NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Vadia]

by The Manticoran Empire » Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:07 am

A lot of the things you said, make it seem to me, that you didn't look up a lot of the things you talked about.

I've never read from a single historian who thought having American B-17 pilots getting slaughtered to destroy a ball bearing factory, when the ball bearing factory mostly didn't get hit, and it went back up in less then two weeks..... Was a good idea

Railroads, same thing would happen.

That bomb sight was meant to be very precise and it wasn't even close. We spent a fortune and lost so many lives, to go after specific targets they could easily rebuild, and kill people they could daily replace.

The German bombing campaign of Britain, only made Britian more devoted to the war, bled white their airforce, and sucked their coffers dry.

An Avenger drone is 20 million dollars. A F-35 is per a hundred million and climbing. When an Avenger gets shot down, no one does unless it crashes into someone.

by Austrasien » Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:03 am

You are naming third world nations with low populations.

During the Cold War, when the USSR wasn't keeping up in aircraft number and quality,
It leaned back on its advanced ground AA systems.

In the West, you had stingers, you had missiles mounted to trucks, IFV rebuilds, and so on.

The USSR had things to this day we haven't copied, last time I looked around. The range and size of some of their AA missile systems is just terrifying.

[Austrasien]

You are naming third world nations with low populations.

During the Cold War, when the USSR wasn't keeping up in aircraft number and quality,
It leaned back on its advanced ground AA systems.

In the West, you had stingers, you had missiles mounted to trucks, IFV rebuilds, and so on.

The USSR had things to this day we haven't copied, last time I looked around. The range and size of some of their AA missile systems is just terrifying.

Third world countries which were armed by the USSR, often with their best technology at the time. They sent huge quantities of SA-2s and interceptors to North Vietnam, and the USAF still got through. They armed Egypt and Syria to the point they had the largest air defence forces in world at the time outside of the USSR, and both failed to prevent the IAF from eventually breaking through and obtaining air superiority. They armed Angola and had East German mercenaries operate their SAM. The South African Air Force broke through. And of course, Mathias Rust broke through the entire USSR's air defense network in Cesna.

Since Germany pioneered strategic air defence in WWII it has consistently and reliably failed to stop opponents from projecting air power into defended territory. The side relying on air defence has always been the loser. That the SAMs are big, fast and mean looking doesn't mean they are effective weapons. Long range radar guided SAMs, in particular, have a miserable combat record. Syria's new S300 SAMs have obeyed the trend.

[The Manticoran Empire]

by The Manticoran Empire » Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:07 am

A lot of the things you said, make it seem to me, that you didn't look up a lot of the things you talked about.

I've never read from a single historian who thought having American B-17 pilots getting slaughtered to destroy a ball bearing factory, when the ball bearing factory mostly didn't get hit, and it went back up in less then two weeks..... Was a good idea

Railroads, same thing would happen.

That bomb sight was meant to be very precise and it wasn't even close. We spent a fortune and lost so many lives, to go after specific targets they could easily rebuild, and kill people they could daily replace.

The German bombing campaign of Britain, only made Britian more devoted to the war, bled white their airforce, and sucked their coffers dry.

An Avenger drone is 20 million dollars. A F-35 is per a hundred million and climbing. When an Avenger gets shot down, no one does unless it crashes into someone.

by Austrasien » Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:03 am

You are naming third world nations with low populations.

During the Cold War, when the USSR wasn't keeping up in aircraft number and quality,
It leaned back on its advanced ground AA systems.

In the West, you had stingers, you had missiles mounted to trucks, IFV rebuilds, and so on.

The USSR had things to this day we haven't copied, last time I looked around. The range and size of some of their AA missile systems is just terrifying.

Except Germany COULDN'T replace the workers. They were bled dry by late 1944 and by 1945, the best they could scrape together were divisions made up of the old men and the young boys.

Even if the factories did come back, they weren't up for long. The US and British air campaign crippled the Germans ability to repair their vehicles and supply their troops, resulting in continued German retreats through out the last six months of the war.

The bomb sights used by Allied pilots were much more accurate than had been used previously. This is the 1940s. They don't have laser guided bombs so yes, inaccuracy is a thing.

The German Bombing Campaign was focused on causing civilian casualties instead of destroying the British ability to wage war. The Allies bombed German factories and railyards, which crippled the Axis ability to wage war.

While the Avenger drone is cheaper, the F-35 is better.

Most of the countries the USSR supported were small, third world countries that employed the equipment they received very poorly.

The USSR had more aircraft than NATO did. However, that was mainly because they kept old aircraft in service longer, resulting in an overall shortfall in capability. Soviet AA systems are advanced on paper but the USSR didn't have the funds to keep them serviceable or make the most use of their capabilities.

In the West, defense was never really a concern, at least not long range defense. The US was separated by two oceans from the Soviets and the rest of NATO had developed their forces for a mobile defense concept. While we haven't copied the USSR, it isn't because we are morons or they are smarter than us. It is for the same reason we still use 40 year old planes and tanks: we had no need to replace them.

[New Vihenia]

Long range radar guided SAMs, in particular, have a miserable combat record. Syria's new S300 SAMs have obeyed the trend.

Well google earth simply shows the Al Kiswah was just outside of the coverage.

[Gallia-]

You are naming third world nations with low populations.

During the Cold War, when the USSR wasn't keeping up in aircraft number and quality,
It leaned back on its advanced ground AA systems.

In the West, you had stingers, you had missiles mounted to trucks, IFV rebuilds, and so on.

The USSR had things to this day we haven't copied, last time I looked around. The range and size of some of their AA missile systems is just terrifying.

Third world countries which were armed by the USSR, often with their best technology at the time. They sent huge quantities of SA-2s and interceptors to North Vietnam, and the USAF still got through. They armed Egypt and Syria to the point they had the largest air defence forces in world at the time outside of the USSR, and both failed to prevent the IAF from eventually breaking through and obtaining air superiority. They armed Angola and had East German mercenaries operate their SAM. The South African Air Force broke through. And of course, Mathias Rust broke through the entire USSR's air defense network in Cesna.

Since Germany pioneered strategic air defence in WWII it has consistently and reliably failed to stop opponents from projecting air power into defended territory. The side relying on air defence has always been the loser. That the SAMs are big, fast and mean looking doesn't mean they are effective weapons. Long range radar guided SAMs, in particular, have a miserable combat record. Syria's new S300 SAMs have obeyed the trend.

It's enough to make a man question the validity of shipboard area air defense all together.

Long range radar guided SAMs, in particular, have a miserable combat record. Syria's new S300 SAMs have obeyed the trend.

Well google earth simply shows the Al Kiswah was just outside of the coverage.

That's the point he's making, though. Strategic air defenses are economically impractical outside of extremely small tracts of land, like Israel sized, because you can't be everywhere at once. Comparatively speaking, a tactical fighter can cover more land area, faster, and on shorter notice. S-300s do not scale easily outside of a single battalion. Fighter-bombers scale a bit better, being sufficient to defend the smaller countries like the UKs and Japans, but not enough to make the CONADs and PVOs of the world stick around past 1990 or so because even tactical aircraft are expensive.

Strategic air defense doesn't fail because the flak guns and SA-4s aren't killing B-17s and F-4s (they do this fine, TBH) or whatever. They fail because they're outmaneuvered by faster air forces who, even when restricted by political terrain, can still successfully slip between the undefended gaps in coverage, or mass sufficient electronic combat power to overwhelm any contiguous front of air defense troops because attacking planes are, generally speaking, going to be cheaper per sortie and per unit than a strategic air defense force. Until air defense troops can overcome their vulnerability to being physically outmaneuvered in the sky by 300+ kph fighter-bombers that can attack at any point while a 30 kph limited truck is still moving on the roads, or being attacked by Rivet Joints or Prowlers with cybernetic or electronic attack weapons that defeat their integrated network, they will always be trumped by a well organized air strike force.

Or, in 1973's case, a well organized ground force of helicopter inserted commandos giving fire commands to ARMs launched from the backs of trucks, since the Kubs were clubbing Israeli strikers for a couple days until the Israelis blew them all up with special forces raids.

This may be why the US Army is losing its shit over Multi-Domain Battle and the E-war gap: it's applying ground forces' knowledge of weaknesses of strategic air defense to the U.S. Air Force because it may not understand, to the proper depth, the capability that air forces have in defeating ground based air defense systems. Conversely, the USAF (and air forces in general) may attempt to apply the knowledge of vulnerability of air defense troops to all ground troops, and overestimate their own ability to defeat ground forces and control terrain.

The takeaway from all the historic air-land battles is that, per square mile, a tactical fighter squadron can defend an order of magnitude more battlespace at a velocity an order of magnitude higher than any ground-mobile SAM battalion. This means that to defend a particular space of land, the cost of a SAM battalion is going to dramatically increase, while the cost of a tactical fighter squadron increases at a much slower rate, with only absolutely titanic countries like the former Soviet Union, the current United States, Canada, Australia, India, and PRC being incapable of defending their holdings with strategic air defenses more or less entirely (this forces them to pick and choose the land areas they do defend, whether by missile or fighter), while most everyone else can protect their land with a handful of fighter squadrons. Only a few, truly blessed, geographies can defend their lands with both a robust strategic SAM network and and an air defense force. Chief among them is Israel.

[Taihei Tengoku]

standard missile: gay
aster 30: gay
hq-9: gay
s-400: gay

only 47 second ESSM allowed

[Gallia-]

standard missile: gay
aster 30: gay
hq-9: gay
s-400: gay

only 47 second ESSM allowed

More like TWIN SEAT TWIN ENGINE.

Warships are a special case in that your target is literally a floating SAM battalion. Most air forces defeat strategic SAMs by not engaging them. OTOH, to defeat a navy, you must fly into the jaws of death, so it's actually an inversion.

It's why Aegis Combat System and all the others are sticking around for a while, while stuff like MIM-104 might disappear entirely outside small-medium size countries like Poland at biggest, while being a cornerstone of the air defense of places like Israel and maybe Japan when it finishes draining 98% of the land mass of human life to go live in Tokyo and Kyoto. Everyone else uses it for point defense of critical infrastructures in lieu of something possibly more sensible like Skyshield or SysFla/IRIS-T.

Perhaps the reason this idea was so slow to catch on in smaller countries that are more budget conscious is predominantly because of the sticker shock of tactical fighters makes things like MIM-104 seem cheaper.

[New Vihenia]

and its down to saturation eventually.

[Gallia-]

Saturation of air defense isn't viable outside of extremely large air forces. Or perhaps one extremely large air force, since I'm pretty sure the PLAAF or RuAF aren't going to be launching MALD-Js to defeat an air defense zone. Most of them get away with cybernetic attack and electronic warfare mainly because air defense troops haven't figured out how to defeat things like Suter or sophisticated jamming. If you consider a Rivet Joint and a EC-130 working to target and attack a air defense network, respectively, to be a "saturation raid" then you're right. But that's not the typical definition. "Swarm of MALD-Js" hasn't happened in real life and I'm not sure the USAF could fund such a thing even if it wanted/needed to.

The best solution is to do the minimum: provide strike aircraft with onboard jammers or towed decoys and do standoff electronic attack (it's not jamming if it's targeted!) with a Rivet Joint and an EC-130. This is essentially what Israel does, it works fine, and requires at most about a dozen aircraft of all types. No need for saturation raids to literally overwhelm the radar screens when you can just send bad memes that tell the radar to not report what it sees in certain sectors to the operator.

This is perhaps the best way to defeat naval combat systems too, but navies take the threat of cyber attack by air raiders rather more seriously than ground forces.

[Vadia]

The Confederate Army was conscripting old men and boys, but I don't recall the Union having an airforce, so much as more men and many more factories.

I see a bit of an issue with your statement. You say that "The German Bombing Campaign was focused on causing civilian casualties instead of destroying the British ability to wage war. The Allies bombed German factories and railyards, which crippled the Axis ability to wage war." and then you say "They were bled dry" implying the bombing did it.

So did they just bomb cities and massacre civilian populations, or did they hit precise targets that were very important, which is it?

Considering that the B-17 was said to have a CEP of like 1,200 feet, I don't see them reliably hitting railroads. A CEP means it has a 50% chance of landing in that 400 yard circle. How much worse or better then that, is artillery?

To me, it sounds like what did their production in, was the fact they were getting a lot of their resources from conquered land, which they lost; and they were outnumbered so heavily.

I also want to point out, that as far as I know, more bombs were dropped in Vietnam, and Vietnam was the victor.

[The Manticoran Empire]

The Confederate Army was conscripting old men and boys, but I don't recall the Union having an airforce, so much as more men and many more factories.

I see a bit of an issue with your statement. You say that "The German Bombing Campaign was focused on causing civilian casualties instead of destroying the British ability to wage war. The Allies bombed German factories and railyards, which crippled the Axis ability to wage war." and then you say "They were bled dry" implying the bombing did it.

So did they just bomb cities and massacre civilian populations, or did they hit precise targets that were very important, which is it?

Considering that the B-17 was said to have a CEP of like 1,200 feet, I don't see them reliably hitting railroads. A CEP means it has a 50% chance of landing in that 400 yard circle. How much worse or better then that, is artillery?

To me, it sounds like what did their production in, was the fact they were getting a lot of their resources from conquered land, which they lost; and they were outnumbered so heavily.

I also want to point out, that as far as I know, more bombs were dropped in Vietnam, and Vietnam was the victor.

The Allies focused on factories and other industrial sectors, with tens of thousands of civilians dying as a result. However, the German population was bled dry, with 8.23% of the 1939 population being lost in the war. The bombing of factories did kill many civilians, but most of them were killed by other events.

I never said railroad. I said railYARD. There is a difference. A railyard is a collection of converging railroads, where cars are loaded and unloaded before being sent on their way. Railyards are often quite large and can be easily hit by B-17s. And hitting the railyard also takes out more than just the rails, but also the rail cars and the other areas required to support the movement of the cars from track to track. In terms of accuracy, artillery is better. however, artillery in the 1940s had a range of less than 20 kilometers. Bombers, on the other hand, could hit targets 400-800 miles from their bases, making them better for striking heartland of Germany.

Yes, more bombs were dropped in Vietnam. No, that is not relevant to World War II. The US lost Vietnam on the Home Front, not on the battlefield. The US won virtually every battle of the Vietnam War but lost the political will to continue the fight. In the case of World War II, Germany lost the ABILITY to wage war. By May of 1945, there were no soldiers left to defend the Fatherland.

[Austrasien]

It's enough to make a man question the validity of shipboard area air defense all together.

Wayback machine.

_{The Zumwalt is probably actually pointing in the right direction with the emphasis on signature reduction rather than massive SAM batteries for survival but that class is cursed.}

[Kampala-]

you're selling dbr short i mean it's no slouch of a radar

one zumbo does what nintendon't tican't

tbf it also needs to be viewed as a replacement for the spruglies and the burglers not the tuclkies which are all like CGX 500+ VLS cell doom cruiser

80 mk 57s compares favorably to 61 mk 41s on the spruance lates and 96 mk 41s on any burke

i mean he isnt wrong but he's ignoring wake signature; multiple sensors acoustic and space radar could snoop out a fighter-bomber carrier from a bulk carrier by comparing screw noise and wake signatures with known signatures from battle wagons of the enemy

SLAR makes me skeptical of warship stealth tbh i think the only reasonable passive protection for surface ships is something like prairie masker that can make acoustic signatures modified and possibly visual defense by mock lighting and ELINT spoofing

im not convinced that actual passive VLO stuff helps if the difference is an B-52 vs a hotel flying at 30 mph at sea level BUT im a stealth skeptic when it comes to warships in general so idk

if you can spoof the wake signature as a cargo ship or something relatively harmless then youre really cooking with gas because you can complete the traditional method of the warships' "hide in plain sight" tactics of pretending to be boring merchant ships instead of doom fortresses

signature reduction doesnt really work for warships but it probably works better to pretend to be something else so maybe signature masking? signature spoofing? what would you call it that isnt dumb sounding? a warship can pretend to be a bulk cargo carrier successfully on radar and visual and possibly noise masking which is a better way to go imo than trying to make warships into f-22s rly

unless it enhances the capability of active tomfoolery measures idr see the utility but if you can convince a slick 32 to be that much better on a battle wagon like zumbo instead of a brugly ill buy it

imo warships should focus on long range ecm and cyber attack capability since they have this sort of capacity built in just give it a computer room with some over paid navy keyboard jockeys who click clack their way to victory or whatever like Suter stuff that can tell an ashm to turn around and kill his launching platform or something like a crosseye jammer or a infrared blinding laser then youre really fixing to bool on them bois with the big bombes yeaaaaaah

or at least make them miss u which is the same thing

idt a b52 booling at 30 kts at sea level liek zumbo is much harder to pick out than like whatever fucking insane high RCS a sprugly or a brugly have

o btw im drunkj lmao

but tl;dr warships are better off using active deception measures like modifying outgoing energy rather than trying to mask against incoming energi since they produce so much surplus signature it's trivial to find a boat and correlate its SLAR position with acoustic signature and identify it as a threat tbh (maybe not THE THREAT i.e. a carrier in a formation but something you need to hit eitehr way) and so they tend to focus on modifying energies than absorbin them

stelf is fine for plongusii that face itty bitty puny baby sensors but warships face the bib bois like subs and space radar and they make b-52s look absolutely invisible too i guess which is lame

passive protecc is or plongusii and warskeppsii need the modification of outgoing energies to help them live on the slow war battleseas of the next hyererwpar

[Vadia]

The Confederate Army was conscripting old men and boys, but I don't recall the Union having an airforce, so much as more men and many more factories.

I see a bit of an issue with your statement. You say that "The German Bombing Campaign was focused on causing civilian casualties instead of destroying the British ability to wage war. The Allies bombed German factories and railyards, which crippled the Axis ability to wage war." and then you say "They were bled dry" implying the bombing did it.

So did they just bomb cities and massacre civilian populations, or did they hit precise targets that were very important, which is it?

Considering that the B-17 was said to have a CEP of like 1,200 feet, I don't see them reliably hitting railroads. A CEP means it has a 50% chance of landing in that 400 yard circle. How much worse or better then that, is artillery?

To me, it sounds like what did their production in, was the fact they were getting a lot of their resources from conquered land, which they lost; and they were outnumbered so heavily.

I also want to point out, that as far as I know, more bombs were dropped in Vietnam, and Vietnam was the victor.

The Allies focused on factories and other industrial sectors, with tens of thousands of civilians dying as a result. However, the German population was bled dry, with 8.23% of the 1939 population being lost in the war. The bombing of factories did kill many civilians, but most of them were killed by other events.

I never said railroad. I said railYARD. There is a difference. A railyard is a collection of converging railroads, where cars are loaded and unloaded before being sent on their way. Railyards are often quite large and can be easily hit by B-17s. And hitting the railyard also takes out more than just the rails, but also the rail cars and the other areas required to support the movement of the cars from track to track. In terms of accuracy, artillery is better. however, artillery in the 1940s had a range of less than 20 kilometers. Bombers, on the other hand, could hit targets 400-800 miles from their bases, making them better for striking heartland of Germany.

Yes, more bombs were dropped in Vietnam. No, that is not relevant to World War II. The US lost Vietnam on the Home Front, not on the battlefield. The US won virtually every battle of the Vietnam War but lost the political will to continue the fight. In the case of World War II, Germany lost the ABILITY to wage war. By May of 1945, there were no soldiers left to defend the Fatherland.

Couldn't the money spent on all of those B-17s and their bombs, been spent making a mighty ground force that would win the war sooner?

Or on the Navy?

There were B-17 bombing runs that more or less destroyed close to all of the aircraft sent, and achieved close to nothing. Targets deep in Germany would be picked, the pilots and crew would get slaughtered, and the factory would go back up in a week or two.

[Kampala-]

B-17/B-24/B-29 won the war lmao wtf

without strategic bombing campaigne grrmoney fites for another 6 months and a dozen thousand more americans die

[Austrasien]

unless it enhances the capability of active tomfoolery measures idr see the utility but if you can convince a slick 32 to be that much better on a battle wagon like zumbo instead of a brugly ill buy it

imo warships should focus on long range ecm and cyber attack capability since they have this sort of capacity built in just give it a computer room with some over paid navy keyboard jockeys who click clack their way to victory or whatever like Suter stuff that can tell an ashm to turn around and kill his launching platform or something like a crosseye jammer or a infrared blinding laser then youre really fixing to bool on them bois with the big bombes yeaaaaaah

or at least make them miss u which is the same thing
passive protecc is or plongusii and warskeppsii need the modification of outgoing energies to help them live on the slow war battleseas of the next hyererwpar

Ye the future is probably "reduced signature" + EW rather than outright VLO.

[Kampala-]

unless it enhances the capability of active tomfoolery measures idr see the utility but if you can convince a slick 32 to be that much better on a battle wagon like zumbo instead of a brugly ill buy it

imo warships should focus on long range ecm and cyber attack capability since they have this sort of capacity built in just give it a computer room with some over paid navy keyboard jockeys who click clack their way to victory or whatever like Suter stuff that can tell an ashm to turn around and kill his launching platform or something like a crosseye jammer or a infrared blinding laser then youre really fixing to bool on them bois with the big bombes yeaaaaaah

or at least make them miss u which is the same thing
passive protecc is or plongusii and warskeppsii need the modification of outgoing energies to help them live on the slow war battleseas of the next hyererwpar

Ye the future is probably "reduced signature" + EW rather than outright VLO.

I think reduced signature is just a euphemism for "monolithic design" and "enclosed working spaces" tbh

The Sandyandy's antenna boi is liek

wauwie workspace in the storms :b:

also easier to mfg cos flat [anel lego bote is easier to make then weldboi citu stanchion bois u fit him like paneling where stanchion boi is like a roman mosaic floor liek hwo does that lmao

and it's not rly stelf in any srs sense since stelf VLO is like F-22 and this just bring warships down to like old ass plane level like B-52 so ye

ashm and AAM have similar form factors so similar radars so you aint hiding from 'em but you mite be like

easier to mask your signature since you can inflate the signature bigly with decoys and emission control but it's harder to emite anti phase emissions that cancel your bigass signature of a sprugly

so the reduced signature is just making the active ecm/hiding in plain sight easier cos your baseline drops like a rock even if ur absolute sig is like ResidentSleeper to the USAF or w/e

means u dont need to monitor torsion flexion of ur spars of ur stantions and ur antenna mask making ur rcs spike lmfao but u confuse defensematters into thinking ur stelf

the real stelf was inside the friends we make along the wei tho

i mean cos the stelf was buffing ur rcs to cargo skepp levels and pretending to be a boat thru fake lighting and emcom and now u can even dupe radars by shitting out phased signature waveforms that make u look like a 1980s container ships instead of a zumbo but sprugly and brugly got the corner reflectors on they masts that make him v. obv and d i s ti n k t from the containterskepps lmao

e: i need to bring ris to bars more often to cruMch lmao

or like a hunk of sourdough in my messenger bagboi

or mai skyuuto's trunkly lmao

e2: hey u fugging redacteds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGKcvM2Hh4g

s2 sendm e this when i was drinking a fish at the nipponese restuarang and it was ok

[Austrasien]

Reduced signature just doing basic things to reduce RCS signature bigly but not very bigly. Radar scatterers are probably like power law distributed or smth (citation: I made it up), so removing most of the RCS is relatively easy, but becomes progressively harder as the RCS of the remaining scatterers declines. The Zumwalt tried to go all the way and failed apparently. But a ship could probably get 3/4ths of the way, as the Zumwalt probably has in practice with its un-stealth modifications, with very little difficulty...

Lower RCS always helps jamming though ofc. As does lower infrared contrast and visible contrast (but what kind of madman has TV guided AShMs?).

[Kampala-]

tru but im just unconvinced in the wake (haHAA!) of other emissions that ships give off that cant be readily masked as structure

if u cld make a wake that resembles a ship or perhaps if wakes were dependent on ship size rather than hull form i.e. there's no correlation between a fast CVN and a slo ass cargo skepp in wake size except width of beam and ass then it's probably ok since it wont matter BUT im not sure this is the case, since ithink that underwater hull form modifies wake appearance in some manner that can be discerned and dsicriminated against by space and air sensor

and then there's acoustic ssignature that needs to be modifyied to aoid being traiangulated and identifyed by submarines et.c

so im skeptical of the adv in stealth and added QC requirements but i dont depreciate the improved mfgability of flat panels and composites being able to be fit together and joined relatively simply vs. welded stanchions and whatever else that requires a lot of joints and contributes to major rcs incidentally by being flexy and bendy

i do agree it helps im not just sure that zumbo's extreme attempt is necessary

sandyandy seems to be the better of the stelfbotes between the spectra of "barely stelf" like brugly and "all the stelf" like zumbo

once you eliminate the need to monitor things like flexion of masts and stanchions/handrails on the ship it becomes easier to control RCS so i am pro bulwark architecture in that regard cos it makes the overall energy emitted slightly lower and thus easier to control in being able to resemble a cargo ship or w/e

but idt it's possible for me to shake the idea that "ships hide in plain sight" so if youre going to propose something besides that (like ships become stelf bombas or w/e hypothetical radical thing) as a potential future i wont rly be able to see it since im stucc in the cold war with USS Ranger evading Tu-95s for weeks by pretending to be a cruise liner or whatever

not saying u did propose that but i am also sorta drunksih and im not accusing u of anything but i mean in general rly

i agree w/ stelf being a laudable goal but with conditions and barriers to where warships can go on stelf also like i said about stelf fighters hitting a QC/mfg wall in the coming decades on discord a hwile ago i would want to avoid that with warships and i think the active ECM/cybernetic warfare used by the IAF is a good model for what warship missile defnse of the ftur can be like with Suters and crosseye jammers contributing to low RCS targets intermixed with high RCS and the latter being decoys while the relatively lower RCS are the warships b/c it's always easier to emit more energy than remove it

but when i say remove i mean anti-phase that makes rcs weaker like "active stealth" tho since idt that is realistic for planes today let alone warships that havem uch more flexion and moving components that would need tb be monitored than a pleonguisii

liek the vidya about the guy who did cvn-21 talked about the ship wake making the VLO pointless in reducing detection but im not sure he considered it in context of active countermeasures synergy but rather alone/by itself in masking signature

tho idt cvn21 is totes necessary but that is a badass full stealth option like a full run of 30 zumbos or w/e

natch any sort of active deception needs to be mated w/ lower baseline signature but im wary of ppl zeroing in on baseline signature as a prime means of proteccsussy if even hardcore navy captains and admirals arent immune to this sort of thing by false analogies to tactical fighters

we need a new word to describe warship stealth that isnt "stealth" lest people who arent as nuanced thinke as sdurnkstsun or vikyk thinke it's about low signature and not about the syngistic effects of low sig and big power ecm but thinke of it in terms of "stealth fita" or "stelf bomba" and start poo poohing the idea beore it strats (or ignoring it for fear of wake signatures instead of looking at wake signature to see if it has any speciic correlations with ship classes/types/hullforms)

liek we can identify specific surface wagons and undersea penises with screw prop noise or blade rate but can we do the same with surface wakes from SLARs?? that's a big question idk the answer but it worries me since if you do that it doesnt matter wat u do cos you will always make a wake besides maybe modify it liek prarie masker does (fwiw it rly does modify the surface disturbances!)

but then prarie masker can modify wake profile (seemingly) by creation of bubbles and different wake profile but this seems to come at a cost of hull form speed? so is it hull form that produces wake and can you identify a specific hull form ("Fast carrier hullform"? "fast missile ship" hullform? "20 kts bulk carrier hull"?) from wake SLAR and identify the "type" of vessel from that info? that would make narrowing down the type of ship from non-visual data like space radar and acoustic easier and improve ability to OTH attack surface fleets

u mite not be able to tell it's lykes explorer or atlantic conveyer but you can discriminate a lykes explorer from an LHA-6 or w/e

it's the sort of non-ship radar signatures like surface wakes that worry me re: stelf and modification of this is a big deal imo and one of the bibber ones for ftur warships that need to mask their signature from space and airborne radar systems

e: now i watcc celsl @ worke w/ "ostleswostles" the kyuutoest boi

[United Earthlings]

Wikipedia gives me no results on that.

No surprise there, that's why I went old school as Wiki doesn't know or cover everything. It never hurts to fall back on your good old trusty large and heavy reference books and guides.

---

On the Strategic Bombing Campaign against Germany, for clarification it’s generally acknowledged that starting in 1940 the British aka Bomber “Harris” Command switched their focus almost exclusively to night time morale/terror/civilian bombing operations. The most notable exceptions being special missions like those over by the Ruhr by the Dam Busters and the raids against the Tirpitz to name just a few .

When the American’s joined starting in 1942 with the Eighth Air Force, they picked up where the British had stopped in pursuing daylight “precision” bombing raids. Wikipedia can give you a good summary if you want to go into detail on how that went or I can give you some history book recommendations should you wish to dive into even greater detail than covered by Wikipedia.

In closing, on the effectiveness of the Strategic Bombing Campaign from 1942-1945 against Germany, if you haven’t already read this wonderful piece of work on it, you should as it really puts the entire campaign in its proper perspective.

*The link omits a lot of the graphs and quite a few pages that are necessary for the best context, I did what I could, you’ll just have to check out the book at your local library or buy it if you want the complete package.

[Kampala-]

do ur dumb armies issue alcohol rations to the GIs or do u let their thirsts go unslaked in the heat of battel?

galla issues a whiskey and beer ration to every landser and flying man and a rum and beer ration to every sailor, every day, except sunday

sundays are only allowed to be issued the alcohol rations when at war

whisky rations are 50 drams (~185 mL) and beer rations are 128 drams (1 pint; ~475 mL), with beer being 10 proof stout and whisky being 85 proof

rum ration is 55 drams (~203 mL) at 95-proof and navy beer ration is 128 drams of 15 proof porter

kampala replaced rum ration and whisky ration with beer rations for 256 drams (128 dram morning/evening) of 15 proof peach cider because theyre weirdo girly boys who drink fruit drink candy

e: my brain-kun hurtust uwu

[NeuPolska]

this is why you’re not allowed on the discord anymore

[Gallia-]

Yeah my big brain ideas are too cool for you guys I guess. Big brain ideas like bringing drams B A C K. Or "active acoustic masking measures might make space SLAR imagery more distinct".

Even when drunk I can come to better conclusions than like, maybe 45% of the Discord, since 45% of it is just s'posters and non-contributors who never say anything, productive or otherwise. The other 55% at least contribute one big brain idea every few weeks while I am a wellspring of big brain ideas like "alcohol is lubricant for stroking the thonke muscle" and "dick shaped bio aliens", at least every few weeks, so I am at least as good as big brain ideas as like half the Discord.

Though, honestly, I thought it was because you guys were too prissy/prudish to deal with the idea of dick-shaped bio aliens or whatever TBF.

If you think I have a drinking problem then IDK mb Discord should just stop LARPing xXx subculture and loosen up a bit and enjoy the big brain ideas like thermal pointers and MCLOS man portable atomic missiles. My drinks per week never exceeds like 6-7 at most anyway. I just get drunk enough to slap the keyboard and not care about typos. Idiosyncratic, 5th percentile, 2-sigma typing style in full force. Flex that thinke meat to wring any good ideas out of it bois. Or don't. Don't assume it's latent alcoholism talking though (I'm not even alcoholic despite possibly binge drinking every few days), since you can ask "Questers" or "HMS Vanguard" or "Taihei Tengoku" about "katwall.txt" if you want to know more. They all know I've been doing it for literally years.

TBH, think of it as practice in the art of discerning gud memes.

e621: No but really are you going to address the rum ration thing or not?

[Korva]

e621: No but really are you going to address the rum ration thing or not?

Wine can be issued.

[Gallia-]

I too did the rationscale, many years ago:

but I never got far enough to draw the whiskey ration.

e: why is there a tothbrush tho

just use hydrogen peroxide and wash your mouth out