NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Doppler inertial navigation is significantly less accurate, especially given the missiles significant flight time to maximum range.

True, but the missile only periodically has to use TERCOM as a reference. The point of TERCOM after all, like astrotracking and GPS, is to correct for the spin drift in the gyros. Make the INS accurate enough with modern strapdown laser ring gyros and accelerators all and the rate at which it had to be corrected can be made pretty small, maybe only a handful of times in the entire flight (10 max for the ACM according to the paper).

[Gallia-]

The paper makes the point that the ACM doesn't necessarily need to use its radar altimeter/TERCOM function for guidance, it can be programmed to fly purely inertial to the target using pre-programmed waypoints and only use the radar altimeter in the terminal stage to detonate at whatever reprogramming height of burst. In any case in terrain following TERCOM mode the radar altimeter is not continuously emitting and I'm guessing its sidelobes are small enough that no passive ECM system could reliably track it at useful range. I'm also quite positive that the CALCM lacks a radar altimeter as the entire TERCOM unit (which includes both a radar altimeter and a barometric altimeter) was replaced with a GPS. So it's possible to make a cruise missile that doesn't use TERCOM and/or lacks a radar altimeter. And from what I've heard the reason they're putting a radar altimeter in the LRASM (whichthey're considering adding to the JASSM-ER) is for sea-skimming flight profiles which is the only scenario in which it's really necessary.

This just makes JASSM and CALCM both useless against technological threats TBH.

GPS jamming would make them wish they had nuclear warheads.

Regardless and getting back to the point of the conversation, the best defense isn't actually a forward defense in this case (unless you're killing shooters): It's units of automatic guns and MPADS teams that can be placed around threatened targets. That is generally adequate to handle cruise missile threats, if you're careful about relocating the guns so they're not targeted by dispensers or other SEAD.

If anyone was really serious about wanting to kill whatever is trying to get killed they'd be throwing nukes and paratroopers/tank divisions, or both, at it TBH. In which case you probably won't be able to stop that unless you have an S-300 or an S-400 in the right spot at the right time.

Aircraft would be better tasked disrupting SEAD and trying to attack other airbases rather than bunkering down and QRA'ing cruise missiles.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Terminal defense isn't desirable because it's too easy to saturate. Look at the recent Syrian airfield attack; some 50-60 cruise missiles impacting within minutes or less of each other. Whatever short range SAM/AAA the Syrians had was clearly ineffective. Barring shooting down the launch platform ideally you want to shoot down cruise missile in flight with your fighter aircraft. After all a cruise missile for a fighter might as well just be a target drone.

[Gallia-]

What I meant by that was that the first job of the fighter isn't going to be "go kill cruise missiles". That's a bit defeatist because it assumes that you can't stop a cruise missile attack before it happens. Instead, it'll be something else, like killing the shooters of cruise missiles. A fighter shooting down cruise missiles is a fighter not attacking an airbase or a bomber or whatever. If it's an airborne launcher, then the difference is moot and the fighters can be told to kill cruise missiles if they can see them, but if they're attacking a ground launcher or something then it's not really practical.

It also assumes that the fighters wouldn't be busy being tasked with other things in the first place.

The Syrians didn't have any short range air defense. They'd all left. That's kind of the point, TBH.

[Palmyrion]

Can four Naval Station Norfolks fit into the island of Palawan?

One in El Nido, two where Puerto Princesa currently is, and one at the southern tip of the island. That's where I am placing naval stations similar to Naval Station Norfolk.

That said, if it can house that many Naval Station Norfolks, then the island alone can hold...20 CSGs, 10 ESGs, 20 SSNs, and 20 SSGNs.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Can four Naval Station Norfolks fit into the island of Palawan?

One in El Nido, two where Puerto Princesa currently is, and one at the southern tip of the island. That's where I am placing naval stations similar to Naval Station Norfolk.

You are a sadist if you want to inflict four Norfolks (god what a fucking dump) onto a beautiful tropical island but they would physically fit.

Why would you want to fit for NSNs on Palawan alone, when you already have Subic and Cavite?

[Palmyrion]

Can four Naval Station Norfolks fit into the island of Palawan?

One in El Nido, two where Puerto Princesa currently is, and one at the southern tip of the island. That's where I am placing naval stations similar to Naval Station Norfolk.

You are a sadist if you want to inflict four Norfolks (god what a fucking dump) onto a beautiful tropical island but they would physically fit.

Why would you want to fit for NSNs on Palawan alone, when you already have Subic and Cavite?

My country may be a Philippines ripoff, but it's not an archipelago as one would think. It's one big landmass.

The Palawan that my PH ripoff in Greater Dienstad occupies as a protectorate is my forward operations hub for operations in the Western Dienstadi Sea and worldwide, hence the necessity of four NSNs on this not-Palawan. Even then, the two of my biggest naval stations are my nation's capital region.

Sure, it's also a major tourist hub. The Protectorate of Palawan still has beaches and mesmerizing sunsets. Military tours, which are on high demand, are issued except during DEFCON 4 to DEFCON 1.

[Gallia-]

TBF, it's the Philippines, so even Anacostia would probably be an improvement.

[The Akasha Colony]

You are a sadist if you want to inflict four Norfolks (god what a fucking dump) onto a beautiful tropical island but they would physically fit.

Why would you want to fit for NSNs on Palawan alone, when you already have Subic and Cavite?

My country may be a Philippines ripoff, but it's not an archipelago as one would think. It's one big landmass.

The Palawan that my PH ripoff in Greater Dienstad occupies as a protectorate is my forward operations hub for operations in the Western Dienstadi Sea and worldwide, hence the necessity of four NSNs on this not-Palawan. Even then, the two of my biggest naval stations are my nation's capital region.

Sure, it's also a major tourist hub. The Protectorate of Palawan still has beaches and mesmerizing sunsets. Military tours, which are on high demand, are issued except during DEFCON 4 to DEFCON 1.

I don't see why you would need such facilities in the first place, really.

Despite operating its carriers across the globe, the US stations only a single carrier forward on a permanent basis. All of the rest operate just fine with homeports in the continental US, and it generally makes the families happier because they don't all get stuck having to live in a forward deployment area. Given the length of a carrier's combat rotation, the massive investment required to build such a huge network of facilities would net you at best a few days saved in transit time, but if you're so wealthy as to be operating literally dozens of carriers, this is probably not a big deal anyway.

[Taihei Tengoku]

TBF, it's the Philippines, so even Anacostia would probably be an improvement.

Anacostia could use a bit of the Rody Duterte treatment tbf

[Gallia-]

TBF, it's the Philippines, so even Anacostia would probably be an improvement.

Anacostia could use a bit of the Rody Duterte treatment tbf

Congress would be a better choice for the "death squad" card. Duterte is just Ferdinand Marcos revisited, though. It's more accurate to say that "the Philippines has always been that way," really. R.D. style Congressional review would be something the USA has never seen before. A "fresh meme" even.

[Vachena]

Does anyone know what kind of ammunition is usually used on SPAAGs? I would guess a 1:1 ratio of APDS and HEI-T, or maybe just SAPHE, would beffective. I'm not sure what's typical

[Autonomous Eastern Ukraine]

Does anyone know what kind of ammunition is usually used on SPAAGs? I would guess a 1:1 ratio of APDS and HEI-T, or maybe just SAPHE, would beffective. I'm not sure what's typical

Well for the flakpanzer gepard the usual loading is a mix of 320 AA and 20 AP rounds per each of it's two guns.

[Allanea]

Regardless and getting back to the point of the conversation, the best defense isn't actually a forward defense in this case (unless you're killing shooters): It's units of automatic guns and MPADS teams that can be placed around threatened targets. That is generally adequate to handle cruise missile threats, if you're careful about relocating the guns so they're not targeted by dispensers or other SEAD.

Here's the question, then:

Virtually every country that the US has shot Tomahawks at has had automatic guns, and sometimes fairly advanced MANPADs and other air defense weaponry. But the amount of Tomahawks lost to any kind of anti-air fire is negligible.

So what could be done to improve the success rate of these weapons?

It seems to me that the simple answer is some kind of RADAR to give them warning time, but clearly that's not the actual answer.

What is to be done?

[Crookfur]

Does anyone know what kind of ammunition is usually used on SPAAGs? I would guess a 1:1 ratio of APDS and HEI-T, or maybe just SAPHE, would beffective. I'm not sure what's typical

It varied a lot from system to system. Western 25-35mm gun systems and some of the westernized 23mm systems use mainly FAPDS-T/PELE whilst at 20mm it's all about SAPHEI, well outside of CIWS applications at any rate. Air burst is starting to make a bit of a show but mainly in the 40mm+ region. The Russian 30mm systems seem to still be all about HEI

[Gallia-]

Regardless and getting back to the point of the conversation, the best defense isn't actually a forward defense in this case (unless you're killing shooters): It's units of automatic guns and MPADS teams that can be placed around threatened targets. That is generally adequate to handle cruise missile threats, if you're careful about relocating the guns so they're not targeted by dispensers or other SEAD.

Here's the question, then:

Virtually every country that the US has shot Tomahawks at has had automatic guns, and sometimes fairly advanced MANPADs and other air defense weaponry. But the amount of Tomahawks lost to any kind of anti-air fire is negligible.

So what could be done to improve the success rate of these weapons?

It seems to me that the simple answer is some kind of RADAR to give them warning time, but clearly that's not the actual answer.

What is to be done?

Something like this:

1) Fighters are used primarily for conducting offensive counter-air. So basically bombing airbases and killing launch systems before they can attack.
2) Air defense systems like MPADS and AAA fight the air defense battle, with whatever (if any) aircraft that can be spared from the OCA battle supporting them in air defense.
3) AEW supports both.

The confusing part I guess is that these are being done simultaneously and sometimes by the same planes. The move from OCA to DCA can be done mid-flight by a fighter if it's loaded up with air-to-air weapons, but also fighters basically exist to destroy other air forces, which should be the first objective of any war. Destroying cruise missiles isn't really conductive to destroying the enemy's air force per se, it's just conductive to preserving your air force in the immediate future. The only permanent solution is to destroy the enemy air force to keep him from launching attacks. A defensive air force is a worthless air force.

So you basically want your fighters to kill the enemy air bases so the air attacks stop. You also want to kill the missile launching platforms. If that's not possible, you kill the cruise missiles and fighters themselves, but the latter is just slowly losing. Since cruise missiles generally tend to be part of an integrated counter-air campaign, destroying the enemy air force takes priority. Going after the missiles from the start implies that you've already failed in the previous two steps, or are incapable of conducting an equivalent OCA campaign, and are basically waiting to lose the war.

Once you've bombed/missiled/shelled the enemy air force to smithereens you can get on with actually winning the war by bombing enemy ground troops with impunity and taking his clay.

For most people in real life, "winning" in a military sense isn't really possible because of the huge power disparities that preclude switching from DCA to OCA. Ideally you're also able to conduct OCA right off the bat, too. If you're already being bombed, you're starting with an existing deficit too. If you're still able to conduct OCA even then, that's great, because it means you're not slowly dying. OTOH if you have to task all your fighters to DCA, you've already lost the war, because you're 1973 Egypt.

[Palmyrion]

Do airships/blimps today still have potential for military applications?

I know, I know, they aren't nice things to bring around when air superiority is questionable, and when you don't know there is a SPAAG or MANPAD down there or not, but I'm thinking of their role as strategic transport craft (inspired mostly by Marquesan).

[Gallia-]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JLENS

Reagan-era version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethered_ ... dar_System

[Palmyrion]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JLENS

Reagan-era version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethered_ ... dar_System

So, early warning airships? How about strategic logistical support?

[Gallia-]

How about strategic logistical support?

Not really.

A plane will carry things faster.

A boat will carry more things.

[The Akasha Colony]

Do airships/blimps today still have potential for military applications?

I know, I know, they aren't nice things to bring around when air superiority is questionable, and when you don't know there is a SPAAG or MANPAD down there or not, but I'm thinking of their role as strategic transport craft (inspired mostly by Marquesan).

Despite plenty of attempts by startups and even some established companies to gin up interest, no one's seriously pursued the idea for transport purposes.

The biggest problem is that they actually don't really offer anything. The major shortcomings of strategic air transport is that they are well over an order of magnitude less cost efficient sea travel, which is why air travel is essentially off the table for transporting a large mechanized force to a foreign theater or keeping a large force supplied with fuel/munitions/consumables. The only nation that could even conceive of such a thing is the US, and it would require most of the US airlifter inventory to move a single mechanized division abroad in a reasonable amount of time (which is to say, less than a month). Which is why sea transport is still the preferred method of moving large amounts of cargo for both military and civilian purposes.

Airships have the potential to move the needle in this regard, but not nearly enough. They don't answer the need for an order of magnitude reduction in cost in order to make air transport for large quantities of materiel viable. The Walrus HULA design briefly funded by DARPA aspired to create an airship capable of lifting 500 tons, a significant increase over existing airlifters like C-5 but still far short of the 10,000+ ton capacity of a single vehicle or bulk transport. It would of course be faster than a ship, but much more expensive per ton/mile because it would still require a full suite of aircraft-grade avionics, aviation fuel, and a large supply of helium, which is an increasingly expensive resource which may run into scarcity issues in a few decades.

Which puts them in an awkward spot: they're not as cost-effective as ships so they are not quite as attractive when cost-efficiency is a concern. But they're not as fast as planes, so they're not as attractive when speed is a concern. IRL, the technology doesn't have a good industrial foundation as aside from a few startups, there aren't many experienced airship designers around while there are tons of naval and aeronautical engineers with lots of experience building ships and planes. And we already have a global network of infrastructure designed to support fixed-wing aircraft operations, but no real infrastructure to support airship operations.

[Palmyrion]

Can a conveniently-sized destroyer serve as a mothership for USVs and USubVs, launching them from its transom garage, while being able to carry 128 VLS cells (64 fore, 64 aft) and a 127/64 DP gun?

[United Earthlings]

The truth is, I enjoy storefronts.

I'm sorry if my huge orders were bad, you told me you thought them cool so I kept making them.

Not bad, more overwhelming excitement...

[NeuPolska]

There's probably been plenty of debate on this already, but what ammunition should my soldiers be using? I need something that really packs a punch for my standard issue infantry rifle.

[Theodosiya]

Standard issue?
If ur soldiers are stronk, 7.62x51mm or 7.62x39.
If ur soldiers are weak, 5.56mm or 5.45mm.

Also depends on era.