NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[Roski]

hay guise.

miniguns on jeeps, to be used as a mass slaughter vehicle.

Discuss, specifically the feasiblity of a jeep holding up to 3600+ RPM

Would be easier to just use a SPAAG. Ya ever seen chunky pasta sauce? Yeah.

I don't think I need anti-aircraft rounds to kill civilians.

Although its a thought.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Would be easier to just use a SPAAG. Ya ever seen chunky pasta sauce? Yeah.

I don't think I need anti-aircraft rounds to kill civilians.

Although its a thought.

See that kind of attitude is why they're revolting to begin with.

[Roski]

I don't think I need anti-aircraft rounds to kill civilians.

Although its a thought.

See that kind of attitude is why they're revolting to begin with.

Oh they aren't my civilians.

Please, as nice as actual firepower on my own civilians?

You're rude to your family and nice to your guests

(my civilians have to suffer chemical weapons if they decide to piss off my Premier. Or, anything he has handy anyway. His favourite mode of execution is via flame-thrower)

[The High Tatras]

Does anyone happen to have a chart showing the composition of a typical Red Army/ RKKA rifle division during the WW2 era? That would be immensely useful to me.

[Laywenrania]

Does anyone happen to have a chart showing the composition of a typical Red Army/ RKKA rifle division during the WW2 era? That would be immensely useful to me.

Any of the years?

[The High Tatras]

Does anyone happen to have a chart showing the composition of a typical Red Army/ RKKA rifle division during the WW2 era? That would be immensely useful to me.

Any of the years?

I am thinking fairly late in the war, probably about 1944.

[Laywenrania]

Any of the years?

I am thinking fairly late in the war, probably about 1944.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/ ... d-razv.gif

[Atomic Utopia]

What would the advantages of using a parasite fighter system over in air refueling be if any.

[Gallan Systems]

None.

[Mitheldalond]

F-20s aren't bad aircraft.

However trying to apply them as comparable to the F-16? Yeah thats where it kind of ends.

The F-16 beat out the F-20 because it promised better overall performance, better electronics, and had a better prospect of being adaptable to upgrade packages in the future.

The F-20 isn't bad, however for a first-world army with everything from carriers and such, you are much, much better off trying for something else.

The F-16 is undisputably better, and I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. I was just saying that they were comparable in performance (except for payload obviously); as in, while one may be clearly superior, they're still in the same weight class, figuratively speaking.

The Gripen and the Eurofighter for example, are comparable. The F-22 and the F-4 are not.

But I take your point. I'll go drag the Phantoms and Crusaders out of storage again.

Because the F-20 is lighter, faster, more agile, can climb much faster, has a longer range, a higher service ceiling, a better thrust to weigh ratio, twice as many guns, about the same bomb and missile load, performance characteristics comparable to an F-16, and is cheaper. Well, the Tiger II is cheaper (estimated at about $20-25 million today), so that would probably put the F-20 in the $30 million range with the other two.

What? It has half the payload of an F-16, a shorter combat radius, and rather significant hardpoint restrictions. Its engine is only slightly more than half as powerful. The F-20's two M39s together also put out only half the rate of fire as the F-16's single M61, and the smaller airframe has less space for better avionics.

Uh, I was talking about it in comparison to the FA-50 and Hal Tejas, not the F-16.

Because the F-20 is lighter, faster, more agile, can climb much faster, has a longer range, a higher service ceiling, a better thrust to weigh ratio, twice as many guns, about the same bomb and missile load, performance characteristics comparable to an F-16, and is cheaper. Well, the Tiger II is cheaper (estimated at about $20-25 million today), so that would probably put the F-20 in the $30 million range with the other two.

And possibly best of all? It was originally conceived as a carrier capable fighter. Which I had forgotten until now. Remember all those F-4s, A-7s, and F-8s I had? Yeah, they no longer exist (or they're piled up in a warehouse somewhere). The F-20 is now the main fighter aircraft of both my Navy and Air Force. They're smaller and lighter than Crusaders/Corsair IIs (theyre actually lighter than the Skyraider, believe it or not), so every carrier in my navy can carry them comfortably.

The only real problem they have is the hardpoint arrangement. Because of how low the F-20 is and the positioning of its landing gear, the wing hardpoints are right near the end of the wings, which limits them to a maximum load of 1,000 pounds each. Which is rather inconvenient since they can't carry Harpoons, most cruise missiles, or even 2000 pound bombs. The centerline hardpoint can take the weight, but a single Harpoon or bomb is rather underwhelming. Particularly for a naval fighter that will be expected to engage enemy surface vessels with anti-ship missiles.

Fortunately, there is a solution. The Naval Strike Missile is light enough to be carried on the Tigersharks' wing pylons, has a sufficiently long range, and can be used against both ships and ground targets.

You of all people I would expect to use F-35's. Especially because you are so apparently Navy-oriented, and have this desire for everything to do multiple jobs...

I don't even use F-35s regularly in my normal military. Stealth aircraft are tools to be used when the situation calls for it; they don't compose the entirety of your basic fighter force. At least not as far as I'm concerned.

In most cases, I'd rather have have the larger payload of normal fighters with external hardpoints, especially when they're using standoff weapons like the AGM-158. There's no need to risk an incredibly expensive F-35 when an F-18 will do the job just as well.

Everybody wants things to do multiple jobs, hence multi-role fighters, multi-purpose frigates/destroyers, and even MBTs.

Motorcycles with twin miniguns.

Tactical Golf Carts with 105mm cannons. Thoughts?
BTW, I'm not looking for reasons why I shouldn't or wouldn't put 105mm cannons on gold carts, just whether I physically could or not.

Anyways on a serious note, what does everyone make of Russia's claim that Irbis-E can track and engage F-22 "beyond visual range" (I don't know what number exactly as I can't find a solid source)

20 km is well beyond visual range when it comes to spotting camouflaged fighter jets with the naked eye. The Russians are just trying to pretend that the F-22 isn't a major threat.

[Yukonastan]

Motorcycles with twin miniguns.

Tactical Golf Carts with 105mm cannons. Thoughts?
BTW, I'm not looking for reasons why I shouldn't or wouldn't put 105mm cannons on gold carts, just whether I physically could or not.

Anyways on a serious note, what does everyone make of Russia's claim that Irbis-E can track and engage F-22 "beyond visual range" (I don't know what number exactly as I can't find a solid source)

Recoilless 105 guns have been placed on scooters, iirc.

Or you could even go the just cause route and stick a recoilless rifle onto a tuk tuk or something (Tuk Tuk Boom Boom).

No one said it -had- to be a golf cart...

[Imperializt Russia]

Also, what would be the best way to find a rouge nuclear powered submarine if you do not know it's destination or goals? The reason I ask is because I have an RP idea and would like to know before hand what would be realistic.

If it's such a vivid shade of red, it should be pretty easy to spot.

Nuclear submarines are relatively noisy. While you may well detect an enemy (or defecting) sub, its survival lies in being able to sit deep, likely out of weapon range, and stay there, potentially to the limit of its endurance.

Markmen also have to take into account physics, as well as every form of military exercise, you need to be able to work in a way that is within physics.

if the range of artillery is limited by physics, then why has the range of artillery increased exponentially? does natural science just change as time goes along in your world?

In some fields, it feels as though it might well do

*science nitpick - technically speaking, science does change. One could argue that changes to scientific understanding has improved the range of artillery.

Hmm, so it wouldn't be out of the question to operate the gun as part of a larger network of defensive positions along a border, or beyond a beachhead? Like a fixed emplacement?

And an entire engineering division? I hadn't thought about all the work necessary! And a few battalions of security personnel does sound like a good idea.

Looking back now, it would seem a bit redundant to fix the AA to the gun platform. Certainly makes for bad coverage. :/

IIRC, the AA complement of the German railways guns numbered as high as 2000 personnel.

Modern AA systems would allow for drastically fewer men and drastically better defence, but a lot more equipment weight to transport in SP guns and missile launchers, as well as supporting arms such as search, acquisition, fire control radar networks, command modules etc.

I heard somewhere that once a ship is soooooo long, waves will snap it in 2. Does anyone acutally know what said length is? Just curious.

There surely is a maximum practical length, because the longer an object is it will have to interact with the curvature of the earth. The Humber Bridge, near where I live in England, has its central spar five inches further apart at the top of the structure than the bottom due to this phenomenon. If one considers that at ~6ft (person-height) the horizon is three miles away, any object longer than three miles will appear to curve under the horizon.

For most applications, it will be important to consider the ratio between the length and width (beam) of a vessel, as this will infer a degree of strength and rigidity to its construction.
I cannot recall what these numbers are.

hay guise.

miniguns on jeeps, to be used as a mass slaughter vehicle.

Discuss, specifically the feasiblity of a jeep holding up to 3600+ RPM

Mass slaughter? Probably not.
Mass suppression? This is what the US Army already does. I can't imagine it's enormously more effective than other weapon systems.

The recoil impulse of the M136 and related weapons is very low due to the low projectile mass, despite the high rate of fire. It's not structurally problematic (I assume) to a vehicle such as a military jeep.

It has been done before IRL but generally a HMG or GPMG is more sensible.

Or alternatively, the ever-handy AGL.

Anyways on a serious note, what does everyone make of Russia's claim that Irbis-E can track and engage F-22 "beyond visual range" (I don't know what number exactly as I can't find a solid source)

Marketing gimmick. They are actually referring to the range it can track a target with an RCS of 0.01 square meters, which is about a hundred times too large.

According to Carlo Kopp's charts that he hosts on APA, the Irbis-E is similarly capable (in terms of detection range) in its search mode to ground-based radar systems - a 0.01 RCS target at ~50nmi.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker- ... ocId773196

Nearer 0.0001 RCS, this search range drops to ~30nmi, similar to ground-based radars - which is approximately 50km.

I'm going to assume 50 kilometres is a smidgen outside visual range.

[The Akasha Colony]

According to Carlo Kopp's charts that he hosts on APA, the Irbis-E is similarly capable (in terms of detection range) in its search mode to ground-based radar systems - a 0.01 RCS target at ~50nmi.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker- ... ocId773196
(Image)
Nearer 0.0001 RCS, this search range drops to ~30nmi, similar to ground-based radars - which is approximately 50km.

I'm going to assume 50 kilometres is a smidgen outside visual range.

The scaling on the chart indicates only ~17 nmi as the upper bound for Irbis-E, and less than 15 nmi for the lower bound. That'd be 31.5 km at the most, within the head-on range of SRAAMs like AIM-9X or AIM-132. This is about what Carlo Kopp mentions when assessing the F-22; Irbis-E would detect a head-on F-22A at 15 nmi and a head-on F-35 at 28 nmi, and the F-22's side aspect at 43 nmi with the F-35 at 51 nmi.

[Purpelia]

According to Carlo Kopp's charts that he hosts on APA, the Irbis-E is similarly capable (in terms of detection range) in its search mode to ground-based radar systems - a 0.01 RCS target at ~50nmi.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker- ... ocId773196
(Image)
Nearer 0.0001 RCS, this search range drops to ~30nmi, similar to ground-based radars - which is approximately 50km.

I'm going to assume 50 kilometres is a smidgen outside visual range.

The scaling on the chart indicates only ~17 nmi as the upper bound for Irbis-E, and less than 15 nmi for the lower bound. That'd be 31.5 km at the most, within the head-on range of SRAAMs like AIM-9X or AIM-132.

I went ahead and did some scaling on that chart. Scaling from the bottom corner the scale is 1.46px/nmi. The center of the lower bound line at 0.01 is 38 px and the search line at 43 px which scales to 26 nmi and 29.45 nmi respectively.

[New Vihenia]

Well, convenient method to do that "scaling" Actually exist... Why resort on such inconvenient and kinda pointless "chart scaling"

[Purpelia]

Well, convenient method to do that "scaling" Actually exist... Why resort on such inconvenient and kinda pointless "chart scaling"

Because my knowledge of the mathematics involved in actually knowing how these systems work is basically 0 where as my skills with MS paint and a calculator are fairly refined.

This said, cockpit glass comes in many colors. Which one do you prefer? I can't decide any more and basically want to see what you people think.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

was it not basically a match up for the radar on the contemporary F-16s?

So it was. Good grief I love this aircraft. I honestly don't get how nobody wanted an aircraft that provides the capabilities of an F-16 at a fraction its cost.

y u no hal tejas?

y u no FA-50?

Supposedly F-50 is planned, to feature AESA, 3 pylons per wing, and a bunch of other stuff.

Because the F-20 is lighter, faster, more agile, can climb much faster, has a longer range, a higher service ceiling, a better thrust to weigh ratio, twice as many guns, about the same bomb and missile load, performance characteristics comparable to an F-16, and is cheaper. Well, the Tiger II is cheaper (estimated at about $20-25 million today), so that would probably put the F-20 in the $30 million range with the other two.

And possibly best of all? It was originally conceived as a carrier capable fighter. Which I had forgotten until now. Remember all those F-4s, A-7s, and F-8s I had? Yeah, they no longer exist (or they're piled up in a warehouse somewhere). The F-20 is now the main fighter aircraft of both my Navy and Air Force. They're smaller and lighter than Crusaders/Corsair IIs (theyre actually lighter than the Skyraider, believe it or not), so every carrier in my navy can carry them comfortably.

The only real problem they have is the hardpoint arrangement. Because of how low the F-20 is and the positioning of its landing gear, the wing hardpoints are right near the end of the wings, which limits them to a maximum load of 1,000 pounds each. Which is rather inconvenient since they can't carry Harpoons, most cruise missiles, or even 2000 pound bombs. The centerline hardpoint can take the weight, but a single Harpoon or bomb is rather underwhelming. Particularly for a naval fighter that will be expected to engage enemy surface vessels with anti-ship missiles.

Fortunately, there is a solution. The Naval Strike Missile is light enough to be carried on the Tigersharks' wing pylons, has a sufficiently long range, and can be used against both ships and ground targets.

but was it really all that cheaper?

If I understand correctly, Northrop offered a number of them to the US for $ 15 mil a pop , and IIRC most F-16s were bought by the US for about $ 17 mil .

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

(thanks, reagan.. fucking jackass)

[The Akasha Colony]

Well, convenient method to do that "scaling" Actually exist... Why resort on such inconvenient and kinda pointless "chart scaling"

Because my knowledge of the mathematics involved in actually knowing how these systems work is basically 0 where as my skills with MS paint and a calculator are fairly refined.

This said, cockpit glass comes in many colors. Which one do you prefer? I can't decide any more and basically want to see what you people think.

Whatever color provides greatest optical clarity, which would be as close to clear as possible. The gold tinting on the F-22 isn't for show though, it's to reduce radar penetration into the cockpit and thus reduce RCS. Some electronic attack aircraft also have this tinting, as it shields the crew from the high output of their onboard EW equipment.

[Purpelia]

Because my knowledge of the mathematics involved in actually knowing how these systems work is basically 0 where as my skills with MS paint and a calculator are fairly refined.

This said, cockpit glass comes in many colors. Which one do you prefer? I can't decide any more and basically want to see what you people think.

Whatever color provides greatest optical clarity, which would be as close to clear as possible. The gold tinting on the F-22 isn't for show though, it's to reduce radar penetration into the cockpit and thus reduce RCS. Some electronic attack aircraft also have this tinting, as it shields the crew from the high output of their onboard EW equipment.

Oh. So it actually has a function. I guess I have to use that than as it sounds good.

[The Akasha Colony]

Oh. So it actually has a function. I guess I have to use that than as it sounds good.

It's evidently pretty maintenance intensive to maintain though, since at least for older aircraft it's a tinted coating on the interior rather than integrated into the glass itself. It could only be washed with water (chemicals could damage the tinting), which made it time-consuming to fully clean without residual streaks. However, on the F-16 the effect of the tinting contributed to a 15% reduction in RCS. I don't know if the F-22 solved any of these issues with the legacy tinting though.

[Purpelia]

Oh. So it actually has a function. I guess I have to use that than as it sounds good.

It's evidently pretty maintenance intensive to maintain though, since at least for older aircraft it's a tinted coating on the interior rather than integrated into the glass itself. It could only be washed with water (chemicals could damage the tinting), which made it time-consuming to fully clean without residual streaks. However, on the F-16 the effect of the tinting contributed to a 15% reduction in RCS. I don't know if the F-22 solved any of these issues with the legacy tinting though.

Basically what I am doing is making a 4.5 generation fighter. Here is the full story:

The year is 2008. My 5th generation fighter project is running with delays and we can reasonably expect it to enter service in 2020. Meanwhile my existing 4th generation fleet is aging to obsolescence. However, a lot of the 5th generation equipment, avionics, radar etc. are complete or nearing completion and are being tested on a number of modified 4th generation frames to prototype them. This gives me access to what basically amounts to a number of 4.5 gen prototypes. So I have decided to take these and mass produce them. I'd basically be building the equivalent of a Su-35 (compared to Su-27) but from scratch with new airframes using all the modern latest and greatest materials, avionics and other equipment and end up with a rather modern 4.5gen fighter jet that looks like my old 4th gen but is actually brand new. And I'd use them to replace my old air force. Than, when and if my 5th generation fighters come along I can supplement the 4.5s with them in smaller numbers. I can get the 4.5 into production by early 2009 and service by 2010.I see many advantages to this approach none the least of which is establishing infrastructure for 5th gen production later on, working out teething issues with new electronic equipment, materials etc, smaller training costs, smaller production costs than if I had waited and built a bunch of 5th gens.

So I am looking for stuff that I can apply to this thing that would carry over to the 5th gen as well.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

I'm planning to have a spaceplane equipped with something very much like the Reaction Engines Sabre engine as a spacelaunch booster, with some kind of plasma engine for space travel as my nation's main fighter. There would be four or six of the former engines attached (2-3 per wing) and two plasma engines, either powered by small fusion reactors or something else. At least one of the two sets would have to be able to maneuver around.
Is this the place to discuss it? And if it is, would it be effective at getting the thing off the ground, into space, and, well, elsewhere? Unfortunately, I don't have all the specs right now, but I'm getting an idea of it as I go along.
The hull's made of a titanium, vanadium and tungsten alloy, and there are two hardpoints, one per wing, for missiles. There are three twin laser turrets on each wing, capable of rotating 180 degrees in at least one axis, and a single twin laser cannon below the cockpit. I'm thinking that it might look like a cross between a GA-TL1 Longsword and an F35 Lightning II.

[The Corparation]

If you have SABREs which run on LH, why bother with plasma engines powered by a fusion reactor, which will likely use Hydrogen. Sure plasma engines will give you good specific impulse, but they don't enough thrust to weight ratio greater than 1, which renders them useless until you get into space. SSTOs also shouldn't be used to go anywhere other than LEO unless you have a LOL-drive such as GCNR, Orion or NSWR powering them because of the fact that half their delta-v is used just to get into orbit.

As for the hull, tungsten is heavy, tungsten is extremely dense. Building the whole hull out of a tungsten alloy is going to give your hull a ridiculous amount of extra mass.

For armament, for the hard points, I'd reconsider having them as external, and for the laser turrets, I don't think the wing is the best location for them, nor do I think you need 6 on your wings. A twin laser turret under the nose is likewise not a good idea. A twin turret isn't exactly something you should go for. Two weaker lasers hitting next to each other will likely not do as much damage as one much more powerful laser concentrating all of its power on one location. Plus it doubles the amount of optics you'll need.

[Valburn]

I'm planning to have a spaceplane equipped with something very much like the Reaction Engines Sabre engine as a spacelaunch booster, with some kind of plasma engine for space travel as my nation's main fighter. There would be four or six of the former engines attached (2-3 per wing) and two plasma engines, either powered by small fusion reactors or something else. At least one of the two sets would have to be able to maneuver around.
Is this the place to discuss it? And if it is, would it be effective at getting the thing off the ground, into space, and, well, elsewhere? Unfortunately, I don't have all the specs right now, but I'm getting an idea of it as I go along.
The hull's made of a titanium, vanadium and tungsten alloy, and there are two hardpoints, one per wing, for missiles. There are three twin laser turrets on each wing, capable of rotating 180 degrees in at least one axis, and a single twin laser cannon below the cockpit. I'm thinking that it might look like a cross between a GA-TL1 Longsword and an F35 Lightning II.

For your reading pleasure http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php