweden, like many rich nations, is reliant on trade for its economy to function. You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it to: a nation that has the low population and high GDP of a real world nation but without the global market those nations need to function. Really what this boils down to is that a nation can have a small population, can have a high GDP and can have low levels of trade but it can only have two out of the three at anyone time. Bonus addition: it can be low tech, at which point it becomes "pick three out of four".

 

[Czcibor]

...You said they mostly live in one city? Even if they have outlying towns they'd have to be spread across potentially thousands of kilometres. That means you're going to have to have long supply chains to bring back goods and ship supplies to these places which is going to be quite expensive. Not to mention fragile, how long would your city survive if the enemy took out a few of these outlying towns? Also how many people does it take to operate an assortment of mines, quarries, oil fields etcetera? Especially as procedures, tools and workers in one field (i.e. chalk mining) might be totally inappropriate in another (i.e. uranium mining).

Yes long supply chains. Expensive? Not so bad, bulk ship transport is actually quite cheap. In Poland a few years ago there was a scandal - it turned out that importing coal from Australia was cheaper than mining it locally. (communists were explaining us for generations that coal was our main national asset...)

Damn, I just found other vulnerability that I haven't thought about it. One WW2 U-Boot would be able to choke most of such transport.

How would survive? For a while - no problem, there would be stockpiles - intended to survive a minor misfortune (like a big collapse in mine or drowning of two cargo ships in row). An captured mine would be indeed a problem.

Except from turning such crucial mines into a fortified regions I don't see a way into being able to defend them.

Sweden, like many rich nations, is reliant on trade for its economy to function. You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it to: a nation that has the low population and high GDP of a real world nation but without the global market those nations need to function. Really what this boils down to is that a nation can have a small population, can have a high GDP and can have low levels of trade but it can only have two out of the three at anyone time. Bonus addition: it can be low tech, at which point it becomes "pick three out of four".

One thing. I do not to drop Sweden economy on this planet and pray for a miracle. ;) I fully see the part that economy would be terribly hit by lack of external trade. I try rather to counterbalance it with higher gross capital formation rate, higher human capital and automation.

Let's disaggregate GDP:
-farming, agriculture, mining (a few % of GDP) - perfect conditions
-industry (30% of GDP) - serious problem here
-services (over 75% of GDP) - fine conditions

So the real hit would be concerning stuff produced in small quantities. Like unique manufacturing equipment.

Other question - which level of tech improvement would you consider as realistic for a small, separate country, which is well managed, well educated and treating maintaining high tech as high priority?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I notice you've not addressed the nitrogen narcosis problem, nor given any information of the enemy of this story. Do you plan to?

Yes long supply chains. Expensive? Not so bad, bulk ship transport is actually quite cheap. In Poland a few years ago there was a scandal - it turned out that importing coal from Australia was cheaper than mining it locally. (communists were explaining us for generations that coal was our main national asset...)

It almost certainly wouldn't be cheaper if the Australian mines didn't benefit from having the Australian economy maintain its infrastructure. On top of that you have to have shipyards, build and maintain the ships, drill and refine the oil to power them etc etc.

Damn, I just found other vulnerability that I haven't thought about it. One WW2 U-Boot would be able to choke most of such transport.

How would survive? For a while - no problem, there would be stockpiles - intended to survive a minor misfortune (like a big collapse in mine or drowning of two cargo ships in row). An captured mine would be indeed a problem.

Except from turning such crucial mines into a fortified regions I don't see a way into being able to defend them.

Yes militarily your tiny nation is extremely vulnerable.

One thing. I do not to drop Sweden economy on this planet and pray for a miracle. ;) I fully see the part that economy would be terribly hit by lack of external trade. I try rather to counterbalance it with higher gross capital formation rate, higher human capital and automation.

Let's disaggregate GDP:
-farming, agriculture, mining (a few % of GDP) - perfect conditions
-industry (30% of GDP) - serious problem here
-services (over 75% of GDP) - fine conditions

So the real hit would be concerning stuff produced in small quantities. Like unique manufacturing equipment.

Remember that industries are interconnected, cut down on one and you harm others. In your case with such a small work force that's an even bigger problem. Cut down on manufacturing unique equipment and you might find your farms are a lot less productive as the tractors break down. Try to save money by cutting down on services like retail and suddenly your logistics costs boom due to inefficiencies. Reduce funding to arts and entertainment and you have low moral problems and maybe even public disorder. TANSTAAFL!

Other question - which level of tech improvement would you consider as realistic for a small, separate country, which is well managed, well educated and treating maintaining high tech as high priority?

I don't know what you mean by "level of tech improvement".