NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #4

[Oaledonia]

I'm not saying that, I'm advocating mixed aircraft force.
Used in conjunction with artillery and air defences an assault could stiw be highly effective.
Value the treetops.

IIRC, mixed aircraft force stands for F-22s, F-35s, PAK-DAs, and J-20s on NS.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

I don't really think there's an "average."

Heh. It never can be a simple question, can it?

I dunno. A UH-60, or an AW-149 I guess.

[Anemos Major]

So what do I do? Do I adopt the Carl Gustav, or do I disband my military and build it up entirely of bad-tempered Franchophones? Because something's got to give.

[The Kievan People]

Power overwhelming!

[Inyourfaceistan]

Does anyone know the longest ranging sonar system that could be fitted to a small submarine?

[Vitaphone Racing]

It's telling that the latest line of attack helicopters were designed to participate in assaults, barely ever crossing an enemy's line of sight and sticking so close to the ground is near impossible to pick them out with radar.

If you use helicopters in any other way, you're an idiot. If you don't use helicopters because they just don't work if you use them in any other way, you're likewise an idiot. They can be an enormous asset, if you use them right.

[The Akasha Colony]

Does anyone know the longest ranging sonar system that could be fitted to a small submarine?

Sonar doesn't really have a 'range.' Some are more sensitive than others but ultimately it will depend on what you're trying to listen to. A noisy surface ship can be heard much farther away than an advanced diesel-electric submarine at crawl speeds. But a small submarine will have inherently less space for hydrophones than a larger one.

Either way, if you want the best possible sonar, a towed array should be standard equipment.

[Primordial Luxa]

Does anyone know the longest ranging sonar system that could be fitted to a small submarine?

Sonar doesn't really have a 'range.' Some are more sensitive than others but ultimately it will depend on what you're trying to listen to. A noisy surface ship can be heard much farther away than an advanced diesel-electric submarine at crawl speeds. But a small submarine will have inherently less space for hydrophones than a larger one.

Either way, if you want the best possible sonar, a towed array should be standard equipment.

Do you have any advice on calculating those ranges?

[The Akasha Colony]

Do you have any advice on calculating those ranges?

From a practical standpoint, there are too many factors to consider. Thermoclines, the SOFAR channel, frequency, any other physical obstructions; all of these conditions will vary widely in a real situation and may strongly affect detection distance.

You may be able to calculate a range ignoring all of these factors, if you set an arbitrary sensitivity for your hydrophones, an arbitrary temperature for the water, and an arbitrary acoustic signature for the target. But this range will be irrelevant. Not only will it not be useful in any sort of RP situation, without real world data on these things, you won't be able to compare it, either.

[United States of PA]

Sonar doesn't really have a 'range.' Some are more sensitive than others but ultimately it will depend on what you're trying to listen to. A noisy surface ship can be heard much farther away than an advanced diesel-electric submarine at crawl speeds. But a small submarine will have inherently less space for hydrophones than a larger one.

Either way, if you want the best possible sonar, a towed array should be standard equipment.

Do you have any advice on calculating those ranges?

Theoretically, unlimited.

More like, sub 20 miles for anything that isnt a surface ship. At best. Some modern subs you might not be able to pick out until they are within a matter of hundreds of meters to few thousand.

Active sonar is different, but still, not that long a range overall in practice. Passive has its moments im sure when the planets line up for it and you can hear shit from a helluva way off, but thats pretty rare.

Most submarines will be within spitting distance before you detect them passively. (Modern ones i mean. Yankees and the like you'll hear the next ocean over )

[Velkanika]

Do you have any advice on calculating those ranges?

Theoretically, unlimited.

More like, sub 20 miles for anything that isnt a surface ship. At best. Some modern subs you might not be able to pick out until they are within a matter of hundreds of meters to few thousand.

Active sonar is different, but still, not that long a range overall in practice. Passive has its moments im sure when the planets line up for it and you can hear shit from a helluva way off, but thats pretty rare.

Most submarines will be within spitting distance before you detect them passively. (Modern ones i mean. Yankees and the like you'll hear the next ocean over )

The only thing I've ever heard about this was a firsthand account of a war game two Los Angeles-class submarines ran against each other in the 90s. At one point, one sub picked out the other at about 10 miles and started tracking the other. The second sub didn't hear the first until they were about 10,000 yards away, then both lost each other except for tiny little bursts over the next five hours until one finally 'killed' the other. My take is that with towed-array sonar you can easily miss a nuke boat until it's within 5-10,0000 yards when both are being quiet and actively stalking each other. I've also heard stories of LA-class boats pulling shit like holding formation within 100 yards on a Victor III while the latter was running on the surface and coming out of the Kola Bay. The Vic never knew they were there due to all the surface noise.

[Rich and Corporations]

The Vic never knew they were there due to all the surface noise.

NS must have a lot more surface noise due to all the ships transiting. Even for multi-million man invasion fleets, it must be impossible to detect enemy ships.



If you can do noise cancelling in air.... why not in water?

[Imperializt Russia]

How does that compare to the average?

I don't really think there's an "average."

"A number of transport aircraft" aren't really armoured beyond that. Many will likely be penetrated by HMG fire and possibly large-calibre small arms.

I'm not saying that, I'm advocating mixed aircraft force.
Used in conjunction with artillery and air defences an assault could stiw be highly effective.
Value the treetops.

IIRC, mixed aircraft force stands for F-22s, F-35s, PAK-DAs, and J-20s on NS.

Good luck conducting helicopter operations with those.

The Vic never knew they were there due to all the surface noise.

NS must have a lot more surface noise due to all the ships transiting. Even for multi-million man invasion fleets, it must be impossible to detect enemy ships.



If you can do noise cancelling in air.... why not in water?

Noise cancelling puts out more noise to make other rhythmic noise inaudible.
The noise still exists, it just can't be heard as a sound because the waveforms cancel. You've just given the listening devices twice as much noise to try and find.

[Triplebaconation]

What makes noise?

Noise cancellation algorithms can be used for detection as well.

[Imperializt Russia]

What makes noise?

Noise cancellation algorithms can be used for detection as well.

That's what I was getting at.

[Triplebaconation]

No, the noise cancellation algorithms are in the sonar thingy (excuse me, SONAR) to cancel out background noise. There's no physical noise introduced - it's all electronic. I doubt that's what you were talking about.

R&C is right in a fashion as usual (barring the unfortunate Australian tank thing, but Australia may not exist, so who cares). The primary source of noise in a submarine is of course the vibrations of the machinery. Certain modern submarines, in addition to the traditional rafting, have active engine mounts to cancel out these vibrations and hence noise. It's actually called active vibration control or something, but the principle's broadly the same.

I nominate Dragomere.

[Imperializt Russia]

Wouldn't that be more trying to isolate the engine machinery and prevent them from sending vibrations throughout the rest of the ship, and dampening the vibrations it generates?

[Rich and Corporations]

I don't really think there's an "average."

"A number of transport aircraft" aren't really armoured beyond that. Many will likely be penetrated by HMG fire and possibly large-calibre small arms.

It really depends more on ranges (bullets obviously penetrate less at long distances).

Furthermore, penetration by a small caliber likely won't down an aircraft, even repeated penetration is survivable. Generally the best way to take out an aircraft is to penetrate the pilot, but he's likely wearing basic body armor.

[Imperializt Russia]

"A number of transport aircraft" aren't really armoured beyond that. Many will likely be penetrated by HMG fire and possibly large-calibre small arms.

It really depends more on ranges (bullets obviously penetrate less at long distances).

Furthermore, penetration by a small caliber likely won't down an aircraft, even repeated penetration is survivable. Generally the best way to take out an aircraft is to penetrate the pilot, but he's likely wearing basic body armor.

Basic body armour covers your torso and little else besides. It also won't defend against large-calibre munitions or fragments and splinters - hence why aircraft skins are so thin.

Being shot in body armour, even with a non-penetrating strike, is still incapacitating. I wouldn't feel safe still flying knowing that the pilot had taken round(s) to his armour.

[Triplebaconation]

Wouldn't that be more trying to isolate the engine machinery and prevent them from sending vibrations throughout the rest of the ship, and dampening the vibrations it generates?

Yes, using techniques and equipment nearly identical to those found in active noise cancellation systems, which isn't surprising, since sound is just vibrations.

The only real difference is that the "speakers" are aimed at the engines instead of radiating outwards.

[Rich and Corporations]

It really depends more on ranges (bullets obviously penetrate less at long distances).

Furthermore, penetration by a small caliber likely won't down an aircraft, even repeated penetration is survivable. Generally the best way to take out an aircraft is to penetrate the pilot, but he's likely wearing basic body armor.

Basic body armour covers your torso and little else besides. It also won't defend against large-calibre munitions or fragments and splinters - hence why aircraft skins are so thin.

Being shot in body armour, even with a non-penetrating strike, is still incapacitating. I wouldn't feel safe still flying knowing that the pilot had taken round(s) to his armour.

You must misunderstand me.
A bullet that hits a plane at 400 meters away, penetrates, and then hits the pilot, is likely hitting with the energy of a pistol round.
Furthermore, basic body armor isn't that much different then a flak jacket.

Your explanation why aircraft skins are thin is because body armor only covers the torso?

[Imperializt Russia]

Fragments and splinters, sorry.
Aircraft skins are thin to prevent fragmentation, splintering and ricochet.

Plus, it does also save on weight.

Pistol rounds are lethal, you realise?

[The Kievan People]

What makes noise?

Noise cancellation algorithms can be used for detection as well.

You kind of have it inverted.

Noise cancellation subtracts a known source of noise from the signal. But this does nothing about noise sources which have unknown characteristics, which is most of them unless the sonar is very poorly isolated. What is used to detect targets in a noisy background is a matched filter, which subtracts everything except the anticipated signature of the target.

[Rich and Corporations]

Fragments and splinters, sorry.
Aircraft skins are thin to prevent fragmentation, splintering and ricochet.

Plus, it does also save on weight.

Pistol rounds are lethal, you realise?

They're harmless with body armor.

[Imperializt Russia]

Fragments and splinters, sorry.
Aircraft skins are thin to prevent fragmentation, splintering and ricochet.

Plus, it does also save on weight.

Pistol rounds are lethal, you realise?

They're harmless with body armor.

Of reduced danger, yes.
Injuries can and do result.
In a study of ~450 officers shot wearing body armour, 220 of which shot with handguns while wearing adequately rated protective vests, about 14% resulted in moderate to severe injury - the same proportion as resulting in no injury while wearing adequately rated vests.
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/maga ... e_id=82008