NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a956443.pdf
Are any of these missile basing concepts feasible or practical? If so, in what situation? Are any superior to current basing systems?

[Austrasien]

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a956443.pdf
Are any of these missile basing concepts feasible or practical? If so, in what situation? Are any superior to current basing systems?

Road and rail mobile basing have both been operationally deployed. They are considerably more difficult to attack than fixed silos.

But generally exotic basing methods are inferior to SLBMs. The US military remains committed to the triad for reasons more political than practical.

[Spirit of Hope]

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a956443.pdf
Are any of these missile basing concepts feasible or practical? If so, in what situation? Are any superior to current basing systems?

Road and rail mobile basing have both been operationally deployed. They are considerably more difficult to attack than fixed silos.

But generally exotic basing methods are inferior to SLBMs. The US military remains committed to the triad for reasons more political than practical.

There are still some practical reasons to keep both ground based missiles and air launched missiles.

Ground based can be less expensive, does not require advanced submarines, and allows larger missiles.

Air based allows a better flexibility of employment, and again less expensive and does not require a submarine platform for use. It also, depending on warhead used, can arguably avoid "strategic" exchanges depending on use.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a956443.pdf
Are any of these missile basing concepts feasible or practical? If so, in what situation? Are any superior to current basing systems?

Not going to go through all of them, but certainly any mobile ground based platform has some advantages, and disadvantages, over conventional placed silos. Big advantage is they are much harder to target, making an enemy less likely to engage in a first strike because their is a higher chance of your arsenal surviving. However if their locations are discovered they are less secure from conventional attacks than a silo. Rail vs road, rail allows better transport of missile while constraining movement more.

[New Vihenia]

Update to AESA Radar calculators :3. Most are discussed here :

New features
http://www.russiadefence.net/t7625-aesa ... ors#232432

-Frequency-RCS dependency sheet
Basically predicting target RCS based on wavelength and squared wavelength dependency

-AESA antenna module number prediction
Estimate the number of TRM your antenna can have based on frequency, available antenna area and "fill factor"

Addition of Pattern propagation factor (Which will basically affect the observed RCS)
http://www.russiadefence.net/t7625-aesa ... ors#233845

Some discussion on the effect of path propagation factor, and the sheet now take it into account. The model used in unfortunately simple flat earth and smooth-reflective surface. However it can be argued it will be similar as sea environment.

user can simply specify target and radar height, and simple drop down to enable or disable range calculation with multipath.

Download link :
mediafire.com file/s8ea52zoc8zzf17/AESACalcStable.xlsx/file

[Taihei Tengoku]

Is Trident any less reachy than Minuteman these days?

[Spirit of Hope]

Is Trident any less reachy than Minuteman these days?

Not really, especially when you consider that Trident can be moved much closer to the target than Minuteman. It was more a general point that land based, and more specifically silo based missiles, have less constraints about size compared to sub based missiles.

From a deterrent perspective there is also an important point that it is basically impossible to strike a land based missile without a major strike on the nation. While sub based missiles could in theory be targeted without necessarily carrying out a major strike. So land based missiles will always be an option up until you are being invaded/nukes are being thrown at you while subs could be removed early in a conflict without reaching the level of pushing for a nuclear strike.

Counter point to that is SSBN's are hard to catch and kill, and most governments would consider an attack on their nuclear arsenal a reason to use said arsenal.

[The Akasha Colony]

Is Trident any less reachy than Minuteman these days?

TBF, Trident II is 20 years younger than Minuteman III. Closer to 25 since Minuteman III doesn't really move the needle on the range already established in Minuteman II.

There are still some practical reasons to keep both ground based missiles and air launched missiles.

Ground based can be less expensive, does not require advanced submarines, and allows larger missiles.

Air based allows a better flexibility of employment, and again less expensive and does not require a submarine platform for use. It also, depending on warhead used, can arguably avoid "strategic" exchanges depending on use.

The problem is that the triad is failing at achieving its original objectives as it shrinks. SLBMs have caught up with the ICBMs the US retains in inventory in both range and accuracy, while reductions in warhead counts due to arms control treaties has shifted an increasing proportion of the warhead count to SLBMs. Meanwhile, the Air Force is down to just two delivery methods: AGM-86 ALCM and B61/B83. And it's been having a hell of a time just keeping them refurbished.

Which means that the flexibility of the force is being lost. And that flexibility was the primary reason for its existence. This is why other countries like the UK and France moved to SLBM-only nuclear forces. If the full flexibility of a widely-varied nuclear force can no longer be afforded, then there is little reason not to simply pursue the most cost-effective and survivable option, which is an SSBN fleet.

From a deterrent perspective there is also an important point that it is basically impossible to strike a land based missile without a major strike on the nation. While sub based missiles could in theory be targeted without necessarily carrying out a major strike. So land based missiles will always be an option up until you are being invaded/nukes are being thrown at you while subs could be removed early in a conflict without reaching the level of pushing for a nuclear strike.

This is literally what the strategic bomber force was designed to do.

I find it rather difficult to believe that the Soviets would have been any more incensed by a wave of B-2s hunting SS-25s in the wilds of Siberia than they would by a couple of Seawolfs breaking into the Barents Sea naval bastion and knocking over the Delta/Typhoon fleet.

[Spirit of Hope]

This is literally what the strategic bomber force was designed to do.

I find it rather difficult to believe that the Soviets would have been any more incensed by a wave of B-2s hunting SS-25s in the wilds of Siberia than they would by a couple of Seawolfs breaking into the Barents Sea naval bastion and knocking over the Delta/Typhoon fleet.

Hence my counterpoint. Attacks on a nations nuclear arsenal are almost certainly going to generate a nuclear response, and it isn't like subs are easy enough to find and kill that you can guarantee you will get them all before some of them would be able to launch. However it is an argument I have seen scholars put forward, so I thought I would bring it up.

There are still some practical reasons to keep both ground based missiles and air launched missiles.

Ground based can be less expensive, does not require advanced submarines, and allows larger missiles.

Air based allows a better flexibility of employment, and again less expensive and does not require a submarine platform for use. It also, depending on warhead used, can arguably avoid "strategic" exchanges depending on use.

The problem is that the triad is failing at achieving its original objectives as it shrinks. SLBMs have caught up with the ICBMs the US retains in inventory in both range and accuracy, while reductions in warhead counts due to arms control treaties has shifted an increasing proportion of the warhead count to SLBMs. Meanwhile, the Air Force is down to just two delivery methods: AGM-86 ALCM and B61/B83. And it's been having a hell of a time just keeping them refurbished.

Which means that the flexibility of the force is being lost. And that flexibility was the primary reason for its existence. This is why other countries like the UK and France moved to SLBM-only nuclear forces. If the full flexibility of a widely-varied nuclear force can no longer be afforded, then there is little reason not to simply pursue the most cost-effective and survivable option, which is an SSBN fleet.

You aren't going to see me arguing against that. I was simply pointing out why the US tries to still have air and land missiles, and hasn't fully gone to sub launched.

[Nipumal]

Anyone have recommendations for a class of river patrol boat, with main considerations being fuel efficiency and moderate operating cost? Timeline is present day, but of course I'm willing to consider options that came out in the previous century.

[Crookfur]

Anyone have recommendations for a class of river patrol boat, with main considerations being fuel efficiency and moderate operating cost? Timeline is present day, but of course I'm willing to consider options that came out in the previous century.

To be honest dedicated river boats for military/law enforcement aren't really a thing these days, most folks seem to be using stuff from the smaller end of the general patrol boat spectrum so its really a case of deciding what sort of size/capability you want be it a glorified RHIB, full cabin cruiser or something in between.

On the most up to date full military side of things you might be looking at something like a CB-90 or the US Navy's Mark VI patrol boat.

for a more general starting point looking at the website of a manufacturer who makes a range of such boats such as here will give you a rough idea of what sort of thing you would be getting in the various size classes.

[The Akasha Colony]

Hence my counterpoint. Attacks on a nations nuclear arsenal are almost certainly going to generate a nuclear response, and it isn't like subs are easy enough to find and kill that you can guarantee you will get them all before some of them would be able to launch. However it is an argument I have seen scholars put forward, so I thought I would bring it up.

The whole point of a nuclear triad is to avoid this. A dispersed nuclear triad is designed to be sufficiently survivable that it is no longer vulnerable to first strikes and therefore the pressing need to "use it or lose it" is significantly reduced. This means that a nation can allow substantial attacks on its nuclear arsenal without being forced to launch a nuclear strike out of fear of losing its nuclear retaliatory capability. It is meant to reduce the chance of a strategic nuclear exchange.

There's also the notion of "guaranteeing" anything; a first strike doesn't have to wipe out the enemy's entire retaliatory capability. Every reduction in capability itself is a victory; destroying nine out of ten enemy SSBNs is better than dealing with retaliation from all ten. You might not get every enemy ballistic missile, but if you can reduce his strength such that he can only destroy a half-dozen of your cities, that's still better than letting him destroy all of them.

You aren't going to see me arguing against that. I was simply pointing out why the US tries to still have air and land missiles, and hasn't fully gone to sub launched.

The reasoning is mostly obsolete, because it is no longer enjoying most of the benefits of that dispersion. The Minuteman force is down to just three bases, and the entire ALCM force is also consolidated at one of these bases. The B61 and B83 force is also less dispersed than it used to be and more vulnerable to a first strike.

The triad itself is an oversimplification of the concept of dispersion and variety of capabilities. The SLBMs launched from an Ohio have more in common with Minuteman III than a nuclear Tomahawk launched from a Los Angeles. The former share the same basic role and operate in largely the same way, while Tomahawks are low-level cruise missiles with very different flight patterns and lower yield weapons intended for different types of targets and dispersed across potentially dozens of attack submarines.

This concept itself is not obsolete, but the US is no longer investing in a sufficiently broad range of delivery systems to take advantage of it. If you're building a missile defense system, there isn't functionally much difference between defeating Trident II and Minuteman. But if you also have to watch for low-level cruise missiles coming from almost anywhere plus stealth bombers trying to infiltrate your airspace and hypersonic glide vehicles streaking past your SAM batteries, defense becomes much more difficult.

[Nipumal]

To be honest dedicated river boats for military/law enforcement aren't really a thing these days, most folks seem to be using stuff from the smaller end of the general patrol boat spectrum so its really a case of deciding what sort of size/capability you want be it a glorified RHIB, full cabin cruiser or something in between.

Sorry, maybe I didn't word my post right. I was trying to ask for a patrol boat class that is capable of riverine operations, rather than something specifically designed only for that. I realise the days of river gunboats have faded

On the most up to date full military side of things you might be looking at something like a CB-90 or the US Navy's Mark VI patrol boat.

for a more general starting point looking at the website of a manufacturer who makes a range of such boats such as here will give you a rough idea of what sort of thing you would be getting in the various size classes.

Thanks, I'll have a look.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Arcaenian Panzer Brigade:

Panzer Pioneer Battalion

• HQ
• Panzer Pioneer Company (x3)
  • Panzer Pioneer Platoon: 4x IFV
  • Panzer Pioneer Platoon: 4x IFV
  • Panzer Pioneer Platoon: 4x IFV
  • Panzer Assault & Obstacle Platoon:
    • Obstacle Section: 2x VOLCANO
    • Assault Section: 2x AVLB, 2X CMV, 2x ABV
    • Assault Section: 2x AVLB, 2X CMV, 2x ABV
• Forward support company

Panzer Recon Battalion

• HQ
  • UAS Platoon: 4x UAS
  • SIGINT/HUMINT Platoon
  • Sniper Platoon
  • Medical Platoon
• Panzer Recon Troop (x3):
  • HQ: 2x MBT, 1x IFV
  • Panzer platoon: 4x MBT
  • Panzer platoon: 4x MBT
  • Scout platoon: 6x RSV
  • Scout platoon: 6x RSV
• Flakpanzer battery: 4x SPAAG
• LRATGM battery: 4x NLOS-LS
• Forward support company

Panzer Battalion (x3)

• HQ
  • Recon Platoon: 6x RSV
  • Sniper Platoon
  • Medical Platoon
• Panzer Troop (x3):
  • HQ: 2x MBT, 1x IFV
  • Panzer platoon: 4x MBT
  • Panzer platoon: 4x MBT
  • Panzergrenadier platoon: 4x IFV
  • Panzergrenadier platoon: 4x IFV
  • Mortar section: 2x 120mm SPM
• Flakpanzer battery: 4x SPAAG
• LRATGM battery: 4x NLOS-LS
• Forward support company

Panzer Artillery Battalion

• HQ
• Panzer Artillery Battery (x3)
  • Fire Direction Center
  • Panzer Howitzer Section: 4x 155mm SPH
  • Panzer Howitzer Section: 4x 155mm SPH
  • Ammunition Section
• Target acquisition platoon
• Forward support company

Brigade Support Battalion

• HQ
• Workshop Company
• Distribution Company
• Medical Company

[Greater Kazar]

Arcaenian Panzer Brigade:

Panzer Pioneer Battalion

• HQ
• Panzer Pioneer Company (x3)
  • Panzer Pioneer Platoon: 4x IFV
  • Panzer Pioneer Platoon: 4x IFV
  • Panzer Pioneer Platoon: 4x IFV
  • Panzer Assault & Obstacle Platoon:
    • Obstacle Section: 2x VOLCANO
    • Assault Section: 2x AVLB, 2X CMV, 2x ABV
    • Assault Section: 2x AVLB, 2X CMV, 2x ABV
• Forward support company

Panzer Recon Battalion

• HQ
  • UAS Platoon: 4x UAS
  • SIGINT/HUMINT Platoon
  • Sniper Platoon
  • Medical Platoon
• Panzer Recon Troop (x3):
  • HQ: 2x MBT, 1x IFV
  • Panzer platoon: 4x MBT
  • Panzer platoon: 4x MBT
  • Scout platoon: 6x RSV
  • Scout platoon: 6x RSV
• Flakpanzer battery: 4x SPAAG
• LRATGM battery: 4x NLOS-LS
• Forward support company

Panzer Battalion (x3)

• HQ
  • Recon Platoon: 6x RSV
  • Sniper Platoon
  • Medical Platoon
• Panzer Troop (x3):
  • HQ: 2x MBT, 1x IFV
  • Panzer platoon: 4x MBT
  • Panzer platoon: 4x MBT
  • Panzergrenadier platoon: 4x IFV
  • Panzergrenadier platoon: 4x IFV
  • Mortar section: 2x 120mm SPM
• Flakpanzer battery: 4x SPAAG
• LRATGM battery: 4x NLOS-LS
• Forward support company

Panzer Artillery Battalion

• HQ
• Panzer Artillery Battery (x3)
  • Fire Direction Center
  • Panzer Howitzer Section: 4x 155mm SPH
  • Panzer Howitzer Section: 4x 155mm SPH
  • Ammunition Section
• Target acquisition platoon
• Forward support company

Brigade Support Battalion

• HQ
• Workshop Company
• Distribution Company
• Medical Company

Wow, pretty unbalanced brigade, very heavy in tanks and very dismount infantry poor.
Comments
1. For a brigade that is clearly focused on offensive operations, why 3 companies of engineers with 3 platoons of IFV-mounted pioneers? Not really much for these guys to do.

2. Not much difference between the Recon and Tank battalions. Suggest adding SP mortars to your recon companies and re-organizing your combined arms companies into combined arms battalions of 2 tank companies of 3 tank platoons and 2 mech infantry companies of 3 mech infantry platoons + 3 SP mortars each.

3. Consider re-organizing your Air Defense into a battery, adding a MANPADs platoon and putting under your artillery battalion. As is, your artillery has no dedicated air defense.

4. You may consider increasing the number of systems in the SPAAG and NLOC-LS from 4 to 6 to facilitate attaching assets out to companies.

[New Vihenia]

Im curious if we could somehow make water solid in room temperature.

Thinking about sort of survival ration but with "solidified water" included Maybe some sort of sponge or agent. you get freshwater by squeezing on it. The container is of course would be rigid so it wont get squeezed by accident. and the agent must be able to "store" like at least 3 liters of water.

I wonder if it could be made to work.

[Tule]

Im curious if we could somehow make water solid in room temperature.

Thinking about sort of survival ration but with "solidified water" included Maybe some sort of sponge or agent. you get freshwater by squeezing on it. The container is of course would be rigid so it wont get squeezed by accident. and the agent must be able to "store" like at least 3 liters of water.

I wonder if it could be made to work.

You could have some kind of compartmentalised canteen, when you want to take a sip you unscrew the lid and an internal mechanism turns and lets the water flow between compartments. I'm guessing you're concerned about leakages?

TBH I don't think it's a big issue.

Now... Onto another topic:

I have been working on a "Ranger platoon" lately. One of two branches of my army. It's a relatively elite light infantry force for my mountainous/forested areas.

3x Rifle sections

Automatic rifleman. 5.56 Bren gun
Rifleman. 5.56 rifle
Rifleman
Rifleman

Bren gunner
Rifleman
Rifleman
Rifleman

1x Weapons section

Javelin operator
Javelin loader
Mortarman 60mm knee mortar
Mortar assistant

GPMG gunner .338 Lapua MG
GPMG assistant
GPMG assistant
GPMG assistant

1x HQ team

Platoon Commander
2IC
Signaller
Medic

What I haven't decided is how to arm the Mechanized infantry. Given the fact their vehicle is armed with ATGM's and autocannons, is it safe to just go with a platoon armed with LMG's/Rifles only?

[Greater Kazar]

[quote

Now... Onto another topic:

I have been working on a "Ranger platoon" lately. One of two branches of my army. It's a relatively elite light infantry force for my mountainous/forested areas.

3x Rifle sections

Automatic rifleman. 5.56 Bren gun
Rifleman. 5.56 rifle
Rifleman
Rifleman

Bren gunner
Rifleman
Rifleman
Rifleman

1x Weapons section

Javelin operator
Javelin loader
Mortarman 60mm knee mortar
Mortar assistant

GPMG gunner .338 Lapua MG
GPMG assistant
GPMG assistant
GPMG assistant

1x HQ team

Platoon Commander
2IC
Signaller
Medic

What I haven't decided is how to arm the Mechanized infantry. Given the fact their vehicle is armed with ATGM's and autocannons, is it safe to just go with a platoon armed with LMG's/Rifles only?[/quote]

1. So is there a 9th man per section as the section leader or does one of the riflemen perform that role?

2. Very bare-bones, no grenade launchers, designated riflemen, ect. Not necessarily a bas thing, just an observation.

3. With just two guys, your javelin and 60mm mortar teams will be out of ammo very quickly.

4. And that's a heavy MG for an otherwise light infantry organization.

[Austrasien]

Im curious if we could somehow make water solid in room temperature.

Thinking about sort of survival ration but with "solidified water" included Maybe some sort of sponge or agent. you get freshwater by squeezing on it. The container is of course would be rigid so it wont get squeezed by accident. and the agent must be able to "store" like at least 3 liters of water.

I wonder if it could be made to work.

Except for some really exotic ices that form at high pressure, water is densest as a liquid.

[The Corparation]

Im curious if we could somehow make water solid in room temperature.

Thinking about sort of survival ration but with "solidified water" included Maybe some sort of sponge or agent. you get freshwater by squeezing on it. The container is of course would be rigid so it wont get squeezed by accident. and the agent must be able to "store" like at least 3 liters of water.

I wonder if it could be made to work.

If you were to squeeze the sort of ice that's solid at room temperature the only thing you'd get is a different sort of ice. Also you'd have a sponge and a grip that could maintain/create a pressure of like 10,000 atms. Both the grip and the sponge would save you a liter or so of space, but I'm skeptical that there would be much in the way of space savings after you account for the equipment needed to deal with that sort of pressure.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Im curious if we could somehow make water solid in room temperature.

Thinking about sort of survival ration but with "solidified water" included Maybe some sort of sponge or agent. you get freshwater by squeezing on it. The container is of course would be rigid so it wont get squeezed by accident. and the agent must be able to "store" like at least 3 liters of water.

I wonder if it could be made to work.

You could have some kind of compartmentalised canteen, when you want to take a sip you unscrew the lid and an internal mechanism turns and lets the water flow between compartments. I'm guessing you're concerned about leakages?

TBH I don't think it's a big issue.

Now... Onto another topic:

I have been working on a "Ranger platoon" lately. One of two branches of my army. It's a relatively elite light infantry force for my mountainous/forested areas.

3x Rifle sections

Automatic rifleman. 5.56 Bren gun
Rifleman. 5.56 rifle
Rifleman
Rifleman

Bren gunner
Rifleman
Rifleman
Rifleman

1x Weapons section

Javelin operator
Javelin loader
Mortarman 60mm knee mortar
Mortar assistant

GPMG gunner .338 Lapua MG
GPMG assistant
GPMG assistant
GPMG assistant

1x HQ team

Platoon Commander
2IC
Signaller
Medic

What I haven't decided is how to arm the Mechanized infantry. Given the fact their vehicle is armed with ATGM's and autocannons, is it safe to just go with a platoon armed with LMG's/Rifles only?

Why Bren guns?

[Taihei Tengoku]

Squads need dedicated leaders, otherwise it's workable.

[Tule]

Why Bren guns?

They are very maneuverable, very accurate and just plain sexy.

3. With just two guys, your javelin and 60mm mortar teams will be out of ammo very quickly.

The platoon isn't meant to take on AFV's by itself, it's just there so it doesn't get slaughtered if it bumps into one.

The mortar team is meant to replace the grenadiers. I prefer the idea of having truly dedicated and well trained mortarmen provide fire support rather than having one of the "grenadiers" do it with an underslung grenade launcher he's not as well trained to use as he could be, or to have a dedicated grenade launcher at the fireteam level that can only fire grenades and not bullets.

60 mm is a bit big though, about twice the weight of 51mm shells at 1.7 Kg, I might switch to a 51mm.
60 mm shells are way more powerful and have airburst fuses though :/ idk

4. And that's a heavy MG for an otherwise light infantry organization.

The Idea is to give the Platoon the ability to engage targets at greater distances compared to mechanized platoons, given they're more likely to fight in mountains than the latter.

Australians use the M2 Browning at the platoon level, so it's not too far fetched.

Squads need dedicated leaders, otherwise it's workable.

Commonwealth armies do it differently. Fireteam A is lead by a Corporal and Fireteam B by a Lance Corporal.

In fact, I've kind of accidentally ended up with an Australian Infantry platoon.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Part of the utility of a mortar is shooting flares and smoke.

[Isilanka]

Part of the utility of a mortar is shooting flares and smoke.

If years of virtual wargaming have told me one thing, it's this.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Anyone have recommendations for a class of river patrol boat, with main considerations being fuel efficiency and moderate operating cost? Timeline is present day, but of course I'm willing to consider options that came out in the previous century.

SURCs

Unless you mean a long-range rivine boat, or one with enclosed cabin and stuff. Such as teh CB90 (roughly same range and a hair faster for twice the mass and deeper draft)
Endurance for all three is around the 10 hour mark (which is a fancy way of saying it has niether a crew for 24-hour ops, nor beds).

Swift boats had twice the range, but thee times the draft of a SURC or PBR (same size as a SURC, but slower).