NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #4

[Triplebaconation]

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.

Easy enough for the traditional spherical sonar. Noise cancellation is probably essential for flank and advanced towed arrays. Who knows though!

[Horizont]

I'm just asking this out of pure interest. I don't plan on implementing this any time soon, but I had the idea of a second-strike system using automated bombers instead of missiles. I envision that this would work something like this:

A fleet of fully-automated bombers (like B-1s) would be constructed and then housed in some sort of automated Cheyenne-Mountain like complex; only the runway (s) would be above ground. They would be kept loaded up with nuclear weaponry and fuel, and when the signal is given to attack, these bombers would be taxied out of the base by robotic tugs. They would take off on their autopilot, assume formation, and then cut themselves off- stop receiving/transmitting any signal so that they wouldn't be vulnerable to cyberwarfare (or at least less vulnerable). They would fly towards their target, the autopilot maneuvering as needed (it would be packed with instruments to detect what's around it, obviously) and releasing countermeasures if enemy missiles/aircraft come after it. Heck, some of them could perhaps even carry small parasite fighters, which would be automated drones, to defend them from enemy fighters if necessary. They would release their nuclear weapons at their targets. They would not be designed to come back.

Is this feasible? What difficulties would have to be overcome in order for it to work? Would it have any advantages? Also, this is presuming that a missile strike is not possible for some reason, or that this is being used alongside missiles.

[Vitaphone Racing]

I'm just asking this out of pure interest. I don't plan on implementing this any time soon, but I had the idea of a second-strike system using automated bombers instead of missiles. I envision that this would work something like this:

A fleet of fully-automated bombers (like B-1s) would be constructed and then housed in some sort of automated Cheyenne-Mountain like complex; only the runway (s) would be above ground. They would be kept loaded up with nuclear weaponry and fuel, and when the signal is given to attack, these bombers would be taxied out of the base by robotic tugs. They would take off on their autopilot, assume formation, and then cut themselves off- stop receiving/transmitting any signal so that they wouldn't be vulnerable to cyberwarfare (or at least less vulnerable). They would fly towards their target, the autopilot maneuvering as needed (it would be packed with instruments to detect what's around it, obviously) and releasing countermeasures if enemy missiles/aircraft come after it. Heck, some of them could perhaps even carry small parasite fighters, which would be automated drones, to defend them from enemy fighters if necessary. They would release their nuclear weapons at their targets. They would not be designed to come back.

Is this feasible? What difficulties would have to be overcome in order for it to work? Would it have any advantages? Also, this is presuming that a missile strike is not possible for some reason, or that this is being used alongside missiles.

It's quite impossible to say because the day where fully automated aircraft becomes a practical reality is a very, very long way off and god only knows what might change between now and then.

[Gallia-]

I'm just asking this out of pure interest. I don't plan on implementing this any time soon, but I had the idea of a second-strike system using automated bombers instead of missiles. I envision that this would work something like this:

A fleet of fully-automated bombers (like B-1s) would be constructed and then housed in some sort of automated Cheyenne-Mountain like complex; only the runway (s) would be above ground. They would be kept loaded up with nuclear weaponry and fuel, and when the signal is given to attack, these bombers would be taxied out of the base by robotic tugs. They would take off on their autopilot, assume formation, and then cut themselves off- stop receiving/transmitting any signal so that they wouldn't be vulnerable to cyberwarfare (or at least less vulnerable). They would fly towards their target, the autopilot maneuvering as needed (it would be packed with instruments to detect what's around it, obviously) and releasing countermeasures if enemy missiles/aircraft come after it. Heck, some of them could perhaps even carry small parasite fighters, which would be automated drones, to defend them from enemy fighters if necessary. They would release their nuclear weapons at their targets. They would not be designed to come back.

Is this feasible? What difficulties would have to be overcome in order for it to work? Would it have any advantages? Also, this is presuming that a missile strike is not possible for some reason, or that this is being used alongside missiles.

They would run into the serious problem of being bombers.

[Imperializt Russia]

Why not just make them piloted?
V-force bombers weren't really supposed to return either. Well, they were, the issue would have been the lack of places to actually return to.

[Horizont]

It's quite impossible to say because the day where fully automated aircraft becomes a practical reality is a very, very long way off and god only knows what might change between now and then.

Why can't we make fully automated aircraft? We have autopilots now that can essentially perform all the necessary actions.

[Purpelia]

It's quite impossible to say because the day where fully automated aircraft becomes a practical reality is a very, very long way off and god only knows what might change between now and then.

Why can't we make fully automated aircraft? We have autopilots now that can essentially perform all the necessary actions.

On civilian flights. You know, the ones that have a controlled and repeatable takeoff and landing sequence separated by a single climb, a single dive, both slow and controlled and a lot of strait line flying.

[Yes Im Biop]

This is probably a Brain Fart moment. But if you have a Super Sonic bomber and you drop the bombs. They will still be moving past the speed of sound correct?

[Vitaphone Racing]

It's quite impossible to say because the day where fully automated aircraft becomes a practical reality is a very, very long way off and god only knows what might change between now and then.

Why can't we make fully automated aircraft? We have autopilots now that can essentially perform all the necessary actions.

If you want an aircraft that can take off from point A, climb to height X and land at point B and only be able to land at airports if the full suite of landing aids are working, then yes, you can have a fully automated aircraft. If you want an aircraft that can avoid threats and possibly help out at other locations along the way, then no, you cannot have a fully automated aircraft.

[Vitaphone Racing]

This is probably a Brain Fart moment. But if you have a Super Sonic bomber and you drop the bombs. They will still be moving past the speed of sound correct?

Yes because of Newton's first law.

[Yes Im Biop]

This is probably a Brain Fart moment. But if you have a Super Sonic bomber and you drop the bombs. They will still be moving past the speed of sound correct?

Yes because of Newton's first law.

I figured so But things that move have always been my failing (For the longest time I was confused as to why F-22 didn't shoot their own ass's when they fired missiles)

[Themiclesia]

Yes because of Newton's first law.

I figured so But things that move have always been my failing (For the longest time I was confused as to why F-22 didn't shoot their own ass's when they fired missiles)

In the original direction, in a vacuum.

[Gallia-]

Why can't we make fully automated aircraft? We have autopilots now that can essentially perform all the necessary actions.

If you want an aircraft that can take off from point A, climb to height X and land at point B and only be able to land at airports if the full suite of landing aids are working, then yes, you can have a fully automated aircraft. If you want an aircraft that can avoid threats and possibly help out at other locations along the way, then no, you cannot have a fully automated aircraft.

Cruise missiles don't exist. ):

[Imperializt Russia]

The MiG-15 is quite a small aircraft by comparison, isn't it? The engine runs through the fuselage, too.

If you were to put the NR-37 in an airframe the size of the MiG-29 with similar fuselage space, you'd probably find the space for more than forty shells.

The ammo box on almost all modern aircraft is located in the wing root next to the cannon. There isn't a whole lot of space in there next to the cannon to play with, but it is a little larger than the box the MiG-15 had.

You could probably fit around 60 shells in with a 37mm in a Fulcrum.

The NR-37 is actually approximate in dimension to the 30x173 and 30x165mm cartridges. It's shorter overall and only slightly fatter at the rim. If the MiG-29 carries 150 rounds, I'd say you could easily squeeze 120-140 rounds for an NR-37 in there.

[Vitaphone Racing]

If you want an aircraft that can take off from point A, climb to height X and land at point B and only be able to land at airports if the full suite of landing aids are working, then yes, you can have a fully automated aircraft. If you want an aircraft that can avoid threats and possibly help out at other locations along the way, then no, you cannot have a fully automated aircraft.

Cruise missiles don't exist. ):

Tell us more about the fully automated cruise missile which receives no further communication after it's launch

[Yes Im Biop]

Cruise missiles don't exist. ):

Tell us more about the fully automated cruise missile which receives no further communication after it's launch

Hellfire does that, Though not really a Cruise missile

[Imperializt Russia]

Tell us more about the fully automated cruise missile which receives no further communication after it's launch

Hellfire does that, Though not really a Cruise missile

Almost all Hellfire missiles receive additional targeting information from the launch vehicle - largely because the primary in-service Hellfire is the laser-guided SALH model.

[Registug]

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.

Easy enough for the traditional spherical sonar. Noise cancellation is probably essential for flank and advanced towed arrays. Who knows though!

What if
you cancel out the noise of all that noisy shipping
but the submarine you're looking for has made itself sound like noisy shipping!
!!!!!!!!!!

[Imperializt Russia]

Easy enough for the traditional spherical sonar. Noise cancellation is probably essential for flank and advanced towed arrays. Who knows though!

What if
you cancel out the noise of all that noisy shipping
but the submarine you're looking for has made itself sound like noisy shipping!
!!!!!!!!!!

"Well this Korean grain carrier is behaving strangely. It seems to be several hundred feet below the surface."

[Canuckland]

Use the B1-R Lancer for your anti-aircraft needs, just to make it more logistical.

[Vitaphone Racing]

What if
you cancel out the noise of all that noisy shipping
but the submarine you're looking for has made itself sound like noisy shipping!
!!!!!!!!!!

"Well this Korean grain carrier is behaving strangely. It seems to be several hundred feet below the surface."

What if you just floated and let currents dictate your course?

[The Akasha Colony]

"Well this Korean grain carrier is behaving strangely. It seems to be several hundred feet below the surface."

What if you just floated and let currents dictate your course?

Thor Heyerdahl would like that one.

Is this feasible? What difficulties would have to be overcome in order for it to work? Would it have any advantages? Also, this is presuming that a missile strike is not possible for some reason, or that this is being used alongside missiles.

No real advantage relative to missiles, no. It will be slower, have a shorter range, be more easily detected and engaged, etc. They will also be far more expensive, since now you need a large facility to store them, rather than a small silo in the middle of nowhere, and ICBMs don't need all these fancy sensors and countermeasures to avoid interception by enemy air patrols.

[Val Nube]

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?

IIRC, Ohio class boomers originally ran with some sort of noise cancellation protocol that was so effective it actually made them easier to track. Instead of simply being lost in the background noise, they appeared on sonar as pockets of literally no noise.

[Registug]

"Well this Korean grain carrier is behaving strangely. It seems to be several hundred feet below the surface."

What if you just floated and let currents dictate your course?

Best way to avoid submarines, become sail powered

[The Corparation]

If you want an automated nuclear equipped bomber to autonomously strike your foes, keeping a fueled B-1 analogue on the runway ready to go at a moment's notice is not the way to do things. Instead consider having the bomber in the air 24/7 propelled by an open-cycle nuclear ramjet. The Aircraft would fly at supersonic speeds, and fly super slow to the ground. Armament consists of a dozen hydrogen bombs and the aircraft's exhaust.