NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #6

[Yukonastan]

" but the typical DMR is far more capable than the shooter and perfectly adequate for the vast majority of sniper engagements

This applies to most rifles, period.

And is a consideration one should have when buying a rifle. Will the rifle, in expert hands, shoot reasonably tight groups of a couple or less minutes-of-angle at a hundred metres, even if the rifle's buyer is not capable of said accuracy?

[New Vihenia]

To borrow an argument from something I read a long time ago in a USAF magazine: Modelling of air defense has historically vastly overstated the lethality of SAMs and the actual achievements airpower in breaking through air defenses has consistently exceeded model predictions. In both Vietnam and Iraq USAF modellers predicted heavy attrition losses from enemy SAMs that utterly failed to materialize. Or as the author argued (and I would agree) air defense modelling fails to capture the reality that the combined effects of effective technology and tactics (all tactics, not just individual counter-SAM tactics) is far greater than the sum of it's parts.

What model are these ?

But even looking at the purely technical side: Conescan radars were susceptible to jamming from the beginning. Monopulse radars are much less susceptible, but were essentially a non-entity on the battlefields of the Cold War. Now monopulse radar is widespread but so are towed decoys and crosseye jammers. And crosseye jammers in particular have defied predictions by being easy to build (one university team built a working retrodirective cross eye jammer using COT equipment in a few months), highly reliable in operation (skin returns are much less important than was believed) and effective against all existing radar fire control systems (and also contrary to some predictions, it can produce pointing errors much larger than the width of the beam to achieve total break-lock and huge miss distances). It isn't a red queen race because radar has improved a lot, especially against support jammers and natural clutter, but self-protection jammers remain an extremely powerful tool against radar fire control.

Retrodirective crosseye jamming may actually have caused fire control radar to loose ground against jammers because there is nothing in the traditional ECCM toolkit which can defeat it. Right now IRL an aircraft protected by a crosseye jammer effectively cannot be engaged successfully by existing radar-guided weapons except in the aspects not protected by it. Which can usually be covered by a towed decoy.

With assumption that the radar's waveform is well known. Cross eye jamming requires quite J/S Ratio to be successfull, Either the jammer must have quite high power or somewhat the waveform must be perfectly matched with victim radar's waveform and seduction is required meaning that you need to start with other technique such as RGPO/VGPO or high power pulse to draw away the tracker from real skin return.

And these seduction can be noticed by either operator or the system itself.

Some SAM radar also work in TVM or SAGG Which essentially double up the perspective where target can be seen, and worst part is that their missile actually dives down, from the aspect usually not covered by jammer and i doubt towed decoy cover top aspect. There's a reason why Israel keep against and halting Russians from sending S-300's despite their capability claim to disable or EA the system.


Today's trend of fitting dedicated ESM to support SAM Operations, Chinese system have height finding feature, very suitable for fire control.

Another characteristics of jammer antenna that can be exploited is sidelobe, we know by nature that jammer antenna cannot be as directive as radar antenna, this caused either large beamwidth or sidelobe which can be intercepted and then followed with HOJ.

Hmm so calling the radar has no longer ground vs jammer seems to be exaggerating.

And then there is stealth. And hacking.

Sure. Stealth do well with low penetrating altitude. and may benefit from either clutter or reduced sensitivity that caused by natural and manmade noise by jammers or radars operating in the area.

High altitude hmm What clutter will protect it from radar, especially those working in VHF band, This calls for either decoy and intensive support jammer. May benefitted somewhat by reduced power required for obliteration of target signature but then, it's the jammer that may be detected first and probably engaged.

Hacking hmmm this means one need to actually gain access to enemy network.. I read claim on this but i doubt somewhat with the application, granted i seen Windows based system on some Radar's but hmm Today's trend in datalink antenna for ADM are either pencil beam or when possible optical fiber are used. To hack this link require either the jammer be between LOS of the datalink system or someone posing as AD personnel upload the virus/backdoor manually.

[Yukonastan]

To borrow an argument from something I read a long time ago in a USAF magazine: Modelling of air defense has historically vastly overstated the lethality of SAMs and the actual achievements airpower in breaking through air defenses has consistently exceeded model predictions. In both Vietnam and Iraq USAF modellers predicted heavy attrition losses from enemy SAMs that utterly failed to materialize. Or as the author argued (and I would agree) air defense modelling fails to capture the reality that the combined effects of effective technology and tactics (all tactics, not just individual counter-SAM tactics) is far greater than the sum of it's parts.

What model are these ?

But even looking at the purely technical side: Conescan radars were susceptible to jamming from the beginning. Monopulse radars are much less susceptible, but were essentially a non-entity on the battlefields of the Cold War. Now monopulse radar is widespread but so are towed decoys and crosseye jammers. And crosseye jammers in particular have defied predictions by being easy to build (one university team built a working retrodirective cross eye jammer using COT equipment in a few months), highly reliable in operation (skin returns are much less important than was believed) and effective against all existing radar fire control systems (and also contrary to some predictions, it can produce pointing errors much larger than the width of the beam to achieve total break-lock and huge miss distances). It isn't a red queen race because radar has improved a lot, especially against support jammers and natural clutter, but self-protection jammers remain an extremely powerful tool against radar fire control.

Retrodirective crosseye jamming may actually have caused fire control radar to loose ground against jammers because there is nothing in the traditional ECCM toolkit which can defeat it. Right now IRL an aircraft protected by a crosseye jammer effectively cannot be engaged successfully by existing radar-guided weapons except in the aspects not protected by it. Which can usually be covered by a towed decoy.

With assumption that the radar's waveform is well known. Cross eye jamming requires quite J/S Ratio to be successfull, Either the jammer must have quite high power or somewhat the waveform must be perfectly matched with victim radar's waveform and seduction is required meaning that you need to start with other technique such as RGPO/VGPO or high power pulse to draw away the tracker from real skin return.

And these seduction can be noticed by either operator or the system itself.

Not necessarily. You can let yourself get locked, while you figure out the jammer frequency and waveform, and then the jammer breaks lock.

Some SAM radar also work in TVM or SAGG Which essentially double up the perspective where target can be seen, and worst part is that their missile actually dives down, from the aspect usually not covered by jammer and i doubt towed decoy cover top aspect. There's a reason why Israel keep against and halting Russians from sending S-300's despite their capability claim to disable or EA the system.


Today's trend of fitting dedicated ESM to support SAM Operations, Chinese system have height finding feature, very suitable for fire control.

Another characteristics of jammer antenna that can be exploited is sidelobe, we know by nature that jammer antenna cannot be as directive as radar antenna, this caused either large beamwidth or sidelobe which can be intercepted and then followed with HOJ.

Hmm so calling the radar has no longer ground vs jammer seems to be exaggerating.

And you know it is impossible to use a highly directional antenna with minimal sidelobes how? This statement is frankly utter bullshit.

And then there is stealth. And hacking.

Sure. Stealth do well with low penetrating altitude. and may benefit from either clutter or reduced sensitivity that caused by natural and manmade noise by jammers or radars operating in the area.

High altitude hmm What clutter will protect it from radar, especially those working in VHF band, This calls for either decoy and intensive support jammer. May benefitted somewhat by reduced power required for obliteration of target signature but then, it's the jammer that may be detected first and probably engaged.

Hacking hmmm this means one need to actually gain access to enemy network.. I read claim on this but i doubt somewhat with the application, granted i seen Windows based system on some Radar's but hmm Today's trend in datalink antenna for ADM are either pencil beam or when possible optical fiber are used. To hack this link require either the jammer be between LOS of the datalink system or someone posing as AD personnel upload the virus/backdoor manually.

[New Vihenia]

And you know it is impossible to use a highly directional antenna with minimal sidelobes how? This statement is frankly utter bullshit.

Then tell me how you can maintain frequency coverage of the jammer ? Or at least keep your jammer at reasonable size and cost ?

High directivity means large antenna, High frequency no problem... However note that jammer needs to cover multiple frequency. It necessitating use of somewhat less directive antenna.

So you can still have necessary gain to allow jammer to cover your ass.

Not necessarily. You can let yourself get locked, while you figure out the jammer frequency and waveform, and then the jammer breaks lock.

Problem is some SAM Radar does not really "locks" You until they launch. By the time it lock on the missile is already 3 seconds from your ass.

[New Vihenia]

Further addition.

This is the post from SOC or Sean O Connor, He's well respected ex-USAF member dealing with air defense respect. You can google his open sourced intel Blog..Or if you subscribed to him, you'll have his free air defense "magazine" emailed to you for free. That's how i got my S-300 related materials.

This is why Long Range SAM today are nifty :

This is how SAGG works, explained using the S-300PM's acquisition and launch process. I posted this here a while ago in the Russian ARMs thread, this version has a few minor changes.

ACQUISITION PHASE

1. Target track data is received by the 30N6. This can come from either a) a 64N6 downlink, b) a 36D6 downlink, c) an EW network downlink, or d) the 30N6 itself acting in its limited search capacity.

2. Battery personnel look at each other, each raising a single eyebrow, the universally recognized signal for "is this guy serious?"

3. Once the target enters engagement range, which is determined by target and/or firing doctrine, target position data gets uploaded to a pair of missiles. This is generated by the 30N6, which begins scanning the sky near the target; this can be especially important if you got track data from a 2D source, as you'll need height (the missing "D") to tell the missile which way to point immediately after launch and accurately guide the missile during midcourse. If you've got multiple missile types in your TELs (the S-300P family is all backwards compatible, so you might have 5V55s and 48N6s), the 30N6 will decide what kind of missile to fire based on ECM presence, target type, etc.

4. The pair of 48N6s are cold-launched, ignite, and head towards the target, briefly inertially guided based on the uploaded target data.

INITIAL FLIGHT

5. After stabilization, the 30N6 acquires the missiles and begins tracking, preparing to deliver guidance commands during midcourse. The target is also intermittently tracked. As an aside, radar capability and missile stabilization time are your major drivers for minimum range. Faster systems and better electronics mean you can get this going quicker, giving a smaller minimum range.

MIDCOURSE PHASE

6. While in-flight, the 30N6 periodically monitors the target and missile positions, uplinking course corrections to the missiles to keep them going in the right direction. This is simply command guidance. From an EW perspective, this is basically ops normal for the 30N6, and doesn't indicate a launch. However, if the S-300PM battery belongs to someone who does not employ the 30N6 in search mode, or keeps them offline until required to hide them from ELINT snoopers directing SEAD/DEAD strikes, 30N6 emissions can obviously indicate an active engagement. Plus, if your RWR/RHAW gear says "30N6 is online that way, and it's scanned our airspace at least once", you're going to take what precautions you can regardless.

TERMINAL PHASE

7. Upon reaching the terminal phase, the seeker in the missile activates. The 30N6 begins painting the target continuously using a narrow beam. At this point you know that you've been fired on, the CW signal from the 30N6 amounting to a "lock on". It's not that your RWR/RHAW gear is ignorant of a "lock on", it's that the SAGG system is delaying true "lock on" until the last possible moment to reduce the target's ability to evade.

8. The missile basically has a modified SARH seeker, and a set of guidance systems. The missile receives reflected energy from the target, and generates guidance commands. Except that these are not acted upon, and are instead downlinked to the 30N6.

9. The 30N6, operating in CW mode, generates its own set of guidance commands based on the reflected energy it receives and the position of the missile it is still tracking.

10. The two sets of guidance commands are compared and used to generate a final set, which is uplinked to the missile for action. The missile then makes the course correction required. Sending the data back and forth might seem like it's making things take longer than it needs to, but the processors in the engagement radar are extremely powerful and the signals are transmitted as EM waves, and therefore travel at light speed anyway.

11. At endgame, the proximity fuze detonates the warhead. The missile airframe executes a roll prior to detonation to align the directional warhead with the target for maximum effect. At the same time, the second missile (forget about him?) does the same thing. Oh, and the missiles are moving at something close to Mach 6, so the time window from terminal phase initiation to warhead detonation is going to be very, very small. Another point for the well-designed SAM system.

12. Airplane confetti. Almaz-Antei and Fakel patent the concept of overkill following the second missile detonating.

13. 30N6 scans the area to ensure the target has been eliminated, this is referred to as shoot-shoot-look: fire two weapons, see if you killed the target.

TVM differs in steps 8-10. In a simpler TVM system, target position data from the missile seeker is sent to the radar, which uses it to generate guidance commands, sending these back up to the missile. TVM is simpler in that you're using the missile as the radar receiver. Downlink the target data, get guidance commands, kill target.

The difference with a TVM weapon and a SAGG weapon is that a SAGG weapon will be more complex as it needs to have smarter guidance systems onboard the missile itself. Both will work fine, both will be accurate. SAGG, however, gives you a lot more EW/ECM/etc. protection as you're essentially continuously comparing two viewpoints of the battlespace to get the most accurate picture. Comparing these viewpoints will allow you to filter out a lot of jamming sources.

So, SAGG is more complicated, but that's a good thing: varying perspectives allow for more efficient flightpaths (more range) and better ECCM characteristics (higher pK). And if you think about it in terms of the target, you aren't sure you've been fired at until step 7.

[Padnak]

So in essence, S-300s fuck shit up

good to know

[Padnak]

Tyulpan is fitted to an MT-LB, a vehicle that's known as a "prime mover".
This is because, unlike vehicles like the Pion, Msta, Nona etc - the Tyulpan is transported by the vehicle it is mounted to, and then firing is conducted off the back, mounting a baseplate to the ground.

Third worlders tend to have a rightful shedload of MT-LBs lying around because they're cheap and hugely useful.
You could fit Tyulpan's mortar and mounting to a T-55 or anything else you fancy, it just wouldn't be purposeful.
Just expensive, pretty and damned awesome. And use up a T-55.

I have number of MT-LBs and MT-LBu's that I could (and probably should) use for the role, but the idea of a T-55 based heavy mortar makes the third world general inside me blush with glee

Although, isn't the Tyulpan based the hull of a tracked mine layer?

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

A question, if I may.

Would there be issue with developing a beefier X-47A, and bringing it's capabilities closer in line with the C? The reason being that I prefer the look of the A over. . .pretty much every other UCAV I've looked at. Stupid, I know, but eh.

[Imperializt Russia]

Tyulpan is fitted to an MT-LB, a vehicle that's known as a "prime mover".
This is because, unlike vehicles like the Pion, Msta, Nona etc - the Tyulpan is transported by the vehicle it is mounted to, and then firing is conducted off the back, mounting a baseplate to the ground.

Third worlders tend to have a rightful shedload of MT-LBs lying around because they're cheap and hugely useful.
You could fit Tyulpan's mortar and mounting to a T-55 or anything else you fancy, it just wouldn't be purposeful.
Just expensive, pretty and damned awesome. And use up a T-55.

I have number of MT-LBs and MT-LBu's that I could (and probably should) use for the role, but the idea of a T-55 based heavy mortar makes the third world general inside me blush with glee

Although, isn't the Tyulpan based the hull of a tracked mine layer?

I know, and it's making me frankly wet with jealousy.

You're right, the Tyulpan apparently is based on the GMZ minelayer.
Doing some reading, the GMZ chassis is based off the chassis of the SA-4/2K11 Ganef/Krug, which according to this list on GM-type chassis is the GM-123 or GM-124.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_chassis
Other GM-type chassis are used for Tor, Buk, 2S3, S-300, Shilka etc.

MT-LB(u) should be more than capable.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Need a gratuitously overpowered and gloriously third-world use for a T-55 chassis?

Why not Koksan?


There are also rather ridiculous-looking T-55 conversions for the (normally towed) S-125 and S-75 SAM systems, but I figured a 170mm artillery gun might be more up your alley.

[Purpelia]

How difficult would it be to make a vehicle that fits the following criteria:
1. Is fully tracked and resembles the MTLB
2. Has a front mounted engine
3. Has a rear mounted cargo space large enough to be a cargo truck
4. Is amphibious and uses waterjets

[Novorden]

So i was thinking that i would be all smart and use my naval AA missile (Aster30) as my land based missile. Turns out someone already had that idea...

[Rich and Corporations]

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2 ... f-war.html

The limited space not only affected crew performance but turned the T-34 into a deathtrap. A US study from the Korean War (based on the T-34/85 that was roomier than the T-34/76) concluded that due to the limited internal space a penetration by an A/T round usually led to the destruction of the tank and loss of 75% of the crew. In the Sherman the figure was only 18% (1).

Something to consider in the East versus West armor design methodologies.

How difficult would it be to make a vehicle that fits the following criteria:
1. Is fully tracked and resembles the MTLB
2. Has a front mounted engine
3. Has a rear mounted cargo space large enough to be a cargo truck
4. Is amphibious and uses waterjets

5. and has a turning radius like the space shuttle

[New Vihenia]

Would love to see NS version of NGJ outlined and appear after this :3

[The Akasha Colony]

Current "sniper rifles" in the West are modernized, accurized versions of older semi-automatic or select fire rifles with equipment to mount an optic , bipod, and a few other bells and whistles (e.g. SR-25, Mk. 14 EBR). There are again some purpose-built weapons, especially in heavy calibers, but conversions of legacy rifles are still extremely common (e.g. XM2010).

I probably can't justify this, but In my mind the Mk.14 and SR25 are marksman rifles, whilst things like the L115a3 are 'sniper rifles'

But how does SR-25 substantively differ from M110, which the US Army has adopted as the replacement to the old M24 SWS?

[Padnak]

I know, and it's making me frankly wet with jealousy.

You're right, the Tyulpan apparently is based on the GMZ minelayer.
Doing some reading, the GMZ chassis is based off the chassis of the SA-4/2K11 Ganef/Krug, which according to this list on GM-type chassis is the GM-123 or GM-124.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_chassis
Other GM-type chassis are used for Tor, Buk, 2S3, S-300, Shilka etc.

MT-LB(u) should be more than capable.

Interesting, I'll have to read up on that-
Tracked mine layers yah or nay?

Need a gratuitously overpowered and gloriously third-world use for a T-55 chassis?

Why not Koksan?

There are also rather ridiculous-looking T-55 conversions for the (normally towed) S-125 and S-75 SAM systems, but I figured a 170mm artillery gun might be more up your alley.

I'm a huge fan of those SAMs mounted on T-55 chassis, they just look so ridicules they command respect

Speaking of commanding respect, the Koksan is possibly the Stonkest SPG ever built after the Pion

[Imperializt Russia]

Need a gratuitously overpowered and gloriously third-world use for a T-55 chassis?

Why not Koksan?
(Image)

There are also rather ridiculous-looking T-55 conversions for the (normally towed) S-125 and S-75 SAM systems, but I figured a 170mm artillery gun might be more up your alley.

"That's my line! That's what I wanted to say! May! May, you bastard!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8djmXyhK26c

[Kouralia]

So i was thinking that i would be all smart and use my naval AA missile (Aster30) as my land based missile. Turns out someone already had that idea...
(Image)

Is the Aster a step up from the CAMM (which, IIRC, isn't that the one you've got on your APC chassis?)?

[Padnak]

How difficult would it be to make a vehicle that fits the following criteria:
1. Is fully tracked and resembles the MTLB
2. Has a front mounted engine
3. Has a rear mounted cargo space large enough to be a cargo truck
4. Is amphibious and uses waterjets

Take an 2S7 Pion, rip the gun off it and you're good to go

[Oaledonia]

I always assumed a sniper was tasked with disrupting troop movement over the elimination of HVT

[The Akasha Colony]

So i was thinking that i would be all smart and use my naval AA missile (Aster30) as my land based missile. Turns out someone already had that idea...
(Image)

Is the Aster a step up from the CAMM (which, IIRC, isn't that the one you've got on your APC chassis?)?

Aster 30 is a longer-ranged missile more comparable to the SM-series, rather than a shorter-range missile like CAMM/Aster 15, which is more like Sea Sparrow.

[Proskoya]

I always assumed a sniper was tasked with disrupting troop movement over the elimination of HVT

I thought they were usually tasked with reconnaissance and told if they see a target of opportunity, take it.

[Immoren]

I always assumed a sniper was tasked with disrupting troop movement over the elimination of HVT

Isn't targeting officers, NCOs and radio operators both attempt at disrupting troop movement and elimination of HVT?

I always assumed a sniper was tasked with disrupting troop movement over the elimination of HVT

I thought they were usually tasked with reconnaissance and told if they see a target of opportunity, take it.

It's all of them depending on METT-T.

[Novorden]

So i was thinking that i would be all smart and use my naval AA missile (Aster30) as my land based missile. Turns out someone already had that idea...
(Image)

Is the Aster a step up from the CAMM (which, IIRC, isn't that the one you've got on your APC chassis?)?

The CAMM is for my Local air defence (~25km range)
The ASTER30 is for my Battlefield air defence (120km rage)

So working together they become the BAD LADS.

[Kouralia]

Is the Aster a step up from the CAMM (which, IIRC, isn't that the one you've got on your APC chassis?)?

Aster 30 is a longer-ranged missile more comparable to the SM-series, rather than a shorter-range missile like CAMM/Aster 15, which is more like Sea Sparrow.

So, what would be a good delineation of SAMs (bear in mind, they'll all likely end up as not!*IRL model* because I have little enough interest in designing my own)?

Starstreak --> CAMM --> Aster 30 --> S400

Should there be a stage in between Aster and S400?