NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Stasnov]

Would it be possible/efficient to create a long-range SAM ala S-300 that can be fired at launch depth by a submarine VLS module?

My naval doctrine resembles the Soviet one, hence maritime strike by massed (even Regiment-size) groups of aircraft with long-range heavy ASMs (mostly Tu-22M3s ) against CSGs is a big part of it. However, performing such attacks has become even more dangerous in modern times by the introduction of better naval AWACS aircraft that can detect the strike formation from a longer range, thus giving CAP more time to respond. So I was thinking that a sub could get within range of the AWACS and shoot it down while submerged to avoid danger and remain undetected, while the strike formation attacks at the same time, while enemy CAP has no AWACS to guide them to their targets.

This may be completely stupid but pls no kill

[Laritaia]

Would it be possible/efficient to create a long-range SAM ala S-300 that can be fired at launch depth by a submarine VLS module?

My naval doctrine resembles the Soviet one, hence maritime strike by massed (even Regiment-size) groups of aircraft with long-range heavy ASMs (mostly Tu-22M3s ) against CSGs is a big part of it. However, performing such attacks has become even more dangerous in modern times by the introduction of better naval AWACS aircraft that can detect the strike formation from a longer range, thus giving CAP more time to respond. So I was thinking that a sub could get within range of the AWACS and shoot it down while submerged to avoid danger and remain undetected, while the strike formation attacks at the same time, while enemy CAP has no AWACS to guide them to their targets.

This may be completely stupid but pls no kill

how do you intend on targeting and guiding said missile from underwater?

[The Akasha Colony]

Would it be possible/efficient to create a long-range SAM ala S-300 that can be fired at launch depth by a submarine VLS module?

My naval doctrine resembles the Soviet one, hence maritime strike by massed (even Regiment-size) groups of aircraft with long-range heavy ASMs (mostly Tu-22M3s ) against CSGs is a big part of it. However, performing such attacks has become even more dangerous in modern times by the introduction of better naval AWACS aircraft that can detect the strike formation from a longer range, thus giving CAP more time to respond. So I was thinking that a sub could get within range of the AWACS and shoot it down while submerged to avoid danger and remain undetected, while the strike formation attacks at the same time, while enemy CAP has no AWACS to guide them to their targets.

This may be completely stupid but pls no kill

The problem has never been whether the missile can be fired from underwater. This part is easy; there are lots of missiles that can be fired from underwater including everything from massive ballistic missiles like R-39 Rif to cruise missiles like Tomahawk and anti-ship missiles like Harpoon.

The problem is targeting. You can launch a missile from underwater but how are you going to spot the AWACS aircraft high in the sky? Long-range missiles against a moving target require some sort of mid-course guidance solution to keep them on track until their terminal seeker takes over (if it even has a terminal seeker; many do not and rely on illumination from the launch platform throughout their flight).

This is not a problem for missiles targeted at fixed locations like ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. All they need to know is the target and the launch point, and they can plot a course from there. It's also not much of a problem for targets the submarine can detect itself, like a submarine locating a surface ship as a target using sonar to launch a Harpoon at. For longer range missiles, the Soviets even built a satellite network to find targets for their submarine-launched anti-ship missiles.

But for a long-range missile targeting a relatively fast-moving AWACS aircraft, this is a big problem. And this is aside from the question of how the submarine finds the AWACS in the first place in order to move into a firing position for this hypothetical SAM system.

[Scandinavian Nations]

Would it be possible/efficient to create a long-range SAM ala S-300 that can be fired at launch depth by a submarine VLS module?

In short: No. The hard part about long-range SAM is the guidance, and submarines can't pack a useful long-range radar. You can't shoot down what you can't see.

Submarines also have very limited communication capabilities, making shooting blind even more problematic for them than for other platforms.
A stealth fighter carrying a pair of long-range missiles will be vastly more effective in this role.

[Langenberg]

Is there any point in the modern world to maintaining a small stored arsenal of chemical weapons such as VX?

[Allanea]

Is there any point in the modern world to maintaining a small stored arsenal of chemical weapons such as VX?

Not really - this was covered extensively in previous discussions.

If you want to be an asshole just figure out some explosive or incendiary weapon that emits poisonous gases as a byproduct of the burning/exploding, like WP for instance.

[The Akasha Colony]

Is there any point in the modern world to maintaining a small stored arsenal of chemical weapons such as VX?

Not particularly. They are questionably effective as weapons and are only really good at getting the international community madbro about using them. And of course they cost money to store and maintain, and can be a hazard if there's an accident. The costs outweigh the benefits unless maybe you're a tinpot dictator looking for some small bargaining chip with wealthier countries for some humanitarian aid.

This is why while nuclear weapons look like they're here to stay and negotiations to reduce arsenals are very contentious, no one's objected to what's essentially the ongoing worldwide disposal of existing chemical weapons stockpiles. Nukes have value, chemical weapons are a liability for most nations and disposing of them is an opportunity to look good and compassionate and humanitarian and all that.

[North Arkana]

What the fuck is this abomination?
http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Delta-class_starship

[The Akasha Colony]

What the fuck is this abomination?
http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Delta-class_starship

It's been brought up before.

But L&A gets really defensive about it, so there's not much point in bothering to discuss it, especially with the vagueness on actual specifics. Which may be the wiser option.

[Langenberg]

Not really - this was covered extensively in previous discussions.

Summary? I was given to understand VX could still be quite devastating.

If you want to be an asshole just figure out some explosive or incendiary weapon that emits poisonous gases as a byproduct of the burning/exploding, like WP for instance.

I maintain that as well, and napalm of course. Who doesn't enjoy napalm? Apart from people who have been attacked with napalm, of course.

[Spirit of Hope]

Not really - this was covered extensively in previous discussions.

Summary? I was given to understand VX could still be quite devastating.

For modern troops NBC protection is very advanced. Vehicles are sealed against chemichle threats, soldeirs have access to protective gear, units exist to deal with NBC threats and decontaminate effected units, etc. If you catch a modern unit by suprise it may have large consequences, but generally only in the limited area, after which point the only change is that both sides are fighting in NBC suits.

The money and effort given to storing and then using VX, and other chemical weapons, would probably be better spent on conventional weapons which are harder to counter.

[The Akasha Colony]

Summary? I was given to understand VX could still be quite devastating.

It can be.

Under the right conditions.

But that's the troublesome part. Waiting for the right conditions. To effectively use chemical weapons, you need the right weather conditions. Don't want too much wind, or too little. Don't want it blowing toward your lines, or a convention current that will pull the gas away from ground level.

And all the while, you need to be very careful with them to ensure there aren't any accidental leaks during transit, or that they aren't damaged by enemy air or artillery strikes or such.

And then there's the part where a competent enemy with training in chemical warfare procedures won't be stopped by them. They'll just don their MOPP gear, climb into their CBRN-protected vehicles, and keep on going. Yes, it'll be an inconvenience to them, but you'll probably have to operate under similar measures for safety reasons if nothing else. So now you're both fighting in the same conditions, only you're lugging around a bunch of chemical weapons and now the international community's mad at you for using them.

They can be devastating against civilian targets that don't have training in CBRN procedures. Which is also why they're popular with dictators looking to suppress restive minorities.

In comparison, more conventional weapons (and even nuclear weapons) have more predictable and consistent effects, which makes them easier to employ.

[Imperializt Russia]

What the fuck is this abomination?
http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Delta-class_starship

The Delta Class Starship is a variable-vacuum airship and spacecraft produced in the Aestorian Commonwealth. Beginning as a sketch in 2013 for an airborne aircraft carrier capable of reaching an altitude of 30 km by buoyancy alone... As of early 2016, 15 ships of the class are understood to have been completed, although the details of the project are top secret.

lel

[North Arkana]

What the fuck is this abomination?
http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Delta-class_starship

The Delta Class Starship is a variable-vacuum airship and spacecraft produced in the Aestorian Commonwealth. Beginning as a sketch in 2013 for an airborne aircraft carrier capable of reaching an altitude of 30 km by buoyancy alone... As of early 2016, 15 ships of the class are understood to have been completed, although the details of the project are top secret.

lel

Buoyancy doesn't work like that...

[Imperializt Russia]

I was actually laughing at "hand-drawn sketch to 15 massive physics-defying aircraft completed inside three years"

The Windscale Piles took about that long, but they were graphite bricks with uranium jammed inside them.

[Scandinavian Nations]

It's a wiki, anyone can write what they want in it.

[Husseinarti]

If the Iraqis hadn't been subjected to the intense Coalition air campaign at the start of GW1, and instead the coalition opted to engage with the Iraqi's at their strength, how intense would have that battle be?

[Imperializt Russia]

If the Iraqis hadn't been subjected to the intense Coalition air campaign at the start of GW1, and instead the coalition opted to engage with the Iraqi's at their strength, how intense would have that battle be?

Depends how much of the preliminary air campaign you decide to omit.
If we have no preliminary campaign, and Saddam's ISR isn't wiped out prior to the troop movements, maybe they'll spot the Hail Mary play being put into position and respond to it.

Or, if they don't notice it setting up but are able to react to it in real time, it may put the advance on jeopardy.
Decisive technological advantage still lies with the coalition of course, and while they may be able to send units to respond, they may not be able to adequately fight back, particularly in tank battles where the long range and superior fire control will tear Iraqi tanks apart.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

If the Iraqis hadn't been subjected to the intense Coalition air campaign at the start of GW1, and instead the coalition opted to engage with the Iraqi's at their strength, how intense would have that battle be?

Iraqi forces attempt to resist valiantly for several days.

Then overwhelming Coalition technological superiority breaks their backs.

[Husseinarti]

Well the critical thing here is Iraqi scuds and the issues the coalition had with logistics and proper supply of frontline units.

The Iraqis had tried iirc to hit key coalition installations a number of times but had been suppressed by scud hunting aircraft and patriot batteries.

If the Iraqis manage to hit a few key supply depots they could possibly cut down a coalition force not by anything else but the fact they could drain them of supplies.

In terms of air power, the skies would be contended for a while, but the coalition's air forces both out number and out gun the Iraqis who would lose after a few good tries.

Maybe I'm giving them too much credit?

[Imperializt Russia]

Well, a sizeable number of Iraqi aircraft were evacuated away from the coalition air campaign, and then Iran didn't give them back until last year, so maybe there would have been a role for them.

[Takhshiyt]

By lots of potential means. But even commercial-grad off-the-shelf encryption is quite secure. Breaches in these security systems are usually the result of carelessness more so than real exploits in the system itself...

...They're usually the result of carelessness, such as an employee bringing an infected flash drive to work, or accidentally clicking on a phishing scam, or visiting a site they're not supposed to, or of someone managing to capture their password.

I wouldn't put it quite this way. A more accurate statement would be that the cryptographic algorithms used in commercial data protection are secure.

But everything surrounding the essentially unbreakable cryptographic algorithm of choice, putting it to use, tends to be in a much worse state. The PKI used to deploy web cryptography is not just theoretically insecure, has but long since broken itself due to its poor design. The idea behind PKI was to assign ultimate trust to everyone on the inside, including the right to assign up to the same level of trust to anyone else.

While some attacks rely on carelessness, there's a lot of effective attacks that don't. Take one example: when you connect to your bank, you rely on your insecure DNS to point you to the right IP, then on the bank's supposedly-secure SSL certificate to prove it really is your bank, then on SSL to encrypt the connection.

Going through it step by step, the problem with the first step is, most large banks use dozens of domain names, some completely unrelated, so if your bank has added a new processing domain, how do you know? They don't send out mailers or even maintain a list of legit domains in one central location. Since anyone can register a plausible-sounding domain, and since legit banks use even implausible-sounding ones, no reasonable vigilance will tell you if it's legit or not. If a payment-requesting site points you there, you'll usually take it as legit.

The second step is the SSL certificate. The CA should supposedly verify everyone's identity before issuing them a certificate, which will then verify it to you. But due to root CA issuing intermediate CA-certificates and so on, there's plenty of nickel CA that only verify the payment. So anyone can get a certificate in any bank's name, making PKI SSL even less secure than DNS.

The third step is the crypto itself, and that's effectively unbreakable, but it protects your connection with the attacker just the same as a legit one.There's a similar flaw in code signing and most other signature-based security.
These are exploits, not just mistakes. Such attacks take time and effort to set up, they're not just opportunistic long shots. But it's true that they're not really sophisticated, I've basically described a common one in this short post, it's just elbow grease.

While you can trace most successful attacks to specific missteps, in a lot of cases these were a sure deal and couldn't have been prevented by anything short of every employee having clinical paranoia plus a CS degree.



Anyway, to answer Takhshiyt's question: use a simple 256-bit symmetric key. (Anytime you hear of longer keys, it's asymmetric encryption, insecure due to the PKI's complexity and flaws). The symmetric key is permanent and has to be exchanged securely. Once you do that, it's secure.

gotcha.

Thanks for the info, now I can delete my half-paragraph of sounding "techy" and add something real.

[Gallia-]

If the Iraqis hadn't been subjected to the intense Coalition air campaign at the start of GW1, and instead the coalition opted to engage with the Iraqi's at their strength, how intense would have that battle be?

Intense enough that everyone would decide to forgo this option in favour of bombing them to death for a month.

[Taihei Tengoku]

R.I.P Lines In The Sand, the best AH.com thread

[Husseinarti]

If the Iraqis hadn't been subjected to the intense Coalition air campaign at the start of GW1, and instead the coalition opted to engage with the Iraqi's at their strength, how intense would have that battle be?

Intense enough that everyone would decide to forgo this option in favour of bombing them to death for a month.

So like really fucking intense?