Soviet GB Suggested Rules

[NARSES2]

Dizz is right.  NATO reporting names will be a complication.  I don't want to make extra work for anyone but maybe we should have a moderated thread listing our choices to avoid any repetition?

Doesn't matter if you are building from the Soviet side of the Iron Curtain. They didn't use them  Only matters if the backstory involves a Western intelligence report or similar.

Mine won't need one as it will be 1944/45 or if they actually used them then Chinese circa 1948.

[loupgarou]

Dizz is right.  NATO reporting names will be a complication.  I don't want to make extra work for anyone but maybe we should have a moderated thread listing our choices to avoid any repetition?

Doesn't matter if you are building from the Soviet side of the Iron Curtain. They didn't use them Only matters if the backstory involves a Western intelligence report or similar.

Mine won't need one as it will be 1944/45 or if they actually used them then Chinese circa 1948.

But it's so nice to use them. 
May I reserve the name "Hemorroids" for an helicopter I'd like to build?

[JasonW]

May I reserve the name "Hemorrhoids" for an helicopter I'd like to build?

Consider the NATO reporting name "Hemorrhoids" reserved for you.

(See what I did there? Fixed it for you....)

[Weaver]

Dizz is right.  NATO reporting names will be a complication.  I don't want to make extra work for anyone but maybe we should have a moderated thread listing our choices to avoid any repetition?

Doesn't matter if you are building from the Soviet side of the Iron Curtain. They didn't use them  Only matters if the backstory involves a Western intelligence report or similar.

Mine won't need one as it will be 1944/45 or if they actually used them then Chinese circa 1948.

I understand that they thought 'Frogfoot' was hilarious, hence the Czech Su-25 with the cartoon frog stomping on tanks that did the rounds back in the '90s (?).

[Weaver]

Ah good.  The result I wanted.
Close one but.

Dizz is right.  NATO reporting names will be a complication.  I don't want to make extra work for anyone but maybe we should have a moderated thread listing our choices to avoid any repetition?

Here is a relevant wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_reporting_name
I note NATO doesn't differentiate between strike aircraft and fighters.  Maybe Whiff NATO should?  I would suggest "S" names.

Your wish is our command.

Well, it's more like a suggestion really, but we decided to humour you....

[zenrat]

...Your wish is our command...

That really isn't a good idea you know.

Whaar haar ha...

[Nick]

Am I right in thinking that the Soviet Union could, via a plausible backstory, be considered as not having ended in 1991?
The Cold War or even World War Three might be happening now?

[ysi_maniac]

Pity, If I could vote, there would be an even. 

Why couldn't you vote?

I was late 

[Dizzyfugu]

Digging for ideas and potential builds to run under the Soviet GB, I came across a scope problem: what about license-built or bluntly copied Russian/Soviet designs that might have been built, developed or operated elsewhere? This concerns specifically China, where several MiG fighters (and the Il-28) were produced at first, and later these were the basis for local designs (but might also be true for Czechoslovakia and Poland, and other countries that might be whiffed to the list). Would such an aircraft also fall under the Soviet GB (as long as the Russian roots are still visible)?

One such case is the J-7FS, a rather "illegal" mutation of the MiG-21MF - not that I want to build one, but it's a good example for the "problem". 




Any official comment?

[Hman]

At the risk of appearing a bit dim, is the matter of the rules settled now? 

[Weaver]

At the risk of appearing a bit dim, is the matter of the rules settled now?

The rules will be Soviet Russia Only as per the poll.

[Weaver]

Am I right in thinking that the Soviet Union could, via a plausible backstory, be considered as not having ended in 1991?
The Cold War or even World War Three might be happening now?

Yes, that's fine.

[Weaver]

Digging for ideas and potential builds to run under the Soviet GB, I came across a scope problem: what about license-built or bluntly copied Russian/Soviet designs that might have been built, developed or operated elsewhere? This concerns specifically China, where several MiG fighters (and the Il-28) were produced at first, and later these were the basis for local designs (but might also be true for Czechoslovakia and Poland, and other countries that might be whiffed to the list). Would such an aircraft also fall under the Soviet GB (as long as the Russian roots are still visible)?

One such case is the J-7FS, a rather "illegal" mutation of the MiG-21MF - not that I want to build one, but it's a good example for the "problem". 

Any official comment?

It's under discussion.  Good question!

[Dizzyfugu]

Thank you very much for consideration. 

[Librarian]

I'm going to build at least one of two ideas and I'd like to confirm if they're OK.

An Antonov AN-2 transport in Japanese markings

An aircraft based around the Spiteful but Sovietised and in Soviet colours and markings

Any problems with either?