NationStates

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 9:30 am**

Would monarchs breaking the law in their official actions alienate the millitary?

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 9:40 am**

Spirit of Hope wrote:As to time of flight, 3-4 seconds of warning is plenty to deploy smoke, change movement, and fire on the enemy.

Doing that in time so that it's enough to make a difference and avoid a hit is debatable, but I've not seen any stats regarding tank crew reaction times in relation to SACLOS engagements at medium to close range.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 9:44 am**

Ideal Britain wrote:Would monarchs breaking the law in their official actions alienate the millitary?

Too vague. It depends.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 9:53 am**

The New California Republic wrote:
Gallia- wrote:A tank's vulnerability to detection can be generally stated as the length of time it remains exposed to view of a target. An ATGW requires a constant guidance to target because it is SACLOS, so the tank's turret is above the ridgeline or whatever for however many seconds (usually tens) it takes to hit the target.

In the case of Songster at maximum range of 4km the flight time will be 9 seconds, and since it is doubtful that engagements will be at that distance very often, more likely happening at much shorter ranges, then the mean flight time for its use will be somewhere around 5 seconds at a guesstimate, probably less, which isn't much time to react at all.

5 seconds is 4 seconds longer than an APFSDS shot lol.

The New California Republic wrote:
Spirit of Hope wrote:As to time of flight, 3-4 seconds of warning is plenty to deploy smoke, change movement, and fire on the enemy.

Doing that in time so that it's enough to make a difference and avoid a hit is debatable, but I've not seen any stats regarding tank crew reaction times in relation to SACLOS engagements at medium to close range.

Because using a manually guided missile at close range is stupid? You would use hypervelocity ammunition increasingly so as the distance closes. It would be used exclusively at ranges under 3 km or so, unless you accidentally had a missile loaded I guess, because in that time you would hit the tank regardless of how fast it's moving or what evasive action it takes.

Songster is a way for the tank to engage targets beyond 3.5-4 km where the APFSDS starts to lose its accuracy as the movement of the tank starts to outstrip the applied lead of the FCS or gunner.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 9:54 am**

The New California Republic wrote:
Spirit of Hope wrote:As to time of flight, 3-4 seconds of warning is plenty to deploy smoke, change movement, and fire on the enemy.

Doing that in time so that it's enough to make a difference and avoid a hit is debatable, but I've not seen any stats regarding tank crew reaction times in relation to SACLOS engagements at medium to close range.

An important thing to remember is nothing is happening in a vacuum, having to sit still for a couple seconds after firing doesn't just make you vulnerable to the target engaging you, it also makes you more vulnerable to being engaged by everyone else on the battlefield.

ATGMs certainly have their place, but they are of questionable utility for a tank, which already has a perfectly good AT weapon it is carrying around.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 10:10 am**

Spirit of Hope wrote:ATGMs certainly have their place, but they are of questionable utility for a tank, which already has a perfectly good AT weapon it is carrying around.

Yes they are more meant to offset any limitations with alternate ammunition that the tank has.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 10:11 am**

Do American arms companies ever get hold of UK military surplus?

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 10:49 am**

A few dealers import surplus stuff for sale on the collectors market.
About the only time in recent history that the US military has bought British "surplus" was the harrier gr.9 deal

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 10:57 am**

Crookfur wrote:A few dealers import surplus stuff for sale on the collectors market.
About the only time in recent history that the US military has bought British "surplus" was the harrier gr.9 deal

There are a few smaller examples, for example US Special Forces used suppressed Stens in Vietnam.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 11:08 am**

They used far more m/45s than Stens lol.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 11:15 am**

Gallia- wrote:They used far more m/45s than Stens lol.

The New California Republic wrote:[...] smaller examples [...]

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 11:32 am**

Hrstrovokia wrote:Would the longer range of the Kornet (8,000 to 10,000m depending on the missile), be an advantage worth pursuing despite slower engagement cycle?

Spotting a target at such a range would be exceptionally rare for a tank. It would require the stereotypical NS infinite featureless plain.

The longest-ranged tank kill to date is under 5 km. The vast majority are well below that. The number of engagements in the 3-5 km range where missiles are useful is fairly low because it is very rare for a ground vehicle to be able to see this far across most terrain.

Ideal Britain wrote:Would monarchs breaking the law in their official actions alienate the millitary?

People breaking the law tend to alienate people who follow the law.

But very often militaries get tied into cults of personality in support of the government. Either because one of their own takes over (a military coup) or because the leadership takes over the military and fills it with their cronies.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 11:45 am**

The Akasha Colony wrote:
Hrstrovokia wrote:Would the longer range of the Kornet (8,000 to 10,000m depending on the missile), be an advantage worth pursuing despite slower engagement cycle?

Spotting a target at such a range would be exceptionally rare for a tank. It would require the stereotypical NS infinite featureless plain.

The longest-ranged tank kill to date is under 5 km. The vast majority are well below that. The number of engagements in the 3-5 km range where missiles are useful is fairly low because it is very rare for a ground vehicle to be able to see this far across most terrain.

I think if it were part of something like an Andromeda-D system, where reconnaissance data is passed on quickly, say by drones or recon scouts. Now, I know as soon as I say that, such a system itself builds in more complexity, cost and of course the chance that it can be disrupted by enemy EW. I think the Republic of Korea has something called KSTAM that sounds vaguely what the Kornet could be employed as. Any Tank would need to fire 152mm shells as well as ATGMs though and I know nothing about how much trouble that would be.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 2:32 pm**

Hrstrovokia wrote:I think if it were part of something like an Andromeda-D system, where reconnaissance data is passed on quickly, say by drones or recon scouts. Now, I know as soon as I say that, such a system itself builds in more complexity, cost and of course the chance that it can be disrupted by enemy EW. I think the Republic of Korea has something called KSTAM that sounds vaguely what the Kornet could be employed as. Any Tank would need to fire 152mm shells as well as ATGMs though and I know nothing about how much trouble that would be.

At this point why do you need to waste a tank on such things? Lobbing missiles or smart submunitions at BLOS targets can be done by other, cheaper platforms like ATGM carriers, a howitzer, or a mortar. The expensive parts of a tank contribute nothing to this role. A Humvee with a Spike launcher could do this for a fraction of the price.

KSTAM is 120 mm anyway so it doesn't justify the use of a 152 mm gun. The concept is already reasonably common in artillery shells as the Germans have SMArt 155 and the Swedes/French have BONUS.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 3:06 pm**

I guess with the latest news on DEW weapon, people will be hyped on it again on some time. One aspect of it is the power source. I'm curious on why at least some people look enthusiastic on exotic power source such as fusion while the 4th Gen nuclear reactor seems to be forgotten.

As far as i know Fusion power is somewhat difficult as it requires considerable amount of energy to start in the first place, unless somehow people can make gravity and maybe shield it so the gravitational field wont extend beyond the whatever contraption they use for fusion. But that perhaps for FT.

another question is on the energy extraction, like can we run the plasma like gas, rotate a turbine which then make electricity or boiling water and make steam. Or can electricity be directly harvested ?. If we can directly harvest electricity it would perhaps simplify the plant design as everything can be in one "block"

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 3:46 pm**

The New California Republic wrote:
Spirit of Hope wrote:As to time of flight, 3-4 seconds of warning is plenty to deploy smoke, change movement, and fire on the enemy.

Doing that in time so that it's enough to make a difference and avoid a hit is debatable, but I've not seen any stats regarding tank crew reaction times in relation to SACLOS engagements at medium to close range.

Based on insights gleamed from the 2006 Lebanon War, the general consensus seems to be how fast the tank is moving, how good the crew training is/crew unit cohesion, overall situational awareness on the tank crews part and how the tank is being utilized, if all four of these circumstances align properly then 3-4 seconds of warning time is more than sufficient time to take decisive act to negate a possible strike. Probably not a 100% chance to negate against a modern ATGM, but still a high percentage chance depending on the specific circumstances.

From All Glory Is Fleeting: Insights from the Second Lebanon War
“Ground forces fared little better in their efforts to conduct combined arms operations in 2006 southern Lebanon. Tanks were distributed piecemeal in two-vehicle teams and attached to infantry units whose commanders had, in some cases, no idea how to employ them appropriately. The vehicles often advanced at a dismounted infantryman’s pace to provide security for the foot soldiers. On other occasions, tanks sat stationary for hours during village-defense missions. Former armor officers in particular decried these as inappropriate employments of the Merkava; one noted that the only penetrations of tank armor were in the rear, the vehicles’ most vulnerable spot and one difficult to strike if they maneuvered properly. The arguments have merit.
A stationary or slowly moving tank is far easier to engage than one moving at a rapid pace. Vehicles sitting in built-up areas are particularly vulnerable; the considerable concealment permits an enemy—one more familiar with the terrain than the infantry tasked with protecting the tank—opportunity to stalk its prey without detection. The consequences were severe, as noted by retired IDF Brigadier General Gideon Avidor: “Sixty-two percent of our tanks were hit. They were hit from villages that we ‘controlled,’ because we went in and just held a few houses rather than truly controlling the village.””

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:I have an idea, if I put nuclear weapons on a weapon platform in geosynchronous orbit, is it feasible? The platform is stealth processed and connected to the ground control station with countdown signal. When the signal on the ground disappears, turn on the countdown of nuclear destruction.

You’re not the first nor will you probably be the last on NS to have that idea.

I had the same idea about a decade ago, but after having considered the logistical requirements of setting up such a system and the political complications that would result in a real world situation I ultimately scrapped the idea as not being very cost effective.

Instead, I went with an ICBM FOBS system, similar capability, all be it temporary {up to a day or two max} when it comes to maintaining a low-orbit, but less political headache to set up and maintain. The ICBM FOBS system also better integrates into the nuclear weapons policy of my nation I’ve settled on.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 3:52 pm**

New Vihenia wrote:I guess with the latest news on DEW weapon, people will be hyped on it again on some time. One aspect of it is the power source. I'm curious on why at least some people look enthusiastic on exotic power source such as fusion while the 4th Gen nuclear reactor seems to be forgotten.

As far as i know Fusion power is somewhat difficult as it requires considerable amount of energy to start in the first place, unless somehow people can make gravity and maybe shield it so the gravitational field wont extend beyond the whatever contraption they use for fusion. But that perhaps for FT.

another question is on the energy extraction, like can we run the plasma like gas, rotate a turbine which then make electricity or boiling water and make steam. Or can electricity be directly harvested ?. If we can directly harvest electricity it would perhaps simplify the plant design as everything can be in one "block"

What happened with lasers.

Anyway for warships I'm not sure that they make a lot of sense, mostly because lead cooled reactors on the Alfas were hard to maintain and work on, but they were pretty power dense (and massively dense, which is sorta lame), while warships with MSRs were considered but discarded in favor of dual reactor PWRs derived from SSN powerplants (Truxtun, Bainbridge, etc. destroyers) which were killed.

That said, if the USN still had the money and the skills left to develop reactors and nuclear powered surface warships (it doesn't), then an MSR is a viable powerplant for a single reactor design like the CGN(X).

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 4:26 pm**

The Manticoran Empire wrote: The posts range from short paragraphs to single lines, both of which are considered to be of poor quality, doubly so when an entire RP is written with them. THAT is what they are talking about when they say it is worse than Twilight, on top of the blatant ignorance of political realities.

Each of my posts is carefully vetted for plausibility by a Politics faculty panel at University of St Andrews.

Each post is also painstakingly revised again and again to ensure it is of objectively better quality than anything 90% of the people who haunt this thread have produced in the last five to ten years.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 4:30 pm**

Didcot Risen wrote:Each of my posts is carefully vetted for plausibility by a Politics faculty panel at University of St Andrews.

I doubt the political faculty at St. Andrews has time (or interest) to spare to vet what you are posting.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 4:33 pm**

Didcot Risen wrote:Each of my posts is carefully vetted for plausibility by a Politics faculty panel at University of St Andrews.

...it's half past midnight in Scotland.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 4:35 pm**

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
Didcot Risen wrote:Each of my posts is carefully vetted for plausibility by a Politics faculty panel at University of St Andrews.

I doubt the political faculty at St. Andrews has time (or interest) to spare to vet your shitposts.

It's obviously Danton lol.

I mean Didcot not Ideal Britain.

The D in Didcot means Danton Did It

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 4:35 pm**

Gallia- wrote:
New Vihenia wrote:I guess with the latest news on DEW weapon, people will be hyped on it again on some time. One aspect of it is the power source. I'm curious on why at least some people look enthusiastic on exotic power source such as fusion while the 4th Gen nuclear reactor seems to be forgotten.

As far as i know Fusion power is somewhat difficult as it requires considerable amount of energy to start in the first place, unless somehow people can make gravity and maybe shield it so the gravitational field wont extend beyond the whatever contraption they use for fusion. But that perhaps for FT.

another question is on the energy extraction, like can we run the plasma like gas, rotate a turbine which then make electricity or boiling water and make steam. Or can electricity be directly harvested ?. If we can directly harvest electricity it would perhaps simplify the plant design as everything can be in one "block"

What happened with lasers.

Anyway for warships I'm not sure that they make a lot of sense, mostly because lead cooled reactors on the Alfas were hard to maintain and work on, but they were pretty power dense (and massively dense, which is sorta lame), while warships with MSRs were considered but discarded in favor of dual reactor PWRs derived from SSN powerplants (Truxtun, Bainbridge, etc. destroyers) which were killed.

That said, if the USN still had the money and the skills left to develop reactors and nuclear powered surface warships (it doesn't), then an MSR is a viable powerplant for a single reactor design like the CGN(X).

gas cooled fast reactor when

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 4:39 pm**

Taihei Tengoku wrote:gas cooled fast reactor when

This in fact what i would expect.

So For typical military application where Volume or weight matters. The reactors that can fit the bill would be the nuclear gas turbine. Using Helium or other gas. The second would be the Lead-Bismuth or Lead cooled which yes.. may be difficult to work with but that offers high power density and compact form.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 5:29 pm**

The USN didn't bother with lead cooled in its studies, it preferred salt cooled for liquid metal reactors, and the PRC apparently is looking at the same. I guess they found the same PDF in the treasure trove that is DTIC.

I'm not sure how well they compare to lead, though, except for the whole "it explodes when it touches the sea" part, but yeah they should really be dumped into the same category as lead-bismuth I suppose. Probably less dangerous (for the machine) if they turn off (sodium can melt easily) but more dangerous to operate.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 8:46 pm**

Hi, is there a thread specifically devoted to naval stuff, or is it ok to ask that here?

NationStates

NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0