-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PersonMan
So, after asking before about how much manpower a modern nation could deploy, I'm now wondering what limitations on naval/air production there are - it's not possible to just draft more fighter jets, after all. Could a smaller nation militarize its industry quickly to supply their air force with planes, or would that end up with bad equipment at best? How long would it take to go from "we need an aircraft carrier" to "our aircraft carrier is ready to fight"?
If the country has the capacity to build very large ships and high-performance jets, access to legitimate combat vessel and aircraft design capability (or a way to steal them outright), and a way to train crew and pilots...
At least 10 years, minimum.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
A lot depends on how much industrial capacity the nation has, and how much is or can be dedicated to military production.
For the best example, look at the US buildup in WWII. We had a very small military in 1941, and a huge one in 1945. We had developed new and better tanks and planes as we went, and built I don't even know how many warships.
But we did that by shifting most industrial production to wartime use. No new cars were built, as the automakers were all building stuff for the military. We had a large unemployed population, still recovering from the Great Depression, that we put to work. We brought women into the workforce in numbers that simply had never been done before.
The story in other nations was similar. New systems were designed and built in the thousands in a short time. Look at German or Russian tanks from 1939 and 1945. How many new models went from not even a concept to functioning mainstays of the military in five years?
So, if the pieces are in place, and the situation is desperate enough, a nation can ramp up wartime production very quickly.
The answer will be very different from country to country and period to period. The US could crank the stuff out, if the government told Ford, GM, and Chrysler that they were in the M1 Abrams business until further notice. In peacetime mode, we can't get the damn F 35 to work, let alone into production in the numbers we'd need. Likewise, a nation without that industrial capacity would have a very hard time moving fast. If you have to build shipyards and aircraft factories before you build the carrier, it's gonna be a while.
Here is a handy link for WWII production, which is a bout the biggest example ever of total wartime economic focus.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Naval ships take an immense amount of time to build. The USS Gerald R. Ford began construction in 2009, and is supposed to enter service in September of this year, taking roughly seven years te be ready. This is for a nation that already has extensive experience building large warships building a design that is merely an incremental improvement over one that has been built many times. Even the Virginia-class submarines take 3-4 years, and they are not only on the small side for warships but are a design optimized for fast construction.
Tanks can be built faster. Any plant that builds cars or large trucks can put out armored vehicles, and they don't take that long to build. The M1 Abrams was built at only one factory, and were built at a rate of about 120 per month. Full industrial mobilization would result in a massive ballooning of this figure.
Aircraft can also be built quite quickly - in 1987 Lockheed was producing 30 F-16s per month. This was, again, at just one plant and was in a period when the USAF had pretty much all the planes it needed, so Lockheed was mostly building for the export market.
In all of these cases, the main limiting factor is manpower.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gnoman
Aircraft can also be built quite quickly - in 1987 Lockheed was producing 30 F-16s per month. This was, again, at just one plant and was in a period when the USAF had pretty much all the planes it needed, so Lockheed was mostly building for the export market.
Complexity of the aircraft plays a major role in my opinion too. During WW2, the Willow Run plant streamlined the 17 day production time of a B-24 bomber such that one was rolling off the line every 63 minutes (basically there was somewhere in the region of ~388 aircraft in varying stages of production at any one time).
I'd also say that during WW2, the US's comparatively isolated position meant that its manufacturing base was pretty much safe, unlike the situation in Europe for both sides.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
If you don't mind affecting the mechanical properties of the steel, you can go from a light straw yellow to deep purple or blue via tempering.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brother Oni
I'd also say that during WW2, the US's comparatively isolated position meant that its manufacturing base was pretty much safe, unlike the situation in Europe for both sides.
Absolutely agree.
The US could swamp the Axis powers simply by having an industrial base beyond the range of heavy bombers.
Outside of the attack on Pearl harbor, and the invasion of a few islands of Alaska, the US never had to deal with a direct attack.
The Philippines and Wake Island were US possessions, but not centers of production.
We could build ships and planes and tanks and train troops in complete safety. In fact, US factories were supplying the UK, China and USSR before we actively joined the war.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brother Oni
Just to build on this a little, even 60lb is a fairly hefty weight for a beginner (remember that you'll be holding onto this weight with three fingers via a bit of string then drawing and releasing this multiple times), so in all likelihood you'll start off with something fairly light (30-40lbs) then go up in draw weight up as you improve.
I know it's difficult, but try not to let your ego dictate what draw weight you get. Being 'over bow-ed' or having a draw weight that's too heavy for you just means you have poor precision since you're struggling to hold the bow still at full draw and you'll get tired very quickly. While medieval war archers never held their bows at full draw for long, target archery is a different situation.
It's also worth looking into size - if you're particularly tall or short you might want a bow sized to that. I'm about 6'4", which is enough to make a standard sized recurve uncomfortably small to use - which is really fun when combined with a high draw weight.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PersonMan
So, after asking before about how much manpower a modern nation could deploy, I'm now wondering what limitations on naval/air production there are - it's not possible to just draft more fighter jets, after all. Could a smaller nation militarize its industry quickly to supply their air force with planes, or would that end up with bad equipment at best? How long would it take to go from "we need an aircraft carrier" to "our aircraft carrier is ready to fight"?
In a very general sense, Italy in WW2* is an example of a nation that could put more men in uniform, than it could effectively train and equip, due to a limited industrial capacity. Somewhat ironically, the Italian Army was more effective when it was smaller. Italy produced some nice fighter aircraft during the war, but never enough of them -- and it was easier to keep building older designs (like the Fiat Cr. 42) than to adapt production lines to new aircraft. Naval forces also suffered from having to prioritize resources and their planned aircraft carriers were never completed. Likewise, the Battleship Impero, of the excellent Littorio-class, was never completed.
In the 19th century and early 20th century, Italy's few capable shipyards and general budget problems meant that naval vessels often took a very long time to complete. Italian designs were often very innovative, but took so long to complete that sometimes they were almost obsolete by the time they were commissioned.
* WW1 is a bit different, as Britain had so much surplus it could supply Italy with plenty of coal to drive its industry. Also WW1 wasn't nearly as mechanized as WW2. However, the main limiting factor appears to have been a lack of coal, so the basic fuels to drive industry should be an important consideration in how well a nation can increase it's industrial output.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Pretty interesting video of mixed weapon sparring. Interesting to see odd combinations like dagger versus spear, or sword and buckler versus sabre.
Some decent technique, and some nice grappling. Not sure what the limits are for these guys, but they get pretty full contact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20DOzJRbgUY
Worth a look.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gnoman
Naval ships take an immense amount of time to build. The USS Gerald R. Ford began construction in 2009, and is supposed to enter service in September of this year, taking roughly seven years te be ready. This is for a nation that already has extensive experience building large warships building a design that is merely an incremental improvement over one that has been built many times. Even the Virginia-class submarines take 3-4 years, and they are not only on the small side for warships but are a design optimized for fast construction.
But it's also a nation that has no immediate need for another ship and just needs to let it sit around filled with crew on the taxpayer's dime. The US could probably build one super carrier a year if they really wanted, but what use would those be?
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
But it's also a nation that has no immediate need for another ship and just needs to let it sit around filled with crew on the taxpayer's dime. The US could probably build one super carrier a year if they really wanted, but what use would those be?
Probably much faster than that. As i understand it current US supercarriers are built in somthing like a dozen sections which are built out of the dock then lowered in and bolted together. But current production has just one section under full construction at once. So even without pushing for faster section speed they could subject to appropriate restructuring of the dockyard to allow all dozen sections to be under simultaneous maximum speed production. Add on pushing up section production speed and there's no reason they couldn't build one in a few months subject to material and manpower supply from the sounds of it. The real limitation is likely to be either in how quickly they can build the reactors or the electronics.
Quote:
However, the main limiting factor appears to have been a lack of coal, so the basic fuels to drive industry should be an important consideration in how well a nation can increase it's industrial output.
Although today oil, gas, and especially electricity have replaced coal in most applications. That would probably be the USD's biggest stumbling block to ramping up their production, many areas have notoriously brownout prone power grids. Significant expansion of industrial capacity in those areas would certainly need some serious remedial work.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Knaight
It's also worth looking into size - if you're particularly tall or short you might want a bow sized to that. I'm about 6'4", which is enough to make a standard sized recurve uncomfortably small to use - which is really fun when combined with a high draw weight.
I would agree, but I assumed 2D8HP is looking at a longbow rather than a recurve, so he's getting a long length bow regardless.
I'm the opposite of you as I'm short so have a correspondingly short draw length (~28" while I'm 5'7"), so in order to get the necessary power for distance, I have to go for a heavier draw weight than I should theoretically should so have had to bulk up (well bulk up more :smalltongue:).
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Carl
Although today oil, gas, and especially electricity have replaced coal in most applications. That would probably be the USD's biggest stumbling block to ramping up their production, many areas have notoriously brownout prone power grids. Significant expansion of industrial capacity in those areas would certainly need some serious remedial work.
Yes, the main power source for most industry is electricity -- of course you need something to power your power plants. I was referring specifically to Italy in the WW1 period when I mentioned coal, but obviously there are other fuels that can be used. The question is does the state in question have sufficient access to such resources? Then in addition to fueling the power plants there's the raw materials needed to make the weapons.
If the resources exist, is there a supply system already in effect to efficiently exploit those resources? If not, expanding the industry could be difficult -- not only do new factories have to be built, but new power plants to power them, new extraction sites to get the raw materials have to be developed, transportation networks to move raw materials to factories, etc.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
About construction times: this looks like a classic saturation situation to me. Once everyone has bought a fridge or a TV, you can expect sells to go down and production to stabilize. Once the US already has enough of a fleet to challenge anyone, you can expect the shipyards to build less.
A look at China might be more interesting.
Wikipedia:
Quote:
One STOBAR carrier: Liaoning was originally built as the 57,000 tonne Soviet Admiral Kuznetsov-class carrier Varyag[45] and was later purchased as a stripped hulk by China in 1998 on the pretext of use as a floating casino, then partially rebuilt and towed to China for completion.[46][47] Liaoning was commissioned on 25 September 2012, and began service for testing and training.[48] On 24 or 25 November 2012, Liaoning successfully launched and recovered several Shenyang J-15 jet fighter aircraft.[49][50][51] She is classified as a training ship, intended to allow the navy to practice with carrier usage. On 26 December 2012, the People's Daily reported that it will take four to five years for Liaoning to reach full capacity, mainly due to training and coordination which will take significant amount of time for Chinese PLA Navy to complete as this is the first aircraft carrier in their possession.[52] As it is a training ship, Liaoning is not assigned to any of China's operation fleets.[53]
More details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chines...rier_programme.
In general, it would seem that China first bought external materials. Then tried to learn how things work, from an engineering an training perspective. Lastly, it attempts to build stuff.
Going back to the original question: I think a good question is what a smaller nation is. I assume it isn't the USA. There are a few nations which already have the infrastructure and the industrial capability to build large quantities of military equipment: Germany and Italy still heavily rely on industry for their economy, so, in case of conversion, they could produce without fear of energy shortages. However, they are not autonomous in development of many weapon systems (aviation being the important point). This means that they would have to sublicense or buy abroad.
France and the UK don't have such an expanded industrial sector, but produce pretty much everything an army needs. So they would be ready to build from a licensing standpoint, but may run into energy shortages or infrastructure insufficiency.
Russia is something of a glass cannon, with, in theory, enormous resources and production capabilities, but, in practice, no money to put them to use. Russia is rearming, however, and it could be of interest to take a look at its programs.
Anyway, in most cases, I would expect such a nation to buy a lot from abroad and make horrible debts, rather than simply ramping up its production capabilities. It takes trained personnel, people with degrees, infrastructures, money, preparation, know-how to start creating this kind of advanced weaponry on your own. China and India are doing it, but they are behemoth countries and are needing decades. If you look at Israel, it had to fight its first war using supplies from Czechoslovakia.
One more question is how easy it is today to destroy tanks and aeroplanes. There is no doubt that both are extremely useful, but we are now seeing them used in asymmetrical warfare. How would it go, if two countries were to face off on equal footing? What I mean is that right now you need overwhelming power to use these things effectively, otherwise area denial will be impossible to overcome. Being able to ramp up production means having to deal with a long-term war. In such conditions, you could get new tanks and aeroplanes, although I doubt you would be able to get a new carrier (I am thinking of regional powers, not of the USA).
You might want to look into the Iraq-Iran war. It was dreadfully long, and fought between two relatively well developed countries not too long ago. You can also take a look at the various tensions around the world (Greece-Turkey, India-Pakistan...). I don't know if the last wars fought by colonial powers in African colonies have seen such an increase of production (France, Portugal).
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Carl
Although today oil, gas, and especially electricity have replaced coal in most applications. That would probably be the USD's biggest stumbling block to ramping up their production, many areas have notoriously brownout prone power grids. Significant expansion of industrial capacity in those areas would certainly need some serious remedial work.
But that does depend on the area, Texas for example might not have much trouble at all increasing industrial capacity, it's on its own power grid, and often has enough of a surplus on electricity that bids for electricity sometimes go into the negatives. (I know that sounds weird, and I don't know how to explain it properly, but the way it manifests for the general public is they get "free" electricity at certain times, cause the electricity has to go somewhere. It's usually the chief selling point providers use there, how many free hours you can get if you choose them over someone else).
I dunno how the rest of the US deals with its power, I've heard certain companies basically have a death hold on many places which is the main reason why infrastructure can't be fixed/repaired/upgraded.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PersonMan
So, after asking before about how much manpower a modern nation could deploy, I'm now wondering what limitations on naval/air production there are - it's not possible to just draft more fighter jets, after all. Could a smaller nation militarize its industry quickly to supply their air force with planes, or would that end up with bad equipment at best? How long would it take to go from "we need an aircraft carrier" to "our aircraft carrier is ready to fight"?
Depends on what sort of industrial base they have. Japan is a small nation with the technical know-how and developed industry to be able to convert over to producing high-tech military equipment so long as they have access to the resources, which is dicey given their position relative to most of the countries they might conceivably go to war with that isn't so far outside their reach that it'd be multiple decades or centuries in the making.
IIRC, South Korea manufactures some of its modern military equipment, not just buying it, so assuming they didn't get crippled by a surprise strike, I believe they could expand and redirect their manufacturing to war materiel, but in all likelihood, a big conflict would be over before they could start producing a whole lot of finished goods, especially if things escalate to a nuclear conflict.
Whereas some place like Montenegro or Luxembourg is screwed as they're minuscule and have no real industrial base and could in large part be occupied by the security forces of their neighbors.
Small central American states wouldn't be able to have access to the raw materials or the right kind of tech/industrial base for all of it but would definitely have manpower and some amount of industry that could be converted over to some things, probably mostly small arms, explosives, some amount of armor depending on raw materials, and maybe some chemical weapons if they produce pesticides instead of import them.
The example of Cuba's industrialization and militarization would be of interest, I believe, though IIRC their efforts were intentionally hobbled by their Soviet trading partners to keep them dependent.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
@Vinyadan: I wouldn't be so sure on the UK electricity wise. Remember seeing a documentary once on the UK power grid, (youtube clip of the relevant segment below), they have to handle some very serious upticks in demand at certain times of day so the grid itself is capable of handling a lot more power on a continual basis than it currently does, weather they can produce that much more continually is another matter but i wouldn't assume they either couldn't, or couldn't add it quickly if they needed to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTM2Ck6XWHg
For reference a bit of a wiki walk suggests 3GW is about 5% of the UK's normal daily consumption.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Carl
@Vinyadan: I wouldn't be so sure on the UK electricity wise. Remember seeing a documentary once on the UK power grid, (youtube clip of the relevant segment below), they have to handle some very serious upticks in demand at certain times of day
That's a tea thing, isn't it?
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BayardSPSR
That's a tea thing, isn't it?
Yup. Electricity companies expected an uptick in demand during the advert breaks or at the end of very popular programmes (in this case, a TV soap opera EastEnders), since that's when people stick the kettle on to make a quick cuppa.
Never get between an English person and their tea - we've gone to war over it.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Now that I think about it, France also has a superproduction of electricity, which is usually sold abroad for very low prices (nuclear energy).
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Wasn't there another one or two countries in Europe that also has a huge surplus thanks to their wind farms?
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cobaltstarfire
Wasn't there another one or two countries in Europe that also has a huge surplus thanks to their wind farms?
Anyone running portions of renewable electricity has to have back-up power to cover the renewable waiting to be renewed. Ironically often coal.
All countries run a surplus, because you can't really run on a deficit. Simplistically speaking. You can't run a surplus if you don't have anywhere to send it either.
As I've had it explained to me what the French have then is Watts, raw power, but you also need voltage and amps to keep it all up.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
snowblizz
As I've had it explained to me what the French have then is Watts, raw power, but you also need voltage and amps to keep it all up.
Whoever explained that to you knows nothing about electricity.
Watts = Voltage * Amperage. You cannot have one without the other three. This is one of the two most basic, fundamental electrical concepts.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gnoman
Whoever explained that to you knows nothing about electricity.
Watts = Voltage * Amperage. You cannot have one without the other three. This is one of the two most basic, fundamental electrical concepts.
I never said they were separate. But balancing a grid is a tricky business, since you need to keep all of that balanced.
He knows a lot about electricity actually and was entirely correct in what he was saying. He also works at keeping the power grid infrastructure up and running. The ones with a whole lotta volts in them.
My ability exactly retell the story from a discussion about powergrids may not be as good. I think the basic principle of it was no amount of wind power is going to help you the day it's not windy. Because he was quoting some dude (who is responsible for makign sure Sweden doesn't black out) who wanted more Watts, continuously, and was very annoyed about all the talk about energy.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
snowblizz
Anyone running portions of renewable electricity has to have back-up power to cover the renewable waiting to be renewed.
.
I wasn't talking about whatever "normal" surplus, I was talking about a large enough surplus that they regularly sell to other countries, or practically have to give it away just to get it off their grid.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
For those interested in modern military logistics, as well as a damn good show, take a look at "Generation Kill" it is the doco made by that Rolling Stone reporter about the 1st Recon Marine group that were the first to enter Iraq during the second gulf war.
Some stand out features:
- The backgrounds of soldiers is pretty depressing, mostly the poor of course
- War is boring 99% of the time, horrifying the other 1%
- Everybody gets equipped with nightvision, but the corp forgets to give them batteries. They have to get them sent from family at home if they want to be able to see.
- Orders send them towards an airstrip across an entirely open field and they only have hummers. The airfield is protected by tanks, so they have at best 1.5 km of killing field where their weapons are not in range, but the tanks are, to cross entirely unprotected. Not to mention nothing that can puncture tank armor at range.
- An officer calls in fire-close air support, for no good reason. Apparently calling in dangerous air support commands automatically gets you a medal for bravery and he wanted one. Thankfully he got the coordinates wrong and it landed nowhere near them.
- amphetamine abuse is pretty much mandatory to reach the objectives
The stand out thing from historic military strategy for me is just how evil everybody was. Even the "good guys" of history are evil bastards by today's standards. Even guys like Saladin who were considered noble and fair by their enemies (with good reason at the time) were, by today's standards, heinous war criminals. This gives me some hope regarding the world moving ever so slowly in the right direction.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
I think the basic principle of it was no amount of wind power is going to help you the day it's not windy.
Your friend needs to take a rain check on that statement and actually think about it for a moment.
Wind power is perfectly capable of providing long term continuous output with no fewer stoppages than any other plant type. The catch is it needs a capacitor bank that it can charge during high winds to cover the shortfall in low winds and thats somthing no wind farm currently includes AFAIK. It adds a lot to both the startup and operating costs whilst reducing capacity for a given size of wind farm. Another reason it's not included.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Carl
Wind power is perfectly capable of providing long term continuous output with no fewer stoppages than any other plant type. The catch is it needs a capacitor bank that it can charge during high winds to cover the shortfall in low winds and thats somthing no wind farm currently includes AFAIK. It adds a lot to both the startup and operating costs whilst reducing capacity for a given size of wind farm. Another reason it's not included.
I believe that technological limitations for storing electricity is the main barrier from mass switching over to renewable energy?
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
I believe that technological limitations for storing electricity is the main barrier from mass switching over to renewable energy?
We've been able to do large scale energy storage for years, many early military particle and laser weapon experiments used really energy inefficient designs that required stupendous capacitors to store the energy. Again it's just that it adds cost to the plant and reduces the overall output so the price per kw/h generated goes up and that makes the electricity produced expensive which is somthing everyone's so desperate to avoid their willing to hobble the whole thing.
Whilst i'm not suggesting they literally hook up a ridiculous number of car batteries, (there are some good reasons to avoid the tech for this purpose, but they are a stupidly simple design overall), if you take a look at the first entry of the chart here, the energy density comes out at approx 75kw/H per cubic meter, (this is less than a tenth the best batteries, though those are hard to charge, but there are fully rechargeable designs with way better energy per volume). Bearing in mind a typical turbine will be spaces at hundreds of meters apart there's more than enough room for truly huge battery capacity buried under the towers. I mean your still only talking hours of storage capacity at full output in most cases of between 50 and a 100 hours with car battery grade storage density, but thats still 2-3 days of capacity without any increase in plant land footprint. Go for better batteries and expand the plant area' and you can build some really serious capacity measurable in weeks of full output.
I mean if your asking, could we go out and do it tomorrow, the answer is probably no, not because we lack the technology, but because we lack the industrial capacity to mass produce the necessary storage mediums on the kind of scale necessary to make it all work, and we'd need to develop institutional experiance of how to build somthing like this from a gross engineering standpoint.
In that respect it resembles the earlier supercarrier question. most nations using a lot of wind power have the basic science and technology needed to make it work, but not the raw developed industry and construction experience in the specific area's. But then the same was true of wind turbine technology before this all got started.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Carl
We've been able to do large scale energy storage for years, many early military particle and laser weapon experiments used really energy inefficient designs that required stupendous capacitors to store the energy. Again it's just that it adds cost to the plant and reduces the overall output so the price per kw/h generated goes up and that makes the electricity produced expensive which is somthing everyone's so desperate to avoid their willing to hobble the whole thing.
One of those storage methods is to use surplus electricity to effectively put the hydroelectric plants we have in the UK into reverse and pump water back into the reservoirs - it's normally done overnight when the demand on the gird is at it's lowest so that the plant can generate during the day.
Anyway, another thing to consider for military availability is previous generation equipment - anything that's currently in mothballs or assigned to units like the National Guard which could potentially be returned to front line service.