NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[The Akasha Colony]

Is there a point to having modern subs run together in pairs or groups of some type? I know that there is the benefit of extra firepower, but it comes at the cost of reduced stealth and greatly reduced spread of patrols.

No.

Is it all just based on doctrine of whether you want super sneaky and lonely underwater cigars or more powerful and brazen packs of subs? Is there a good hybrid in grouping subs together only when they are taking on larger targets? I know the old days of the wolf packs are long over, but would temporary groupings well before combat occurred hurt radio silence too much? Or is this all just crazy talk and subs should remain singular assassins trying to do hit and runs without anyone noticing?

As has been mentioned the problem is coordination. The wolfpacks of old worked because they could be coordinated via long-range radio, which in turn was possible because they spent most of their time on the surface, where they could radio sightings in to Kriegsmarine command centers ashore, which would in turn blast out a radio alert to all U-boats in the target area to gather for an attack. It also worked because surfaced U-boats could match or exceed the speed of their target convoys, allowing them to rendezvous and still chase down their target.

This is no longer possible because a surfaced submarine is a dead submarine, and a submarine hanging out at periscope depth with an antenna buoy is a submarine that isn't cruising at a lower depth with its towed sonar array out listening for targets. While submerged they have no effective and suitably covert way to communicate and coordinate with each other for an attack even if they could meet. On top of this, while nuclear submarines can be extremely fast, they can't be both quiet and fast, and the most effective general means of protection for a ship these days is to simply maintain a speed above 30 knots. A submarine cannot chase down a ship moving this quickly without both giving itself away due to extremely noise and deafening its own sonar (thus likely losing track of the target ship). Which means that waiting for a rendezvous before attacking is rather impractical unless the target is a very slow ULCC or something.

The most effective way to employ a number of submarines in an area is to give each submarine a specific patrol area. This allows each submarine commander to operate with the knowledge that any other submarine he detects should be a hostile submarine since no other friendly submarines should enter his designated patrol zone. This also maximizes coverage and increases the chances that a hostile target will wander across a submarine's path, where it can be engaged.

[Zhouran]

You literally just said they're all made by "various manufacturers".

The nuclear warheads themselves are made by a few state-owned workshops similar to the Pantex Plant, all located in closed cities (closed administrative areas) similar to Seversk. The ICBMs on the other hand are designed and made by one state-owned enterprise.

The most effective way to employ a number of submarines in an area is to give each submarine a specific patrol area. This allows each submarine commander to operate with the knowledge that any other submarine he detects should be a hostile submarine since no other friendly submarines should enter his designated patrol zone. This also maximizes coverage and increases the chances that a hostile target will wander across a submarine's path, where it can be engaged.

If an enemy knows their opponent's submarine patrol area (at least roughly), would it be possible for an enemy fleet to use any possible intel and eliminate the submarine based on knowing its patrol area?

[Gallia-]

You have it backwards but OK.

[The Akasha Colony]

If an enemy knows their opponent's submarine patrol area (at least roughly), would it be possible for an enemy fleet to use any possible intel and eliminate the submarine based on knowing its patrol area?

It would narrow the search area significantly. Assuming the patrol area isn't huge, which it may very well be for a nuclear submarine operating in the open ocean. It is hardly a guaranteed kill because the submarine could still be operating anywhere within this area, though.

This sort of thing falls into the realm of strategic ASW, which is rarely discussed in NS (or even IRL) but is more important than tactical ASW.

[The Dolphin Isles]

Thanks for the info guys. I was just curious. I know soviet doctrine meant you would sometimes have a pair of submarines together, but you all confirmed the main suspicions I had against that mentality. I was just thinking the extra firepower might make it more useful for eliminating naval groups faster, but like you all said, there isn't really a way to coordinate strikes. Additionally, I assume as silencing becomes even more advanced, it would be very difficult or even impossible to follow a lead sub in any kind of formation.

[Zhouran]

This sort of thing falls into the realm of strategic ASW, which is rarely discussed in NS (or even IRL) but is more important than tactical ASW.

Strategic ASW is rarely discussed at all? I thought strategic ASW would actually be discussed a lot. I'm actually surprised though. With nuclear subs, since they do operate in the open ocean with a larger allocated block/area to patrol, I would assume that it would take a pretty long time for a naval fleet to engage and destroy just a single nuclear sub if they were to find the sub's patrol area based on intel gathering. It would be like a cat-and-mouse game but at sea.

Additionally, I assume as silencing becomes even more advanced, it would be very difficult or even impossible to follow a lead sub in any kind of formation.

That would probably be the case. Also, you can't effectively classify a submarine as either friendly or enemy, compared to planes which can be classified as either friendly or enemy due to Identification Friend or Foe (IFF)

[Dostanuot Loj]

This sort of thing falls into the realm of strategic ASW, which is rarely discussed in NS (or even IRL) but is more important than tactical ASW.

Strategic ASW is rarely discussed at all? I thought strategic ASW would actually be discussed a lot. I'm actually surprised though.

ASW is generally ignored in NS, and always has been.
I mean, we "talk" about it here, and somebody will throw a fit and say I'm wrong because they "used" ASW in an RP or something, but even the best examples of understanding of ASW on NS is generally no more deep of an understanding than you would get from an episode of Dora the Explorer.

I can count on one hand the number of regulars here who know enough about the subject to properly use it here, and maybe half those people are covered in OPSEC.

[Zhouran]

ASW is generally ignored in NS, and always has been.
I mean, we "talk" about it here, and somebody will throw a fit and say I'm wrong because they "used" ASW in an RP or something, but even the best examples of understanding of ASW on NS is generally no more deep of an understanding than you would get from an episode of Dora the Explorer.

I can count on one hand the number of regulars here who know enough about the subject to properly use it here, and maybe half those people are covered in OPSEC.

Well, ASW is kinda obscure compared to something like armored warfare or aerial warfare. People who would add "ASW" in their war RP would probably do it in a way that's most-likely "unrealistic" or "exaggerated" from the real deal. Plus from what I could quickly find, only one submarine-to-submarine kill had been achieved, which kinda surprised me since I would of expect quite a lot of sub-to-sub combat during WW2.

[The Akasha Colony]

Additionally, I assume as silencing becomes even more advanced, it would be very difficult or even impossible to follow a lead sub in any kind of formation.

This is already the case. It is already likely possible for modern attack submarines to pass within several kilometers of each other without detecting the other's presence. This has been one of the biggest problems for ASW in the last few decades.

Strategic ASW is rarely discussed at all? I thought strategic ASW would actually be discussed a lot.

On NS, few talk about strategic ASW because few are aware it's even a thing. It's further complicated in that it's not a very overtly technical field since you can't talk about things like sonar performance or TAS length or whatever. It's very much about espionage, which is more of an RP issue and more problematically, is something that is usually done in a long ongoing basis that would need to be prepared before an RP. And it requires the target of the espionage to "let" a foreign power spy on them, which many NS powers would prefer to claim they are totally or almost totally immune to because their security services are DA BEST. The technical aspects of ocean reconnaissance satellites and other wide-area surveillance systems are also rather esoteric for most, and of course, very highly classified. There's a lot of misinformation floating around as the internet plays a great game of telephone about claimed capabilities and rumors.

Which leads to the other issue IRL: it's not talked about because it's not marketable so there's very little literature. You can go to a defense expo and see lots of defense contractors like Thales and Lockheed Martin and DCNS etc. hawking their latest sonar systems or torpedo decoys, talking about how great they are or how many recent contracts they've won. You can even get some fairly basic information about performance, which someone with a reasonable understanding of acoustics could tease out into a slightly clearer image of their performance. But you won't see the CIA or NSA setting up booths selling their information services and talking about how many Russian subs they're monitoring. Or the NRO talking about its newest spy satellites and their capabilities. Or the Navy bragging about their newest SOSUS network. Tactical ASW is for public sale, strategic ASW is the realm of intelligence services.

There are many on NS who still assume that "ASW" is just banging away with sonar and tossing depth charges over the side from racks. The better ones at least know that helicopters and towed arrays are involved. Only a few know about SURTASS, and even that's a tactical-level system.

I'm actually surprised though. With nuclear subs, since they do operate in the open ocean with a larger allocated block/area to patrol, I would assume that it would take a pretty long time for a naval fleet to engage and destroy just a single nuclear sub if they were to find the sub's patrol area based on intel gathering. It would be like a cat-and-mouse game but at sea.

It would. Finding a submarine's assigned patrol area doesn't mean you know where the submarine is within that area. You still have to do that legwork on your own. But that's still better than not knowing anything about its whereabouts. If I knew a submarine were somewhere in the northern half of the Pacific Ocean, that's still a huge are to search, and far too large for a practical tactical ASW operation without further triangulation. But that still eliminates most of the world's oceans and half of the Pacific Ocean from consideration.

That would probably be the case. Also, you can't effectively classify a submarine as either friendly or enemy, compared to planes which can be classified as either friendly or enemy due to Identification Friend or Foe (IFF)

IFF isn't a silver bullet for aircraft identification, since IFF modules can malfunction or possibly even be spoofed by sophisticated enemies. This is one of the reasons why positive ID was required in Vietnam, as IFF modules frequently failed or were damaged and the USAF started fielding Combat Tree modules to spoof Soviet-made IFF modules into revealing their presence. For modern VLO aircraft, IFF presents an EMCON problem.

Well, ASW is kinda obscure compared to something like armored warfare or aerial warfare. People who would add "ASW" in their war RP would probably do it in a way that's most-likely "unrealistic" or "exaggerated" from the real deal.

This is true of most combat on NS in general. Which is fine, because most people would not actually be very interested in the "serious" (read: boring) aspects of warfare that are critically important but don't involve shooting big guns or dropping bombs. Not many are very interested in calculating their troops water consumption per day and how many trucks they would need to deliver it, or the ability of their water purification systems to furnish sufficient supplies of potable water. Obviously, water is critically important, but it's also very boring. Nor do they pay much attention to the propagation characteristics of their radios to figure out whether or not Company A can actually contact Company B given the terrain and radio suite each has on hand. Most won't even bother thinking of what radios they might be carrying in the first place!

Plus from what I could quickly find, only one submarine-to-submarine kill had been achieved, which kinda surprised me since I would of expect quite a lot of sub-to-sub combat during WW2.

Submarines were generally not assigned to hunt other submarines in WWII. Indeed, they would have actively avoided combat with another submarine where possible since it's a distraction from their primary goal of sinking other ships.

[Palmyrion]

What is the functional difference between a guided MLRS and a cruise missile? I was thinking that, now that they are guided, you could essentially make a guided MLRS have a cruise missile's flight pattern.

Also, is it advisable for a nation in the late 1980s, fresh outta civil war, and re-arming its military while undergoing economic recovery and redevelopment, to make a utility variant of the ZIL-135? I know it's originally a launch platform for FROG-7, but I was thinking that Palmyrion could have converted some FROG-7-armed ZIL-135s into HEMTT-like truck by removing the missile and associated systems, since Palmyrion wanted a HEMTT-like truck but buying overseas wasn't an option due to monetary constraints.

[Spirit of Hope]

What is the functional difference between a guided MLRS and a cruise missile? I was thinking that, now that they are guided, you could essentially make a guided MLRS have a cruise missile's flight pattern.

A MLRS vehicle can certainly fire a cruise missile, however their is still a difference between a rocket as normally fired by MLRS vs. a cruise missile. In a rocket the motor fires during the initial phase and then it follows a ballistic or glide path for the remainder of it's flight, for a cruise missile it would continue to have a motor active and fly for the entirety of it's mission.

Also, is it advisable for a nation in the late 1980s, fresh outta civil war, and re-arming its military while undergoing economic recovery and redevelopment, to make a utility variant of the ZIL-135? I know it's originally a launch platform for FROG-7, but I was thinking that Palmyrion could have converted some FROG-7-armed ZIL-135s into HEMTT-like truck by removing the missile and associated systems, since Palmyrion wanted a HEMTT-like truck but buying overseas wasn't an option due to monetary constraints.

That sounds like it would take more money than simply buying some actual trucks and would remove/degrade an asset in your armed forces.

[The Akasha Colony]

What is the functional difference between a guided MLRS and a cruise missile? I was thinking that, now that they are guided, you could essentially make a guided MLRS have a cruise missile's flight pattern.

Rockets are ballistic. They have a single high-thrust rocket motor that accelerates them at high speed into a ballistic arc and simply glide the rest of the way unpowered, and guided rockets have a system that uses aerodynamic control surfaces to guide the rocket on target in the terminal phase. They cannot make large course corrections nor can they use a terrain-following cruise mode because of this flight pattern.

Cruise missiles are powered throughout their flight, usually by a turbofan or turbojet engine. As a result, they are also often slower than rockets, unless a supersonic cruise missile is used. A standard MLRS rocket can top out at 800 m/s at burnout and still retain a terminal velocity of nearly 400 m/s at impact, while a cruise missile like Tomahawk has an average speed of around 220-250 m/s. But because the cruise missile is powered throughout its flight, it can take detours and follow terrain markers if desired.

Also, is it advisable for a nation in the late 1980s, fresh outta civil war, and re-arming its military while undergoing economic recovery and redevelopment, to make a utility variant of the ZIL-135? I know it's originally a launch platform for FROG-7, but I was thinking that Palmyrion could have converted some FROG-7-armed ZIL-135s into HEMTT-like truck by removing the missile and associated systems, since Palmyrion wanted a HEMTT-like truck but buying overseas wasn't an option due to monetary constraints.

It is less than ideal, because ZIL-135 doesn't have particularly powerful engines nor does it have a very good suspension for such weight. FROG-7 is bulky but not particularly heavy, which means it needs a large transporter but not an especially powerful one. However, hauling heavy cargo effectively does require a stronger engine to match the payload.

But this is irrelevant if you are too poor to buy alternatives, you simply have no choice.

[Palmyrion]

What is the functional difference between a guided MLRS and a cruise missile? I was thinking that, now that they are guided, you could essentially make a guided MLRS have a cruise missile's flight pattern.

Rockets are ballistic. They have a single high-thrust rocket motor that accelerates them at high speed into a ballistic arc and simply glide the rest of the way unpowered, and guided rockets have a system that uses aerodynamic control surfaces to guide the rocket on target in the terminal phase. They cannot make large course corrections nor can they use a terrain-following cruise mode because of this flight pattern.

Cruise missiles are powered throughout their flight, usually by a turbofan or turbojet engine. As a result, they are also often slower than rockets, unless a supersonic cruise missile is used. A standard MLRS rocket can top out at 800 m/s at burnout and still retain a terminal velocity of nearly 400 m/s at impact, while a cruise missile like Tomahawk has an average speed of around 220-250 m/s. But because the cruise missile is powered throughout its flight, it can take detours and follow terrain markers if desired.

Hmm, I see. The guidance systems there are simply accuracy upgrades, but how is it that GMLRS has longer range than previous rockets?

Also, is it advisable for a nation in the late 1980s, fresh outta civil war, and re-arming its military while undergoing economic recovery and redevelopment, to make a utility variant of the ZIL-135? I know it's originally a launch platform for FROG-7, but I was thinking that Palmyrion could have converted some FROG-7-armed ZIL-135s into HEMTT-like truck by removing the missile and associated systems, since Palmyrion wanted a HEMTT-like truck but buying overseas wasn't an option due to monetary constraints.

It is less than ideal, because ZIL-135 doesn't have particularly powerful engines nor does it have a very good suspension for such weight. FROG-7 is bulky but not particularly heavy, which means it needs a large transporter but not an especially powerful one. However, hauling heavy cargo effectively does require a stronger engine to match the payload.

But this is irrelevant if you are too poor to buy alternatives, you simply have no choice.

Seems like my situation back in the late 1980s when the military was being funded barely enough only to replenish its numbers and maintain then contemporary gear, with government budget being all focused on economic recovery and redevelopment, alongside providing workers a strong social welfare base coupled with a universal healthcare system, and spending quite a lot on state-of-the-art educational facilities to help establish a skilled labor pool.

[The Akasha Colony]

Hmm, I see. The guidance systems there are simply accuracy upgrades, but how is it that GMLRS has longer range than previous rockets?

It's not just a guidance update. M30 GMLRS is actually a completely different rocket from the original M26, with a larger rocket motor and a smaller payload section. Which is why it carries only 404 submunitions, rather than the 644 carried by M26.

[Gallia-]

You can feel the death of K. Mizokami's limitless hope for a return of Big Rail Battlewagons.

[Theodosiya]

Well...

At least USN have nice toys...

[Questers]

ASW is likely too technical for NS. It's too dependent on computational factors that we can't account for.

[Kampala-]

Longbow targeting performance amidst man-made and terrain clutter is more difficult to calculate. :s

Radar is actual voudon. At least for ground search. It's a bit like rotary wings.

ASW just relies on secret squirrel things that can't be abstracted by maths i.e. "Human factors". Which is something that is abstracted all the time on NS anyway.

[Prosorusiya]

I'm amused that so little is known on NS about ASW, since for a while there it was basically all my old nation (Ukrainian Navy) could realistically do. On the other hand, it does go a long way to explaining why my testing of upgraded Be-12s was a one man affair... I never could find anyone to actually practice against.

Perhaps one day I'll revise the idea, and host an ASW wargame or something like it. Per my Soviet-ness it probably wouldn't involve the most modern techniques or equipment... more the usual Be-12, Ka-27, Mi-14 as aircraft, Kirvak frigates & Girsha and Puak class Corvettes, and Foxtrot class SSKs one would expect to find in a small post Soviet navy.

[Parliamentary Canada]

Hey everyone I've been toying around with the organisation of my Department of National Defence for a while now and I think its pretty much done, a little polishing aside....

Other than a couple of direct reporting agencies such as the JAG and Inspector General, the department is managed for the most part by the military Chief of Defence Staff and a civil servant Deputy Minister of National Defence under a diarchy. Reporting to the DMND are a number of Assistant Deputy Ministers managing most support functions such as science and technology as well as materiels procurement and program management. Civilian agencies reporting to the MND through their respective ADMs include the Dominion Arsenal (should maybe give it a more modern name), the Defence Research and Development Establishment, the Defence Communications Security Establishment and many more. Reporting to the CDS is the Vice Chief of Defence Staff, the service chiefs and the Strategic Joint Staff headed by the Deputy CDS who advises the CDS who in turn advises the MND and PM on defence matters.

So far not to different from the current Canadian system....

Heres where it gets different, lets say Paul Helleyer gets abducted by aliens before he can ascend to the ministry and unification takes a different turn, the individual service chiefs are retained in their existing role of generating and developing their respective services but force employment is conducted solely by unified combatant commands something like the Goldwater–Nichols Act before the Goldwater–Nichols Act. There would be six commands, two geographically focused and two function focused. Now historically the CF came close to this with Canadian Forces Europe, although I'm pretty sure CFE was subordinate to the CDS who was/is also an operational commander. Anywho these commands would be:

Canadian Northern Command: North American Ops, primarily air ops and the commander is double hatted as the Canadian NORAD Region commander in North Bay. (Obv. under NORAD)
Canadian Southern Command: Ops in the global south which would be primarily peacekeeping and peacemaking as part of a coalition.
Canadian Atlantic Command: Naval forces in the north atlantic, double hatted as the Canadian Atlantic Fleet Commander. Would be a evolution of the Canadian Atlantic Sub-Area. (Under Allied Command Atlantic)
Canadian European Command: An evolution of Canadian Forces Europe, would provide an air group to 4 Allied Tactical Air Force and a Brigade Group to CENTAG. (Under Allied Command Europe)
Canadian Logistics Command: Kind of like USTRANSCOM, including the Royal Canadian Fleet Auxiliary, Air Transport Command, land transport and supply/petrol/ammo depots. and
Canadian Strategic Command: Includes the nuclear deterrent, ballistic missile defence, strategic reconnaissance and surveillance as well as national survival and supplementary communications networks.

I think this is a decent organisation, but does anyone disagree I'm open to constructive criticism before I go full steam ahead working out the nitty gritty like where Joint Staff Colleges belong.

edit: here is a pic

[Dostanuot Loj]

If you're working from an OTL type start, you need to account for how deeply entrenched in their independence (and overly duplicated) norms the services were before unification. They won't work together willingly, and never would. Unification absolutely gutted the Canadian military, but it had to be done to reduce costs and manpower duplication.

The pre-unification Canadian military was so bloated in budget and personnel, and dealing with deeply entrenched service rivalries that to simply maintain a military unification was inevitable.

[Parliamentary Canada]

If you're working from an OTL type start, you need to account for how deeply entrenched in their independence (and overly duplicated) norms the services were before unification. They won't work together willingly, and never would. Unification absolutely gutted the Canadian military, but it had to be done to reduce costs and manpower duplication.

The pre-unification Canadian military was so bloated in budget and personnel, and dealing with deeply entrenched service rivalries that to simply maintain a military unification was inevitable.

How did american GOFOs respond to the GNA because that is essentially what I am proposing only a decade earlier? Militarises seem to be institutionally resistant to change so I would assume officer turn over is to be expected during any reform, it seems to be the nature of the beast.

OFC the primary gripe for most personnel during unification was the slashing of traditions and the jolly green jumper. In my timeline the uniforms would still "Canadianized" however they would come in three colours and to be honest except for joint headquarters there wouldn't be much cross pollination as we are used to these days. (less parades of many colours thank god) I doubt most personnel would really care that their bosses bosses boss may wearing a uniform different than theirs. Remember that Canadian military colleges had been unified since 1948 so I doubt there was much disdain amongst the younger crowd for the other services.

That being said I'm absolutely sure senior leaders such as RAdm Landymore would still quite before working together with the other services but to be honest oh well, if officers don't have enough professionalism to go along with the will of the elected government, the profession of arms is better without them.

[Tule]

Apparently, in the grimdark future of 1961, Pvt. Helmut would have been eating some delicious food cubes under the cap of a Soviet mushroom cloud.

[Omnum]

I want to build a military realistic to my nations stats and factbooks... how should I start??

[Erythrean Thebes]

I want to build a military realistic to my nations stats and factbooks... how should I start??

Read history to understand where your country would be at developmentally in its current date, time, and location