NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Type 08

[Mitheldalond]

Is there actually a difference between anti-radiation homing and home-on-jam? Because the jammer and radar it's jamming are both emitting signals on the same frequency right?

[Turkiistan]

I'll go with the RPG-7 since it have tons of tanks.

Remember that the RPG-7 is of rather limited capability when it comes to the AT role. Unguided, limited effectiveness, limited range, limited accuracy. Hence why it's probably best employed as a grenadier weapon.
TRADOC, a body of the US military responsible for publishing Training Documents, assessed the RPG-7 in the 60s or 70s as being part of the last line of defence for a Soviet mechanised unit (behind which was only thrown anti-tank grenades), while early ATGMs (emphasis on "early" and "guided") were the front line of defence along with other tanks and assault guns, providing protection out to up to three kilometres.

So, should I mix it up with more advanced ATGM's such as the Javelin for my active forces, and then arm my reserves with the RPG-7? Or is there a more effective RPG variant that is fairly cheap?

[Imperializt Russia]

Remember that the RPG-7 is of rather limited capability when it comes to the AT role. Unguided, limited effectiveness, limited range, limited accuracy. Hence why it's probably best employed as a grenadier weapon.
TRADOC, a body of the US military responsible for publishing Training Documents, assessed the RPG-7 in the 60s or 70s as being part of the last line of defence for a Soviet mechanised unit (behind which was only thrown anti-tank grenades), while early ATGMs (emphasis on "early" and "guided") were the front line of defence along with other tanks and assault guns, providing protection out to up to three kilometres.

So, should I mix it up with more advanced ATGM's such as the Javelin for my active forces, and then arm my reserves with the RPG-7? Or is there a more effective RPG variant that is fairly cheap?

You would have, at certain levels of command, light weapons such as LAW/SMAW/RPG-7 and guided weapons of various grades above them. Traditionally, one may have expected guided weapons to be mostly restricted to dedicated anti-tank units of a formation. This is why I said the US are probably a special case for sticking Javelins in the average Bradley.

All arms must work in concert.

[Western Pacific Territories]

So guys. So, there is a carrier fleet coming towards you. You have air units on standby but most of the planes are off doing something else. Now, could you sink, or heavily damage a carrier with a rapid, strike and then get out of there like attack?

[The Akasha Colony]

So guys. So, there is a carrier fleet coming towards you. You have air units on standby but most of the planes are off doing something else. Now, could you sink, or heavily damage a carrier with a rapid, strike and then get out of there like attack?

Not against a reasonably well-managed carrier fleet, which will have airborne early warning assets plus a large screen of escorts covering a wide area.

[Western Pacific Territories]

So guys. So, there is a carrier fleet coming towards you. You have air units on standby but most of the planes are off doing something else. Now, could you sink, or heavily damage a carrier with a rapid, strike and then get out of there like attack?

Not against a reasonably well-managed carrier fleet, which will have airborne early warning assets plus a large screen of escorts covering a wide area.

*looks at the OBRAT of my enemy*
Well, that's out of the question. I should get those subs you told me to make.

[Imperializt Russia]

If many of the planes are "doing something else", it's not really a unit on standby, it's occupied elsewhere.

If you want to launch a strike with land-based aircraft this will depend on what equipment is available to you. Using its carrier air wing, escort ships and possibly submarines, a carrier group can generate an air and naval cordon up to five hundred nautical miles deep, protected by air patrols and medium-long range missiles, with inner layers of defence from shorter-range systems. This huge cordon is as much for warning as it is for protection itself.

I would say that an air attack is unlikely to do much damage to a carrier group without long-range standoff missiles and a lot of them. You would need to be able to guide these weapons to the target when their own sensors could take over. This requires long-range reconnaissance assets to fix and pin the enemy group.

[Western Pacific Territories]

If many of the planes are "doing something else", it's not really a unit on standby, it's occupied elsewhere.

If you want to launch a strike with land-based aircraft this will depend on what equipment is available to you. Using its carrier air wing, escort ships and possibly submarines, a carrier group can generate an air and naval cordon up to five hundred nautical miles deep, protected by air patrols and medium-long range missiles, with inner layers of defence from shorter-range systems. This huge cordon is as much for warning as it is for protection itself.

I would say that an air attack is unlikely to do much damage to a carrier group without long-range standoff missiles and a lot of them. You would need to be able to guide these weapons to the target when their own sensors could take over. This requires long-range reconnaissance assets to fix and pin the enemy group.

So, I am so far guessing that the general strategy in this case is:
1. Find the enemy fleet with reconnaissance.
2. Pin the enemy fleet and track them.
3. Get a bunch of planes with long-range standoff missiles.
4. Hope for the best: The missiles hit their mark and the planes aren't immediately blown out of the air.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well, your long-range standoff missiles should hopefully allow you to either attack from outside the cordon entirely, or partially penetrate it and launch from well outside effective SAM range. This is why it is called a "standoff" missile.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Remember that the RPG-7 is of rather limited capability when it comes to the AT role. Unguided, limited effectiveness, limited range, limited accuracy. Hence why it's probably best employed as a grenadier weapon.
TRADOC, a body of the US military responsible for publishing Training Documents, assessed the RPG-7 in the 60s or 70s as being part of the last line of defence for a Soviet mechanised unit (behind which was only thrown anti-tank grenades), while early ATGMs (emphasis on "early" and "guided") were the front line of defence along with other tanks and assault guns, providing protection out to up to three kilometres.

So, should I mix it up with more advanced ATGM's such as the Javelin for my active forces, and then arm my reserves with the RPG-7? Or is there a more effective RPG variant that is fairly cheap?

RPG-7 is an open-ended launcher, meaning it can be modified to accept larger warheads. The standard PG-7 is ineffective against most modern MBTs, even from the side, and some IFVs are protected against it from the front. The PG-7VR, with a larger tandem-charge warhead, is more effective, even against tanks with reactive armor. On the other hand, because it's longer, heavier, and less aerodynamic, its accuracy drops off about twice as quickly as range increases. There are also OG-7V and TBG-7V rounds for use against infantry and structures, making the RPG-7 more versatile.

The reusable RPG-7 can be supplemented by single-use anti-tank weapons, of which there are many higher up in the RPG series - RPG-18, RPG-22, RPG-26, RPG-27. These can only be fired once and generally aren't as accurate at range, but are lighter and smaller, allowing them to be operated by a single soldier (an RPG-7 typically requires a Grenadier to fire the weapon and a Grenadier's Assistant to carry additional reloads).

Avoid making the common NS mistake of using the RPG-29 as your squad-level AT weapon. Its stats are impressive, but that's because it's absolutely enormous, more akin to a heavy recoilless rifle than a light AT weapon.

A good military organization should disperse a variety of anti-tank weapons at different levels, with AT weapons getting better and heavier as you move up the chain of command. Personally, I use two disposable AT launchers and one reloadable launcher at the squad level, light ATGMs or :not:RPG-29s the Company level, something like Kornet at the Battalion level (or on each IFV if it's a Mechanized unit), and more advanced ATGMs at the Regimental level and above.

[Korva]

disposable rockets for everyone!!!

[Husseinarti]

disposable rockets for everyone!!!

My VABs carry like 10 AT-4s inside them :>>>>

[Altaiire]

I believe I previously mentioned the operational issues, which Akasha did cover to a point, though not fully. One issue I forsee a SCWR having is not being able to maintain such a flow through to core to prevent meltdown. You're talking about taking a reactor from producing full-power one minute to maybe only 10% the next. Massive operational stresses. If you're working on a SCWR, you're dealing with boiling on the fuel (if I understand how it operates correctly, PWRs are my forte, not SCWRs and my government computer isn't exactly ideal for reading that report you sent me), which you typically only want to have happen when at steady-state powers; it makes for wonderful efficiency, but it can get scary for transient operations, which is why I'm skeptical of a SCWR specifically, more than anything else.
That and I believe a good roll from swells could uncover fuel. Very bad day.

I don't know about the boiling bit. The articles says: "Large surface area and small thermal flux in the pebble bed do not allow the boiling transition crisis found in traditional PWR and BWR." I don't know if this is what you're referring to.

This is the reactor diagram.

Can you explain how the core would be uncovered during a list?

[Empire of Narnia]

Are nuclear-powered aircraft practical and could real aircraft such as the B-2 Spirit or B-52 bomber be converted to nuclear power? What about nuclear rocket ships?

My nation doesn't care about the political consequences or the little bit of radiation pollution, which seems to be the main roadblocks to that tech in real life.

[Dostanuot Loj]

disposable rockets for everyone!!!

My VABs carry like 10 AT-4s inside them :>>>>

But how many are strapped outside them?

[The Akasha Colony]

Are nuclear-powered aircraft practical and could real aircraft such as the B-2 Spirit or B-52 bomber be converted to nuclear power? What about nuclear rocket ships?

My nation doesn't care about the political consequences or the little bit of radiation pollution, which seems to be the main roadblocks to that tech in real life.

They physically function but provide no real benefit that justifies their cost and difficulty in handling.

And real aircraft like the B-2 and B-52 would not be readily convertible to nuclear power. They aren't designed for it, and attempting to convert them would result in what would functionally be a totally new aircraft with only a vague external resemblance to the original design. The engine layout of a nuclear aircraft is vastly different from that of a turbojet or turbofan-powered aircraft.

[Empire of Narnia]

Are nuclear-powered aircraft practical and could real aircraft such as the B-2 Spirit or B-52 bomber be converted to nuclear power? What about nuclear rocket ships?

My nation doesn't care about the political consequences or the little bit of radiation pollution, which seems to be the main roadblocks to that tech in real life.

They physically function but provide no real benefit that justifies their cost and difficulty in handling.

And real aircraft like the B-2 and B-52 would not be readily convertible to nuclear power. They aren't designed for it, and attempting to convert them would result in what would functionally be a totally new aircraft with only a vague external resemblance to the original design. The engine layout of a nuclear aircraft is vastly different from that of a turbojet or turbofan-powered aircraft.

I thought the advantage was that they wouldn't run out of gas and could stay flying for a really long time.

[The Akasha Colony]

I thought the advantage was that they wouldn't run out of gas and could stay flying for a really long time.

So can a regular bomber if you just send a refueling tanker along every now and then.

The primary limiting factor is still crew endurance, munitions capacity, and mechanical reliability. Nuclear bombers aren't immune to engine failures or the need for regular inspection and maintenance, and it's rather hard to do this in the air.

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

Wasn't the Lockheed A-12 supposed to be nuclear-powered?

[Imperializt Russia]

I believe I previously mentioned the operational issues, which Akasha did cover to a point, though not fully. One issue I forsee a SCWR having is not being able to maintain such a flow through to core to prevent meltdown. You're talking about taking a reactor from producing full-power one minute to maybe only 10% the next. Massive operational stresses. If you're working on a SCWR, you're dealing with boiling on the fuel (if I understand how it operates correctly, PWRs are my forte, not SCWRs and my government computer isn't exactly ideal for reading that report you sent me), which you typically only want to have happen when at steady-state powers; it makes for wonderful efficiency, but it can get scary for transient operations, which is why I'm skeptical of a SCWR specifically, more than anything else.
That and I believe a good roll from swells could uncover fuel. Very bad day.

I don't know about the boiling bit. The articles says: "Large surface area and small thermal flux in the pebble bed do not allow the boiling transition crisis found in traditional PWR and BWR." I don't know if this is what you're referring to.

This is the reactor diagram.

Can you explain how the core would be uncovered during a list?

I assume it means the possibility during operation of a PWR or BWR when the water in the core boils away to uncover fuel. That's what "boiling transition crisis" says to me, but I'm a layman compared to Pharthan (the phase change when water boils to steam is very inefficient and bad for cooling properties, I think).

I am confused though, because you speak of a "pebble bed", but from the appearance of the diagram, what I see is a rather conventional rod-based fuel core. Pebble bed reactors can run dry of core coolant and are, IIRC, one of several types of passively safe design.

[The Kievan People]

So, should I mix it up with more advanced ATGM's such as the Javelin for my active forces, and then arm my reserves with the RPG-7? Or is there a more effective RPG variant that is fairly cheap?

The RPG-7 is not an ATGM.

It cannot replace them.

[The Akasha Colony]

Wasn't the Lockheed A-12 supposed to be nuclear-powered?

I haven't heard of any such proposals. Nuclear reactors are heavy and bulky, which makes them a poor choice for an aircraft designed for maximum speed.

I am confused though, because you speak of a "pebble bed", but from the appearance of the diagram, what I see is a rather conventional rod-based fuel core. Pebble bed reactors can run dry of core coolant and are, IIRC, one of several types of passively safe design.

The fuel pebbles are held in tubes rather than in a bed.

[Imperializt Russia]

Then is this not just a regular rod-type core without the rods?
What are the advantages supposed to be?

[The Akasha Colony]

Then is this not just a regular rod-type core without the rods?
What are the advantages supposed to be?

The hard part is picking specific things out because the design combines a lot of things at once, NS-style.

It's continuously refueled with the expectation that spent fuel pebbles drop out the bottom and new ones are inserted on top. Continuous refueling is not new but it is an additional design feature that would not be welcome in naval reactors.

It introduces new fuel-cladding methods with the goal of eliminating zirconium.

But the primary difference has nothing to do with the fuel, but that it is an advanced variant of a boiling water reactor rather than a pressurized water reactor, which fundamentally changes the design and layout. Like a BWR it has no secondary loop, coolant water from the reactor is circulated directly through the turbine. The difference is that rather than having a discrete boiling phase, the water is held in a supercritical state so that there is no longer a distinction between steam and liquid water.

By eliminating the secondary loop and the associated steam generator, as well as the pressurizer used in a PWR, the design can be more compact. It can also be more thermally efficient. The problem is that neither of these characteristics are hugely important to a naval reactor. Both are nice to have in any reactor but the design proposed here for civilian use would require so many changes for naval use (especially submarine use) that little except the basic concept would remain.

[Korouse]

So, when a jet intercepts something like a Bomber or a transport plane, how do they usually y'know, tell it to go away? Except for shooting at it.