NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #4

[United States of PA]

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.

They are most definitely not slow. They also may be able to carry more than the 2,000lbs i am working off of because the quick sources i looked at dont give a actual capacity, just the empty weight and MTOW. They are nearly 300mph faster than a Apache and i could probably open up the Carry capacity through the use of more powerful engines, more blades per engine etc.

As far as CAS aircraft go (And i make the distinction that a Attack Helicopter cannot do all the jobs a CAS plane can), i dont think that this would be any more vulnerable than a A-10C or Su-25 really.

[Velkanika]

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.

They are most definitely not slow. They also may be able to carry more than the 2,000lbs i am working off of because the quick sources i looked at dont give a actual capacity, just the empty weight and MTOW. They are nearly 300mph faster than a Apache and i could probably open up the Carry capacity through the use of more powerful engines, more blades per engine etc.

As far as CAS aircraft go (And i make the distinction that a Attack Helicopter cannot do all the jobs a CAS plane can), i dont think that this would be any more vulnerable than a A-10C or Su-25 really.

The AH-64 is far more survivable because it can hover and has extreme agility. Your aircraft is slow and is the kind of target SPAAGs are designed to kill. A-10s are actually extremely vulnerable when facing any SPAAG built since they went into service, and your prop plane simply is not fast enough to get out of the line of fire from radar-directed gunsights designed to kill jets.

[Novorden]

Company: 154+
Company Headquarters (6): Company Commander, Supporting officer, Non-commissioned officer, Quarter Master, storeman, Coms operator
3 x Platoons (126)

Platoon Headquarters (4): Platoon commander, Supporting officer, Radioman and medic
MG Section (6)
3 x GPMG Teams (specialist + assist)
Mortar Section (6)
1 x 80mm mortar team
Launcher Section (6)
3 x AA/AT teams (specialist + assist)

Attachments (?): (dependent on mission)

---

Platoon: 42
Platoon Headquarters (4): Platoon commander, Supporting officer, Radioman and medic
3 x Sections (36)
Platoon Support (2): Light mortar (50mm) and assist

---

Section: 12
2 x Assault teams
Assault team A: 6 (Support team)
-Section Lead with coms equipment
-Gunner
-Designated marksman
-AT or AA Specilist
-Rifleman (AA/AT assist)
-Rifleman (Gunner assist)

Assault team B: 6 (Maneuver team)
-Team lead with UBGL
-Automatic rifleman
-Rifleman with anti structure weapon/lightweight AT
-Designated marksman
-Rifleman with UBGL
-Rifleman with UBGL

As each Platoon already has:

1x 50mm Light mortar
3x GPMGs
2x ATGM (MBT LAW like)
1x AA missile, or a third ATGM
3x anti structure weapon/lightweight AT (M72 LAW like)
6x 40mm UBGLs

Would this be a more suitable 'Weapons platoon" due to the GPMGs and AT/AA already being there at the platoon level?:

Weapons Platoon
Platoon Headquarters (3): Platoon commander, Radioman and medic

HMG Team (4)
1 x .50 HMG (4 crew)
Mortar Team (6)
1 x 80mm mortar (6 crew)
Launcher Team (6)
1x SACLOS wire-guided anti-tank missile (6 Crew)

Also have i given the weapons too many/too few crew members?

Also also: do i need the HQ for the weapons platoon?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

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.

How so? It would work by pressing water with amplified pressure against ambient water rather than chopping and buffeting it. Wouldn't that make for quieter smoother propulsion?

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

Source Region Electro-magnetic Pulse [SREMP] is produced by low-altitude nuclear bursts. An effective net vertical electron current is formed by the asymmetric deposition of electrons in the atmosphere and the ground, and the formation and decay of this current emits a pulse of electromagnetic radiation in directions perpendicular to the current. The asymmetry from a low-altitude explosion occurs because some electrons emitted downward are trapped in the upper millimeter of the Earth�s surface while others, moving upward and outward, can travel long distances in the atmosphere, producing ionization and charge separation. A weaker asymmetry can exist for higher altitude explosions due to the density gradient of the atmosphere.
Within the source region, peak electric fields greater than 10 5 V/m and peak magnetic fields greater than 4,000 A/m can exist. These are much larger than those from HEMP and pose a considerable threat to military or civilian systems in the affected region. The ground is also a conductor of electricity and provides a return path for electrons at the outer part of the deposition region toward the burst point. Positive ions, which travel shorter distances than electrons and at lower velocities, remain behind and recombine with the electrons returning through the ground. Thus, strong magnetic fields are produced in the region of ground zero. When the nuclear detonation occurs near to the ground, the SREMP target may not be located in the electromagnetic far field but may instead lie within the electro-magnetic induction region. In this regime the electric and magnetic fields of the radiation are no longer perpendicular to one another, and many of the analytic tools with which we understand EM coupling in the simple plane-wave case no longer apply. The radiated EM field falls off rapidly with increasing distance from the deposition region (near to the currents the EMP does not appear to come from a point source).
As a result, the region where the greatest damage can be produced is from about 3 to 8 km from ground zero. In this same region structures housing electrical equipment are also likely to be severely damaged by blast and shock. According to the third edition of The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, by S. Glasstone and P. Dolan, �the threat to electrical and electronic systems from a surface-burst EMP may extend as far as the distance at which the peak overpressure from a 1-megaton burst is 2 pounds per square inch.�

One of the unique features of SREMP is the high late-time voltage which can be produced on long lines in the first 0.1 second. This stress can produce large late-time currents on the exterior shields of systems, and shielding against the stress is very difficult. Components sensitive to magnetic fields may have to be specially hardened. SREMP effects are uniquely nuclear weapons effects.

During the Cold War, SREMP was conceived primarily as a threat to the electronic and electrical systems within hardened targets such as missile launch facilities. Clearly, SREMP effects are only important if the targeted systems are expected to survive the primary damage-causing mechanisms of blast, shock, and thermal pulse. Because SREMP is uniquely associated with nuclear strikes, technology associated with SREMP generation has no commercial applications. However, technologies associated with SREMP measurement and mitigation are commercially interesting for lightning protection and electromagnetic compatibility applications. Basic physics models of SREMP generation and coupling to generic systems, as well as numerical calculation, use unclassified and generic weapon and target parameters. However, codes and coupling models which reveal the response and vulnerability of current or future military systems are militarily critical.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm

[Purpelia]

They are most definitely not slow. They also may be able to carry more than the 2,000lbs i am working off of because the quick sources i looked at dont give a actual capacity, just the empty weight and MTOW. They are nearly 300mph faster than a Apache and i could probably open up the Carry capacity through the use of more powerful engines, more blades per engine etc.

The problem is that they still ain't fast enough for it to matter. You need to basically be high subsonic and capable of flying real high if you don't want to be shot down by MANPADS and the machine guns you see on top of tanks, let alone a 9K22.

As far as CAS aircraft go (And i make the distinction that a Attack Helicopter cannot do all the jobs a CAS plane can)

Indeed. It can't fly real fast to avoid AA (neither can yours). They can't drop gravity bombs from a great distance using altitude and speed to their advantage (neither can yours to any comparable effect). They can't be made stealth (neither can yours due to the propellers). They can't refuel in the air (can a propeller plane???). They can't carry too much of a payload (neither can your aircraft really). Etc. They can't do the same things what you describe cant do either.

i dont think that this would be any more vulnerable than a A-10C or Su-25 really.

Fun fact. The A-10 would be hilariously vulnerable to the point of suicide against a modern mechanized force with proper AA systems. Or as I like to put it, ZSU killed the warthog. The days of the ground attack IL-2 circling around waiting to spot something to shoot with its guns are done and over.

[United States of PA]

The problem is that they still ain't fast enough for it to matter. You need to basically be high subsonic and capable of flying real high if you don't want to be shot down by MANPADS and the machine guns you see on top of tanks, let alone a 9K22.

For the role of any CAS plane/helicopter, this is going to be a issue.

Indeed. It can't fly real fast to avoid AA (neither can yours). They can't drop gravity bombs from a great distance using altitude and speed to their advantage (neither can yours to any comparable effect). They can't be made stealth (neither can yours due to the propellers). They can't refuel in the air (can a propeller plane???). They can't carry too much of a payload (neither can your aircraft really). Etc. They can't do the same things what you describe cant do either.

1. Neither can the Su-25/A-10
2. Hence the use of missiles i stated. I prefer to use Helos for more of a direct support role, with dedicated CAS planes making quick strikes near the front or shortly behind it, and strike fighters for anything beyond.
3. Yes prop planes can refuel midair. Same ways jets do. Same way helicopters can as well (Forget what its called, but the method of dragging a hose behind you is what im referring to)

Fun fact. The A-10 would be hilariously vulnerable to the point of suicide against a modern mechanized force with proper AA systems. Or as I like to put it, ZSU killed the warthog. The days of the ground attack IL-2 circling around waiting to spot something to shoot with its guns are done and over.

A-10 also has close to no electronics to speak of. Nor do i intend for this to "Circle around waiting to spot something", get in, fire a few F&F missiles at vehicles and get out.

Also, so would a Su-25 or anything else intended to fill this role. Helicopters, anything

The AH-64 is far more survivable because it can hover and has extreme agility. Your aircraft is slow and is the kind of target SPAAGs are designed to kill.

SPAAGs are designed to kill everything that gets remotely low. Thats the risk of doing CAS. Im trying to come up with a alternative that ideally would allow me to base closer to the front and be cheaper than a comparable jet aircraft.

A-10s are actually extremely vulnerable when facing any SPAAG built since they went into service, and your prop plane simply is not fast enough to get out of the line of fire from radar-directed gunsights designed to kill jets.

1. See the above respose to purp i have. I recognize it will be vulnerable. Than again, that's the point of CAS, put the plane on the line to hit something.
2. As i mentioned earlier i believe, Jammers to deal with radar guided guns. Give them their own source of power ala AN/ALQ-99 with their Ram Air Turbines. Mount them in the wingtips and or in the tail. This still leaves the whole issue of Thermal or Visual acquisition, but there is no way around that.

[Velkanika]

The problem is that they still ain't fast enough for it to matter. You need to basically be high subsonic and capable of flying real high if you don't want to be shot down by MANPADS and the machine guns you see on top of tanks, let alone a 9K22.

For the role of any CAS plane/helicopter, this is going to be a issue.

Indeed. It can't fly real fast to avoid AA (neither can yours). They can't drop gravity bombs from a great distance using altitude and speed to their advantage (neither can yours to any comparable effect). They can't be made stealth (neither can yours due to the propellers). They can't refuel in the air (can a propeller plane???). They can't carry too much of a payload (neither can your aircraft really). Etc. They can't do the same things what you describe cant do either.

1. Neither can the Su-25/A-10
2. Hence the use of missiles i stated. I prefer to use Helos for more of a direct support role, with dedicated CAS planes making quick strikes near the front or shortly behind it, and strike fighters for anything beyond.
3. Yes prop planes can refuel midair. Same ways jets do. Same way helicopters can as well (Forget what its called, but the method of dragging a hose behind you is what im referring to)

Fun fact. The A-10 would be hilariously vulnerable to the point of suicide against a modern mechanized force with proper AA systems. Or as I like to put it, ZSU killed the warthog. The days of the ground attack IL-2 circling around waiting to spot something to shoot with its guns are done and over.

A-10 also has close to no electronics to speak of. Nor do i intend for this to "Circle around waiting to spot something", get in, fire a few F&F missiles at vehicles and get out.

Also, so would a Su-25 or anything else intended to fill this role. Helicopters, anything

The AH-64 is far more survivable because it can hover and has extreme agility. Your aircraft is slow and is the kind of target SPAAGs are designed to kill.

SPAAGs are designed to kill everything that gets remotely low. Thats the risk of doing CAS. Im trying to come up with a alternative that ideally would allow me to base closer to the front and be cheaper than a comparable jet aircraft.

A-10s are actually extremely vulnerable when facing any SPAAG built since they went into service, and your prop plane simply is not fast enough to get out of the line of fire from radar-directed gunsights designed to kill jets.

1. See the above respose to purp i have. I recognize it will be vulnerable. Than again, that's the point of CAS, put the plane on the line to hit something.
2. As i mentioned earlier i believe, Jammers to deal with radar guided guns. Give them their own source of power ala AN/ALQ-99 with their Ram Air Turbines. Mount them in the wingtips and or in the tail. This still leaves the whole issue of Thermal or Visual acquisition, but there is no way around that.

It's the probe and drogue method of aerial refueling, by the way.

The problem with your idea is not that it's getting shot at, it's that it will get shot to pieces due to how long it'll be in the field of fire. You don't need a radar gunsight to hit something like this, the M2 Browning on a tank is designed with this in mind. Also, it's pretty much impossible to jam a radar gunsight due to the range involved. It'll be able to burn through the jamming the moment you crest the horizon, but even if that fails the gunner can always go manual and account for the bullet drop himself. Tracers are still used on SPAAGs for a reason.

[Imperializt Russia]

The plane is not on the line to hit things. It doesn't need to be.
CAS doesn't mean the aircraft has to be close to the infantry it defends, it has to be defending infantry from threats close to it. Where the aircraft is in relation to this is an irrelevance, and is why aircraft like the A-10 could be on the way out.

The A-10 is still a very good airframe. But its primary purpose is to loft that gun. If it can't realistically get close enough to use that gun, then it's just a bomb truck - and the F-15E trucks more bombs, and the attack helicopter can loft them craftily.

[Velkanika]

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.

Source Region Electro-magnetic Pulse [SREMP] is produced by low-altitude nuclear bursts. An effective net vertical electron current is formed by the asymmetric deposition of electrons in the atmosphere and the ground, and the formation and decay of this current emits a pulse of electromagnetic radiation in directions perpendicular to the current. The asymmetry from a low-altitude explosion occurs because some electrons emitted downward are trapped in the upper millimeter of the Earth�s surface while others, moving upward and outward, can travel long distances in the atmosphere, producing ionization and charge separation. A weaker asymmetry can exist for higher altitude explosions due to the density gradient of the atmosphere.
Within the source region, peak electric fields greater than 10 5 V/m and peak magnetic fields greater than 4,000 A/m can exist. These are much larger than those from HEMP and pose a considerable threat to military or civilian systems in the affected region. The ground is also a conductor of electricity and provides a return path for electrons at the outer part of the deposition region toward the burst point. Positive ions, which travel shorter distances than electrons and at lower velocities, remain behind and recombine with the electrons returning through the ground. Thus, strong magnetic fields are produced in the region of ground zero. When the nuclear detonation occurs near to the ground, the SREMP target may not be located in the electromagnetic far field but may instead lie within the electro-magnetic induction region. In this regime the electric and magnetic fields of the radiation are no longer perpendicular to one another, and many of the analytic tools with which we understand EM coupling in the simple plane-wave case no longer apply. The radiated EM field falls off rapidly with increasing distance from the deposition region (near to the currents the EMP does not appear to come from a point source).
As a result, the region where the greatest damage can be produced is from about 3 to 8 km from ground zero. In this same region structures housing electrical equipment are also likely to be severely damaged by blast and shock. According to the third edition of The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, by S. Glasstone and P. Dolan, �the threat to electrical and electronic systems from a surface-burst EMP may extend as far as the distance at which the peak overpressure from a 1-megaton burst is 2 pounds per square inch.�

One of the unique features of SREMP is the high late-time voltage which can be produced on long lines in the first 0.1 second. This stress can produce large late-time currents on the exterior shields of systems, and shielding against the stress is very difficult. Components sensitive to magnetic fields may have to be specially hardened. SREMP effects are uniquely nuclear weapons effects.

During the Cold War, SREMP was conceived primarily as a threat to the electronic and electrical systems within hardened targets such as missile launch facilities. Clearly, SREMP effects are only important if the targeted systems are expected to survive the primary damage-causing mechanisms of blast, shock, and thermal pulse. Because SREMP is uniquely associated with nuclear strikes, technology associated with SREMP generation has no commercial applications. However, technologies associated with SREMP measurement and mitigation are commercially interesting for lightning protection and electromagnetic compatibility applications. Basic physics models of SREMP generation and coupling to generic systems, as well as numerical calculation, use unclassified and generic weapon and target parameters. However, codes and coupling models which reveal the response and vulnerability of current or future military systems are militarily critical.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm

Ship radars and pretty much every single other electronic system used by a First or Second World aligned military are hardened against that kind of EMP already. The point still stands.

[Purpelia]

The problem is that they still ain't fast enough for it to matter. You need to basically be high subsonic and capable of flying real high if you don't want to be shot down by MANPADS and the machine guns you see on top of tanks, let alone a 9K22.

For the role of any CAS plane/helicopter, this is going to be a issue.

Yes and no. A helicopter can hover behind treetops and the like and only attack when the enemy is spotted by friendly forces thus minimizing risk to it self whilst accomplishing its role as close air support. An aircraft meanwhile has to either circle around the area or take off from an airfield when called. The later gives it a lot of latency (although likely tolerable) and the former makes a slow propeller aircraft a sitting duck against both AA and enemy fighters.

1. Neither can the Su-25/A-10

A Su-25 actually can since its a rather nimble and fast jet fighter. And any modern multirole (hell, even an F-16) easily can.

2. Hence the use of missiles i stated. I prefer to use Helos for more of a direct support role, with dedicated CAS planes making quick strikes near the front or shortly behind it, and strike fighters for anything beyond.

I think you are seriously misguided about just what CAS is supposed to do. What you are describing is the kind of thing that is supposed to be done by strike fighters like the F-35, F-16 and others.

3. Yes prop planes can refuel midair. Same ways jets do. Same way helicopters can as well (Forget what its called, but the method of dragging a hose behind you is what im referring to)

Well I'll be dammed. That admittedly invalidates one of my many points.

A-10 also has close to no electronics to speak of. Nor do i intend for this to "Circle around waiting to spot something", get in, fire a few F&F missiles at vehicles and get out.

Than it most definitively is NOT a close air support aircraft. Close air support means being in the general area as your troops waiting for someone to call you so that you can bomb what they want you to. What you are describing is some sort of penetrator/tactical bomber. So you know, get your designations strait.

Also, so would a Su-25 or anything else intended to fill this role. Helicopters, anything

Not nesecerily. A decent multirole aircraft is quick and agile enough to get into the area it needs to support, deliver said support and get out with far less risk than a lumbering flying brick.

[Spirit of Hope]

CAS has changed a lot in the last couple of years, away from the idea of the A-10. The big thing to understand is the revolution in air defense, which means that any armored formation will have some rather formidable air defense assets. To attack an armored formation you either have to move in to it (what the A-10 does), stay out of the air defense area (what a strike fighter would do), or hide from the enemy (What a helicopter would do).

The problem with moving into the air defense area is that is greatly increases your casualties without really increasing your ability to support. While helicopters will probably not have a much higher survivability rate than the A-10 style crafts, they are cheeper to produce and maintain. Strike fighters while more expensive have a higher survival rate and are more versatile.

[United States of PA]

Yes and no. A helicopter can hover behind treetops and the like and only attack when the enemy is spotted by friendly forces thus minimizing risk to it self whilst accomplishing its role as close air support. An aircraft meanwhile has to either circle around the area or take off from an airfield when called. The later gives it a lot of latency (although likely tolerable) and the former makes a slow propeller aircraft a sitting duck against both AA and enemy fighters.

A aircraft does have to circle. This does not have to be over the enemy though. This is where your misconception is. It can circle a few miles behind the enemy, out of risk of SPAAG or MANPADs, or it can wait at its field a short ways behind the front (In the case of what i am intending, this can be literally as close as it is safe to also stage helicopters out of).

Again, the planes i have provided examples of are not slow. So please stop saying that. They may not be able to hit 600mph, but they are not slow as a B-17.

A Su-25 actually can since its a rather nimble and fast jet fighter. And any modern multirole (hell, even an F-16) easily can.

A A-10 is also very nimble at low speed. Its still easy to shoot down.

I think you are seriously misguided about just what CAS is supposed to do. What you are describing is the kind of thing that is supposed to be done by strike fighters like the F-35, F-16 and others.

Your incorrect. CAS just means "In close proximity to friendly units". You can do this from 3,000mi away using cruise missiles.

In military tactics, close air support (CAS) is defined as air action by fixed or rotary winged aircraft against hostile targets that are close to friendly ground or naval forces, and which requires detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of these forces.
The determining factor for CAS is detailed integration, not proximity. CAS may need to be conducted far from friendly forces, if the mission requires detailed integration with the fire and movement of these forces. A closely related subset of air interdiction, battlefield air interdiction denotes interdiction against units with near-term effects on friendly units, but which does not require integration with friendly troop movements. The term "battlefield air interdiction" is not currently used in US joint doctrine.
Close air support requires excellent coordination with ground forces. In advanced modern militaries, this coordination is typically handled by specialists such as Joint Fires Observers, Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTAC)s, and Forward Air Controllers (FAC).

Than it most definitively is NOT a close air support aircraft. Close air support means being in the general area as your troops waiting for someone to call you so that you can bomb what they want you to. What you are describing is some sort of penetrator/tactical bomber. So you know, get your designations strait.

See the above. You are confused in what CAS is, not me.

Not nesecerily. A decent multirole aircraft is quick and agile enough to get into the area it needs to support, deliver said support and get out with far less risk than a lumbering flying brick.

Less risk? Yes, but you ignore the fact that most of these aircraft arent "lumbering bricks". The DH Hornet and F7F were both fighters, and are both fast. A F-16 may be able to get in and out quicker, but your putting at risk ~$30mn to use that F-16C

minimum

in a role that while it can do it, it cant do it incredibly well. Compared to that, a modern Propeller Driven Attack plane (I'll start using this since apparently CAS Plane isnt the proper term for a plane intended to provide Close Air Support) might cost significantly less.

SPAAGs dont care about agility. Most of them are good enough your still going to get fucked up once you get in range, no matter what your flying. And at low altitude a F-16 might not be able to fly much faster than what i propose due to terrain.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/ ... 6znd3x.png

Am I missing a lot of things necessary to a functioningeffective destroyer?

[Velkanika]

Again, the planes i have provided examples of are not slow. So please stop saying that. They may not be able to hit 600mph, but they are not slow as a B-17.

Anything below Mach 1 is slow for the purposes of modern AAA. You need to be supersonic and below 500 feet to survive in a modern AAA environment at low level. Anything else is suicidally risky.

SPAAGs dont care about agility. Most of them are good enough your still going to get fucked up once you get in range, no matter what your flying. And at low altitude a F-16 might not be able to fly much faster than what i propose due to terrain.

You'd be surprised. Jinxing still increases the survivability of an aircraft by making it impossible to get a perfect firing solution.

I live right in the middle of a military low-altitude flight training route in south-east California. This week my house was buzzed by an aggressor squadron F-16 with two F-15s on his ass practicing air-combat maneuvering while on the god damn deck. Last month an F-15E cracked past me while I was driving to work at Mach 1 and about 200 feet above ground level, in the bottom of a river canyon. His right wingtip was below some of the trees along the river. I've seen F/A-15E's doing similar things up along ridge lines. I've even seen an F-22 playing within a few miles of my house.

Go talk to any USAF pilot about low-level flight training. They train so they can fly 500 feet above the ground in central Europe or Iran at Mach 1 or faster. Entire dogfights and strike missions have occurred at Mach 2 on the deck. Hell, I once met a WSO with a phenomenal pilot who made him use a Maverick seeker to spot any obstical that would kill them when they flew SUPERSONIC AND 20 FEET ABOVE THE COLORADO PLATEAU AT A RED-FLAG EXERCISE. The other pilot at the static display swore it actually happened.

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/362/5/9/nirvashi_cutter_concept_by_nirvashtypeend-d6znd3x.png

Am I missing a lot of things necessary to a functioningeffective destroyer?

Radar, communications equipment, a ride that won't kill everyone in a storm, propulsion, viable armament, and even more. That is so top heavy I'm not sure if it can stay upright on a flat ocean.

Speaking of, if this is for your main you're gonna have fun in the Southern Ocean. That won't take a heavy storm well, and those are common down south.

[Oaledonia]

What is feasible to use if I want the destruction of a nuclear weapon without all that nasty fallout?

[Novorden]

if you want a low level ground attack aircraft....

"You don't look for things to chase - you look for things to ram!".

[Chedastan]

What is feasible to use if I want the destruction of a nuclear weapon without all that nasty fallout?

A really big bomb? White Phosphorus? Or something like that, I don't know.

[Krazakistan]

What is feasible to use if I want the destruction of a nuclear weapon without all that nasty fallout?

M/FOAB

[Kouralia]

Right: Person A is a rank 'Captain' (OF-2) and is the OC of the military unit. Person B is a rank 'Flight Lieutenant' (OF-2) and is normally XO of the unit.

Person A has been captured by hostile forces for weeks, and has been tortured, abused etc. Person B is now the OC of the military unit.

Person B leads a rescue attempt of the Captured personnel, and upon rescue of Person A, contradicting orders are given by Persons A and B, immediately after Person A demonstrates an inability to think with clarity (i.e. killing the sole pilot of the plane everyone's flying in because he was enemy, even though he subdued).

On the basis of regulations only, whose orders should be followed? Person B is currently the OC of the unit in question, but Person A usually is.

If Person A is OF-3 (SqnLdr) (thus out-ranking Person B), whose orders should be followed?

[Velkanika]

What is feasible to use if I want the destruction of a nuclear weapon without all that nasty fallout?

Fuel-air explosives can approach the destruction of a low-yield sub-kiloton nuclear blast, but are extremely heavy and bulky. Large quantities of high explosive will also do it, but are even heavier and more bulky. Nuclear weapons are stockpiled because they carry the equivalent of hundreds of conventional bombs in a single bomb case. Tactical nuclear weapons cause the same effects as an artillery barrage of hundreds of shells, so you can easily get the same effects with conventional weapons with enough time, effort, money, and blood.

[United States of PA]

What is feasible to use if I want the destruction of a nuclear weapon without all that nasty fallout?

Modern Thermonuclear Weapons aren't that dirty if they are a airburst. Tactical Nuclear warheads wouldn't exist if they irradiate the target for centuries.

[Lyras]

Right: Person A is a rank 'Captain' (OF-2) and is the OC of the military unit. Person B is a rank 'Flight Lieutenant' (OF-2) and is normally XO of the unit.

Person A has been captured by hostile forces for weeks, and has been tortured, abused etc. Person B is now the OC of the military unit.

Person B leads a rescue attempt of the Captured personnel, and upon rescue of Person A, contradicting orders are given by Persons A and B, immediately after Person A demonstrates an inability to think with clarity (i.e. killing the sole pilot of the plane everyone's flying in because he was enemy, even though he subdued).

On the basis of regulations only, whose orders should be followed? Person B is currently the OC of the unit in question, but Person A usually is.

If Person A is OF-3 (SqnLdr) (thus out-ranking Person B), whose orders should be followed?

Regardless of their rank, if the unit commander is demonstrating an inability to conduct his duties effectively, then he ought be relieved.

[Kouralia]

Right: Person A is a rank 'Captain' (OF-2) and is the OC of the military unit. Person B is a rank 'Flight Lieutenant' (OF-2) and is normally XO of the unit.

Person A has been captured by hostile forces for weeks, and has been tortured, abused etc. Person B is now the OC of the military unit.

Person B leads a rescue attempt of the Captured personnel, and upon rescue of Person A, contradicting orders are given by Persons A and B, immediately after Person A demonstrates an inability to think with clarity (i.e. killing the sole pilot of the plane everyone's flying in because he was enemy, even though he subdued).

On the basis of regulations only, whose orders should be followed? Person B is currently the OC of the unit in question, but Person A usually is.

If Person A is OF-3 (SqnLdr) (thus out-ranking Person B), whose orders should be followed?

Regardless of their rank, if the unit commander is demonstrating an inability to conduct his duties effectively, then he ought be relieved.

Hmm. If we ignore that and just rely on the fact that A used to be OC, and B is now OC, I assume the results should be the same?

[Lyras]

Regardless of their rank, if the unit commander is demonstrating an inability to conduct his duties effectively, then he ought be relieved.

Hmm. If we ignore that and just rely on the fact that A used to be OC, and B is now OC, I assume the results should be the same?

The principle holds. Doesn't mean the former commander (and nominal senior) is going to be happy about it. But that's how it's supposed to work.