Page 3 of 497

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:21 pm
by Gallia-
Citizen X is an Xcellent film.

Spergviet Sutherland is my heroji.

e: Ty for telling me of this filmsu Ostles :3

e2: Ostles if you dont finish this film im coming to your house and we're going to watch it together ):<

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 4:13 pm
by Allanea
So check this out.

Just in theory, could I have one of these circle a warship and when it detects enemy ships, fire some high-speed AShMs at the coordinates I thus get?

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 4:15 pm
by Gallia-
Zephyr has a payload capacity of less than 3 kilograms.

It can barely carry itself, much less anything useful.

e: And Zephyr T has a payload of 20 kilograms.

e2: A better solution looks like a nuclear powered Global Hawk. I don't know how much AN/ZPY-3 weighs, but his little brother named AN/ZPY-1 weighs about 30 kilograms, which is 10 kilograms more than Zephyr T can lift.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 4:19 pm
by Western Pacific Territories
Purpelia wrote:
Allanea wrote:Relevant to this thread, a guide onhow to write about injuries. Also we can now badger Puzikas less I guess!

It's like 10 USD though. Do these people think we are made of money?

Probably.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:22 pm
by Chezzetcook
Dear NS. I am kind of back, and with a redevelopment of my worldbuilding!

How viable are battalion battlegroups in a modern setting to a small nation?

As a former British colonial enterprise, and now not very large, I am looking to structure Chezzetcook's army along the lines that would best suit it. A handful of regiments would be the basis, with the intention of deploying battalion battlegroups. Would this work?

Also, on a related note, would it be at all worth it to provide modern Panama mounts for "coastal artillery" presence? Not as a serious defense, but primarily for tradition and reserve artillery training. Or would a prepared and maintained bastion gun emplacements be better? This would be for use with something like the TrF1, M198, or FH70.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:11 pm
by Allanea
WRT Panama Mounts there's not really much of a point.

Something like a D-30 already has ha device in its mount that lets its crew to spin it about rapidly and aim it at things without the need for complex concrete bottoms.

The problem with any kind of prepared bastion gun emplacement is that the protection for the gun against the most common threats is limited, while it's highly possible an opponent might scouted out the locations before war even begins.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:15 pm
by The Corparation
Gallia- wrote:Zephyr has a payload capacity of less than 3 kilograms.

It can barely carry itself, much less anything useful.

e: And Zephyr T has a payload of 20 kilograms.

e2: A better solution looks like a nuclear powered Global Hawk. I don't know how much AN/ZPY-3 weighs, but his little brother named AN/ZPY-1 weighs about 30 kilograms, which is 10 kilograms more than Zephyr T can lift.

Stop you're giving me ideas. Terrible ideas. I don't have time for ideas.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:32 pm
by Chezzetcook
Allanea wrote:WRT Panama Mounts there's not really much of a point.

Something like a D-30 already has ha device in its mount that lets its crew to spin it about rapidly and aim it at things without the need for complex concrete bottoms.

The problem with any kind of prepared bastion gun emplacement is that the protection for the gun against the most common threats is limited, while it's highly possible an opponent might scouted out the locations before war even begins.


Yes, the actual defensive utility would be limited. For a former colonial territory I am more thinking as a ceremonial role that continues to be carried on. A prepared bastion is probably better than a Panama mount because it can be a simple firing pad that something like TrF1 could just be rolled into.

Utility would be limited to a ceremonial gun role, and reserve training use.

On a more militarily useful point, on a system based around regiments like the Commonwealth, how should battalion battleground be commanded? Should the commanders just be the battalion commander? Should I have signals regiment sub units which can also be attached to boater the battalion HQ?

Edit: To be clear, these bastion emplacements may even be open to the public when not in use, so I'm not proposing their use as actual defensive positions. Nor am I considering many.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:42 am
by Crookfur
Chezzetcook wrote:
Allanea wrote:WRT Panama Mounts there's not really much of a point.

Something like a D-30 already has ha device in its mount that lets its crew to spin it about rapidly and aim it at things without the need for complex concrete bottoms.

The problem with any kind of prepared bastion gun emplacement is that the protection for the gun against the most common threats is limited, while it's highly possible an opponent might scouted out the locations before war even begins.


Yes, the actual defensive utility would be limited. For a former colonial territory I am more thinking as a ceremonial role that continues to be carried on. A prepared bastion is probably better than a Panama mount because it can be a simple firing pad that something like TrF1 could just be rolled into.

Utility would be limited to a ceremonial gun role, and reserve training use.

On a more militarily useful point, on a system based around regiments like the Commonwealth, how should battalion battleground be commanded? Should the commanders just be the battalion commander? Should I have signals regiment sub units which can also be attached to boater the battalion HQ?

Edit: To be clear, these bastion emplacements may even be open to the public when not in use, so I'm not proposing their use as actual defensive positions. Nor am I considering many.

Yes battle groups are still a very useful thing but you form them out of your brigades as required and they are lead by the battalion HQ of whatever battalion provides the main companies:

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0014.html

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:02 am
by Gallia-
The Corparation wrote:
Gallia- wrote:Zephyr has a payload capacity of less than 3 kilograms.

It can barely carry itself, much less anything useful.

e: And Zephyr T has a payload of 20 kilograms.

e2: A better solution looks like a nuclear powered Global Hawk. I don't know how much AN/ZPY-3 weighs, but his little brother named AN/ZPY-1 weighs about 30 kilograms, which is 10 kilograms more than Zephyr T can lift.

Stop you're giving me ideas. Terrible ideas. I don't have time for ideas.


If I were "giving" you "ideas", you wouldn't need me to tell you about a meme that 20+ years old: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-us- ... ed-drones/

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:08 am
by Allanea
Bear in mind it already includes a camera, which kind of renders it possible for it to fly about and take pictures of stuff, which is 50% or more of what drones of this size do.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/09/15/ ... itary.html

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:08 am
by Mazujotai
How are Mechanized Regiments usually constructed? what would the ratio of APCs, IFVs, Tanks, SPAAGs, and SPAs be?

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:13 am
by Gallia-
Allanea wrote:Bear in mind it already includes a camera, which kind of renders it possible for it to fly about and take pictures of stuff, which is 50% or more of what drones of this size do.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/09/15/ ... itary.html


Maritime reconnaissance is done with side looking radars, not cameras. The problem is that Zephyr has a payload of what you would expect a university tech demo to teach students would have. Maybe it can carry some atmospheric instruments and take samples of high altitude atmosphere? A combat drone requires a payload capacity in excess of 1,000 kg! Zephyr is two orders of magnitude off.

Given that Zephyr began life and still is a university experiment, this is not surprising.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:16 am
by Allanea
Mazujotai wrote:How are Mechanized Regiments usually constructed? what would the ratio of APCs, IFVs, Tanks, SPAAGs, and SPAs be?


https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-3.pdf

You can read everything you ever possibly wanted to know about the structure of Soviet (and Soviet-like) Mechanized regiments there.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:16 am
by Allanea
Gallia- wrote:
Allanea wrote:Bear in mind it already includes a camera, which kind of renders it possible for it to fly about and take pictures of stuff, which is 50% or more of what drones of this size do.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/09/15/ ... itary.html


Maritime reconnaissance is done with side looking radars, not cameras.


That's faIr I suppose. (although wouldn't it still be able to spot things like smuggling ships?)

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:24 am
by Gallia-
Allanea wrote:
Gallia- wrote:
Maritime reconnaissance is done with side looking radars, not cameras.


That's faIr I suppose. (although wouldn't it still be able to spot things like smuggling ships?)


No. It can loft experimental atmospheric measuring devices, though. It would be useful for a university to expand its ability to teach students about high altitude atmosphere. Triton has a camera too, and a far better one than what is on Zephyr (for one thing it is multispectral), and it has to go to a (relatively) low altitude to use it. The primary sensor is AN/ZPY-3. Triton flies in the same altitude regime, although it's faster I think, and performs the same mission; but Triton's payload is measured in metric tons, not kilograms.

Zephyr is a combination of marketing stunt and a subsidy for university/MIC research & development.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:25 am
by The Isle of Newfoundland
Crookfur wrote:
Chezzetcook wrote:
Yes, the actual defensive utility would be limited. For a former colonial territory I am more thinking as a ceremonial role that continues to be carried on. A prepared bastion is probably better than a Panama mount because it can be a simple firing pad that something like TrF1 could just be rolled into.

Utility would be limited to a ceremonial gun role, and reserve training use.

On a more militarily useful point, on a system based around regiments like the Commonwealth, how should battalion battleground be commanded? Should the commanders just be the battalion commander? Should I have signals regiment sub units which can also be attached to boater the battalion HQ?

Edit: To be clear, these bastion emplacements may even be open to the public when not in use, so I'm not proposing their use as actual defensive positions. Nor am I considering many.

Yes battle groups are still a very useful thing but you form them out of your brigades as required and they are lead by the battalion HQ of whatever battalion provides the main companies:

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0014.html


Decided to change this up for some fun, and go another direction. I may do something else with Chezzetcook.

Anyway, the point is that there are no brigades. Or divisions.

Under this approach, now for this nation, the army would be made up of a series of commonwealth style regiments.
- Royal Newfoundland Regiment (Infantry)
- Royal Newfoundland Field Artillery (Artillery)
- Newfoundland Mounted Rifles (Tank)
- Royal Engineers RNR (Engineers)

And some others I will work out.

So the battalion battle groups will be semi-permanent structures under this. Combined arms, built primarily around the infantry or tanks. Active formations would be:
- 1 Armoured battlegroup
- 2 Mechanized battlegroups
- 1 Light Infantry Battlegroup

Reserve formations would be another 4-6 infantry battlegroups.
So, 2 active battalions of tanks, 2 reserve battalions of tanks.
3 active battalions of infantry, 4-6 battalions of reserve infantry.
One active artillery battalion, one reserve.

So in regards to the bastion mounts. The reserve artillery battalion would operate batteries throughout the country, with a traditional "coastal defense" role being primarily ceremonial now, and training.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:39 am
by Allanea
Gallia- wrote:


No. It can loft experimental atmospheric measuring devices, though. It would be useful for a university to expand its ability to teach students about high altitude atmosphere. Triton has a camera too, and a far better one than what is on Zephyr (for one thing it is multispectral), and it has to go to a (relatively) low altitude to use it. The primary sensor is AN/ZPY-3. Triton flies in the same altitude regime, although it's faster I think, and performs the same mission; but Triton's payload is measured in metric tons, not kilograms.

Zephyr is a combination of marketing stunt and a subsidy for university/MIC research & development.


The MQ4C is a $182 million, 14.6 ton aircraft.

The Zephyr is a $5 million, 50-kilogram aircraft.

You're right that the MQ4C is superior, it would hard to it not to be.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:44 am
by Gallia-
:roll:

The point is that everything Airbus claims about Zephyr T is a lie and looks to remain a lie for at least the next three decades. So no, something like Zephyr T will never be useful in your working age lifetime, unless you happen to magic up a solar powered plane that can operate for months on end with thousands of pounds of payload. But we already have those.

e: Also I figured out how to keep M198 around: give him an APU. But from the start.

He's already 7 tonnes. Might as well go "all in" and make him self propelled like FH77. This means he can stick around even with M777ER exists because he provides something M777ER doesn't: self-mobility. At the cost of not being air transportable. But no one cares about air transportability in the truck divisions.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:10 am
by Austrasien
It has enough payload capacity for a FLIR and ELINT receiver - which is enough for very basic maritime reconnaissance. But most importantly it can provide eyes on the target. For a fleet operating with realistic ROE this is extremely valuable.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:13 am
by Allanea
Austrasien wrote:It has enough payload capacity for a FLIR and ELINT receiver - which is enough for very basic maritime reconnaissance. But most importantly it can provide eyes on the target. For a fleet operating with realistic ROE this is extremely valuable.


Yeah at no point did I expect to spot stealth seacraft with it or submarines or whatever.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:17 am
by Gallia-
Austrasien wrote:It has enough payload capacity for a FLIR and ELINT receiver - which is enough for very basic maritime reconnaissance. But most importantly it can provide eyes on the target. For a fleet operating with realistic ROE this is extremely valuable.


How much does ESM weigh?

I also suppose the point of this would not to be tracking ships, but to find their general vicinity and go down low to take pictures of them, after they have been detected by things like Triton?

Allanea wrote:
Austrasien wrote:It has enough payload capacity for a FLIR and ELINT receiver - which is enough for very basic maritime reconnaissance. But most importantly it can provide eyes on the target. For a fleet operating with realistic ROE this is extremely valuable.


Yeah at no point did I expect to spot stealth seacraft with it or submarines or whatever.


As usual, you gave zero indication of what you actually expect, and proceed to act surprised when people don't know what you're asking. The Airbus image you linked mentions a SAR on the UAS. The lightest SAR I can think of is STARLite's most ultra-modern version, which is around 20 kg, but that leaves little/no room for anything else useful.

I'm also not sure STARLite is up to the task of high altitude maritime search, since it's used on aircraft with a ceiling of about 30,000 ft, but that's beside the point since STARlite wouldn't fit inside Zephyr anyway.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:18 am
by Theodosiya
Is there any specific research into what happened to human torso if it got hit by an Armor Piercing Incendiary and API-Tracer? If said poor schmuck wore armor or not? Bullet would be in 7.62x51, fired from DMR.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:42 am
by Allanea
As usual, you gave zero indication of what you actually expect, and proceed to act surprised when people don't know what you're asking. The Airbus image you linked mentions a SAR on the UAS. The lightest SAR I can think of is STARLite's most ultra-modern version, which is around 20 kg, but that leaves little/no room for anything else useful.


I'm not surprised that it's not usable for advanced scenarios. Unless I misread you, you implied it was not just useless for spotting ships with RADAR, but that all versions of it are useless for all military use.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:50 am
by Gallia-
Allanea wrote:
As usual, you gave zero indication of what you actually expect, and proceed to act surprised when people don't know what you're asking. The Airbus image you linked mentions a SAR on the UAS. The lightest SAR I can think of is STARLite's most ultra-modern version, which is around 20 kg, but that leaves little/no room for anything else useful.


I'm not surprised that it's not usable for advanced scenarios. Unless I misread you, you implied it was not just useless for spotting ships with RADAR, but that all versions of it are useless for all military use.


I dislike the "camera with wings" idea because I am IRL a shill for sensorcrafts, but being able to swoop down and take photos of a boat is the most dangerous part of the maritime reconnaissance mission. At $5 million a pop it's almost meaningless if you lose one to a missile or small arms fire, relative to Triton, Mariner, Fire Scout, or Poseidon. But that's not what the picture you linked showed, though. It showed Zephyr doing the job of a Triton/Global Hawk.

In this case, Zephyr should be in #5 instead of "boat or helicopter".