NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #5

[Consortium of Manchukuo]

Since I never really posted before but apparently have decided to be active now I'll rapidly attempt to steal a march with a first post in the re-opening.

Wait cancel that somebody beat me ignore this all I am of failure.

Would it be of viable to novempack missiles in VLS cells? I have some missiles in my nation that are 160mm in diameter and are 4.5 meters long with booster stage, which seems like it would as a result be quite nice for fitting them into the VLS tubes I have. But I don't know if that is actually a good idea, I'm naturally suspicious whenever I come up with "Brilliant idea x that for some reason every armed force in the world with trillions of dollars of collective funding never thought of while some idiot on a computer somewhere was able to magically figure out and implement".

[Vetok]

Just to forego the inevitable since we're nearing the current incarnation's end, I'll put my vote here;

This is my Nomination. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Nominee: Questers

[NERVUN]

-snip-

With all due respect intended in this reply, might I point out this statement may work better addressed to the NSGeneral audience? Surely there are other methods for dealing with the RP community, which in of itself is on a deeper, more complex basis than that of NSGeneral and its, shall we say, "debating methods". If you would like some examples or, perhaps, like me to explain further I will be happy to do so.

Again, no disrespect intended, but I firmly believe your statement is incorrectly addressed to this specific audience.

No... No. No, I don't think so because no matter if you're an Generalite, a game player, a WA ambassador, a sports player, or an RPer, Thou Shall Not Flame.

The One-Stop Rules Shop applies to EVERYONE everywhere so, no, there's no complexities that need an excuse to call someone an idiot or moron.

[Anagonia]

-snip-

That's very unfortunate you feel that way. Perhaps my point didn't come across correctly, but this thread is not the place for it. I apologize for my thread-jacking but I feel your conveyance of ruling is incorrectly addressed as is, and would benefit from a different perspective regardless of base-rule line. Telegram me if you feel inclined, I would be honored to continue this conversation with you.

Again, apologies for thread-jacking. I just felt the need to point this out.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Would it be of viable to novempack missiles in VLS cells? I have some missiles in my nation that are 160mm in diameter and are 4.5 meters long with booster stage, which seems like it would as a result be quite nice for fitting them into the VLS tubes I have. But I don't know if that is actually a good idea, I'm naturally suspicious whenever I come up with "Brilliant idea x that for some reason every armed force in the world with trillions of dollars of collective funding never thought of while some idiot on a computer somewhere was able to magically figure out and implement".

Not sure what 'novempack' means, google tells me they're a brand of sneakers.

Packing missiles into a VLS, or rather to make a missile "VLS-capable" usually either entials some sort of rapid and accurate pitch-control mechanism, or a somewhat ridiculous minimum range for the missile to develop sufficient velocity to aerodynamicly steer itself.

Packing multiple missiles into/through a tube has been done as well, see also the re-purposed Ohio-class SSGN.
-Or pretty much all russian 'cold launch' VLS, which they even use on their surface-ships and are pretty much near-vertical autoloading torpedo-tubes of deathspam-1.

For rapid-reaction missiles, VLS is undesireable because of an inherent 'loft-time' during which it attempts to achieve lock while somewhere between suspending itself in midair and falling back upon the deck with style. To avoid this, most VLS missiles start off on inertial guidance and are slowly 'guided' by the ship to where they were supposed to go like a blind puppy looking for food.

Which is why I tend to still toss an arm-launcher on my light DP-gun turret, 126mm Kashtan, anyone?
(pretty sure vibration fugs with it a bit, so its main job is to huck a metric ton of unguided rockets at a shore)

[Consortium of Manchukuo]

Would it be of viable to novempack missiles in VLS cells? I have some missiles in my nation that are 160mm in diameter and are 4.5 meters long with booster stage, which seems like it would as a result be quite nice for fitting them into the VLS tubes I have. But I don't know if that is actually a good idea, I'm naturally suspicious whenever I come up with "Brilliant idea x that for some reason every armed force in the world with trillions of dollars of collective funding never thought of while some idiot on a computer somewhere was able to magically figure out and implement".

Not sure what 'novempack' means, google tells me they're a brand of sneakers.

Packing missiles into a VLS, or rather to make a missile "VLS-capable" usually either entials some sort of rapid and accurate pitch-control mechanism, or a somewhat ridiculous minimum range for the missile to develop sufficient velocity to aerodynamicly steer itself.

Packing multiple missiles into/through a tube has been done as well, see also the re-purposed Ohio-class SSGN.
-Or pretty much all russian 'cold launch' VLS, which they even use on their surface-ships and are pretty much near-vertical autoloading torpedo-tubes of deathspam-1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_prefix

You are right I failed concerning the proper designation.

In essence it would be me putting 9 missiles per cell of smaller size. It shouldn't be that hard to adapt the missile, it was originally designed for CIWS purposes, but it was substantially shorter in that role. I figure adapting a booster and some slightly different systems would make it longer ranged, and that I could use it as a filler between the shortest ranged missiles, and the more medium range ones onboard corvettes, and frigates. Since when I was looking through what I had classified for the various systems of missiles that I had, there was a large gap in capabilities that existed. The shorter ranged point defense missiles were more akin to a longer ranged version of rolling airframe missile, and the medium ranged ended up being about the equivalent of Aster 30. So, there was no missile in between those that could be like ESSM or Aster 15. At the same time it didn't seem to make sense to get a missile between the two, since I would still be carrying the same number of missiles, and the medium ranged missiles I had seemed like they would be perfectly adequate in all intercept roles I needed. So, I was trying to figure out a way to get something in between there, and the logical solution seemed to be adapting a version of the CIWS missile with enhanced range, and fitting 9 per cell, and using it on my frigates and corvettes.

But at the same time I realized that nobody has gone past 9 per cell, and so I wanted to know if there was a reason for that beyond the fact that it in most circumstances isn't necessary. If nobody has done it before there is probably a good reason for that after all, and while it is true partly that would be because ESSM already provides a perfectly adequate interceptor missile with plenty of missiles that can be carried, I was still suspicious of it. So I planned to ask here regarding it to see if anybody could tender any advice regarding whether it was a good idea. This would almost entirely be a frigate and corvette system, since the VLS cells they carry are shorter than the ones on my larger ships (4.5 vs 7.5 meters).

[Velkanika]

Not sure what 'novempack' means, google tells me they're a brand of sneakers.

Packing missiles into a VLS, or rather to make a missile "VLS-capable" usually either entials some sort of rapid and accurate pitch-control mechanism, or a somewhat ridiculous minimum range for the missile to develop sufficient velocity to aerodynamicly steer itself.

Packing multiple missiles into/through a tube has been done as well, see also the re-purposed Ohio-class SSGN.
-Or pretty much all russian 'cold launch' VLS, which they even use on their surface-ships and are pretty much near-vertical autoloading torpedo-tubes of deathspam-1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_prefix

You are right I failed concerning the proper designation.

In essence it would be me putting 9 missiles per cell of smaller size. It shouldn't be that hard to adapt the missile, it was originally designed for CIWS purposes, but it was substantially shorter in that role. I figure adapting a booster and some slightly different systems would make it longer ranged, and that I could use it as a filler between the shortest ranged missiles, and the more medium range ones onboard corvettes, and frigates. Since when I was looking through what I had classified for the various systems of missiles that I had, there was a large gap in capabilities that existed. The shorter ranged point defense missiles were more akin to a longer ranged version of rolling airframe missile, and the medium ranged ended up being about the equivalent of Aster 30. So, there was no missile in between those that could be like ESSM or Aster 15. At the same time it didn't seem to make sense to get a missile between the two, since I would still be carrying the same number of missiles, and the medium ranged missiles I had seemed like they would be perfectly adequate in all intercept roles I needed. So, I was trying to figure out a way to get something in between there, and the logical solution seemed to be adapting a version of the CIWS missile with enhanced range, and fitting 9 per cell, and using it on my frigates and corvettes.

But at the same time I realized that nobody has gone past 9 per cell, and so I wanted to know if there was a reason for that beyond the fact that it in most circumstances isn't necessary. If nobody has done it before there is probably a good reason for that after all, and while it is true partly that would be because ESSM already provides a perfectly adequate interceptor missile with plenty of missiles that can be carried, I was still suspicious of it. So I planned to ask here regarding it to see if anybody could tender any advice regarding whether it was a good idea. This would almost entirely be a frigate and corvette system, since the VLS cells they carry are shorter than the ones on my larger ships (4.5 vs 7.5 meters).

Sure, you can quad pack a Mk-41 VLS cell with small missiles already.

Edit: Scroll to the bottom.

[The Kievan People]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_prefix

You are right I failed concerning the proper designation.

In essence it would be me putting 9 missiles per cell of smaller size. It shouldn't be that hard to adapt the missile, it was originally designed for CIWS purposes, but it was substantially shorter in that role. I figure adapting a booster and some slightly different systems would make it longer ranged, and that I could use it as a filler between the shortest ranged missiles, and the more medium range ones onboard corvettes, and frigates. Since when I was looking through what I had classified for the various systems of missiles that I had, there was a large gap in capabilities that existed. The shorter ranged point defense missiles were more akin to a longer ranged version of rolling airframe missile, and the medium ranged ended up being about the equivalent of Aster 30. So, there was no missile in between those that could be like ESSM or Aster 15. At the same time it didn't seem to make sense to get a missile between the two, since I would still be carrying the same number of missiles, and the medium ranged missiles I had seemed like they would be perfectly adequate in all intercept roles I needed. So, I was trying to figure out a way to get something in between there, and the logical solution seemed to be adapting a version of the CIWS missile with enhanced range, and fitting 9 per cell, and using it on my frigates and corvettes.

But at the same time I realized that nobody has gone past 9 per cell, and so I wanted to know if there was a reason for that beyond the fact that it in most circumstances isn't necessary. If nobody has done it before there is probably a good reason for that after all, and while it is true partly that would be because ESSM already provides a perfectly adequate interceptor missile with plenty of missiles that can be carried, I was still suspicious of it. So I planned to ask here regarding it to see if anybody could tender any advice regarding whether it was a good idea. This would almost entirely be a frigate and corvette system, since the VLS cells they carry are shorter than the ones on my larger ships (4.5 vs 7.5 meters).

Why do you need so many missiles?

[Spirit of Hope]

Is it legal to nominate your self? I'll give it a shot, mostly because to sleep deprived to care.

This is my Nomination. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Nominee: Spirit of Hope

Now a question about tactics: During the Amphibious landing discussion I noticed some interesting assumptions about air defense and air parity.

So what are peoples tactics on there own air defense, and how do you think air defense should be carried out and countered? Both strategically and tactically.

[Consortium of Manchukuo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_prefix

You are right I failed concerning the proper designation.

In essence it would be me putting 9 missiles per cell of smaller size. It shouldn't be that hard to adapt the missile, it was originally designed for CIWS purposes, but it was substantially shorter in that role. I figure adapting a booster and some slightly different systems would make it longer ranged, and that I could use it as a filler between the shortest ranged missiles, and the more medium range ones onboard corvettes, and frigates. Since when I was looking through what I had classified for the various systems of missiles that I had, there was a large gap in capabilities that existed. The shorter ranged point defense missiles were more akin to a longer ranged version of rolling airframe missile, and the medium ranged ended up being about the equivalent of Aster 30. So, there was no missile in between those that could be like ESSM or Aster 15. At the same time it didn't seem to make sense to get a missile between the two, since I would still be carrying the same number of missiles, and the medium ranged missiles I had seemed like they would be perfectly adequate in all intercept roles I needed. So, I was trying to figure out a way to get something in between there, and the logical solution seemed to be adapting a version of the CIWS missile with enhanced range, and fitting 9 per cell, and using it on my frigates and corvettes.

But at the same time I realized that nobody has gone past 9 per cell, and so I wanted to know if there was a reason for that beyond the fact that it in most circumstances isn't necessary. If nobody has done it before there is probably a good reason for that after all, and while it is true partly that would be because ESSM already provides a perfectly adequate interceptor missile with plenty of missiles that can be carried, I was still suspicious of it. So I planned to ask here regarding it to see if anybody could tender any advice regarding whether it was a good idea. This would almost entirely be a frigate and corvette system, since the VLS cells they carry are shorter than the ones on my larger ships (4.5 vs 7.5 meters).

Why do you need so many missiles?

Well, it is more in the way that I figure that I could use this to try to get some smaller ships. My frigates are 6,000 tons and my Corvettes are still 3,000 tons, sizes that I'm unhappy with. If I manage to fit in more missiles per cell then I can reduce the size needed for the weapons stations, reduce the total size of the ship, decrease cost, and build more small cheap escort ships for the purpose of providing ASW escort for convoys, and escorting larger ships. So this way if I had a 12-24 cell VLS system on a light corvette class I could still fit in a well rounded armament that is well suited for them, capable of self-defense, air warfare, and anti-submarine warfare. Most of the smaller ships will probably not have much usage for the medium sized missiles anyway, since I doubt a small corvette in the 1,500 ~ ton range is going to be engaging at the best part of a hundred kilometers, while for larger ships that could actually be a useful feature. So instead switching over to smaller missiles will be useful for them, and increasing the number of missiles per cell means I can reduce their size and cost.

[Grand Britannia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_prefix

You are right I failed concerning the proper designation.

In essence it would be me putting 9 missiles per cell of smaller size. It shouldn't be that hard to adapt the missile, it was originally designed for CIWS purposes, but it was substantially shorter in that role. I figure adapting a booster and some slightly different systems would make it longer ranged, and that I could use it as a filler between the shortest ranged missiles, and the more medium range ones onboard corvettes, and frigates. Since when I was looking through what I had classified for the various systems of missiles that I had, there was a large gap in capabilities that existed. The shorter ranged point defense missiles were more akin to a longer ranged version of rolling airframe missile, and the medium ranged ended up being about the equivalent of Aster 30. So, there was no missile in between those that could be like ESSM or Aster 15. At the same time it didn't seem to make sense to get a missile between the two, since I would still be carrying the same number of missiles, and the medium ranged missiles I had seemed like they would be perfectly adequate in all intercept roles I needed. So, I was trying to figure out a way to get something in between there, and the logical solution seemed to be adapting a version of the CIWS missile with enhanced range, and fitting 9 per cell, and using it on my frigates and corvettes.

But at the same time I realized that nobody has gone past 9 per cell, and so I wanted to know if there was a reason for that beyond the fact that it in most circumstances isn't necessary. If nobody has done it before there is probably a good reason for that after all, and while it is true partly that would be because ESSM already provides a perfectly adequate interceptor missile with plenty of missiles that can be carried, I was still suspicious of it. So I planned to ask here regarding it to see if anybody could tender any advice regarding whether it was a good idea. This would almost entirely be a frigate and corvette system, since the VLS cells they carry are shorter than the ones on my larger ships (4.5 vs 7.5 meters).

Why do you need so many missiles?

Moar dakka?

[The Corparation]

On the subject of Multiple packing VLS, I know you can pack things in side by side, but would it be possible to pack one on top of another? With some sort of eject-able shield covering the lower missiles. Not planning on doing this on any of my MT Ships, just had it in mind for one of my FT Spaceships and am curious as to its viability.

This is my Nomination. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Nominee: Velk

[Spirit of Hope]

On the subject of Multiple packing VLS, I know you can pack things in side by side, but would it be possible to pack one on top of another? With some sort of eject-able shield covering the lower missiles. Not planning on doing this on any of my MT Ships, just had it in mind for one of my FT Spaceships and am curious as to its viability.

Think it would be rather hard. The shield would have to be sturdy enough to protect the second missile from the exhaust of the first one, which would probably dig into available space. Secondly ejecting the shield would be problematic, requiring either one of the missiles launch with it, and then discard it or the launcher removing it at some point.

[Consortium of Manchukuo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_prefix

You are right I failed concerning the proper designation.

In essence it would be me putting 9 missiles per cell of smaller size. It shouldn't be that hard to adapt the missile, it was originally designed for CIWS purposes, but it was substantially shorter in that role. I figure adapting a booster and some slightly different systems would make it longer ranged, and that I could use it as a filler between the shortest ranged missiles, and the more medium range ones onboard corvettes, and frigates. Since when I was looking through what I had classified for the various systems of missiles that I had, there was a large gap in capabilities that existed. The shorter ranged point defense missiles were more akin to a longer ranged version of rolling airframe missile, and the medium ranged ended up being about the equivalent of Aster 30. So, there was no missile in between those that could be like ESSM or Aster 15. At the same time it didn't seem to make sense to get a missile between the two, since I would still be carrying the same number of missiles, and the medium ranged missiles I had seemed like they would be perfectly adequate in all intercept roles I needed. So, I was trying to figure out a way to get something in between there, and the logical solution seemed to be adapting a version of the CIWS missile with enhanced range, and fitting 9 per cell, and using it on my frigates and corvettes.

But at the same time I realized that nobody has gone past 9 per cell, and so I wanted to know if there was a reason for that beyond the fact that it in most circumstances isn't necessary. If nobody has done it before there is probably a good reason for that after all, and while it is true partly that would be because ESSM already provides a perfectly adequate interceptor missile with plenty of missiles that can be carried, I was still suspicious of it. So I planned to ask here regarding it to see if anybody could tender any advice regarding whether it was a good idea. This would almost entirely be a frigate and corvette system, since the VLS cells they carry are shorter than the ones on my larger ships (4.5 vs 7.5 meters).

Sure, you can quad pack a Mk-41 VLS cell with small missiles already.

Edit: Scroll to the bottom.

I had known about the quad packing capability of the Mk 41s for ESSM, but I wasn't sure about whether it was possible to fit 9 into the missile cells, of smaller missiles and slightly larger shells. I assumed it was possible, because I didn't see any reason against it, but I wanted to make sure to see if there was any reason I couldn't. It appears most people don't see a physical reason against it, but of course there is still the question over whether its a good idea doctrine and technology wise. Thanks for the response and confirming it.

[Chebucto Provinces]

Hey guys some feedback on the Royal Chebucto Infantry Corps.

Royal Chebucto Regiment: The primary infantry regiment of Chebucto. Founded in 1781 in Halifax it continues on to this day. The regimental headquarters is based out of the joint Army-Navy base Fort Stadacona in Halifax.
- 1st Battalion RCR is a mechanized infantry battalion of the regular force using the German Marder 1A3+ and is based out of Halifax.
- 2nd Battalion RCR is a mechanized infantry battalion of the regular force using the German Marder 1A3+ and is based out of Dartmouth.
- 3rd Battalion RCR is a light infantry battalion of the reserve force based out of Sackville.

West Chebucto Regiment: The western infantry regiment of Chebucto headquartered in Annapolis Royal.
- 40th Battalion is a mechanized infantry battalion of the regular force using the German Marder 1A3+ and is based out of Annapolis Royal.
- 165th Battalion is a light infantry battalion of the regular force that specializes in amphibious operations based out of Bridgewater.
- 112th Battalion is a mechanized infantry battalion of the reserve force based out of Yarmouth.
- 219 Battalion is a light infantry battalion of the reserve force based out of Aldershot.

North Chebucto Highlanders: The northern infantry regiment of Chebucto headquartered in New Glasgow.
- 17th Battalion is a light infantry battalion of the regular force that specializes in mountain and arctic warfare based out of Sydney.
- 25th Battalion is a mechanized infantry battalion of the reserve force based out of New Glasgow.
- 94th Battalion is a light infantry battalion of the reserve force based out of Amherst.
- 193rd Battalion is a light infantry battalion of the reserve force based out of Canso.

Chebucto Parachute Regiment: The Para regiment provides two parachute and airmobile capable infantry battalions for regular and reserve force, as well as the Chebucto Army special forces capabilities. It is based out of Truro where the Airborne Training Centre is located.
- 1st Parachute Battalion provides special forces capabilities to the regular force and is based out of Truro.
- 2nd Parachute Battalion is the regular force parachute infantry battalion based out of Truro.
- 3rd Parachute Battalion is the reserve force parachute infantry battalion based out of Wolfville.

[Primordial Luxa]

Greetings me and a coalition are about to invade Solmaki Vietnam Era China.
Can anyone give me any tips before I begin?
Hes invaded a smaller nation that has been completely over run and Im trying to dislodge him.
His main strategy will be to throw large numbers at me and loss countless soldiers to beat me. His nation is incredibly nationalistic so no mater how many I kill I dont think it will convince him to pull out.
Currently im thinking my plan with be: Create Guerrilla troops, attack enemy logistics, attack enemy supply lines, use Psyc ops to turn his nation against his allies (hoping to play of his nationalism), attack weakened and unsupported occupation units,

[The Akasha Colony]

Greetings me and a coalition are about to invade Solmaki Vietnam Era China.
Can anyone give me any tips before I begin?
Hes invaded a smaller nation that has been completely over run and Im trying to dislodge him.
His main strategy will be to throw large numbers at me and loss countless soldiers to beat me. His nation is incredibly nationalistic so no mater how many I kill I dont think it will convince him to pull out.
Currently im thinking my plan with be: Create Guerrilla troops, attack enemy logistics, attack enemy supply lines, use Psyc ops to turn his nation against his allies (hoping to play of his nationalism), attack weakened and unsupported occupation units,

More napalm, and make sure you've got plenty of armor, artillery, and air support. If all he's trying to do is zerg rush hordes of infantry at you, that shouldn't be too difficult to stop on its own. Otherwise, it depends how he's employing his manpower.

[Primordial Luxa]

Greetings me and a coalition are about to invade Solmaki Vietnam Era China.
Can anyone give me any tips before I begin?
Hes invaded a smaller nation that has been completely over run and Im trying to dislodge him.
His main strategy will be to throw large numbers at me and loss countless soldiers to beat me. His nation is incredibly nationalistic so no mater how many I kill I dont think it will convince him to pull out.
Currently im thinking my plan with be: Create Guerrilla troops, attack enemy logistics, attack enemy supply lines, use Psyc ops to turn his nation against his allies (hoping to play of his nationalism), attack weakened and unsupported occupation units,

More napalm, and make sure you've got plenty of armor, artillery, and air support. If all he's trying to do is zerg rush hordes of infantry at you, that shouldn't be too difficult to stop on its own. Otherwise, it depends how he's employing his manpower.

This is my orbat

ARMY
1st Armored Division
5th and 11th Infantry Brigades
3rd Aviation Brigade
3x Reconnaissance Battalions
2x Combat Engineer Battalions
2x Air Defense Battalions
4x Anti-Armor Battalions

AIR FORCE
1st Strategic Bomb Squadron
3rd and 7th Tactical Bomber Groups
2nd, 8th and 11th Heavy Fighter Groups
1st, 6th, and 7th Light fighter Groups
3x Airlift Groups
4x Spectrum Groups
10x Refueling groups

NAVY Carrier Groups: Strike Group Shadow out of Time & Strike Group Whispers in Darkness
Expeditionary Groups: 4th, 5th and 6th Expeditionary Strike Groups.

I figured that I would just use air superiority to bomb him to pieces and use artillery and tanks and artillery to deal with AA units and whatever the planes cant touch. He has some tech but its all soviet tech.

[Velkanika]

Greetings me and a coalition are about to invade Solmaki Vietnam Era China.
Can anyone give me any tips before I begin?
Hes invaded a smaller nation that has been completely over run and Im trying to dislodge him.
His main strategy will be to throw large numbers at me and loss countless soldiers to beat me. His nation is incredibly nationalistic so no mater how many I kill I dont think it will convince him to pull out.
Currently im thinking my plan with be: Create Guerrilla troops, attack enemy logistics, attack enemy supply lines, use Psyc ops to turn his nation against his allies (hoping to play of his nationalism), attack weakened and unsupported occupation units,

Send in the Green Berets, this is literally what they do.

[Lyras]

Infantry wave attacks can normally be ignored, to be frank, unless the area they are targeting is particularly crucial. Simple manpower spam can be fixed by targeted destruction of the supporting infrastructure. Feeding and providing ammunition to the personnel becomes challenging when the supply lines are being eaten by attack helicopters and interdictor aircraft, and the bridges behind the infantry wave are wreckage. Line infantry are generally not well equipped to handle air attack (or even armoured columns, broadly, though Soviets came a little heavy on both, doctrinally), and this is why the amassed accouterments of a military are often designed to counter enemy heavier assets, which pose a threat to such supply-line-y things.

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

This is my Nomination. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Nominee: Lyras

Now a question about tactics: During the Amphibious landing discussion I noticed some interesting assumptions about air defense and air parity.

So what are peoples tactics on there own air defense, and how do you think air defense should be carried out and countered? Both strategically and tactically.

Transporting a single USMC-type MEU... I use the Wasp-class as my amphibious assault ship, preferably with an air complement geared towards sea control, escorted by two Ticos and at least three Burkes. One of the Ticos will be loaded with the ESSM, as will one of the Burkes.

For counters, I'd task one of the other Burkes with Tomahawk spam, preferably prior to landing troops.

[Lyras]

This is my Nomination. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Nominee: Lyras

Now a question about tactics: During the Amphibious landing discussion I noticed some interesting assumptions about air defense and air parity.

So what are peoples tactics on there own air defense, and how do you think air defense should be carried out and countered? Both strategically and tactically.

Transporting a single USMC-type MEU... I use the Wasp-class as my amphibious assault ship, preferably with an air complement geared towards sea control, escorted by two Ticos and at least three Burkes. One of the Ticos will be loaded with the ESSM, as will one of the Burkes.

For counters, I'd task one of the other Burkes with Tomahawk spam, preferably prior to landing troops.

Not a bad plan. I'd use the Tomahawks (or equivalent) for fixed-target destruction from afar, and depending on what we're exactly referring to (missile wise), possibly also for assets that are identified in-theatre that may be mobile. Harder to find if they are mobile, as you'd expect, but often equally important. Good C3I can be very useful in this regard, and make the landing and post-landing advance far smoother. Air power comes in critically at this stage as well, in most hypothetical cases. I'd also throw in a gun-cruiser to lob HE shells at positions overlooking the landing site. Make it uncomfortable for anyone that might be there.

[The Corparation]

On the subject of Multiple packing VLS, I know you can pack things in side by side, but would it be possible to pack one on top of another? With some sort of eject-able shield covering the lower missiles. Not planning on doing this on any of my MT Ships, just had it in mind for one of my FT Spaceships and am curious as to its viability.

Think it would be rather hard. The shield would have to be sturdy enough to protect the second missile from the exhaust of the first one, which would probably dig into available space. Secondly ejecting the shield would be problematic, requiring either one of the missiles launch with it, and then discard it or the launcher removing it at some point.

For the FT Ship, missiles use Hydrazine Monpropellant. Glancing at Wikipedia, exhausts from the reaction in a hydrazine thruster reaches 800 degrees C. Would that be doable? Since the ship is in free-fall, the missile wouldn't need to blast for more than a fraction of a second to eject from the tube. As For ejecting the shield I was thinking some sort of Compressed gas charge. As the heat shield would be air tight to prevent exhaust gases from affecting the lower missiles, having some sort of latch disengage coupled with a discharge of gas should be able to fling it clear.

Of course this is an alternate to my other plan which involved merely fitting the missiles onto a rack and ejecting the whole rack. Hesitant to do this due to the requirement of launching a whole tube of missiles at once.

[Kampala-]

Just to forego the inevitable since we're nearing the current incarnation's end, I'll put my vote here;

This is my Nomination. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Nominee: Questers

haha

>not voting for katherine

[Lamoni]

This is my Nomination. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Nominee: Questers