NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[The Corparation]

http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8458438

Accurate breakdown of Kinetic Bombardment system or no?

It's hit and miss. You have the right idea, but you're reasoning is a bit off.
For example Real World treaties mean nothing on NS, (unless of course there's a regional one)
Syria is also not likely to be capable of shooting down a satellite, although you are right in the ease of shooting them down if you have the right missiles.
Another is your criticism of the use of Plutonium. You missed a big one a decent sized rod from god made of Plutonium will exceed Critical Mass. That rod will be at critical mass from manufacturing to launch to on station. This is a very bad thing (No it won't explode, but it's still not a good thing)

You also missed the big one. KE Bombardment systems are not very powerful. A few tons of TNT at most is all that's possible if you want multiple rods and lack the Handwavium rockets to lift hundreds of tons into orbit

[The United Remnants of America]

http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8458438

Accurate breakdown of Kinetic Bombardment system or no?

No.

But it's a good argument why nobody who has them uses radioactive materials for anything in the satellite. He's not so much breaking down that system as a whole as he is breaking down the specific idea that the subject person came up with for a viable system.

[The United Remnants of America]

http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8458438

Accurate breakdown of Kinetic Bombardment system or no?

It's hit and miss. You have the right idea, but you're reasoning is a bit off.
For example Real World treaties mean nothing on NS, (unless of course there's a regional one)
Syria is also not likely to be capable of shooting down a satellite, although you are right in the ease of shooting them down if you have the right missiles.
Another is your criticism of the use of Plutonium. You missed a big one a decent sized rod from god made of Plutonium will exceed Critical Mass. That rod will be at critical mass from manufacturing to launch to on station. This is a very bad thing (No it won't explode, but it's still not a good thing)

You also missed the big one. KE Bombardment systems are not very powerful. A few tons of TNT at most is all that's possible if you want multiple rods and lack the Handwavium rockets to lift hundreds of tons into orbit

I rescind my post for this answer.

Honestly, the only reason I use my 4 Kinetic Weapons Satellites is because my nation ICly hates nuclear arms, so they need something to act as a check against the nations in my region that do.

[Padnak]

as someone who has been called dragomear a number of times

stop insulting me further by comparing me to this guy

[Yukonastan]

as someone who has been called dragomear a number of times

stop insulting me further by comparing me to this guy

You're the one with 75 ton bombs.

Let me rephrase that. You're the one known for having fuel-air explosives and cluster bombs that weigh as much as MBTs.
The GBU-43/B is 7.5 times lighter than your HOG weapons.

As a third-world nation.
Not that I don't enjoy such explosions.

[Padnak]

as someone who has been called dragomear a number of times

stop insulting me further by comparing me to this guy

You're the one with 75 ton bombs.

Let me rephrase that. You're the one known for having fuel-air explosives and cluster bombs that weigh as much as MBTs.
The GBU-43/B is 7.5 times lighter than your HOG weapons.

As a third-world nation.
Not that I don't enjoy such explosions.

I though we all came to the consensus that they are possible and extremely badass

My two barely operational AN-22s say hi

[Erusuia]

what is this insanity...

[Tule]

It's hit and miss. You have the right idea, but you're reasoning is a bit off.
For example Real World treaties mean nothing on NS, (unless of course there's a regional one)
Syria is also not likely to be capable of shooting down a satellite, although you are right in the ease of shooting them down if you have the right missiles.
Another is your criticism of the use of Plutonium. You missed a big one a decent sized rod from god made of Plutonium will exceed Critical Mass. That rod will be at critical mass from manufacturing to launch to on station. This is a very bad thing (No it won't explode, but it's still not a good thing)

You also missed the big one. KE Bombardment systems are not very powerful. A few tons of TNT at most is all that's possible if you want multiple rods and lack the Handwavium rockets to lift hundreds of tons into orbit

I rescind my post for this answer.

Honestly, the only reason I use my 4 Kinetic Weapons Satellites is because my nation ICly hates nuclear arms, so they need something to act as a check against the nations in my region that do.

All the kinetic energy stored in an orbiting kinetic bombardment system comes from the rocket that put it into orbit.

Just load a concrete warhead into an ICBM and fire it at the target. You'll get exactly the same amount of destruction while making your weapon for less vulnerable.

[Purpelia]

I rescind my post for this answer.

Honestly, the only reason I use my 4 Kinetic Weapons Satellites is because my nation ICly hates nuclear arms, so they need something to act as a check against the nations in my region that do.

The only thing a satellite with kinetic weapons would be good for is shooting at other stuff in space. Like other satellites or the occasional missile.
And by "good at" I only mean suck less than in every other role you would chose to employ it. But that's about equal to saying Syphilis sucks less than Ebola.

[Korouse]

You're the one with 75 ton bombs.

Let me rephrase that. You're the one known for having fuel-air explosives and cluster bombs that weigh as much as MBTs.
The GBU-43/B is 7.5 times lighter than your HOG weapons.

As a third-world nation.
Not that I don't enjoy such explosions.

I though we all came to the consensus that they are possible and extremely badass

My two barely operational AN-22s say hi

My interceptor aircraft say sup.

[Padnak]

We've all been over this before, I only use HOGs for COIN operations

[Korouse]

http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8458438

Accurate breakdown of Kinetic Bombardment system or no?

It's hit and miss. You have the right idea, but you're reasoning is a bit off.
For example Real World treaties mean nothing on NS, (unless of course there's a regional one)
Syria is also not likely to be capable of shooting down a satellite, although you are right in the ease of shooting them down if you have the right missiles.
Another is your criticism of the use of Plutonium. You missed a big one a decent sized rod from god made of Plutonium will exceed Critical Mass. That rod will be at critical mass from manufacturing to launch to on station. This is a very bad thing (No it won't explode, but it's still not a good thing)

You also missed the big one. KE Bombardment systems are not very powerful. A few tons of TNT at most is all that's possible if you want multiple rods and lack the Handwavium rockets to lift hundreds of tons into orbit

It's actuually around 15 I think.

[United Earthlings]

Contractor: Thyssen Skeppsvarv AB
Operators: Gallan Royal Navy
Preceded by: Narke-class Aircraft Carrier
Cost: $4.2bn
Commissioned: 2018 (Projected)
Building: 3
In service: 0

Displacement: 65,000 tons
Length: (Overall): 1,040 ft (317m)
Length: (Waterline): 978 ft (298m)
Beam: (Overall): 258 ft (78.5m)
Beam: (Waterline): 131 ft (40m)
Draught: 40 ft (12m)

Propulsion: Combined diesel-electric and gas (CODLAG) with maximum 145,000 shp (108 MW):

• 2x Volvo VM40 40 MW (53,000 HP) gas turbine
• 4x Sverker Marine SD10-40M 10 MW (13,400 HP) diesel engines

Flank Speed: +33 knots (61 kmh)
Cruise Speed: 20 knots (37 kmh)
Range: 10,000 nmi at 20 knots (19,000 km)

Sensors and Countermeasures:

• Type 350 Naval Warfare Suite
• Type 351 Air Search Radar (S-Band; 200 nmi range)
• Type 352 Multi-Function/Fire Control Radar (X-Band; 250 nmi range)
• Type 354 Electronic Warfare and Countermeasures Suite
  
  • Type 354 High Frequency/Direction Finding (HF-K Band)
  • Type 354 Offensive Electronic Countermeasures System
  • Type 354 Directional Infrared Countermeasures (Blinding)
• Type 355 High Frequency Active Spherical Array (Hull)
• Type 356 Towed Torpedo Decoy (Soft Kill)
• Type 357 Active Torpedo Destructor (Hard Kill)
• Type 358 Electro-Optical/Infrared Sensor Mast

Armament:

• 2x 3"/64 rapid firing cannon (port/starboard stern)
• 1x 5"/54 deck gun (starboard bow)
• 2x RIM-116 SeaRAM Mk 15 GMLS (port/starboard bow)
• 2x Mk 29 Sjosparven octuple box launchers w/ 2 reloads carried (port/starboard stern)
• 48x Mk 41 Tactical-length Vertical Launch System (starboard bow)
• 4x Mk 32 Surface Vessel Torpedo Tube (port/starboard bow/stern)

Complement: 850 crew; 1,000 air wing.
Aircraft: 55-65

• Saab Sea Eagle (VA)
• Saab Secretary (VAL)
• Saab Sea Otter (VFA)
• Saab Heron (VS/VAQ/VR/VAW/VQ/VAM)
• Volvo Bee (HC/HS/HSC)
• Saab Salamander (HSM/HSL)

Fact Check

1. A slightly higher cost within the $5.2 to $5.5 billion range would be more realistic.

2. Considering your Carrier class is closer in size proportions to the Kitty Hawk Class then the QE Class both it's light and full load displacement should reflect this, both of which would probably be closer in line with the Kitty Hawk Class, but slightly reduced. My guess-estimate would be around 58,000 tons light and 80,000 tons full.

3. Forget the 33+ knots, given the dimensions, said vessels lack sufficient power output. You'd be lucky to get 25/26 knots at flank speed given similar comparisons.

4. Didn't state whether a STOVL or CATOBAR design, but judging by all the aircraft types I would hazed a guess that it's CATOBAR.

5. That's a lot of Armament for what is supposed to be a Carrier. In all likelihood that would effect available hanger space and thereby Aircraft capacity. Even given the extra length and slightly wider beam compared to the QE Class, most of that extra space will be taken up by all that additional armament which at the end of the day will probably leave you with a similar if not slightly smaller Air group as the QE Class of around 35/40 aircraft at normal capacity with a full load of 45/50.

If your goal was to design an Aviation Cruiser/Battleship you succeeded. If your goal was to design an Aircraft Carrier, you need to go back to the drawing board.

[West Aurelia]

Is there a non-military realism thread? I found this one, but it looks kinda dead.

[Gallia-]

Contractor: Thyssen Skeppsvarv AB
Operators: Gallan Royal Navy
Preceded by: Narke-class Aircraft Carrier
Cost: $4.2bn
Commissioned: 2018 (Projected)
Building: 3
In service: 0

Displacement: 65,000 tons
Length: (Overall): 1,040 ft (317m)
Length: (Waterline): 978 ft (298m)
Beam: (Overall): 258 ft (78.5m)
Beam: (Waterline): 131 ft (40m)
Draught: 40 ft (12m)

Propulsion: Combined diesel-electric and gas (CODLAG) with maximum 145,000 shp (108 MW):

• 2x Volvo VM40 40 MW (53,000 HP) gas turbine
• 4x Sverker Marine SD10-40M 10 MW (13,400 HP) diesel engines

Flank Speed: +33 knots (61 kmh)
Cruise Speed: 20 knots (37 kmh)
Range: 10,000 nmi at 20 knots (19,000 km)

Sensors and Countermeasures:

• Type 350 Naval Warfare Suite
• Type 351 Air Search Radar (S-Band; 200 nmi range)
• Type 352 Multi-Function/Fire Control Radar (X-Band; 250 nmi range)
• Type 354 Electronic Warfare and Countermeasures Suite
  
  • Type 354 High Frequency/Direction Finding (HF-K Band)
  • Type 354 Offensive Electronic Countermeasures System
  • Type 354 Directional Infrared Countermeasures (Blinding)
• Type 355 High Frequency Active Spherical Array (Hull)
• Type 356 Towed Torpedo Decoy (Soft Kill)
• Type 357 Active Torpedo Destructor (Hard Kill)
• Type 358 Electro-Optical/Infrared Sensor Mast

Armament:

• 2x 3"/64 rapid firing cannon (port/starboard stern)
• 1x 5"/54 deck gun (starboard bow)
• 2x RIM-116 SeaRAM Mk 15 GMLS (port/starboard bow)
• 2x Mk 29 Sjosparven octuple box launchers w/ 2 reloads carried (port/starboard stern)
• 48x Mk 41 Tactical-length Vertical Launch System (starboard bow)
• 4x Mk 32 Surface Vessel Torpedo Tube (port/starboard bow/stern)

Complement: 850 crew; 1,000 air wing.
Aircraft: 55-65

• Saab Sea Eagle (VA)
• Saab Secretary (VAL)
• Saab Sea Otter (VFA)
• Saab Heron (VS/VAQ/VR/VAW/VQ/VAM)
• Volvo Bee (HC/HS/HSC)
• Saab Salamander (HSM/HSL)

Fact Check

1. A slightly higher cost within the $5.2 to $5.5 billion range would be more realistic.

2. Considering your Carrier class is closer in size proportions to the Kitty Hawk Class then the QE Class both it's light and full load displacement should reflect this, both of which would probably be closer in line with the Kitty Hawk Class, but slightly reduced. My guess-estimate would be around 58,000 tons light and 80,000 tons full.

3. Forget the 33+ knots, given the dimensions, said vessels lack sufficient power output. You'd be lucky to get 25/26 knots at flank speed given similar comparisons.

4. Didn't state whether a STOVL or CATOBAR design, but judging by all the aircraft types I would hazed a guess that it's CATOBAR.

5. That's a lot of Armament for what is supposed to be a Carrier. In all likelihood that would effect available hanger space and thereby Aircraft capacity. Even given the extra length and slightly wider beam compared to the QE Class, most of that extra space will be taken up by all that additional armament which at the end of the day will probably leave you with a similar if not slightly smaller Air group as the QE Class of around 35/40 aircraft at normal capacity with a full load of 45/50.

If your goal was to design an Aviation Cruiser/Battleship you succeeded. If your goal was to design an Aircraft Carrier, you need to go back to the drawing board.

1) Why?

2) Kitty Hawk didn't have deck guns. It merely had twin arms. The empty tonnage between this and Kitty Hawk are more than comparable, they're identical. Actually this might be heavier by a bit but that's accounting for the sponsons and deck guns I guess.

3) One imagines that depends on hullform, doesn't it?

4) I thought it was obvious. STOVL is worthless tbh.

5) It's not much more than Cavour. Perhaps you should take a look at carriers that aren't terrible [American] tbh.

[Vancon]

Is there a non-military realism thread? I found this one, but it looks kinda dead.

There you go

[Auroya]

Do ducted-fan twin-rotor helicopters have any major disadvantages over conventional layouts? It feels like they should given that they're not used at all but I can't think what they'd be except perhaps fuel consumption.

[Vancon]

Do ducted-fan twin-rotor helicopters have any major disadvantages over conventional layouts? It feels like they should given that they're not used at all but I can't think what they'd be except perhaps fuel consumption.

More things to go wrong perhaps?

[The Akasha Colony]

Do ducted-fan twin-rotor helicopters have any major disadvantages over conventional layouts? It feels like they should given that they're not used at all but I can't think what they'd be except perhaps fuel consumption.

The disadvantages in weight, cost, and complexity far outweigh any potential advantages they may provide.

[West Aurelia]

Is there a non-military realism thread? I found this one, but it looks kinda dead.

There you go

Thanks!

[Vancon]

There you go

Thanks!

Anytime, any place.
To your aid, I shall race
In my hands there shall be a mace
In your window;don't worry, it's only my face!

[Cascadeland]

So you can't safely drop a 2000lb bomb within 50 meters of friendly forces. But why can't you fire a Brimstone missile at them?

You cant safely drop a 500 lb bomb within 50 meters of friendly forces either; you need a minimum 500 meter stand off distance.

and the Brimstone is not in service with the US Military. The Hellfire is often used, as it has a smaller kill radius than a bomb, so it is far more suitable. Or Hydra rockets. But again, hellfires cost significantly more than an entire loadout of 30mm. Tradeoffs.

Or drop a Viper Strike on them?

Absolutely, provded the Viper Strike reaches widespread service in the US Armed Forces and assuming we have the capability to employ drones and AC130s.

There is also the DIME bomb, a rather controversial weapon, and the GBU-39.

I did not bash "blogs in general" but that one in particular. I've known about it for a long time, I recognized your line or argument as the one I read there. It's just a bad source."

The same arguments regarding CAS are presented on SOFREP and on Gruntsandco (ran by a infantry and armor active duty officer). I've had strong disagreements on defenseissues regarding the F22 and F35, and nucler weapons, although, in the case of CAS, I strongly agree. Fine. You dont like that source? I have plenty more

http://sofrep.com/30274/buzz-cas-kill-needs-10s/
http://gruntsandco.com/10-hard-plane-usaf-kill/
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airc ... mmond.html

and it's not well sourced at all. Or sourced really. It's bad, and when you repeat arguments from there (apparently!) verbatim it opens you to criticism."

Actually it is well sourced, but poorly cited on the respective page. And just because the arguments are similar, and you dont like the source which makes the argument, that doesnt make mine invalid.

And I have been trying to distinguish the blogs arguments from you. For your sake. I try to distinguish between people who repeat Sparky's arguments and Sparky himself too.

Well, gee, thats appreciated I guess. The irony of this entire thing, of course, is that the author and I dont see eye to eye on many issues. And Sparks? I've already gone into that.

I am defending the consensus as I can see it.

If there was only a "consensus"

" finding targets with the Mk.1 Eyeball and attacking with them guns and rockets is not being pursued by anyone anywhere and when the last A-10s and Su-25s are retired this class of aircraft will likely go the way of the dive bomber.

I agree with your previous point, although the A10 and Su25 are in different positions. I realize the A10 frames are past their service life, and the manufacturing base is non-existent, therefore, what we have is the only thing we have as far as A10s go. There will be no A10 Beta factually speaking, looking at it neither good or bad.

SU25s are currently being upgraded and sold worldwide. A10s are not. The SU25 has a future.


Only COIN aircraft come close to this description (though the toughness of "true" CAS aircraft is absent reflecting the fact they are not supposed to be shot at) and they are explicitly intended for operations other than major wars.

I agree and have argued at the A10 is not the best COIN aircraft.

They saw new technology was changing the way aircraft fought and they managed to draw more or less the correct conclusions about how that would change operations in the future.

I agree and disagree at the same time; the Air Force and Navy aviation communities have been proven wrong before, hence, you have examples like the argument of "planes can shoot aircraft scores of miles away beyond visual range! they dont need close range missiles and guns" falling flat on its face when faced with reality (the Vietnam war). That is for an entirely different thread though.

It is precisely because they are in the Army that they can say "damn the MANPADs/AAA/SAMs/Fighters we need more bombs!".

Not even close. MANPADS/AAA/SAMS/Fighters shoot down our helicopters and place our units in a perilous position of being bombed. Were in the same boat there.

Everybody needs more bombs. But how those bombs (or missiles or shells or whatever) get there is not really their problem and the especially tricky bit (getting there and back alive) is a problem they neither think about or even show much understanding of.

We have quite an elaborate understanding of this problem since downed pilots are often damn well our problem. And fewer aircraft means less future support for us.

So yeah, I will grant services (and arms) do not always see eye to eye. But this just about always cuts both way. The Army is no more enlightened about the requirements of air operations

The first part is very true, although, I can argue that the Army is profoundly affected in a negative way if requirements for adequate CAS aren't met. This was especially true since 2001.

(or naval operations, though the serial USAF bashers tend to gloss over that the Army and Navy/USMC are just as likely to diverge so they can construct a false dichotomy of narcissistic flyboys vs everybody else. And of course this is equally true in every country.) as the air force is about ground operations.

Okay then we can agree on that. Thats a fair argument.

Here is the thing:

1.) Im not against PGMs in general. Im not against F16s or F15s used for strike missions. Im not against missiles. However, the propensity of some to treat them as infalliable superweapons with pinpoint accuracy is what I am arguing against. Each weapon system has huge advantages and drawbacks depending on how they're used.

2.) CAS encompasses far more than just pointing groups of tanks a click away and dropping a JDAM on them. It often entails danger close air support mere meters away from friendly forces (ask me how I know). That is the advantage of the A10s gun (and that is not infallible either). Again, its better to have a more diverse arsenal than rely disproportionately on one or the other.

So the argument of "CAS is obsolete" is just as pathetically ignorant as "all PGMs are bad", "everything about the F35 is a failure", and other such tomfoolery.

[Vancon]

-words-

Just a couple questions for you, before you continue your rants. By no means am I trying to hurt you or insult you, I'm simply curious.

1. Why do you make it your mission to argue with everyone on the thread? Some do it for amusement, some do it for the sarcasm, others for a good debate. What about you?

2. Why did you decide to do this whilst you are still "young" in NS? Not everyone knows your backstory, nor do they have any idea who you are. If someone like, say, Trans or Kiev made a big post like that, everyone would be inclined to read it since we all know that they have an above average knowledge of the subject at hand. Or they're being sarcastic, which is a whole different kettle of fish.

3. Regardless of how your debate goes, your reputation is at stake here. I'd suggest to stop before you are ridiculed into oblivion, for your sake. I've been in your shoes. It wasn't pretty. Sometimes you need to sit back and let people who know more about the subject at hand explain it to you. Why keep at it and lose all the making of a positive reputation?

[Vitaphone Racing]

snip

Did anyone here specifically write that CAS was obsolete or that bombs were all that was needed to support ground operations? Because, reading back through the thread, you seem to be arguing points which nobody even rose with you. And either you're continually playing down the importance and ability of other aircraft now involved with ground support or you're unaware of them, as you've consistently alluded all through this thread that the A-10 was somehow unique in more ways than one.

[Cascadeland]

But now that we know that 2000lb JDAMs are the only bombs available for CAS, ever, we must all concede defeat

Want a machete to help with your hacking down of strawmen?

Want a 500 pound bomb? no problem. 500 meter minimum safe distance.

when they insult Soode

Insult? I havent even begun to insult anybody yet.

once someone crosses the event horizon of "I know The Truth, everyone else is less knowledgeable on the matter," there's not much hope of dragging them back, because anything you say will only reinforce that worldview.

Oh save that load of horse shit. When somebody makes a flat out ignorant statement of "CAS is obsolete", they get a lengthy response from somebody with real world experience in the matter. Thats how this entire thing started.

Personally, I find solace in the Socratic assumption that it's better to not know X and be aware of it, than to not know X and think you do

Like, "oh they said CAS is obsolete so it must be so!".

Cascade, why do you hate on the USAF so much? It's not like they are so distanced from the Army compared to the USAAF.

I dont hate the Air Force, I hate most of the senior officers. I hate the Army ones even more. And the politicians? even more.

The JTAC and AFSOC guys are world class warfighters, as are the Eagle, Hog, and Viper drivers.

When the United States entered World War II, the Army in effect divided itself and reorganized into three autonomous components: Army Air Forces, Army Ground Forces, and Army Service Forces. So the idea that creation of the USAF also created a sharp break of some bond with the Army’s ground forces is simply not true. The separation of ‘air’ and ‘ground’ started before WWII and the separation was just moved one step up on the command chain in 1947.

and im not making the argument for integrating the Air Force with the Army. The most extensive adjustments I would make is transferring existing A10s to AFSOC.

Why is there a flat-earther in this thread?

Flat earther? LOL im not the one that made the flat earther argument of "all CAS is obsolete!" that has been proven wrong time and time again.

Also when you feel game, try posting off your main account instead of hiding behind your puppet.

What puppet? Is there something you want to address privately?

I highlighted some stuff here that's wrong, because I don't think anybody else pointed it out and I'd hate to see you get points on the house. Can I explain them to you without making you mad?

Its not remotely "wrong"

If it is indeed wrong, then the F16 wouldn't be categorized as a "multirole fighter", with newer versions equipped for BVR and ground attack missions.