NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[West Aurelia]

Every time someone mentions "Gavin" here, I have to stop my mind from going to this guy:

(Image)

This is actually what I thought people meant by Gavin, was Gavino Free. That is, until I learned that the Gavin is an APC.

Rooster Teeth. Nice.

[Atomic Utopia]

I have a question regarding battlefield anti missile systems.

I was thinking of using a version of the project exclaimer bomb pumped laser system in atmosphere to defend against missiles / shells that the enemy has fired (it might also be good for anti air). The idea is to launch 60 cm rockets containing a 1 mt bomb and about 500 lasing rods with individual targeting capabilities.

The rocket would fire from a truck carrying several of them. Once about 20,000 meters in the air it would release the lasing rods, which would find their targets and point at them, 10 lasing rods a enemy missile. The bomb would then detonate, releasing its X-ray radiation. This x-ray radiation would then enter the lasing rods, and be directed to hit the enemy missiles, hopefully destroying some of them.

Problems I see include maneuvering the lasing rods in atmosphere, and the effectiveness against enemy aircraft. Also the possibility of it not being able to find 50 targets is a potential problem because it would increase the cost per missile destroyed to higher levels than normal.

[The United Remnants of America]

I have a question regarding battlefield anti missile systems.

I was thinking of using a version of the project exclaimer bomb pumped laser system in atmosphere to defend against missiles / shells that the enemy has fired (it might also be good for anti air). The idea is to launch 60 cm rockets containing a 1 mt bomb and about 500 lasing rods with individual targeting capabilities.

The rocket would fire from a truck carrying several of them. Once about 20,000 meters in the air it would release the lasing rods, which would find their targets and point at them, 10 lasing rods a enemy missile. The bomb would then detonate, releasing its X-ray radiation. This x-ray radiation would then enter the lasing rods, and be directed to hit the enemy missiles, hopefully destroying some of them.

Problems I see include maneuvering the lasing rods in atmosphere, and the effectiveness against enemy aircraft. Also the possibility of it not being able to find 50 targets is a potential problem because it would increase the cost per missile destroyed to higher levels than normal.

Oh.

You don't see the use of a 1 megaton nuclear bomb for every charge as any kind of problem?

[Atomic Utopia]

I have a question regarding battlefield anti missile systems.

I was thinking of using a version of the project exclaimer bomb pumped laser system in atmosphere to defend against missiles / shells that the enemy has fired (it might also be good for anti air). The idea is to launch 60 cm rockets containing a 1 mt bomb and about 500 lasing rods with individual targeting capabilities.

The rocket would fire from a truck carrying several of them. Once about 20,000 meters in the air it would release the lasing rods, which would find their targets and point at them, 10 lasing rods a enemy missile. The bomb would then detonate, releasing its X-ray radiation. This x-ray radiation would then enter the lasing rods, and be directed to hit the enemy missiles, hopefully destroying some of them.

Problems I see include maneuvering the lasing rods in atmosphere, and the effectiveness against enemy aircraft. Also the possibility of it not being able to find 50 targets is a potential problem because it would increase the cost per missile destroyed to higher levels than normal.

Oh.

You don't see the use of a 1 megaton nuclear bomb for every charge as any kind of problem?

No, not really. The military of my nation is built around the idea that by using tactical nuclear weapons the size (and cost) of the military can be reduced while maintaining the ability to defend the country. This also means that my military cannot attack or defend (effectively) without using nuclear weapons.

Now with that out of the way, what are the practicality problems with it other than it being nuclear.

[The United Remnants of America]

Oh.

You don't see the use of a 1 megaton nuclear bomb for every charge as any kind of problem?

No, not really. The military of my nation is built around the idea that by using tactical nuclear weapons the size (and cost) of the military can be reduced while maintaining the ability to defend the country. This also means that my military cannot attack or defend (effectively) without using nuclear weapons.

Now with that out of the way, what are the practicality problems with it other than it being nuclear.

Symmetric warfare forcing the other nation to respond with nuclear or similar WMDs.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Oh.

You don't see the use of a 1 megaton nuclear bomb for every charge as any kind of problem?

No, not really. The military of my nation is built around the idea that by using tactical nuclear weapons the size (and cost) of the military can be reduced while maintaining the ability to defend the country. This also means that my military cannot attack or defend (effectively) without using nuclear weapons.

Now with that out of the way, what are the practicality problems with it other than it being nuclear.

At a bare minimum, you should progress through the following questions.

1) How often do you expect to be simultaneously intercepting 50+ missiles all flying at 20,000 meters in a sufficiently close grouping for a single rocket to direct all rods towards them?
2) If you do expect to do (1) often, then how do you anticipate being able to give each of these rods the ability to reliably direct itself at a fast, maneuvering missile target while the rod itself is tumbling through the air?
3) If (2) can be done, will the immense cost required become prohibitive when multiplied by 500 in each salvo?
4) How does the immense cost in (3) compare to the cost that those enemy missiles and shells are predicted to inflict upon your forces?
5) How does the immense cost in (3) compare to the cost required for the enemy to produce the missiles or shells (!!!) that you are intercepting?

After answering these questions, feel free to spend some time looking at actual anti-air and anti-ballistic-missile systems which were actually put into service, and seeing how they compare on a quality, cost, and efficiency basis.

[Triplebaconation]

No, not really. The military of my nation is built around the idea that by using tactical nuclear weapons the size (and cost) of the military can be reduced while maintaining the ability to defend the country. This also means that my military cannot attack or defend (effectively) without using nuclear weapons.

Now with that out of the way, what are the practicality problems with it other than it being nuclear.

At a bare minimum, you should progress through the following questions.

1) How often do you expect to be simultaneously intercepting 50+ missiles all flying at 20,000 meters in a sufficiently close grouping for a single rocket to direct all rods towards them?
2) If you do expect to do (1) often, then how do you anticipate being able to give each of these rods the ability to reliably direct itself at a fast, maneuvering missile target while the rod itself is tumbling through the air?
3) If (2) can be done, will the immense cost required become prohibitive when multiplied by 500 in each salvo?
4) How does the immense cost in (3) compare to the cost that those enemy missiles and shells are predicted to inflict upon your forces?
5) How does the immense cost in (3) compare to the cost required for the enemy to produce the missiles or shells (!!!) that you are intercepting?

After answering these questions, feel free to spend some time looking at actual anti-air and anti-ballistic-missile systems which were actually put into service, and seeing how they compare on a quality, cost, and efficiency basis.

Alternatively you could skip the bullshit cost-benefit analysis and look at a picture of a bomb-pumped laser.

[Atomic Utopia]

No, not really. The military of my nation is built around the idea that by using tactical nuclear weapons the size (and cost) of the military can be reduced while maintaining the ability to defend the country. This also means that my military cannot attack or defend (effectively) without using nuclear weapons.

Now with that out of the way, what are the practicality problems with it other than it being nuclear.

At a bare minimum, you should progress through the following questions.

1) How often do you expect to be simultaneously intercepting 50+ missiles all flying at 20,000 meters in a sufficiently close grouping for a single rocket to direct all rods towards them?
2) If you do expect to do (1) often, then how do you anticipate being able to give each of these rods the ability to reliably direct itself at a fast, maneuvering missile target while the rod itself is tumbling through the air?
3) If (2) can be done, will the immense cost required become prohibitive when multiplied by 500 in each salvo?
4) How does the immense cost in (3) compare to the cost that those enemy missiles and shells are predicted to inflict upon your forces?
5) How does the immense cost in (3) compare to the cost required for the enemy to produce the missiles or shells (!!!) that you are intercepting?

After answering these questions, feel free to spend some time looking at actual anti-air and anti-ballistic-missile systems which were actually put into service, and seeing how they compare on a quality, cost, and efficiency basis.

Thanks for the advice, considering the device (nuke) itself is about 2-3 million, and the rocket at least another 2-3 million, the lasing rods are relatively inexpensive, probably coming in at about 1-1.5 million. So five to seven point five million a rocket.

I think that I will scrap this idea permanently. Primarily due to the technical problem of accurately targeting the lasing rods in atmosphere. Instead truck based CIWS seems more useful now that I actually think about it some more on the aspect of cost.

So I have another question, related but different, would it be reasonable to harden your anti ballistic missile sites against conventional attack, or would it be better to have the sites minimally hardened against attack to save on costs. Also, what is the best way to kill incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles with MIRVs? More ABMs, or something out of "star wars" (SDI)

[The Kievan People]

I have a question regarding battlefield anti missile systems.

I was thinking of using a version of the project exclaimer bomb pumped laser system in atmosphere to defend against missiles / shells that the enemy has fired (it might also be good for anti air). The idea is to launch 60 cm rockets containing a 1 mt bomb and about 500 lasing rods with individual targeting capabilities.

The rocket would fire from a truck carrying several of them. Once about 20,000 meters in the air it would release the lasing rods, which would find their targets and point at them, 10 lasing rods a enemy missile. The bomb would then detonate, releasing its X-ray radiation. This x-ray radiation would then enter the lasing rods, and be directed to hit the enemy missiles, hopefully destroying some of them.

Problems I see include maneuvering the lasing rods in atmosphere, and the effectiveness against enemy aircraft. Also the possibility of it not being able to find 50 targets is a potential problem because it would increase the cost per missile destroyed to higher levels than normal.

X-rays are rapidly absorbed by the atmosphere.

[Gallan Systems]

I have a question regarding battlefield anti missile systems.

I was thinking of using a version of the project exclaimer bomb pumped laser system in atmosphere to defend against missiles / shells that the enemy has fired (it might also be good for anti air). The idea is to launch 60 cm rockets containing a 1 mt bomb and about 500 lasing rods with individual targeting capabilities.

The rocket would fire from a truck carrying several of them. Once about 20,000 meters in the air it would release the lasing rods, which would find their targets and point at them, 10 lasing rods a enemy missile. The bomb would then detonate, releasing its X-ray radiation. This x-ray radiation would then enter the lasing rods, and be directed to hit the enemy missiles, hopefully destroying some of them.

Problems I see include maneuvering the lasing rods in atmosphere, and the effectiveness against enemy aircraft. Also the possibility of it not being able to find 50 targets is a potential problem because it would increase the cost per missile destroyed to higher levels than normal.

Why not just use a regular nuclear weapon like normal people? Those generate plenty of X-rays just fine. No need for a space weapon when you're only 20 km up.

[Aelarus]

Why exactly would you have guided submunitions to deliver something that likely could be easier transferred from the missile itself or better yet, the ground?

---

He didn't mention a single 106mm RR.

Sparky is not amused.

Sparky does not understand the true power of the battle box!

---

That is, until I learned that the Gavin is an APC.

Well, I don't know about the others but I refer to James M. Gavin who can claim to shaping the M113 into its final form. Essentially, most things '50s is part of glorious Gavinism.

Praise Gavin.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Every time someone mentions "Gavin" here, I have to stop my mind from going to this guy:

(Image)

This is actually what I thought people meant by Gavin, was Gavino Free. That is, until I learned that the Gavin is an APC.

IIRC there was an article or something debunking the myth that the M113 or variants have ever been designated "Gavin". IIRC they've never even been called that as a nickname by the military but then again, Mike Sparks will be Mike Sparks.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

What type of door would be best on a plane specialised for paratrooping and how large could it be? could you have a few planes drop a mobile operations base?Could the bottom of the plane open up somehow?

Yes, they're called bombers.

[Gallan Systems]

At a bare minimum, you should progress through the following questions.

1) How often do you expect to be simultaneously intercepting 50+ missiles all flying at 20,000 meters in a sufficiently close grouping for a single rocket to direct all rods towards them?
2) If you do expect to do (1) often, then how do you anticipate being able to give each of these rods the ability to reliably direct itself at a fast, maneuvering missile target while the rod itself is tumbling through the air?
3) If (2) can be done, will the immense cost required become prohibitive when multiplied by 500 in each salvo?
4) How does the immense cost in (3) compare to the cost that those enemy missiles and shells are predicted to inflict upon your forces?
5) How does the immense cost in (3) compare to the cost required for the enemy to produce the missiles or shells (!!!) that you are intercepting?

After answering these questions, feel free to spend some time looking at actual anti-air and anti-ballistic-missile systems which were actually put into service, and seeing how they compare on a quality, cost, and efficiency basis.

Thanks for the advice, considering the device (nuke) itself is about 2-3 million, and the rocket at least another 2-3 million, the lasing rods are relatively inexpensive, probably coming in at about 1-1.5 million. So five to seven point five million a rocket.

I think that I will scrap this idea permanently. Primarily due to the technical problem of accurately targeting the lasing rods in atmosphere. Instead truck based CIWS seems more useful now that I actually think about it some more on the aspect of cost.

So I have another question related but different, would it be reasonable to harden your anti ballistic missile sites against nuclear weapons, or would it be better to have the sites minimally hardened against attack to save on costs. Also, what is the best way to kill incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles?

Your primary problem should be that you're trying to use a weapon designed for use in vacuum in a fluid. It's a bit like trying to use a radar underwater.

You should use a ERW like Sprint, but on a truck. Short wavelength lasers like X-rays and gamma rays are for vacuum.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

whats the largest object you could paradrop?

NS consensus seems to be that a reasonable upper weight limit for AFVs to be airdropped is 20-25T, at most 30T.

In theory absolutely anything can be airdropped, given large and/or many enough parachutes. Also large/many/powerful enough airbags, retrograde rockets or other means to cushion the landing.

But for very heavy stuff it becomes impractical: unwieldy and expensive. Aircraft also have a limit on how much they can lift so also there's no point in being capable of paradropping something you won't even be lifting off the ground (that much) (larger aircraft come with their very own logistical footprint, require long airstrips and so on) .

JPADS (Joint Precision Airdrop System) which is essentially a guided chute airdrop system supposedly comes in increments up to IV - JPADS 60K lbs which 27215kg, so 27.21T . fEdit: 30k and 60k are in development. I don't think I've ever seen something that heavy airdropped (not anything practicable for the military at least). It is worth noting that JPADS is HAHO/HALO capable but I doubt it applies to the heavier stuff. I imagine having to break the freefall of 27T (as would be implied by HALO) would require ginormous chutes.

The US seems to have airdropped vehicles below the 20T mark just fine without any landing cushioning such as rerockets or airbags, unlike Russia which seems to use them.

It's worth noting that the Russians have airdropped BMDs with the crew inside. I'm not quite sure why that hasn't been done more often, but whatever. Assuming a good enough safety record for the airdrop system, decently slow landing and the troops all strapped down in there, why not?

Also, would a landing pallet/pad/however it's called with a "quick-release" mounting/strapping system be doable? So you don't have to lose time with unstrapping everything manually, folding back the chutes and so on. Land and take off instead leaving the parachutes to be retrieved at a later time or by following forces.

EDIT: have the chutes attached directly to the vehicle instead of some pallet below and mount some electric motors to pull the chutes in as soon as touchdown for maximum sparkyness

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I did more work on my bad thing.

2000T wat

is this even doable MT? or just wank?

[Imperializt Russia]

Is this the multiplayer for CoD: Advanced Warfare 2?

No, if this were CoD: Advanced Warfare 2 the sky would be full of kamikaze pilots for every tank, soldier, and child in your country. Why bother with cruise missiles when you can just declare jihad, ramming your two hundred million rand aircraft straight into the enemy tank after which you will feel better and kill infidels?

Prepare for assimilation.

No, that's Battlefield multiplayer.
I think Mith pretty accurately summed up the Advanced Warfare multiplayer trailers.

I have a question regarding battlefield anti missile systems.

I was thinking of using a version of the project exclaimer bomb pumped laser system in atmosphere to defend against missiles / shells that the enemy has fired (it might also be good for anti air). The idea is to launch 60 cm rockets containing a 1 mt bomb and about 500 lasing rods with individual targeting capabilities.

The rocket would fire from a truck carrying several of them. Once about 20,000 meters in the air it would release the lasing rods, which would find their targets and point at them, 10 lasing rods a enemy missile. The bomb would then detonate, releasing its X-ray radiation. This x-ray radiation would then enter the lasing rods, and be directed to hit the enemy missiles, hopefully destroying some of them.

Problems I see include maneuvering the lasing rods in atmosphere, and the effectiveness against enemy aircraft. Also the possibility of it not being able to find 50 targets is a potential problem because it would increase the cost per missile destroyed to higher levels than normal.

"1mt" could be construed as one mili-ton (ie, 1kg yield) or more usually one metric ton (ofc 1000kg yield). Mega is a capitalised prefix, M.

From my brief reading, Excalibur was discredited as an idea. It would also have been horrendously inefficient and I doubt it would have worked. According to the summation on Project Rho, it would have shot a laser out of both ends of each laser array, had inefficient energy transfer to the lasers in the first place and then only had a range of about 100km, delivering a few megajoules of energy to each target. Somehow, hit-to-kill missiles sound incredibly more effective.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Well, I see now why Sparky is obsessed with Gavin. It sounds like he was a proper guy:

James Maurice "Jumpin' Jim" Gavin (born as James Nally Ryan; March 22, 1907 – February 23, 1990) was a prominent lieutenant general in the United States Army during World War II. He was also referred to as "The Jumping General", because of his practice of taking part in combat drops with the paratroopers whom he commanded.

In his mid-30s at the time, Gavin was the youngest U.S. major general commanding a division during World War II.[1] During combat, he was known for his habit of carrying an M1 Garand rifle typically carried by enlisted U.S. soldiers, as opposed to the M1 carbine rifles and Colt Model M1911 .45 caliber pistols traditionally carried by officers.

His men respected him a great deal, affectionately referring to him as "Slim Jim" due to his athletic figure. Gavin fought against segregation in the U.S. Army, which gained him some notoriety.

Among his decorations, he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Distinguished Service Medal, the Silver Star and the Purple Heart. He was also awarded the British Distinguished Service Order.

[The Akasha Colony]

JPADS (Joint Precision Airdrop System) which is essentially a guided chute airdrop system supposedly comes in increments up to IV - JPADS 60K lbs which 27215kg, so 27.21T . fEdit: 30k and 60k are in development. I don't think I've ever seen something that heavy airdropped (not anything practicable for the military at least). It is worth noting that JPADS is HAHO/HALO capable but I doubt it applies to the heavier stuff. I imagine having to break the freefall of 27T (as would be implied by HALO) would require ginormous chutes.

The largest parachute-recoverable objects are the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, each of which require three massive 41-meter parachutes rated for 88,000 kg to cushion the landing (which are only deployed after a drogue chute rated at 143,000 kg is deployed to stabilize the descent and a pilot chute is deployed to trigger the drogue chute). The system can slow the boosters to an impact velocity of 23 m/s from a freefall height of 67 km.

Unfortunately, 23 m/s is about three times the speed of a normal military personnel parachute (the US T-10 provides an average descent rate of up to 7.3 m/s). However, equipment can be made more robust and may be able to withstand such speeds, or additional braking systems may be employed.

Also, would a landing pallet/pad/however it's called with a "quick-release" mounting/strapping system be doable? So you don't have to lose time with unstrapping everything manually, folding back the chutes and so on. Land and take off instead leaving the parachutes to be retrieved at a later time or by following forces.

EDIT: have the chutes attached directly to the vehicle instead of some pallet below and mount some electric motors to pull the chutes in as soon as touchdown for maximum sparkyness

It presumably would not be difficult to rig up a basic pyrotechnic charge system or even cutters to remove the straps, although there may be safety or reliability concerns involved.

[Crookfur]

What type of door would be best on a plane specialised for paratrooping and how large could it be? could you have a few planes drop a mobile operations base?Could the bottom of the plane open up somehow?

It's worth noting that the Russian VDV, who tend to drop paratroopers and armoured vehicles from the same aircraft, tend to send men out of the side doors and vehicles out the cargo door of the Il-76.

That's what every body does with hercs on up if doing mixed drops although it will typically be pallets of gear as often as it will vehicles.

[Crookfur]

Random question time. Would it be a stupid idea to drop paratroops out of bombers during the 1940s? Basically I imagine the men just lining up in the bomb bay, the doors opening and all of them just falling out like human projectiles.

Yup this was done although usually the bomb bay doors were replaced with an actual floor with a hole in it for dropping through. It's pretty much what the British did until dakotas came along in serious numbers. Mainly with Whitleys but also with halifaxs and a few manchesters. The Whitleys had the most famous round hole in the floor where you sat over the edge hole legs dangling down before pushing off, only for the slipstream to grab your legs and send your face into the opposite edge of the hole. An occurance known as ringing the bell.

[Purpelia]

Out of curiosity, just why is having the whole doors open and everyone fall out a bad thing?

[Nachmere]

Out of curiosity, just why is having the whole doors open and everyone fall out a bad thing?

I imagine cases of heads bashing together and parachutes tangling. Usually paras jump one at a time or in pairs not 50 at once.

[Crookfur]

Out of curiosity, just why is having the whole doors open and everyone fall out a bad thing?

Because everyone ends up in a twisted ball of man flesh half of which is unconscious, a third have had heads and limbs removed by the tangled static lines and the last third die screaming as what few parachutes actually open all wrap together and fail to inflate. Plus putting some flooring in allows a bit more room inside.

[Purpelia]

Out of curiosity, just why is having the whole doors open and everyone fall out a bad thing?

Because everyone ends up in a twisted ball of man flesh half of which is unconscious, a third have had heads and limbs removed by the tangled static lines and the last third die screaming as what few parachutes actually open all wrap together and fail to inflate. Plus putting some flooring in allows a bit more room inside.

You had me at more room.

Now, the next question is obvious. What would be the best way to make a bomber capable of dropping paratroops without radical modifications and yet avoiding the slipstream problem you mentioned? I imagine just having the exit hatch be located behind the belly turret should do it.