NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[Dostanuot Loj]

7+ is pretty standard in RL armies that have actually fought recently.

I say 7+ because that number goes up with what they can scrounge and what they want to do. I have spoken with multi-tour Afghan vets in the CF that carried only their alloted 7 magazines, and some that carried more. One guy I spoke with (Big guy btw) carried 22 loaded magazines on him for combat patrol.
Troops will figure out what ammo they need and make it work if they have to.

That said, 7 is a pretty standard basis for actual fighting. 7x30rnd 5.56mm NATO is 210 rounds, you won't often need more then that. It often means one in the gun (or pocket), and six in magazine pouches.

[North Arkana]

Just looking some stuff up about air-to-air combat in Iraq because of stories about planes dropping bombs on helis and... well...

23 December 2002
USAF RQ-1 Predator vs. IRAF MiG-25
In what was the last aerial victory for the Iraqi Air Force before Operation Iraqi Freedom, an Iraqi MiG-25 destroyed an American UAV RQ-1 Predator after the drone opened fire on the Iraqi aircraft with a Stinger missile.

Yes, it was an Iraqi victory... BUT... Predator fired first... yes, the non-stealthy drone with the heat-seeking missile with a range of 4.5 km (8 km if second model) got off the first shot...

[The Soodean Imperium]

So in that case I'll give these guys 1 in the rifle and 6 in pouches, while units with the aforementioned body-armor-and-webbing kit get 1 in the rifle and 8 in pouches.

One last question, though - what about the LMG/SAW? Two 200-round boxes, plus two more carried by the assistant?

Also, I really like them. They have a PLA aesthetic to them.

Thanks! I've been trying for something a little more original than the :not:USSR style with my latest round of ORBAT and equipment revisions, and (with help and encouragement from Korva) finally got an infantry aesthetic I like here.

If you look closely, you'll also notice the rifles are not AK-103s, but something of my own design - which I may work out in more detail tomorrow.

[Korva]

what about the LMG/SAW? Two 200-round boxes, plus two more carried by the assistant?

Double that probably.

You can also give a belt to everyone else. Whenever they get to a point for the MG to set up they all drop a belt for him and keep going.

Figure sustained fire from a SAW is going to be like 100rpm, with 800 rds total you aren't getting that much suppressive fire.

[Maverica]

Hello. I have a quick question.

Would anyone have any specifications on the KBA3 Tank gun. Made by Ukraine and armed on the t 84. Would like to know bit more about it.

[The Corparation]

So as I mentioned last page about a week ago I drew a rather unique interceptor to shoot down NS super planes like my LRNSA or possibly Lyras's Dragonhawk. I'm currently looking at propulsion layouts and I have a couple ideas for the engines I want to throw out and get some input on. Power for all of the layouts would be a circulating fuel nuclear reactor, with the fuel being pumped directly to the engines with no intermediate cooling loop.

My current Ideas:
1 - Nuclear Turbojet. Turbojet powered by the reactor instead of burning jet fuel. Not really anything to add. Fairly boring by NS-standards

2 - Variable Cycle Turbojet. Engine can powered by the reactor and/or jet fuel. Take off, landings and emergency flight done on Jet fuel, cruise on nuclear. Similar to LRNSA's propulsion system only with turbojets instead of turbofans.

3 - Not sure what to call this one.It would have a mostly conventional turbojet as a core with some sort of nuclear "afterburner". As the aircraft speeds up and reaches cruising altitude bypasses would be opened directing airflow around the core,and the reactor would begin to heat the air in the "afterburner" section. Once at cursing speed all or nearly all of the air would be going straight to the "afterburner" and the turbojet core would be shutdown with the engine running as a pure nuclear ramjet.

[Korva]

Hello. I have a quick question.

Would anyone have any specifications on the KBA3 Tank gun. Made by Ukraine and armed on the t 84. Would like to know bit more about it.

http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/kba3.php

[The Greater Aryan Race]

The B-52 is like an airliner with crappy engines. It has no characteristics of a survivable aircraft and depends entirely on its ECM for protection. If a fighter shows up it is deader than disco.

The B-1B is faster and has a lower signature. But it doesn't have quite enough of either. At altitude it cannot fly fast enough or high enough to avoid most SAMs or interceptors and it is not stealthy enough to avoid detection. At low altitude its still significant RCS and large infared/visual/acoustic signatures make it vulnerable to SHORADS and AWACS detection. Like the B-52 it depends very heavily on its ECM to defeat air defenses and will be extremely vulnerable if the enemy can overcome its electronic defenses.

So for all intents and purposes, bombers are practically useless against most enemies with sophisticated radar and SAM capabilities? Would it make any considerable difference if I scrapped my bomber fleet and just bought more F-18s, F-22s and Tomahawks instead?

[Connori Pilgrims]

So for all intents and purposes, bombers are practically useless against most enemies with sophisticated radar and SAM capabilities? Would it make any considerable difference if I scrapped my bomber fleet and just bought more F-18s, F-22s and Tomahawks instead?

This really depends on your nation's overall strategy. If you're a Great Power with global commitments and/or needs (like the US which needs to be able to bomb any likely enemy anywhere or Russia who needs to be able to bomb the CONUS) your F-18 and F-22 are insufficient because they don't have the range to go across the globe on their own. Sure you can use aerial refueling but this means all the enemy needs to do is destroy your tankers (which any smart sophisticated one will attempt). Use of Tomahawks are dependent on how fast your ships can get into position to launch, which will be always slower than any bomber.

However, if you have only merely regional or local ambitions (so you just wanna threaten your immediate neighbors) then yeah strategic bombers are not necessary.

[Inyourfaceistan]

The B-52 is like an airliner with crappy engines. It has no characteristics of a survivable aircraft and depends entirely on its ECM for protection. If a fighter shows up it is deader than disco.

The B-1B is faster and has a lower signature. But it doesn't have quite enough of either. At altitude it cannot fly fast enough or high enough to avoid most SAMs or interceptors and it is not stealthy enough to avoid detection. At low altitude its still significant RCS and large infared/visual/acoustic signatures make it vulnerable to SHORADS and AWACS detection. Like the B-52 it depends very heavily on its ECM to defeat air defenses and will be extremely vulnerable if the enemy can overcome its electronic defenses.

So for all intents and purposes, bombers are practically useless against most enemies with sophisticated radar and SAM capabilities? Would it make any considerable difference if I scrapped my bomber fleet and just bought more F-18s, F-22s and Tomahawks instead?

Bombers still have very capable cruise missiles they can launch.
Range and cost not withstanding (the former doesn't matter so much as no SAM can reach 1000km) I would much prefer JSSAM-ER launched from a B-1b over Tomahawks from a ship...

But as the guy above me said, it depends on your situation.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

So for all intents and purposes, bombers are practically useless against most enemies with sophisticated radar and SAM capabilities? Would it make any considerable difference if I scrapped my bomber fleet and just bought more F-18s, F-22s and Tomahawks instead?

This really depends on your nation's overall strategy. If you're a Great Power with global commitments and/or needs (like the US which needs to be able to bomb any likely enemy anywhere or Russia who needs to be able to bomb the CONUS) your F-18 and F-22 are insufficient because they don't have the range to go across the globe on their own. Sure you can use aerial refueling but this means all the enemy needs to do is destroy your tankers (which any smart sophisticated one will attempt). Use of Tomahawks are dependent on how fast your ships can get into position to launch, which will be always slower than any bomber.

However, if you have only merely regional or local ambitions (so you just wanna threaten your immediate neighbors) then yeah strategic bombers are not necessary.

Well honestly I'm merely a humble regional power aspiring to attain Great Power status hence my little dilemma as to whether I should devote considerable monies to building up a bomber fleet, and if so, comprising of what bombers and how many.

And wouldn't Tomahawks still be able to be launched from B-52s? At least the ALCM variants for that matter.

[Lyras]

This really depends on your nation's overall strategy. If you're a Great Power with global commitments and/or needs (like the US which needs to be able to bomb any likely enemy anywhere or Russia who needs to be able to bomb the CONUS) your F-18 and F-22 are insufficient because they don't have the range to go across the globe on their own. Sure you can use aerial refueling but this means all the enemy needs to do is destroy your tankers (which any smart sophisticated one will attempt). Use of Tomahawks are dependent on how fast your ships can get into position to launch, which will be always slower than any bomber.

However, if you have only merely regional or local ambitions (so you just wanna threaten your immediate neighbors) then yeah strategic bombers are not necessary.

Well honestly I'm merely a humble regional power aspiring to attain Great Power status hence my little dilemma as to whether I should devote considerable monies to building up a bomber fleet, and if so, comprising of what bombers and how many.

And wouldn't Tomahawks still be able to be launched from B-52s? At least the ALCM variants for that matter.

Tomahawks certainly can be launched from a B-52, or analogs. Air-launched cruise missiles are very much a part of the current force-paradigm. They are a highly effective means of providing very long range strike capability, made more effective still because a bomber today often doesn't have to penetrate into the air defence network at all, but can release its payload from outside the defensive engagement envelope.

[Connori Pilgrims]

Well honestly I'm merely a humble regional power aspiring to attain Great Power status hence my little dilemma as to whether I should devote considerable monies to building up a bomber fleet, and if so, comprising of what bombers and how many.

And wouldn't Tomahawks still be able to be launched from B-52s? At least the ALCM variants for that matter.

Technically the ALCM is not a Tomahawk; different design. But yes you can launch ALCMs from the B-52. That's part of why the thing has been able to last long; compared to the other bombers of the USAF its rather cost effective for the comparatively simple job of missile/guided-bomb carrier.

However if you're building up a bomber fleet from scratch (and thus never had B-52s or other similar bombers lying around to begin with), well now you have to ask yourself if you just want a missile truck, or do you still want to be able to penetrate enemy airspace to use bombs?

If you just want a missile truck then you might want to consider using airlifters to carry ALCMs (see the British FOAS missile carrier concept which involved launching missiles off the back of A400Ms). But if you still want penetration of enemy air space then there's few options beyond going stealth ala B-2, stealth and supersonic or (gasp) attempt hypersonic flight if you want to be edgy.

[Immoren]

One last question, though - what about the LMG/SAW? Two 200-round boxes, plus two more carried by the assistant?

In platoon I served we had 500-600 SAW rounds split between SAW gunner and his assistant in 100 round boxes.
Then again we had PKMs, and lazy peace time conscripts in training.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Tomahawks certainly can be launched from a B-52, or analogs. Air-launched cruise missiles are very much a part of the current force-paradigm. They are a highly effective means of providing very long range strike capability, made more effective still because a bomber today often doesn't have to penetrate into the air defence network at all, but can release its payload from outside the defensive engagement envelope.

Mmm yeah that was one of the reasons why I was thinking of building up a fleet of B-52s, because the later variants (I think the B-52H but I could be wrong) had that additional cruise missile capability aside from conventional munitions.

Technically the ALCM is not a Tomahawk; different design. But yes you can launch ALCMs from the B-52. That's part of why the thing has been able to last long; compared to the other bombers of the USAF its rather cost effective for the comparatively simple job of missile/guided-bomb carrier.

However if you're building up a bomber fleet from scratch (and thus never had B-52s or other similar bombers lying around to begin with), well now you have to ask yourself if you just want a missile truck, or do you still want to be able to penetrate enemy airspace to use bombs?

If you just want a missile truck then you might want to consider using airlifters to carry ALCMs (see the British FOAS missile carrier concept which involved launching missiles off the back of A400Ms). But if you still want penetration of enemy air space then there's few options beyond going stealth ala B-2, stealth and supersonic or (gasp) attempt hypersonic flight if you want to be edgy.

My apologies, I was confusing the Tomahawk with the AGM-86 and other ALCM types.

Well NS-wise, I do already have a motley fleet of B-52s and B-1s, the question is whether I ought to expand the fleet or scrap the bombers and get something else instead. Just how good is the B-2 for long-range penetrations deep inside enemy territory? I mean, the only reason in support of using B-2s I hear is "wahhh stealthiness wahhh" which admittedly sounds tempting but even then, a B-2 bomber could still be shot out from the sky by well-placed SAMs and interceptors right?

[San-Silvacian]

So in that case I'll give these guys 1 in the rifle and 6 in pouches, while units with the aforementioned body-armor-and-webbing kit get 1 in the rifle and 8 in pouches.

One last question, though - what about the LMG/SAW? Two 200-round boxes, plus two more carried by the assistant?

Also, I really like them. They have a PLA aesthetic to them.

Thanks! I've been trying for something a little more original than the :not:USSR style with my latest round of ORBAT and equipment revisions, and (with help and encouragement from Korva) finally got an infantry aesthetic I like here.

If you look closely, you'll also notice the rifles are not AK-103s, but something of my own design - which I may work out in more detail tomorrow.

400 rounds?

More like upwards of a thousand for a good start, once in country you may have gunners carrying upwards of 2,000 rounds of belted ammo if we are talking about M249 style LMGs.

An LMG shouldn't need an assistant, how can have the whole squad be carrying 100-200 round belts for the LMG however.

[The Kievan People]

So for all intents and purposes, bombers are practically useless against most enemies with sophisticated radar and SAM capabilities? Would it make any considerable difference if I scrapped my bomber fleet and just bought more F-18s, F-22s and Tomahawks instead?

I would not say they are useless. But they need considerable support to break through which limits their utility in the traditional strategic bomber role of "fly deep into enemy territory and bomb things."

They also make great CAS aircraft because of their epic endurance and huge bomb loads.

[The Kievan People]

Just how good is the B-2 for long-range penetrations deep inside enemy territory? I mean, the only reason in support of using B-2s I hear is "wahhh stealthiness wahhh" which admittedly sounds tempting but even then, a B-2 bomber could still be shot out from the sky by well-placed SAMs and interceptors right?

There isn't anything better IRL.

Which doesn't make it invincible. But it is significantly more effective at penetrating air defense networks than the B-1 or B-52.

[New Vihenia]

Any prospects for "MIRV-ed" Cruise missile ?

[Connori Pilgrims]

Well NS-wise, I do already have a motley fleet of B-52s and B-1s, the question is whether I ought to expand the fleet or scrap the bombers and get something else instead. Just how good is the B-2 for long-range penetrations deep inside enemy territory? I mean, the only reason in support of using B-2s I hear is "wahhh stealthiness wahhh" which admittedly sounds tempting but even then, a B-2 bomber could still be shot out from the sky by well-placed SAMs and interceptors right?

Fleet expansion is dependent again on your overall objectives. The Russians have a relatively small bomber fleet because (among other reasons), they only really have one target: da USA. The US has (and needs) a big bomber fleet because there's a lot of potential targets: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, (insert here Middle East state populated by hostile Muslims).

Realistically you can't expand by buying more B-52s and B-1s anyway because unless you had their factories, workers and tools lying around for decades now doing nothing its virtually impossible anyway. You will need a new design.

Re: B-2, as Kiev said, there's possibly no better platform IRL right now for hostile airspace penetration. B-2 is not invincible by it self of course, but that's why any competent commander would make the B-2 part of a massive combined-arms strike with SEAD and escort and all the needed support instead of pinning all hope on the B-2 to win.

Any prospects for "MIRV-ed" Cruise missile ?

There's the European Perseus concept supersonic cruise missile (with 1 main warhead + 2 semi-independent warheads) and a BrahMos UCAV concept being mooted by the Indians & Russians. And the US Surveilling Miniature Attack Cruise Missile (SMACM) which was supposed to carry 4 of the now defunct LOCAAS mini-cruise missile.

Off the top of my head these are the closest concepts to a Cruise Missile with some kind of MIRV capability.

[The Kievan People]

Any prospects for "MIRV-ed" Cruise missile ?

Depends on what you mean by MIRV'ed.

The submunition carrying Tomahawk can dispense portions of its payload at different locations. Project Pluto was able to dispense multiple warheads, and the Russian Meteorit was supposedly to have carried two warheads that could strike targets "up to 100km apart". There is no information on how the Meteorit dispensed its warheads though.

And there is thing from MBDAs marketing. Not sure how serious that it.

[New Vihenia]

Any prospects for "MIRV-ed" Cruise missile ?

Depends on what you mean by MIRV'ed.

The submunition carrying Tomahawk can dispense portions of its payload at different locations. Project Pluto was able to dispense multiple warheads, and the Russian Meteorit was supposedly to have carried two warheads that could strike targets "up to 100km apart". There is no information on how the Meteorit dispensed its warheads though.

And there is thing from MBDAs marketing. Not sure how serious that it.

It would be similar as Meteorit.

Once it reached "release point" The kill vehicle will separate, extending wings then glide all the way to target. Assuming L/D of 5 and release altitude of 25-30 Km The kill vehicle can glide 125-150 Km.

[Triplebaconation]

Well NS-wise, I do already have a motley fleet of B-52s and B-1s, the question is whether I ought to expand the fleet or scrap the bombers and get something else instead. Just how good is the B-2 for long-range penetrations deep inside enemy territory? I mean, the only reason in support of using B-2s I hear is "wahhh stealthiness wahhh" which admittedly sounds tempting but even then, a B-2 bomber could still be shot out from the sky by well-placed SAMs and interceptors right?

Fleet expansion is dependent again on your overall objectives. The Russians have a relatively small bomber fleet because (among other reasons), they only really have one target: da USA. The US has (and needs) a big bomber fleet because there's a lot of potential targets: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, (insert here Middle East state populated by hostile Muslims).

Realistically you can't expand by buying more B-52s and B-1s anyway because unless you had their factories, workers and tools lying around for decades now doing nothing its virtually impossible anyway. You will need a new design.

So Russia built a bunch of bombers that couldn't really reach America to target America and the Americans built a few billion-dollar planes to reenact Operation Rolling Thunder?

The Cold War was nuts!

[Connori Pilgrims]

Fleet expansion is dependent again on your overall objectives. The Russians have a relatively small bomber fleet because (among other reasons), they only really have one target: da USA. The US has (and needs) a big bomber fleet because there's a lot of potential targets: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, (insert here Middle East state populated by hostile Muslims).

Realistically you can't expand by buying more B-52s and B-1s anyway because unless you had their factories, workers and tools lying around for decades now doing nothing its virtually impossible anyway. You will need a new design.

So Russia built a bunch of bombers that couldn't really reach America to target America and the Americans built a few billion-dollar planes to reenact Operation Rolling Thunder?

The Cold War was nuts!

Funny I wasn't aware I was talking about the Cold War US and USSR, I could've sworn I was talking about modern day US and Russian bomber forces.

Or is this just the infamous danton's acting up pedantic again?

[Triplebaconation]

So Russia built a bunch of bombers that couldn't really reach America to target America and the Americans built a few billion-dollar planes to reenact Operation Rolling Thunder?

The Cold War was nuts!

Funny I wasn't aware I was talking about the Cold War US and USSR, I could've sworn I was talking about modern day US and Russian bomber forces.

Or is this just the infamous danton's acting up pedantic again?

It's only pedantic if you're slightly wrong. If you're talking about the current situation, you're even more wrong so I'm in fact less pedantic.

China was and is a more important target for Soviet and Russian strategic aviation than the United States. Even the Blackjacks are based on the frontier. Of course, the bulk of the current Russian bomber force is Backfires, and the breakup of the Soviet Union has multiplied their potential targets considerably.

In an aerial police action, escorting a B-2 is fine, I guess. There are plenty of planes and bases and (most importantly) the theaters are small. In an actual war against a large peer competitor a competent commander would have to be a drooling imbecile to use them as giant F-16s and not take advantage of their unparalleled autonomy. Confucius sez B-2 only available platform for "Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons" deep strikes in forlorn wastes of Red China.