NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[The Akasha Colony]

I could at the same token of things, make a gigantic rocket-assisted unguided bullet, give it a nuclear payload, and shoot it from a metal tube at another country and get away with calling it an intercontinental ballistic something-something. And then hope that the nuclear payload will counter whatever inaccuracy will present itself.
-We actually fielded these sorts of rockets in the 50's, and shot a few down around Kuwait.

And even so, an INS that only needs to be accurate within a ten mile CEP after a flight-time of ten minutes is loads cheaper than an INS that has to remain functionally-accurate for a duration of hours, while avoiding air-defenses.

You're again making unfair comparisons. Why bother comparing a 1950s-era ballistic missile with a modern terrain-following, threat-sensing cruise missile?

Going all the way back to the genesis of both weapons, the V1 was far cheaper than the V2 for similar range and payload figures. Ten times cheaper, in fact.

[Imperializt Russia]

You might as well have said that the research funding for Nazi scientists came from the Nazi leadership.
Kind of obvious. V1 was a bomb with wings and a jet engine and an odometer. V2 went into space.

[Yukonastan]

You might as well have said that the research funding for Nazi scientists came from the Nazi leadership.
Kind of obvious. V1 was a bomb with wings and a jet engine and an odometer. V2 went into space.

Depending on trajectory, the V2 would remain below the karman line. So not always.

[The High Tatras]

Would this type of military force with the addition of some better trained and better equipped foreign mercenaries be sufficient defense for the 16th to 17th centuries, or am I asking for too much from them?

The Citizens Militsiya was an all-volunteer force of “citizen soldiers” that normally served as the civilian police force but could also be mobilized as a military force during wartimes. They received basic training at a fortified camp located in their village or town called a “Sich” that served as an administrative and military center. They were allowed to choose their weapon of choice based on their personal abilities, and would be instructed by a weapons master to use a harquebus or musket, an arbalest with a cranequin, a polearm (such as lance, a two-handed flail, or a war scythe), or a sword and buckler. There were also mounted fighting masters and artillery gun masters. After receiving basic training, they were expected to report to their local “Sich” for at least one weekend per month. Some soldiers would choose to receive more advanced training courses later on, such as learning to throw grenades.

[North Arkana]

Would this type of military force with the addition of some better trained and better equipped foreign mercenaries be sufficient defense for the 16th to 17th centuries, or am I asking for too much from them?

The Citizens Militsiya was an all-volunteer force of “citizen soldiers” that normally served as the civilian police force but could also be mobilized as a military force during wartimes. They received basic training at a fortified camp located in their village or town called a “Sich” that served as an administrative and military center. They were allowed to choose their weapon of choice based on their personal abilities, and would be instructed by a weapons master to use a harquebus or musket, an arbalest with a cranequin, a polearm (such as lance, a two-handed flail, or a war scythe), or a sword and buckler. There were also mounted fighting masters and artillery gun masters. After receiving basic training, they were expected to report to their local “Sich” for at least one weekend per month. Some soldiers would choose to receive more advanced training courses later on, such as learning to throw grenades.

Sounds like a colonial era version of the current Swiss system... and I think it would work.

[Ardoki]

Okay, I need a little help/advice. According to someone, it is impossible to destroy enemy ships with missiles. And that a ship is impervious to missiles, due to countermeasures and such.

I always thought that you could overwhelm ships' defences with numerous missiles (or/and use really fast, low-flying, missiles).

[Zhouran]

I always thought that you could overwhelm ships' defences with numerous missiles (or/and use really fast, low-flying, missiles).

This is how the Soviets would use their P-700 anti-ship missiles if they were to have a showdown with the US Navy.

"The missile, when fired in a swarm (group of 4–8) has a unique guidance mode. One of the weapons climbs to a higher altitude and designates targets while the others attack. The missile responsible for target designation climbs in short pop-ups, so as to be harder to intercept. The missiles are linked by data connections, forming a network. If the designating missile is destroyed the next missile will rise to assume its purpose. Missiles are able to differentiate targets, detect groups and prioritize targets automatically using information gathered during flight and types of ships and battle formations pre-programmed in an onboard computer. They will attack targets in order of priority, highest to lowest: after destroying the first target, any remaining missiles will attack the next prioritized target."

[Purpelia]

Okay, I need a little help/advice. According to someone, it is impossible to destroy enemy ships with missiles. And that a ship is impervious to missiles, due to countermeasures and such.

I always thought that you could overwhelm ships' defences with numerous missiles (or/and use really fast, low-flying, missiles).

That someone is wrong. Plain and simple. what you thought was right.

[Ardoki]

Okay, I need a little help/advice. According to someone, it is impossible to destroy enemy ships with missiles. And that a ship is impervious to missiles, due to countermeasures and such.

I always thought that you could overwhelm ships' defences with numerous missiles (or/and use really fast, low-flying, missiles).

That someone is wrong. Plain and simple. what you thought was right.

Yeah, and even ship defences are not perfect (as he proclaims) even when they are not being overwhelmed.

Thank you.

[Ardoki]

I always thought that you could overwhelm ships' defences with numerous missiles (or/and use really fast, low-flying, missiles).

This is how the Soviets would use their P-700 anti-ship missiles if they were to have a showdown with the US Navy.

"The missile, when fired in a swarm (group of 4–8) has a unique guidance mode. One of the weapons climbs to a higher altitude and designates targets while the others attack. The missile responsible for target designation climbs in short pop-ups, so as to be harder to intercept. The missiles are linked by data connections, forming a network. If the designating missile is destroyed the next missile will rise to assume its purpose. Missiles are able to differentiate targets, detect groups and prioritize targets automatically using information gathered during flight and types of ships and battle formations pre-programmed in an onboard computer. They will attack targets in order of priority, highest to lowest: after destroying the first target, any remaining missiles will attack the next prioritized target."

Thanks a lot Zhouran. You are very knowledgeable in military affairs.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Okay, I need a little help/advice. According to someone, it is impossible to destroy enemy ships with missiles. And that a ship is impervious to missiles, due to countermeasures and such.

I always thought that you could overwhelm ships' defences with numerous missiles (or/and use really fast, low-flying, missiles).

That is not what has been said.
At all...

All I said was that a large portion of the AShM and by proxy AShBM can be defeated before the missile is ever launched.
Nobody else has claimed that "ships are impervious to missiles"...

[Ardoki]

Okay, I need a little help/advice. According to someone, it is impossible to destroy enemy ships with missiles. And that a ship is impervious to missiles, due to countermeasures and such.

I always thought that you could overwhelm ships' defences with numerous missiles (or/and use really fast, low-flying, missiles).

That is not what has been said.
At all...

All I said was that a large portion of the AShM and by proxy AShBM can be defeated before the missile is ever launched.
Nobody else has claimed that "ships are impervious to missiles"...

You never mentioned AShM or AShBM.

You said that missiles would be useless against your ships, as you could destroy them before they were even fired.

[Roski]

That is not what has been said.
At all...

All I said was that a large portion of the AShM and by proxy AShBM can be defeated before the missile is ever launched.
Nobody else has claimed that "ships are impervious to missiles"...

You never mentioned AShM or AShBM.

You said that missiles would be useless against your ships, as you could destroy them before they were even fired.

Then technically, that's correct. You are both correct.

All hard targets like missile silos can be destroyed before a launch.
But if these missiles make it into the air, then the warship you are firing them at is fucked.

[Ardoki]

You never mentioned AShM or AShBM.

You said that missiles would be useless against your ships, as you could destroy them before they were even fired.

Then technically, that's correct. You are both correct.

All hard targets like missile silos can be destroyed before a launch.
But if these missiles make it into the air, then the warship you are firing them at is fucked.

And with OTH radar, he would be detected before he could fire missiles at my silos. Though we also use mobile launchers and aircraft.

[Padnak]

I'm not sure if this really quantifies as a mil-realism question, but its military related

There is an infantry division within the Padnaki military that is responsible for government sanctioned illegal actives (international drug smuggling, arms smuggling etc) which are used to fund Padnak's covert chemical weapons program and other less then legal activities. The division would be conducting illegal activities internationally and I was wondering this; should I have illegal actives be conducted by a separate entity to make it harder to trace anything back to the military, or is it fine to keep it as is? If its separate there would be a much greater chance for the money it generates to simply be embezzled by the people running it but I'd imagine that it would be much harder to directly trace back to the government, whereas if its a military unit it would provide a direct link back to the government but would be much easier to keep under control, or at least I would imagine so

-should probably point out that many military units are involved in producing heroin in the territory they're tasked with protecting (something that is officially banned,but tolerated as long long as the commanders who partake don't get involved in any other major corruption), and that most of the illegal goods the unit/separate organization would be dealing it would be coming directly from the military

[Roski]

I'm not sure if this really quantifies as a mil-realism question, but its military related

There is an infantry division within the Padnaki military that is responsible for government sanctioned illegal actives (international drug smuggling, arms smuggling etc) which are used to fund Padnak's covert chemical weapons program and other less then legal activities. The division would be conducting illegal activities internationally and I was wondering this; should I have illegal actives be conducted by a separate entity to make it harder to trace anything back to the military, or is it fine to keep it as is? If its separate there would be a much greater chance for the money it generates to simply be embezzled by the people running it but I'd imagine that it would be much harder to directly trace back to the government, whereas if its a military unit it would provide a direct link back to the government but would be much easier to keep under control, or at least I would imagine so

-should probably point out that many military units are involved in producing heroin in the territory they're tasked with protecting (something that is officially banned,but tolerated as long long as the commanders who partake don't get involved in any other major corruption), and that most of the illegal goods the unit/separate organization would be dealing it would be coming directly from the military

You could just outright say it and scream racism when someone does something about it.

[Padnak]

I'm not sure if this really quantifies as a mil-realism question, but its military related

There is an infantry division within the Padnaki military that is responsible for government sanctioned illegal actives (international drug smuggling, arms smuggling etc) which are used to fund Padnak's covert chemical weapons program and other less then legal activities. The division would be conducting illegal activities internationally and I was wondering this; should I have illegal actives be conducted by a separate entity to make it harder to trace anything back to the military, or is it fine to keep it as is? If its separate there would be a much greater chance for the money it generates to simply be embezzled by the people running it but I'd imagine that it would be much harder to directly trace back to the government, whereas if its a military unit it would provide a direct link back to the government but would be much easier to keep under control, or at least I would imagine so

-should probably point out that many military units are involved in producing heroin in the territory they're tasked with protecting (something that is officially banned,but tolerated as long long as the commanders who partake don't get involved in any other major corruption), and that most of the illegal goods the unit/separate organization would be dealing it would be coming directly from the military

You could just outright say it and scream racism when someone does something about it.

weaponized SJWs

war has changed

[Gallan Systems]

You could just outright say it and scream racism when someone does something about it.

weaponized SJWs

war has changed

Please.

This has been PLO SOP since the '60s.

[Grand Britannia]

You could just outright say it and scream racism when someone does something about it.

weaponized SJWs

war has changed

Wouldn't those count as WMD's?

[Roski]

You could just outright say it and scream racism when someone does something about it.

weaponized SJWs

war has changed

Yussss

[Mitheldalond]

How hard would it be to make a navy's air component out of floatplanes/flying boats, and how feasible would it be?

My thinking is that aircraft carriers are extemely expensive. Aircraft are much less so. So why not do away with the carriers and just use squadrons amphibious fighter jets and bombers? Each unit would have to be accompanied by a refueling and rearming aircraft obviously, also capable of landing on water.

Advantages I see:
1. Much cheaper than aircraft carriers.
2. Incredible force distribution. Squadrons can be spread out pretty much anywhere; they don't have to return to a carrier to land and resupply.
3. Much faster than a carrier. A squadron of aircraft can deploy and reposition faster than a carrier.
4. Harder to find than a carrier. A huge warship is much more noticeable — both visually and on radar— than a few planes sitting on the water. Radar would likely have a hard time picking them out of the ground clutter of waves and such. And even if you do find them, they can be long gone before a strike package can arrive.

Basically, they can strike from anywhere at any time with little to no warning.

Disadvantages:
1. They won't be as capable or versatile as a carrier
2. They won't have even close to the kind of endurance that a carrier does. Pilots can only sit in a tiny cockpit for so long.
3. There's not much in the way of central command. Rather than one ship conducting various operations, you have a bunch of independent groups of aircraft scattered across a wide area. That's going to present some major command and communications challenges when it comes to trying to coordinate combat operations. Especially if they don't all know exactly where each other are.
4. They aren't going to handle rough seas nearly as well as a massive warship.

Some issues that would have to be resolved:
1. How do you design an amphibious fighter that can match the performance of modern fighter jets?
2. What do you do when there's a storm? You can't really land a plane on 10 foot tall waves, now can you?
3. Assuming they're supposed to deploy for longer than a few hours, what are the pilots supposed to do for a day or two? Where do they sleep and eat, and what about entertainment? I suppose you could fit a small living space in a bomber, but what about fighters? I guess the pilots could get out and sit on top of their planes. You can fit a tent, sleeping bag, cooking equipment, and food and water into a large backpack (backpackers do it all the time), but do we really want fighter pilots pitching tents and camping on top of their planes in the missile of the ocean?
4. How do rearm a plane while its floating on the water? Weapon pylons and bomb bays are loaded from the bottom. Which is sitting in the water...
5. How the heck does the chain of command here work, and how do you incorporate this into combined arms warfare?
6. What does the rest of your Navy look like when there are still "carrier air wings" but no carriers?

[Yukonastan]

How hard would it be to make a navy's air component out of floatplanes/flying boats, and how feasible would it be?

My thinking is that aircraft carriers are extemely expensive. Aircraft are much less so. So why not do away with the carriers and just use squadrons amphibious fighter jets and bombers? Each unit would have to be accompanied by a refueling and rearming aircraft obviously, also capable of landing on water.

Advantages I see:
1. Much cheaper than aircraft carriers.
2. Incredible force distribution. Squadrons can be spread out pretty much anywhere; they don't have to return to a carrier to land and resupply.
3. Much faster than a carrier. A squadron of aircraft can deploy and reposition faster than a carrier.
4. Harder to find than a carrier. A huge warship is much more noticeable — both visually and on radar— than a few planes sitting on the water. Radar would likely have a hard time picking them out of the ground clutter of waves and such. And even if you do find them, they can be long gone before a strike package can arrive.

Basically, they can strike from anywhere at any time with little to no warning.

Disadvantages:
1. They won't be as capable or versatile as a carrier
2. They won't have even close to the kind of endurance that a carrier does. Pilots can only sit in a tiny cockpit for so long.
3. There's not much in the way of central command. Rather than one ship conducting various operations, you have a bunch of independent groups of aircraft scattered across a wide area. That's going to present some major command and communications challenges when it comes to trying to coordinate combat operations. Especially if they don't all know exactly where each other are.
4. They aren't going to handle rough seas nearly as well as a massive warship.

Some issues that would have to be resolved:
1. How do you design an amphibious fighter that can match the performance of modern fighter jets?
2. What do you do when there's a storm? You can't really land a plane on 10 foot tall waves, now can you?
3. Assuming they're supposed to deploy for longer than a few hours, what are the pilots supposed to do for a day or two? Where do they sleep and eat, and what about entertainment? I suppose you could fit a small living space in a bomber, but what about fighters? I guess the pilots could get out and sit on top of their planes. You can fit a tent, sleeping bag, cooking equipment, and food and water into a large backpack (backpackers do it all the time), but do we really want fighter pilots camping on top of their planes in the missile of the ocean?
4. How do rearm a plane while its floating on the water? Weapon pylons and bomb bays are loaded from the bottom. Which is sitting in the water...
5. How the heck does the chain of command here work, and how do you incorporate this into combined arms warfare?
6. What does the rest of your Navy look like when there are still "carrier air wings" but no carriers?

1. This gave me visions of a floatplane A-10-ish thing.
2. Ditch and hope for the best.
3. This is why you have command 'n control floatplanes the size of the spruce goose, duh.
4. High-winged, and exclusively wing pylons, obv. Or reload a bomb bay through the top.
5. Radio and gps.
6. OVAR NINE THOUSAND BOGHAMMERS

[Gallan Systems]

How hard would it be to make a navy's air component out of floatplanes/flying boats, and how feasible would it be?

Not very hard.

Not very "feasible".

[San-Silvacian]

This is how the Soviets would use their P-700 anti-ship missiles if they were to have a showdown with the US Navy.

"The missile, when fired in a swarm (group of 4–8) has a unique guidance mode. One of the weapons climbs to a higher altitude and designates targets while the others attack. The missile responsible for target designation climbs in short pop-ups, so as to be harder to intercept. The missiles are linked by data connections, forming a network. If the designating missile is destroyed the next missile will rise to assume its purpose. Missiles are able to differentiate targets, detect groups and prioritize targets automatically using information gathered during flight and types of ships and battle formations pre-programmed in an onboard computer. They will attack targets in order of priority, highest to lowest: after destroying the first target, any remaining missiles will attack the next prioritized target."

Thanks a lot Zhouran. You are very knowledgeable in military affairs.

This was ripped from the P-700's wikipedia page.

[Mitheldalond]

How hard would it be to make a navy's air component out of floatplanes/flying boats, and how feasible would it be?

My thinking is that aircraft carriers are extemely expensive. Aircraft are much less so. So why not do away with the carriers and just use squadrons amphibious fighter jets and bombers? Each unit would have to be accompanied by a refueling and rearming aircraft obviously, also capable of landing on water.

Advantages I see:
1. Much cheaper than aircraft carriers.
2. Incredible force distribution. Squadrons can be spread out pretty much anywhere; they don't have to return to a carrier to land and resupply.
3. Much faster than a carrier. A squadron of aircraft can deploy and reposition faster than a carrier.
4. Harder to find than a carrier. A huge warship is much more noticeable — both visually and on radar— than a few planes sitting on the water. Radar would likely have a hard time picking them out of the ground clutter of waves and such. And even if you do find them, they can be long gone before a strike package can arrive.

Basically, they can strike from anywhere at any time with little to no warning.

Disadvantages:
1. They won't be as capable or versatile as a carrier
2. They won't have even close to the kind of endurance that a carrier does. Pilots can only sit in a tiny cockpit for so long.
3. There's not much in the way of central command. Rather than one ship conducting various operations, you have a bunch of independent groups of aircraft scattered across a wide area. That's going to present some major command and communications challenges when it comes to trying to coordinate combat operations. Especially if they don't all know exactly where each other are.
4. They aren't going to handle rough seas nearly as well as a massive warship.

Some issues that would have to be resolved:
1. How do you design an amphibious fighter that can match the performance of modern fighter jets?
2. What do you do when there's a storm? You can't really land a plane on 10 foot tall waves, now can you?
3. Assuming they're supposed to deploy for longer than a few hours, what are the pilots supposed to do for a day or two? Where do they sleep and eat, and what about entertainment? I suppose you could fit a small living space in a bomber, but what about fighters? I guess the pilots could get out and sit on top of their planes. You can fit a tent, sleeping bag, cooking equipment, and food and water into a large backpack (backpackers do it all the time), but do we really want fighter pilots camping on top of their planes in the missile of the ocean?
4. How do rearm a plane while its floating on the water? Weapon pylons and bomb bays are loaded from the bottom. Which is sitting in the water...
5. How the heck does the chain of command here work, and how do you incorporate this into combined arms warfare?
6. What does the rest of your Navy look like when there are still "carrier air wings" but no carriers?

1. This gave me visions of a floatplane A-10-ish thing.
2. Ditch and hope for the best.
3. This is why you have command 'n control floatplanes the size of the spruce goose, duh.
4. High-winged, and exclusively wing pylons, obv. Or reload a bomb bay through the top.
5. Radio and gps.
6. OVAR NINE THOUSAND BOGHAMMERS

I was actually thinking of something like a supersonic Harrier with A-10 style engines (though far more streamlined and much more powerful than the A-10's). It also occurred to me to load bombers through the top. Nice to know that I'm not crazy, or at least that other people are just as crazy.

I like the C&C plane idea. I think I might build air wings of four squadrons around a command squadron of a C&C aircraft and four Hawkeye-style AEW float planes, probably with a fighter complement for protection.

Blue-water boghammers... I'm imagining fleets of hundreds of Sa'ar 5 corvettes.

How hard would it be to make a navy's air component out of floatplanes/flying boats, and how feasible would it be?

Not very hard.

Not very "feasible".

Yeah, I didn't really think it would be all too feasible, though I did think it would be fairly difficult.

I'd be really interested to see how some of the giant NS-navies with their megacarriers and superdreanoughts would react when confronted with this.