NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #4

[United States of PA]

Anyone have ideas on how well a roughly Mosquito or F7F size attack plane driven by a pair 2200hp Propeller engines, armed with a 35mm chain gun and decent electronic suite would perform in front line CAS? Trying to come up with a rough field capable replacement for the A-10.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

It's called cavitation. Do you have a specific objective you want to get out of this?

I want to use a concept similar to the Dyson air multiplier to propel ships.

Just keeping current with the pages.

[Imperializt Russia]

There exist a lot of options for protecting against EMP Blasts.

Modern military electronics already make extensive use of this rendering modern ships/tanks/planes virtually immune to EMP Bursts. You can be damned sure NS probably takes it to another level. You wont blind a NS fleet with a EMP Burst from a Nuke.

Telephone cables are in the open and are, well, cables.

Controls for ships are buried within a steel cage called "the ship".

Civilian infrastructure is still most likely entirely within the realm of "HAHAHA i just blacked out ur nation lawl". Military however, no just no.

Remember, most of the stuff that NS shit is based off of was designed to operate in a nuclear wasteland, and continue to operate even after nuclear warheads have gone off fairly close by.

Nuclear blasts generate strong electromagnetic effects near the burst site.

Anyone have ideas on how well a roughly Mosquito or F7F size attack plane driven by a pair 2200hp Propeller engines, armed with a 35mm chain gun and decent electronic suite would perform in front line CAS? Trying to come up with a rough field capable replacement for the A-10.

Forwards air defences are my first thought.

[United States of PA]

Nuclear blasts generate strong electromagnetic effects near the burst site.

Modern military equipment is EMP hardened.

[Imperializt Russia]

Nuclear blasts generate strong electromagnetic effects near the burst site.

Modern military equipment is EMP hardened.

Yes.
Hardened.

Whilst EMP effects are unlikely to burn/melt/explode sensors and systems, they can blind them temporarily.

Say, long enough for a salvo of conventionally-tipped missiles to strike the group.

[United States of PA]

Yes.
Hardened.

Whilst EMP effects are unlikely to burn/melt/explode sensors and systems, they can blind them temporarily.

Say, long enough for a salvo of conventionally-tipped missiles to strike the group.

While i will agree that EMP proofing is not 100% possible, i sincerely doubt you will ever be able to generate enough of a overload to do what you want. Like i said, this modern stuff is designed to resist Nuclear Blast.

You score a direct hit on a ship with a Nuke Blast, you'll kill that ship. Maybe even kill/mission kill some of the ones around it. I doubt you will do enough to cripple a fleet or even a task force though.

[Imperializt Russia]

This was discussed at length, some weeks ago.
I was asking why we aren't using nuclear-tipped missiles to cripple and destroy the group, citing Able and Baker shots from Crossroads.

Allanea came in and said the primary purpose of the nuclear strike in this context was to blind sensors, and would be followed up with a conventional strike to kill and cripple ships.

[United States of PA]

This was discussed at length, some weeks ago.
I was asking why we aren't using nuclear-tipped missiles to cripple and destroy the group, citing Able and Baker shots from Crossroads.

Allanea came in and said the primary purpose of the nuclear strike in this context was to blind sensors, and would be followed up with a conventional strike to kill and cripple ships.

I wasnt here some weeks ago though, and am just simply giving my opinion now. I dont think you will generate the sensor kills you want. Not even close to it.

[Imperializt Russia]

This was discussed at length, some weeks ago.
I was asking why we aren't using nuclear-tipped missiles to cripple and destroy the group, citing Able and Baker shots from Crossroads.

Allanea came in and said the primary purpose of the nuclear strike in this context was to blind sensors, and would be followed up with a conventional strike to kill and cripple ships.

I wasnt here some weeks ago though, and am just simply giving my opinion now. I dont think you will generate the sensor kills you want. Not even close to it.

The RL Soviet anti-carrier-battle-group tactic was: 8 110-kt Kh-55 missiles vaguely in the direction of the battlegroup, to damage (not destroy, they expected most of the battlegroup to survive) the escorts' EW capability, followed up by conventional AShMs to kill the carrier.

We're blinding the escorts, which includes air defence ships and disrupting air operations, to make a hole for the attack strike.

[Ea90]

And what it multiple bladts occur? (obviously giving time between the detonation of the first and the launch of the second)

Then all systems are still in a steel cage, and the Faraday cages still give 0 shits. EMP's aren't additive.

Erm...
I don't think you know what additive means.

[Imperializt Russia]

Pretty sure he means cumulative, which is basically the same thing and discernible from the context.

[United States of PA]

The RL Soviet anti-carrier-battle-group tactic was: 8 110-kt Kh-55 missiles vaguely in the direction of the battlegroup, to damage (not destroy, they expected most of the battlegroup to survive) the escorts' EW capability, followed up by conventional AShMs to kill the carrier.

We're blinding the escorts, which includes air defence ships and disrupting air operations, to make a hole for the attack strike.[/quote]


I still dont believe you will achieve your goal. As much respect as i have for Allanea on the subject of Soviet doctrine, i've never heard of that before and would like to see some more proof before i just go off and believe it wholesale.


Im sure that NATO would've thought of that, and planned against it.

And also, he did mean cumulative. The way he thinks i thought would make it clearer. EMP blasts dont stack.

EDIT: Anyways lets leave this be, we're not getting anywhere with this. I dont believe you, you dont believe me at the moment.

Any thoughts on my idea for a CAS plane at the top of the page?

[Imperializt Russia]

I'd have concerns over its survivability. Increasing proliferation of advanced air defences and the continual improvement of stand-off munitions are significant factors behind the retirement of the A-10 in favour of the do-everything F-35.

I'm still unconvinced by your gun choice. I can understand wanting the significant payload of the 35mm shell, especially when considering the possible 50mm upgrade to 50mm Super.
But you don't need a shell of that size. Frankly, I think that 40mm Super (30x173 necked up to 40mm) would provide all the gun you'd ever need.

But I also think that, for the reasons above of air defences and stand-off capability, that big guns on CAS jets aren't necessary and present either dead-weight or an actual design flaw.

[Inyourfaceistan]

I still dont believe you will achieve your goal. As much respect as i have for Allanea on the subject of Soviet doctrine, i've never heard of that before and would like to see some more proof before i just go off and believe it wholesale.


Im sure that NATO would've thought of that, and planned against it.

And also, he did mean cumulative. The way he thinks i thought would make it clearer. EMP blasts dont stack.

EMP is still up in the air because surface tests only generate E1 and E2 pulses. They do not create the E3 pulse which is only found in high-altitude nuclear explosions as well as a hypothetical solar storm.

http://www.futurescience.com/emp/E1-E2-E3.html

Also, this states that while E2 (also found in lightning) is the easiest to defend against, the damage of E1 to systems could possibly allow E2 to penetrate.

To say nothing of the unknowns of E3 (which honestly could likely mess up your targeting just as much), this seems to imply that multiple blasts could in fact wear down hardened systems, or am I mistaken?

[Triplebaconation]

What's all this jibber-jabber about "EMP?"

Here is a picture of a carrier escort!

[United States of PA]

I'd have concerns over its survivability. Increasing proliferation of advanced air defences and the continual improvement of stand-off munitions are significant factors behind the retirement of the A-10 in favour of the do-everything F-35.

I'm still unconvinced by your gun choice. I can understand wanting the significant payload of the 35mm shell, especially when considering the possible 50mm upgrade to 50mm Super.
But you don't need a shell of that size. Frankly, I think that 40mm Super (30x173 necked up to 40mm) would provide all the gun you'd ever need.

But I also think that, for the reasons above of air defences and stand-off capability, that big guns on CAS jets aren't necessary and present either dead-weight or an actual design flaw.

35mm is for ammo commonality with a shitload of other things i use, little more. My main two auto cannons are 35mm and 50mm SS, i also wont budge on the idea of a big gun much due to the benefits of strafing runs when i dont need to kill tanks. The gun will be secondary to its designed ability to infiltrate at low altitude, using terrain to its advantage and accurate drop bombs or something of the like. Missiles will also be there, primarily fire and forget ones.

Survivability would arguably be better than A-10, because i plan to give this a actual Electronics suite, which is probably the main reason why A-10 would fail nowadays. Maybe give it a small jammer in the tail somewhere, or on the wingtips. Plus the fact that if all works out, i'll be able to base it out of fields would be nice.

[Velkanika]

Updated the map. This now needs significantly more stations, but oh well; that's no problem.

Why are you using a map projection with maximum distortion at the poles when you need real distances with minimum distortion for this?

[Horizont]

Updated the map. This now needs significantly more stations, but oh well; that's no problem.

Why are you using a map projection with maximum distortion at the poles when you need real distances with minimum distortion for this?

I couldn't find a decent map centered around the South Pole that was big enough.

[Yes Im Biop]

Then all systems are still in a steel cage, and the Faraday cages still give 0 shits. EMP's aren't additive.

Erm...
I don't think you know what additive means.

Multiplicative? NO! Cumulative I think. Basically if one won't kill it. 100 wont.

[Themiclesia]

I'm here to present my army's New Year's Day Special Dress Uniform Outer Coat



What do you think of it?

[Gallia-]

Anyone have ideas on how well a roughly Mosquito or F7F size attack plane driven by a pair 2200hp Propeller engines, armed with a 35mm chain gun and decent electronic suite would perform in front line CAS? Trying to come up with a rough field capable replacement for the A-10.

Poorly.

[Purpelia]

Anyone have ideas on how well a roughly Mosquito or F7F size attack plane driven by a pair 2200hp Propeller engines, armed with a 35mm chain gun and decent electronic suite would perform in front line CAS? Trying to come up with a rough field capable replacement for the A-10.

The gun would be utterly incapable of penetrating any serious MBT this side of (and NOT including) the T-72A. And the limited engine power and size would make its capability to carry anything that can into serious question. It would not be terribly fast, which is kind of important when you are trying to avoid being shot down. And it would just suck overall.

If you want a decent CAS plane your best bet would be something like the Su-25 or hell even an F-16.

[United States of PA]

Anyone have ideas on how well a roughly Mosquito or F7F size attack plane driven by a pair 2200hp Propeller engines, armed with a 35mm chain gun and decent electronic suite would perform in front line CAS? Trying to come up with a rough field capable replacement for the A-10.

The gun would be utterly incapable of penetrating any serious MBT this side of (and NOT including) the T-72A. And the limited engine power and size would make its capability to carry anything that can into serious question. It would not be terribly fast, which is kind of important when you are trying to avoid being shot down. And it would just suck overall.

If you want a decent CAS plane your best bet would be something like the Su-25 or hell even an F-16.

The gun is not intended for MBTs, nor do i intend to create that misconception. The F7F and DH Hornet were both capable of around 470mph, not terribly slower than A-10 and i will give it, fairly significantly slower than Su-25. Payload most likely wont be much, but than again you dont need much to carry a decent number of Hellfires for example (F7F could carry close to 20 by weight. It was able to carry two 1,000lb bombs) or roughly 4 AGM-65 Mavericks. Being able to operate without purpose built runways could also theoretically reduce the needed time to re-sortie since you could operate basically just out of artillery range (say 40mi or so from combat).

Poorly.

Could you state some reasons please?

[Purpelia]

The gun is not intended for MBTs, nor do i intend to create that misconception. The F7F and DH Hornet were both capable of around 470mph, not terribly slower than A-10 and i will give it, fairly significantly slower than Su-25. Payload most likely wont be much, but than again you dont need much to carry a decent number of Hellfires for example (F7F could carry close to 20 by weight. It was able to carry two 1,000lb bombs) or roughly 4 AGM-65 Mavericks. Being able to operate without purpose built runways could also theoretically reduce the needed time to re-sortie since you could operate basically just out of artillery range (say 40mi or so from combat).

Than why not just use a helicopter? It will be able to operate with much more flexibility and make much better use of the armament it has. And it can offset its low speed by flying behind obstacles and the like.

[Velkanika]

Why are you using a map projection with maximum distortion at the poles when you need real distances with minimum distortion for this?

I couldn't find a decent map centered around the South Pole that was big enough.

http://home.comcast.net/~tbrown117735MI/antarctica1.gif

You're welcome.

It's called cavitation. Do you have a specific objective you want to get out of this?

I want to use a concept similar to the Dyson air multiplier to propel ships.

It would work, but would be extremely noisy and inefficient.

What's all this jibber-jabber about "EMP?"

Here is a picture of a carrier escort!

(Image)

I'm with Bacon on this. You have to get a nuclear weapon really high up before you can start playing with EMP effects, as in 70,000+ ft ASL before you'll get a notable effect at sea level. The primary damage to ships would be dealt by the shock wave and thermal pulse of a nuclear blast. Both of those can easily destroy radar arrays by smashing or partially melting them. You can entirely ignore EMP outside of a high-altitude burst when figuring in damage to radars due to the vast majority of the x-ray and gamma-ray burst colliding with molecules of air and heating it into the nuclear fire ball that creates the thermal pulse and shock wave in the first place.