NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[The Kievan People]

Hello, I am considering using the Patriot system for long-range air defense and I do not know whether I should use the -104D or the -104F. As I understand it, the -104F or PAC-3 has been optimized for intercepting ballistic missiles. Has this optimization negatively affected the system's capabilities against aircraft or the maximum range? Also, while I am here, would deploying some kind of c-ram system alongside a Patriot battery be beneficial or a waste of resources?

The PAC-3 has a maximum range of about 120km versus about 200km for the PAC-2. It's more lethal though.

[New Vihenia]

Hello, I am considering using the Patriot system for long-range air defense and I do not know whether I should use the -104D or the -104F. As I understand it, the -104F or PAC-3 has been optimized for intercepting ballistic missiles. Has this optimization negatively affected the system's capabilities against aircraft or the maximum range? Also, while I am here, would deploying some kind of c-ram system alongside a Patriot battery be beneficial or a waste of resources?

They're using essentially same AN/MPQ-53/65 Radar thus you can use them both. The only differences is number of missiles in container. PAC-3 ERINT can be quad packed inside one launcher that usually only contain 1 regular MIM-104 missile.

[Crookfur]

My nation is extremely large (a bit larger then Russia) and an extremely low population comparatively, so my standing army is fairly small for the amount of territory it has to protect, so my idea is this: A large portion of my population (around 30%) is comprised of nomadic and semi-nomadic tribal groups who for historical reasons are exempt from mandatory military service, and while they are encouraged to join many chose to stay with their tribes as is customary. These tribal groups are located in an extremely vast hilly steppe area where around 45% of my boarder is located, so my idea is to have these tribal groups be part of a sort of "Frontier army". This frontier army would be something like a reserve force/ national guard comprised mostly of people from the tribal groups who's only obligations are to show up for bi-monthly inspections and whatnot from the Federal Military and to be ready for combat if they run into hostile forces when they're roaming around. They would be carry they're service weapons with them as they roamed around and would be supported by depots supplied with heavier equipment encase there is any sort of trouble.

The whole idea is that these state sponsored irregular forces would be the first forces able to respond to a hostile invasion while federal troops are moved in from across the country, and they would use mainly gorilla tactics to try and wear hostile forces down. The only problems I can see with creating a "Frontier Army" is that tribal infighting might become a problem when I start handing out automatic weapons to nomads, but other then that I think it's a pretty good idea

I suppose if you only expected them to patrol and surveil thier frontier areas so as to provide warnings of and information about any incursion/invasion and not put up any kind of fight against anything more than small special forces/light infantry LRRP/recce forces then it would work (i.e. like the canadian rangers).

With the above i expect the ideal reaction to a proper invasion would be to give a warning and then either run away or just go about thier normal nomady activities and hope that enemy advanced elements don't deem them worth the trouble to pin down and deal with.

I suppose a realted set of questions focuses on: who border's the steppe lands? Are they likely to invade and why? If they are likely to invade is the steppe just an area/obstacle to be crossed/travesed on the way to more important places in your nation or would they see any value in the area itself?

[Imperializt Russia]

Well, weight of fire is important, because weight is one of two components of kinetic energy. And kinetic energy is a fairly good gauge of how effective a gun is (against missile or aircraft targets that is). Larger caliber guns typically fire projectiles of greater weight, albeit at a lower rate of fire.

Here's an article exploring the effectiveness of various aircraft guns through the kinetic energy 'model' which is also explained in detail there.

Also, the BK-27 that you speak of is something of an exceptional case - it is a revolver cannon which some tout over rotary cannons altogether. This is because revolver cannons do not need to 'spin up' to reach the maximum rate of fire and thus can actually deliver greater weight of fire in short bursts (~1s and less, which may well be all the time you have to shoot) than rotary cannons.

That's not technically what weight of fire is.
Kinetic energy is not a good measure of effectiveness for many weapon platforms. Payload carried, warhead type, fusing and other measures would be better - kinetic energy is only an important consideration in a hit-to-kill system, and even then the warhead is an important factor - its construction, its materials, its defeat mechanism.

The BK-27's supplied ammunition, IIRC, is a hit-to-kill frangible projectile.

Does anyone know what the smallest homing rocket is right now?

The rocket the Javelin fires, I believe.

CRV-7PG has it beat by more than two inches in diameter. The five-inch missile of the Javelin system is pretty big, while CRV-7PG is a development of the CRV-7 70mm rocket.
Smaller projectiles probably do exist.

I'm starting to work on my nations main battle tank and I was wondering what was better, tracks supported by return rollers or tracks without them

There are a series of arguments that could be made for or against, but I don't believe either choice would have any sort of critical effect.

IIRC tracks with return rollers remain tauter and can achieve higher speeds while those without are better in other circumstances though I don't recall what.

:bmp3:

*Allanea appears from nowhere*

*Throws up*

It does have cool armor, though

*beepbeep imma tank*

Go home BMP-3, you're drunk.

From a nice fortified fixed position you don't need the rate of fire, you need endurance. A nice water cooled vickers would be more useful.

I forgot to add against significantly superior numbers.

Crookfur's point is even more critical with this note.

When you're facing large numbers of enemy troops, it becomes imperative that the gun keeps firing. For this, you need endurance, which a water-cooled gun does provide, with some disadvantages. Otherwise, the gun crew needs to make very regular barrel changes and probably needs to be sparing with their ammunition. IIRC even MG42 gunners were trained to fire in very short bursts tapping the triggers.

Hey, so on my same topic, if the person has 74 million soldiers, is it ok to conscript to eight percent of my population (over a hundred million, don't recall how much), for temporary defencive reasons, with limited deployment?

It's technically feasible, but this isn't something you could do overnight, or in a month, this would take probably a year (or more) to mobilise this many men.

You would do well to raise and mobilise these units in a staggered format and you would have to transition to a war economy to make up for the shortfall. Eight percent is generally high anyway and 100 million would be a catastrophic loss to any world economy.

THe problem with that is that it demands taking the enemy on the beach. When as noted they will be able to overwhelm you. Even if their are three places where they might land, you have to split your strength between them, while they can use their entire force against one point. Making this worse is the fact that hovercraft mean that a much larger selection of beaches are a possible landing point.

D-Day was a success, and the Germans put a significant amount of effort into trying to stop any landing on the beaches. The equation has only gotten more in favor of the landing force, who are now able to deploy more forces, faster, under better protection, and with more support than the Allied forces.

The landing force might be its most vulnerable at the beach, but that requires that you have enough strength their to be able to exploit this. Given the ability of the lander to choose to avoid enemy strongholds it is unlikely they will land where you will have a significant enough force to fight the landing. You are going to need a lot more than a couple of guys with ATGMs to take on a large scale invasion.

Going to have to stop you right there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ ... e_reserves

Germany, once again, was a fucking idiot, and lost a valuable opportunity during the D-Day attack, when all of these tank battalions could have retaken Normandy quite quickly, actually.

You know, I thank Hitler for being absolutely fucking stupid.

The landed forces were pinned into a glorified beachhead for the best part of three weeks.

High Command's intelligence could have easily suggested that these forces were intentionally holding their position, to continue to draw away reserves for an even bigger landing at Pas de Calais. Which is, of course, what German High Command was expecting, thanks to the disinformation campaign.

Depends on the missile.

There are wire guided, IR and laser beam riding that I know of. There might be some radar guided but I'm not sure.

I have always thought wire guided missiles were kind of pointless, why guide them with a wire when there are better ways to do it that are not tethered to the launcher.

So laser and IR, which is basically heat.

http://www.funker530.com/pl-01-future-s ... by-poland/

So this tank apparently does not give off any thermal images for IR to track, if I am understanding that right.

That leaves dumb rockets and laser guided, what is something else you can track on a tank so that a missile will hit it?

PL-01 doesn't actually exist. It will significantly reduce the radar and IR spectrum returns it gives off, but no eliminate them. Tanks are large metal boxes and are bloody hot. They are giving off IR and radar signatures.

TV-guided missiles would also be effective, but radar and IR missiles will still be moderately effective against a vehicle employing signature suppression technologies.

[Yukonastan]

Wrong. Wireguided is jammable, since the sight requires a flare on the back of the rocket. By shooting off a similar flare from the tank (flare packs for tanks lolwot), the missile CAN be redirected into the dirt.

As for the Polish tank, that uses those BAe thermal tiles. Basically a thermal LCD screen.

Which missile are you talking about here? There are a variety of ways to guide a SACLOS wire-guided ATGM, and I'm pretty sure no two missiles are exactly alike in that regard.

Most SACLOS wired missiles use a flare to be fairly simple, if I'm not mistaken. I know specifically the TOW uses a flare for guidance, as do its derivatives.

[Velkanika]

Which missile are you talking about here? There are a variety of ways to guide a SACLOS wire-guided ATGM, and I'm pretty sure no two missiles are exactly alike in that regard.

Most SACLOS wired missiles use a flare to be fairly simple, if I'm not mistaken. I know specifically the TOW uses a flare for guidance, as do its derivatives.

No they don't, check your information source again.

[Yukonastan]

Most SACLOS wired missiles use a flare to be fairly simple, if I'm not mistaken. I know specifically the TOW uses a flare for guidance, as do its derivatives.

No they don't, check your information source again.

Toophan is TOW clone used by Iran, hence is a TOW derivative.
All versions of the TOW all use the same guidance system, barring modernization, hence are also derived from XBGM-71A TOW.

An optical sensor on the sight continuously monitors the position of a light source on the missile relative to the line-of-sight, and then corrects the trajectory of the missile by generating electrical signals that are passed down two wires to command the control surface actuators.

Emphasis mine.

Note how there's both a xenon arc bulb and a flare in the rear of it for tracking, by the sight.
Note that the sight steers the missile.
Note that the thermal beacon needs to burn hot to be seen by the tracker, which means it's a flare by any other name.

Edit: Point is, wire-guided missiles can be spoofed into the dirt.

[Velkanika]

No they don't, check your information source again.

Toophan is TOW clone used by Iran, hence is a TOW derivative.
All versions of the TOW all use the same guidance system, barring modernization, hence are also derived from XBGM-71A TOW.

An optical sensor on the sight continuously monitors the position of a light source on the missile relative to the line-of-sight, and then corrects the trajectory of the missile by generating electrical signals that are passed down two wires to command the control surface actuators.

Emphasis mine.

Note how there's both a xenon arc bulb and a flare in the rear of it for tracking, by the sight.
Note that the sight steers the missile.
Note that the thermal beacon needs to burn hot to be seen by the tracker, which means it's a flare by any other name.

Edit: Point is, wire-guided missiles can be spoofed into the dirt.

You mean a cheap Iranian knockoff of a wire-guided missile designed in the 60s can be spoofed into the dirt. This proves very little of your original argument.

[Yukonastan]

*snip*
Edit: Point is, wire-guided missiles can be spoofed into the dirt.

You mean a cheap Iranian knockoff of a wire-guided missile designed in the 60s can be spoofed into the dirt. This proves very little of your original argument.

No. I meant that wireguided missiles can be spoofed into the dirt. Not just the toophan and tow, but all wireguided missiles. Beam-riding is the unjammable system here. Sensor in ass of missile looks at sight, sight shoots out laser, missile aims with information from sensor in ass.

[Velkanika]

You mean a cheap Iranian knockoff of a wire-guided missile designed in the 60s can be spoofed into the dirt. This proves very little of your original argument.

No. I meant that wireguided missiles can be spoofed into the dirt. Not just the toophan and tow, but all wireguided missiles. Beam-riding is the unjammable system here. Sensor in ass of missile looks at sight, sight shoots out laser, missile aims with information from sensor in ass.

You can't draw those conclusions based off of just the guidance system used by a TOW knockoff. There is no evidence to support your claim that beam-riders are unjammable while wire-guided is. If anything, the wire-guided missile should be harder to spoof because it communicates with the guidance unit via a hard wire. You don't need a flare tracker to calculate the position of the missile down to the millimeter and send it the proper course corrections to fly at a point in space designated by the crosshairs in the user's scope. Conversely, a beam-rider can be degraded/disrupted by atmospheric conditions such as fog or dense smoke between the launcher and the missile.

[Yukonastan]

No. I meant that wireguided missiles can be spoofed into the dirt. Not just the toophan and tow, but all wireguided missiles. Beam-riding is the unjammable system here. Sensor in ass of missile looks at sight, sight shoots out laser, missile aims with information from sensor in ass.

You can't draw those conclusions based off of just the guidance system used by a TOW knockoff. There is no evidence to support your claim that beam-riders are unjammable while wire-guided is. If anything, the wire-guided missile should be harder to spoof because it communicates with the guidance unit via a hard wire. You don't need a flare tracker to calculate the position of the missile down to the millimeter and send it the proper course corrections to fly at a point in space designated by the crosshairs in the user's scope. Conversely, a beam-rider can be degraded/disrupted by atmospheric conditions such as fog or dense smoke between the launcher and the missile.

Atmospheric conditions ~= (attempted) active jamming or spoofing of seeker.

Beamriders rely on a signal coming from the launcher, not the target. This makes them essentially impossible to jam with an active defense system.
Wireguided missiles, however, reverse the sensor and tracking source, putting the former in the sight and the latter in the missile. This tracking source can be replicated by an ADS, causing the sight to be confused, and thereby correcting the missile away from the ADS and the tank attached to it. THAT is the point I'm trying to get across.

[Velkanika]

You can't draw those conclusions based off of just the guidance system used by a TOW knockoff. There is no evidence to support your claim that beam-riders are unjammable while wire-guided is. If anything, the wire-guided missile should be harder to spoof because it communicates with the guidance unit via a hard wire. You don't need a flare tracker to calculate the position of the missile down to the millimeter and send it the proper course corrections to fly at a point in space designated by the crosshairs in the user's scope. Conversely, a beam-rider can be degraded/disrupted by atmospheric conditions such as fog or dense smoke between the launcher and the missile.

Atmospheric conditions ~= (attempted) active jamming or spoofing of seeker.

Beamriders rely on a signal coming from the launcher, not the target. This makes them essentially impossible to jam with an active defense system.
Wireguided missiles, however, reverse the sensor and tracking source, putting the former in the sight and the latter in the missile. This tracking source can be replicated by an ADS, causing the sight to be confused, and thereby correcting the missile away from the ADS and the tank attached to it. THAT is the point I'm trying to get across.

That would only work if the missile was using an outdated tracking system. I'm willing to bet that the TOW uses distinct channels in the EM spectrum it tracks to prevent interference from other missiles in the air. I'm also willing to bet that the sight can distinguish between the missile and a defensive flare. Your argument is shockingly underwhelming.

[Gallia-]

You don't know how missile tracking works, nor do you know how orbital detection works, nor do you know how aviation engines work. TOW can be jammed fairly easily, using a jamming system like Shtora or Hardhat. Early model TOWs were so susceptible to it that they couldn't be fired at the same target or else the guidance computers would be confused by multiple flares.

The flare lets the computer know where the missile is in relation to the gunner's sight, keeping the missile centered. If a second flare appears, either from another TOW or a flare on the tank, the computer cannot tell the difference and will become very confused very quickly. If wire-guidance were "unjammable", why has the US Army been so interested in acquiring a fire-and-forget TOW under the FOTT program?

Beam-riders can be jammed but this is more difficult than jamming a optical tracking missile. It requires attacking the launching platform's laser guidance system directly, probably with another laser.

[Yukonastan]

Atmospheric conditions ~= (attempted) active jamming or spoofing of seeker.

Beamriders rely on a signal coming from the launcher, not the target. This makes them essentially impossible to jam with an active defense system.
Wireguided missiles, however, reverse the sensor and tracking source, putting the former in the sight and the latter in the missile. This tracking source can be replicated by an ADS, causing the sight to be confused, and thereby correcting the missile away from the ADS and the tank attached to it. THAT is the point I'm trying to get across.

That would only work if the missile was using an outdated tracking system. I'm willing to bet that the TOW uses distinct channels in the EM spectrum it tracks to prevent interference from other missiles in the air. I'm also willing to bet that the sight can distinguish between the missile and a defensive flare. Your argument is shockingly underwhelming.

I'm also willing to bet that it's fairly easy to create defensive flares/ECM/etc to confuse the sights that work in the known bands of the TOW and other wire missiles.
It isn't THAT underwhelming. Not even close.

Fake Edit: Wat Galla said. Sums it up.

[Gallia-]

TOWs were supposed to get imaging infrared seekers to replace the optical tracking, but that died.

Atmospheric conditions ~= (attempted) active jamming or spoofing of seeker.

Beamriders rely on a signal coming from the launcher, not the target. This makes them essentially impossible to jam with an active defense system.
Wireguided missiles, however, reverse the sensor and tracking source, putting the former in the sight and the latter in the missile. This tracking source can be replicated by an ADS, causing the sight to be confused, and thereby correcting the missile away from the ADS and the tank attached to it. THAT is the point I'm trying to get across.

That would only work if the missile was using an outdated tracking system. I'm willing to bet that the TOW uses distinct channels in the EM spectrum it tracks to prevent interference from other missiles in the air. I'm also willing to bet that the sight can distinguish between the missile and a defensive flare. Your argument is shockingly underwhelming.

Modern SACLOS jammers shift through frequencies rather rapidly. I'm surprised you don't know that considering it's mentioned on Wikipedia.

[Erusuia]

I suppose if you only expected them to patrol and surveil thier frontier areas so as to provide warnings of and information about any incursion/invasion and not put up any kind of fight against anything more than small special forces/light infantry LRRP/recce forces then it would work (i.e. like the canadian rangers).

With the above i expect the ideal reaction to a proper invasion would be to give a warning and then either run away or just go about thier normal nomady activities and hope that enemy advanced elements don't deem them worth the trouble to pin down and deal with.

I suppose a realted set of questions focuses on: who border's the steppe lands? Are they likely to invade and why? If they are likely to invade is the steppe just an area/obstacle to be crossed/travesed on the way to more important places in your nation or would they see any value in the area itself?

The nations bordering the steppe are fairly militarized but lack enough resources to mount any sort of sustained invasion. Most of the steppe region is resources-less and, save for a natural gas pipeline moving gas to one of the nations that boarder it, is almost totally undeveloped. The steppe ends in a very large mountain range which is extremely resource rich, on the other side of which is a huge prairie region that makes up the majority of the country and is were most of the population lives. The steppe region is virtually worthless, however the rest of the country is fairly resource rich and would be the primary objective of any invasion force capable of threatening the nation.

There are a few large valleys in the mountain range that serve as the only non-goat trail ways of getting from the prairie to the steppe, and a large number of my forces are based in an around them with the idea that any hostile mechinzed forces would have to move through the valleys to get to the valuable parts of the country.

[Velkanika]

You know what, I don't have the time or inclination to deal with you insulting my intelligence once again with your pathetic ego contest. I'm done with this thread.

[Padnak]

"And this week's episode of unnecessary drama..."

[Novorden]

Jamming a fly by wire missile? why bother.

Can't hit what you cant see. (that or just make erratic moments making it harder to stay on target or just get behind something as missiles relatively are slow )

[Mitheldalond]

So, if you had to pick one ship to convert into an Aegis ship, would it be better to go with an Albany-class cruiser or a Spruance/Kidd-class destroyer?

The Albany might make a more powerful ship, but it's also much older than the Spruance and would require far more extensive modifications. It's also much larger, which is good for missile capacity, but also makes it a bigger target. It is also unusually tall, which is useful when it comes to radar range.

The Spruance on the other hand, is newer and would require less extensive modifications. The Ticonderoga-class was built on the same hull design as the Spruance as well. On the other hand, the superstructure of the Spruance is too short for the AN/SPY-1 radar arrays to be mounted on it directly (they'd practically be flush with the deck). So you'd have to build a platform on top of it to hold the radar.

[The Akasha Colony]

So, if you had to pick one ship to convert into an Aegis ship, would it be better to go with an Albany-class cruiser or a Spruance/Kidd-class destroyer?

The Albany might make a more powerful ship, but it's also much older than the Spruance and would require far more extensive modifications. It's also much larger, which is good for missile capacity, but also makes it a bigger target. It is also unusually tall, which is useful when it comes to radar range.

The Spruance on the other hand, is newer and would require less extensive modifications. The Ticonderoga-class was built on the same hull design as the Spruance as well. On the other hand, the superstructure of the Spruance is too short for the AN/SPY-1 radar arrays to be mounted on it directly (they'd practically be flush with the deck). So you'd have to build a platform on top of it to hold the radar.

Spruance already has VLS. There's your answer.

[Arkinaid]

I am a FT nation so my question mostly focus on general concepts and doctrines rather than specific equipment.

What sort of doctrine should a paramilitary force adopt if it mostly expects to be doing counter piracy/terrorism, police action, and peace keeping. What would be a general idea for the kind of equipment they would want to have to deal with those things. The paramilitary force in question has a sizable budget and supply of people willing to serve, but it set in a society distrustful of national militaries.

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

So, if you had to pick one ship to convert into an Aegis ship, would it be better to go with an Albany-class cruiser or a Spruance/Kidd-class destroyer?

The Albany might make a more powerful ship, but it's also much older than the Spruance and would require far more extensive modifications. It's also much larger, which is good for missile capacity, but also makes it a bigger target. It is also unusually tall, which is useful when it comes to radar range.

The Spruance on the other hand, is newer and would require less extensive modifications. The Ticonderoga-class was built on the same hull design as the Spruance as well. On the other hand, the superstructure of the Spruance is too short for the AN/SPY-1 radar arrays to be mounted on it directly (they'd practically be flush with the deck). So you'd have to build a platform on top of it to hold the radar.

Why not a Virginia Class Cruiser? Plenty of VLS space available with the removal of the mk26's, the USN did plan a Aegis subclass but cancelled the notion before CGN42 could eventuate. Shame, a nuclear powered Aegis ship of a displacement of of over 10,000t would be a suitable answer to the far larger Kirov

[Vancon]

Pros and cons about thermobaric weapons. What are they?

[Roski]

Pros and cons about thermobaric weapons. What are they?

Pros: Good at clearing caves
Very deadly
Works like a charm on anything that needs to be leveled

Cons: Dunno