NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Crookfur]

Silly question time. Actually two silly questions.

I was looking at the RPG/ATGM weapons fielded by my military. I was trying to have a up-to-date force, which is able to procure the latest weaponry, and in the case of ATGM's fielded by dedicated Anti-tank units of the Mech. Inf, I was particularly looking at the Kornet ATGM, which is SACLOS guidance system. Are there any cases where older generation guidance systems would actually out perform SACLOS? I read this on wikipedia but have yet to go into more research about it:



2nd question. Since the Kornet is around 28kg or so, is it better to equip my Mech. Infantry with a range of lighter (although less lethal) options (either RPG-26 as LAW, RPG-7V2 as weapons squad anti-armour specialist, RshG-2 for Assault Pioneers, RPG-29 as a backup weapon carried by BMPs) and rely then on heavier weapon from dedicated anti-tank vehicles included in Mech. Inf battalions (9P162 Anti-Tank Missile Carriers) than have two men carry around the Kornet?

Kornet is pretty firmly a "big boy" missile. US Mech Inf. carry Javelins in their IFVs (so I've heard on here) so you could always just roll with a 5-inch diameter type ATGM.

What I think you're reading regarding SACLOS v MCLOS is that with MCLOS, since the missile is wholly controlled by the operator, they can remotely set up the launcher, and set up their command point elsewhere, providing they can still connect. Though I'm not sure if this is ever really done, or from how far you can really do it anyway.
MCLOS missiles, and their operators, are very complex and difficult to train.

Whereas, since SACLOS is computer-corrected based on the relative position of the missile to the launcher, you can only really have the control system physically attached to the launcher. So I read it.

Nope SACLOS can have remote aiming/guidance posts. IIRC you just need an autopilot on the missile that flies onto roughly the same bearing as the guidance post so that the controller can "gather" the missile.
It was certainly a feature of all the British SACLOS Atgms most notably swingfire.

[Imperializt Russia]

Kornet is pretty firmly a "big boy" missile. US Mech Inf. carry Javelins in their IFVs (so I've heard on here) so you could always just roll with a 5-inch diameter type ATGM.

What I think you're reading regarding SACLOS v MCLOS is that with MCLOS, since the missile is wholly controlled by the operator, they can remotely set up the launcher, and set up their command point elsewhere, providing they can still connect. Though I'm not sure if this is ever really done, or from how far you can really do it anyway.
MCLOS missiles, and their operators, are very complex and difficult to train.

Whereas, since SACLOS is computer-corrected based on the relative position of the missile to the launcher, you can only really have the control system physically attached to the launcher. So I read it.

Nope SACLOS can have remote aiming/guidance posts. IIRC you just need an autopilot on the missile that flies onto roughly the same bearing as the guidance post so that the controller can "gather" the missile.
It was certainly a feature of all the British SACLOS Atgms most notably swingfire.

Ah, so the guidance post to which the missile connects is still on the launcher itself (therefore on the missile's trajectory), but the operator can control it from a second, remote location?

[Crookfur]

Nope SACLOS can have remote aiming/guidance posts. IIRC you just need an autopilot on the missile that flies onto roughly the same bearing as the guidance post so that the controller can "gather" the missile.
It was certainly a feature of all the British SACLOS Atgms most notably swingfire.

Ah, so the guidance post to which the missile connects is still on the launcher itself (therefore on the missile's trajectory), but the operator can control it from a second, remote location?

No with swingfire you take the whole guidance post with you but it is connected to the launch vehicle by a 30m wire. All the optics to track the missile are on the guidance post. Missile fires, performs a manouver to get it in line with the guidance post and then flies on that heading until the guidance post optics see it and starts issuing commands to bring the missile in line with the targeting cross hairs.

It's not a feature of every SACLOS missile but its far from impossible.

[Imperializt Russia]

Ah, so the guidance post to which the missile connects is still on the launcher itself (therefore on the missile's trajectory), but the operator can control it from a second, remote location?

No with swingfire you take the whole guidance post with you but it is connected to the launch vehicle by a 30m wire. All the optics to track the missile are on the guidance post. Missile fires, performs a manouver to get it in line with the guidance post and then flies on that heading until the guidance post optics see it and starts issuing commands to bring the missile in line with the targeting cross hairs.

It's not a feature of every SACLOS missile but its far from impossible.

That actually sounds worse - 30m isn't very far and probably well within the splash zone of any suppressive return fire, and if the missile re-orients to the operator station, then that's still a giveaway to the operator's position, surely?

[Korva]

It would be relatively difficult to spot the missile itself or its heading, at least with the naked eye, when it is heading towards you. Certainly it would be near impossible to spot the missile, discern that it has oriented to the controller's position, and then suppress that position all before the missile hits you.

The cloud of dirt and smoke from its launch however would be easier to see.

[Gallia-]

The easiest method to defeat a SACLOS missile that's old and shitty (like Swingfire) is jamming the guidance computer by spamming it with false flares.

No with swingfire you take the whole guidance post with you but it is connected to the launch vehicle by a 30m wire. All the optics to track the missile are on the guidance post. Missile fires, performs a manouver to get it in line with the guidance post and then flies on that heading until the guidance post optics see it and starts issuing commands to bring the missile in line with the targeting cross hairs.

It's not a feature of every SACLOS missile but its far from impossible.

That actually sounds worse - 30m isn't very far and probably well within the splash zone of any suppressive return fire, and if the missile re-orients to the operator station, then that's still a giveaway to the operator's position, surely?

...

Swingfire is literally the most survivable SACLOS missile ever designed.

It would be relatively difficult to spot the missile itself or its heading, at least with the naked eye, when it is heading towards you. Certainly it would be near impossible to spot the missile, discern that it has oriented to the controller's position, and then suppress that position all before the missile hits you.

The cloud of dirt and smoke from its launch however would be easier to see.

You would see neither. Swingfire, as its name implies, fires from behind line-of-sight. There is no cloud of smoke and dust because it's obscured by a hollow or revetment.

It should really be considered an extremely primitive form of NLOS ATGW in the same vein as FOGs like EFOG-M and Spike NLOS. But way easier to jam/defeat than either of those fearsome animals.

Why though?

The Cold War is dead and buried. Ex 2nd/3rd world countries operate mixtures of equipment from the former USSR, the west, Israel and increasingly China.

I figured it was more realistic to RP as a Socialist state similar to China or with the resources of Russia which would be insular, paranoid and ultimately face problems acquiring western/NATO weaponry due to conflicts of interest/foreign policy/militarism.

I guess I could branch out and try to adopt some Israeli weaponry at the very least.

"Socialist" is meaningless since the Cold War ended about 30 years ago. The Korean War is closer in time to Reagan's presidency than Reagan's presidency is to us, after all. Actual differences are more political than economic now, with religions like Islam, secular democracy, and authoritarian despotism being the predominant ideological battlefields. Along with all the old battlefields, like British vs. Continentals, Japanese/Koreans vs. Chinese/Koreans, and Russians vs. Everyone Else. Define your state in those terms. e.g. If it's a Chechen mountain republic or whatever, then it'll probably be an enemy of Russia, but it will also have demographic superiority, so it can defeat the Russians in the long war fought through a CIS open border immigration policy or something.

Anyway, Turkey is about as paranoid and anti-Western (specifically, it's Islamist) as you can get. It's buying plenty of NATO weapons and is literally a NATO member.

Ditto Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. All more anti-Western than the Soviet Union was anti-capitalist, all supplied with American made weapons. The only problem is that only Israel (and perhaps PRC) make good missiles. I guess you could make do buying obscure weapons like the SDF's Type 96, which is roughly comparable to the Spike NLOS and EFOG-M. So if you're Islamist, forget about Israeli weapons. If you aren't, open your wallet, and become India. Spike is modern...ish. About as "modern" as Javelin and Type 96. Spike II is actually modern, cutting edge, and quite capable. If you want to foot the bill for it, you can maybe persuade some megacorp to make a Spike II equivalent using Javelin or Type 96 as a basis, or you could just buy Spike IIs.

[Austrasien]

MCLOS missiles limit the practical maximum speed which is a bigger disadvantage than the potential for launcher separation is an advantage. A TOW reaches 1500 meters in 7 seconds, the Sagger takes 12.5. The slim possibility of a tank crew spotting a TOW launch in time to bring their turret around and return fire isn't really worth worrying about.

[Gallia-]

[accelerates externally]

I'm not even sure you would be able to detect a "slow" missile like Swingfire, though. Isn't the exhaust invisible to visual observation? Or would you be able to see the flare in the butt? The actual launch event would be obscured from behind a hill or something (or at least, ideally) because of how the rocket works, which is how I guess you would detect a TOW in the tree line (rocket exhaust kicks up a shrubbery or some loose dirt because the missile team was too lazy to lay a tarp down?) or perhaps a computer spots the muzzle flare and alerts you to it. AFAIU none of the traditional observation methods exist unless you have a bird's eye view of the surrounding area. A UAS could see it launch, perhaps.

I guess you could mount a really meaty radar that detects rocket sized things out to a couple kilometers?

But the actual detection of the launch event is similar to trying to spot a FOG like Spike NLOS, TBH. But less, because the distance is only a couple dozen meters from the guidance unit, rather than a few kilometers from your tank. Maybe have a really bib/tallboi mast that can look over 95th percentile bumps and revetments that keeps an eye out for missile warning?

The biggest issue is really the slowness of the rocket and its ancientness, but I think it only matters insofar as the target wandering out of sight of the operator or something rather than a serious threat of return fire on him (unless your thermal optic sees him then he ded af boi).

Swingfire is rly like a halfway house between good and bad. It's got all the shittiness of Malyutka in being slow and having a worthless warhead, but it's too clever to be blown up by return fire.

The quintessential British rocket. Besides Sea Cat.

[Austrasien]

Humans are cued to detect looming so the missile itself can sometimes be spotted - sometimes even much faster things like shells and bullets can be briefly seen for probably the same reason. Anecdotally the exaggerated wobbling of MCLOS flight paths around their centerline because of the limited speed an operator can input guidance commands is also a major clue.

[Gallia-]

True. I'm mostly just thinking since the missiles are visually camouflaged with the background and lack the obvious launch signature a TOW or Kornet has, it would be difficult to determine you're under attack until it hits.

Specifically I'm just wondering if there's a sort of Eilat-esque situation, where the visual detection of rocket attacks was done by a spotter on the bridge who detected a pair of "fireballs" on the horizon approaching the ship. I'm not sure if that was the rocket booster or if Styx produces a visible exhaust or something, though, but it definitely helped in confirming direction for anti-aircraft gunners to fire in. I guess wobble of the rocket would be a giveaway, but it might be that a combination of lack of readily visible sign, like being able to see the illumination of the flare or motors (supposedly not the case with Eilat?), might preclude detection altogether without an obvious launch signature like a dust plume or muzzle flare of a more conventional MCLOS/SACLOS missile that lacks the indirect launch capability of Swingfire.

Swingfire just might be the ultimate development of the LOS ambush missile, TBH. If only he weren't so slooow and lame duck bombe that tickles Special Armor.

SwingTOW-2B when.

Though at that point you've literally halfway invented yourself to EFOG-M so you might as well go whole hog and make it IIR and guided by an operator.

[New Vihenia]

Do you guys think, how many targets a radar can track will be a good thing to calculate or know ?

As addition to my AESA radar calculator i tried implementing simple calculations to allow determination on how many targets an AESA radar can track based on provided capacity in the radar time frame (the whole scan time of the radar) say 50% for tracking, a radar have 2 seconds of time frame to search the assigned sector, so 1 second would be available to tracking process.



The result :



The example i use is estimates of Su-57 nose AESA radar with 1524 modules. Assumed 73% of radar time budget is allocated for search while 23% for tracking and locking whatever contacts it picks. It is able to track 30 targets with 5 sqm RCS out to 243 km (The R90 range where the probability of detection is 90%, for tracking and locking the target). If tracking allocation increased detection range will diminish but more targets can be tracked and vice versa with search.

Other in development feature is prediction of limit of emitted power based on cooling capacity and other simple sheet to allow prediction of numbers of radiator/TRM your antenna can have.

I also implement a "sanity check" to determine if the calculation result is believe-able or not (have limitations)

[Austrasien]

True. I'm mostly just thinking since the missiles are visually camouflaged with the background and lack the obvious launch signature a TOW or Kornet has, it would be difficult to determine you're under attack until it hits.

Specifically I'm just wondering if there's a sort of Eilat-esque situation, where the visual detection of rocket attacks was done by a spotter on the bridge who detected a pair of "fireballs" on the horizon approaching the ship. I'm not sure if that was the rocket booster or if Styx produces a visible exhaust or something, though, but it definitely helped in confirming direction for anti-aircraft gunners to fire in. I guess wobble of the rocket would be a giveaway, but it might be that a combination of lack of readily visible sign, like being able to see the illumination of the flare or motors (supposedly not the case with Eilat?), might preclude detection altogether without an obvious launch signature like a dust plume or muzzle flare of a more conventional MCLOS/SACLOS missile that lacks the indirect launch capability of Swingfire.

Swingfire just might be the ultimate development of the LOS ambush missile, TBH. If only he weren't so slooow and lame duck bombe that tickles Special Armor.

SwingTOW-2B when.

Launch signature is definitely important and Swingfire is probably one of the less detectable MCLOS missiles, especially if fired from cover, yes.

But the slowness compared to TOW and friends probably still outweighs any other benefit, longer time of flight also means more chances to spot it in flight.

[Gallia-]

We must compare. Build a house out of Special Armor, put an NCO in it, and shoot missiles at him. Record results. The kind of derring-do balls-to-the-wall operational research typified by the Infantry Board studies of 1956-1957 where they shot at a platoon composed entirely of NCOs with machine guns, rifles, mortars, and hand grenades, and asked them on a scale of 1-10 how much they felt like pissing their pants in their foxholes afterwards.

Apex experiment design. You won't get that past an IRB these days!

[Five Nations]

My Army!

Active Personnel: 30 500 000
Reserve Personnel: 12 000 000
Land Force: 16 000 000
Navy: 8 000 000
Air Force: 5 000 000
Special Forces: 1 500 000

Nuclear Warheads: 15 000

Air Force:
Helicopters: 600 000
Fighters (planes): 1 900 000
Bombers (planes): 2 500 000

Land Army:
Tanks: 5 000 000
Armored Fighting Vehicles: 10 000 000
Ioned Artillery: 2 500 000

Navy:
Frigates: 1 900 000
Corvettes: 3 400 000
Submarines: 1 000 000
Patrol Craft: 1 600 000
Aircraft Carriers: 100 000

Who will beat that?

[The Manticoran Empire]

My Army!

Active Personnel: 30 500 000
Reserve Personnel: 12 000 000
Land Force: 16 000 000
Navy: 8 000 000
Air Force: 5 000 000
Special Forces: 1 500 000

Nuclear Warheads: 15 000

Air Force:
Helicopters: 600 000
Fighters (planes): 1 900 000
Bombers (planes): 2 500 000

Land Army:
Tanks: 5 000 000
Armored Fighting Vehicles: 10 000 000
Ioned Artillery: 2 500 000

Navy:
Frigates: 1 900 000
Corvettes: 3 400 000
Submarines: 1 000 000
Patrol Craft: 1 600 000
Aircraft Carriers: 100 000

Who will beat that?

Well number one that's like 10% of your NS population and number 2 that's an expensive list of equipment.

[Crookfur]

My Army!

Active Personnel: 30 500 000
Reserve Personnel: 12 000 000
Land Force: 16 000 000
Navy: 8 000 000
Air Force: 5 000 000
Special Forces: 1 500 000

Nuclear Warheads: 15 000

Air Force:
Helicopters: 600 000
Fighters (planes): 1 900 000
Bombers (planes): 2 500 000

Land Army:
Tanks: 5 000 000
Armored Fighting Vehicles: 10 000 000
Ioned Artillery: 2 500 000

Navy:
Frigates: 1 900 000
Corvettes: 3 400 000
Submarines: 1 000 000
Patrol Craft: 1 600 000
Aircraft Carriers: 100 000

Who will beat that?

5 kids with super soakers?

Seeing as how it must all be made out of paper.

[Vadia]

My Army!

Active Personnel: 30 500 000
Reserve Personnel: 12 000 000
Land Force: 16 000 000
Navy: 8 000 000
Air Force: 5 000 000
Special Forces: 1 500 000

Nuclear Warheads: 15 000

Air Force:
Helicopters: 600 000
Fighters (planes): 1 900 000
Bombers (planes): 2 500 000

Land Army:
Tanks: 5 000 000
Armored Fighting Vehicles: 10 000 000
Ioned Artillery: 2 500 000

Navy:
Frigates: 1 900 000
Corvettes: 3 400 000
Submarines: 1 000 000
Patrol Craft: 1 600 000
Aircraft Carriers: 100 000

Who will beat that?

Something tells me that you're new to this, and you think people will take you seriously if you numberwank.

Hi, welcome to NationStates!

[The Corparation]

My Army!

Active Personnel: 30 500 000
Reserve Personnel: 12 000 000
Land Force: 16 000 000
Navy: 8 000 000
Air Force: 5 000 000
Special Forces: 1 500 000

Nuclear Warheads: 15 000

Air Force:
Helicopters: 600 000
Fighters (planes): 1 900 000
Bombers (planes): 2 500 000

Land Army:
Tanks: 5 000 000
Armored Fighting Vehicles: 10 000 000
Ioned Artillery: 2 500 000

Navy:
Frigates: 1 900 000
Corvettes: 3 400 000
Submarines: 1 000 000
Patrol Craft: 1 600 000
Aircraft Carriers: 100 000

Who will beat that?

No one here will "beat that" because wearing out the zero key on your keyboard results in nobody here taking you seriously or wanting to RP with you.

[The Manticoran Empire]

My Army!

Active Personnel: 30 500 000
Reserve Personnel: 12 000 000
Land Force: 16 000 000
Navy: 8 000 000
Air Force: 5 000 000
Special Forces: 1 500 000

Nuclear Warheads: 15 000

Air Force:
Helicopters: 600 000
Fighters (planes): 1 900 000
Bombers (planes): 2 500 000

Land Army:
Tanks: 5 000 000
Armored Fighting Vehicles: 10 000 000
Ioned Artillery: 2 500 000

Navy:
Frigates: 1 900 000
Corvettes: 3 400 000
Submarines: 1 000 000
Patrol Craft: 1 600 000
Aircraft Carriers: 100 000

Who will beat that?

I can beat that, but you won't like it because it will entirely defeat your number wank.

[NeuPolska]

Hot take: if you don’t have a military background or aren’t a sparg when it comes to military history down to at minimum an understanding that raw numbers don’t matter like organizational units do, then you should go LARP with the other kids at the local playground down the street instead of trying to RP on NS

[Cosparia]

My Army!

Active Personnel: 30 500 000
Reserve Personnel: 12 000 000
Land Force: 16 000 000
Navy: 8 000 000
Air Force: 5 000 000
Special Forces: 1 500 000

Nuclear Warheads: 15 000

Air Force:
Helicopters: 600 000
Fighters (planes): 1 900 000
Bombers (planes): 2 500 000

Land Army:
Tanks: 5 000 000
Armored Fighting Vehicles: 10 000 000
Ioned Artillery: 2 500 000

Navy:
Frigates: 1 900 000
Corvettes: 3 400 000
Submarines: 1 000 000
Patrol Craft: 1 600 000
Aircraft Carriers: 100 000

Who will beat that?

Reality will.

For example, only 100,000 T-54/55s were built, and only ~44,000 Cessna 172s exist. So unless you somehow have every single tank, AFV, and aircraft ever constructed since 1903, from every single country in the world, which itself is very far from reality, there's no feasible way you'd have anything approaching even a tiny fraction of what you have.

Like others have said, excessive use of your zero key will result in you being taken as a joke (at best) by the vast majority of NSers.

[Imperializt Russia]

Do you guys think, how many targets a radar can track will be a good thing to calculate or know ?

As addition to my AESA radar calculator i tried implementing simple calculations to allow determination on how many targets an AESA radar can track based on provided capacity in the radar time frame (the whole scan time of the radar) say 50% for tracking, a radar have 2 seconds of time frame to search the assigned sector, so 1 second would be available to tracking process.

(Image)

The result :

(Image)

The example i use is estimates of Su-57 nose AESA radar with 1524 modules. Assumed 73% of radar time budget is allocated for search while 23% for tracking and locking whatever contacts it picks. It is able to track 30 targets with 5 sqm RCS out to 243 km (The R90 range where the probability of detection is 90%, for tracking and locking the target). If tracking allocation increased detection range will diminish but more targets can be tracked and vice versa with search.

Other in development feature is prediction of limit of emitted power based on cooling capacity and other simple sheet to allow prediction of numbers of radiator/TRM your antenna can have.

I also implement a "sanity check" to determine if the calculation result is believe-able or not (have limitations)

Would this not be a function of the computing power behind the radar than a function of the radar itself?

[New Vihenia]

Would this not be a function of the computing power behind the radar than a function of the radar itself?

It's also a function of power aperture product and the radar design like the required angular accuracy. A radar have to also allocate enough power and getting enough pulses to its search sector and to maintain its tracks.

Computer goes on by providing prediction of target movement by filters (kalman or alpha-beta etc) and to initiate and store the trackfile.

[Imperializt Russia]

Would this not be a function of the computing power behind the radar than a function of the radar itself?

It's also a function of power aperture product and the radar design like the required angular accuracy. A radar have to also allocate enough power and getting enough pulses to its search sector and to maintain its tracks.

Computer goes on by providing prediction of target movement by filters (kalman or alpha-beta etc) and to initiate and store the trackfile.

Obviously I know little to nothing about radar equipment beyond their basic physical principles. I've always viewed it (obviously simplistically) as "the radar" and "the tracking equipment" - essentially, the dish and the computer, as separate parts.

As I've understood it, radar can obviously take many physical forms - physical antenna/dish, electrical scanning, various bands, frequencies and wavelengths etc.

So how does "the radar" itself impact on the ability of "the system" to track multiple targets?
Beyond the obvious parameters like search area, resolution, range and ability to detect targets. I remember from the old RAND presentation (F-22 v China) that it made a distinction between "detection" and "acquisition", that you can obviously receive some signal before you can get a coherent contact, which you can receive before an identified contact.

[Gallia-]

Hot take: if you don’t have a military background or aren’t a sparg when it comes to military history down to at minimum an understanding that raw numbers don’t matter like organizational units do, then you should go LARP with the other kids at the local playground down the street instead of trying to RP on NS

Nuclear take: If you haven't contributed at least two essays to the ILW, aren't a current senior NCO/non-aviation Warrant Officer or any rank/any job officer (or ret. flag officer), or haven't contributed at least six articles to Front & Center or JFQ, you shouldn't be allowed to post on NSDiscord or RP on NS.

Might as well keep the limitations practical and the elitism consistent.