NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Ideal Britain]

Are the SAS experienced in sieging buildings?
When was the last time they did this?

[Spirit of Hope]

So is that main purpose of ground based systems to line pockets with money instead of actual functionality or is it that even that 1% probability is enough that pilot's orientation in battlespace is affected by it.

It's only 1% operationally, when pilots are reacting and using defensive countermeasures. If the enemy has to waste airframes suppressing your air defense they aren't bombing other targets, or if they are carrying jammers they aren't carrying more bombs, etc.

Again the original question planes vs. SAMs is stupid, you should have both. SAMs at best will deny the airspace for a short time, but you don't want your air force to have to keep a bunch of aircraft protecting ground positions when they could instead be attacking.

Are the SAS experienced in sieging buildings?
When was the last time they did this?

Why are you laying a building under seige?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Are the SAS experienced in sieging buildings?
When was the last time they did this?

Why are you laying a building under seige?

It's for a trash rp. Ignore.

[Ideal Britain]

So is that main purpose of ground based systems to line pockets with money instead of actual functionality or is it that even that 1% probability is enough that pilot's orientation in battlespace is affected by it.

It's only 1% operationally, when pilots are reacting and using defensive countermeasures. If the enemy has to waste airframes suppressing your air defense they aren't bombing other targets, or if they are carrying jammers they aren't carrying more bombs, etc.

Again the original question planes vs. SAMs is stupid, you should have both. SAMs at best will deny the airspace for a short time, but you don't want your air force to have to keep a bunch of aircraft protecting ground positions when they could instead be attacking.

Are the SAS experienced in sieging buildings?
When was the last time they did this?

Why are you laying a building under seige?

As part of a counter-insurgency campaign.

[Ideal Britain]

Why are you laying a building under seige?

It's for a trash rp. Ignore.

It’s not trash it realistically and compellingly depicts the feelings of soldiers and officers involved and uses real life military strategy.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Where's that "Questers reads an ns rp" video when you need it...

[Crookfur]

Are the SAS experienced in sieging buildings?
When was the last time they did this?

No they aren't, they simply don't do seiges they are all about quiet recce work and sudden direct actions. Its them you call in to end a seige.

Direct assault of buildings was pretty much thier bread and butter in Iraq and Afghanistan. Task Force Black pretty much covers thier most high tempo operations period in Iraq.

[The Akasha Colony]

Again the original question planes vs. SAMs is stupid, you should have both. SAMs at best will deny the airspace for a short time, but you don't want your air force to have to keep a bunch of aircraft protecting ground positions when they could instead be attacking.

That wasn't really the original question though. In this case, the original question was specifically about whether F-35 is a good choice in the face of "counter-stealth radar," and ultimately given that the existing radar and SAM networks developed by the Russians didn't stop non-stealth aircraft, it seems unlikely that they will suddenly fulfill their alleged potential against stealth aircraft. No one was asking whether they should buy S-300 instead of F-35.

[Crookfur]

Where's that "Questers reads an ns rp" video when you need it...

Sadly I think these rps would break questers.

[Spirit of Hope]

It's only 1% operationally, when pilots are reacting and using defensive countermeasures. If the enemy has to waste airframes suppressing your air defense they aren't bombing other targets, or if they are carrying jammers they aren't carrying more bombs, etc.

Again the original question planes vs. SAMs is stupid, you should have both. SAMs at best will deny the airspace for a short time, but you don't want your air force to have to keep a bunch of aircraft protecting ground positions when they could instead be attacking.


Why are you laying a building under seige?

As part of a counter-insurgency campaign.

That doesn't tell me anything. If all you want to do is kill the insurgents, bomb the building and move on. If you want to preserve the physical structure use chemical weapons. If you want to preserve the structure and not use chemical weapons, just assault the building. If you think the insurgents are to well dug in to be worth the hassle, you don't need the SAS to lay seige, a bunch of normal soldiers will do the job just fine.

About the only reason special forces would get involved with a seige is if there are hostages you need to rescue, and you can't just give the hostage takers what they want. In which case the seige lasts until you have a good assault plan or the hostage takers force you into an early assault by killing hostages. Either way the special forces aren't doing the seige work, they are preparing for the assault.

[The New California Republic]

Are the SAS experienced in sieging buildings?
When was the last time they did this?

Come on. Search the internet. There is one particular case that I assumed was well-known, i.e. the Iranian Embassy Siege that they were involved in.

[Ideal Britain]

As part of a counter-insurgency campaign.

That doesn't tell me anything. If all you want to do is kill the insurgents, bomb the building and move on. If you want to preserve the physical structure use chemical weapons. If you want to preserve the structure and not use chemical weapons, just assault the building. If you think the insurgents are to well dug in to be worth the hassle, you don't need the SAS to lay seige, a bunch of normal soldiers will do the job just fine.

About the only reason special forces would get involved with a seige is if there are hostages you need to rescue, and you can't just give the hostage takers what they want. In which case the seige lasts until you have a good assault plan or the hostage takers force you into an early assault by killing hostages. Either way the special forces aren't doing the seige work, they are preparing for the assault.

thanks.
It’s hypothetical at this stage so I don’t know if they would siege or assault the building.
The enemy might take hostages or might not but use of chemical weapons would not occur.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

Why are you laying a building under seige?

It's for a trash rp. Ignore.

Who are you to judge?

[Gallia-]

So is that main purpose of ground based systems to line pockets with money instead of actual functionality or is it that even that 1% probability is enough that pilot's orientation in battlespace is affected by it.

Missiles fired by ground defenses can force strike aircraft to abort. They also force virtual attrition on strikers to attack the air defenses first, since ADA/SAMs tend to receive the highest priority for suppression by air strike planners. They're not attacking aircraft per se, rather they're body blocking for other ground targets. The Package Q strike was about as good as air defense systems can get: the main target, the nuclear research center in Baghdad, was not hit by F-16s, because tactical fighters were forced to abort and jettison payloads, or divert to secondary targets due to massive flak fire.

They're very low on the list of important investments though. Stuff like flying hours, tactical fighters, improvements in infrastructure of airbases, new missiles, and radar maintenance all come first. Which is why the US Army and UK don't operate tactical air defenses bigger than FIM-92.

I don't know if I mentioned this but the ideal air defense system probably resembles BAMSE with a passive cued, passively guided missile. Think RIM-116 + the American passive radar. Give it a smokeless motor. This would maximize surprise against targets that are coming since they won't be able to visually identify the missile and will be unsure if they're being attacked at all until it hits, because it's all infrared guidance. Range probably wouldn't exceed 100-150 kilometers. Primary purpose would be attacking incoming cruise missiles and gliding bombs with passive guidance on radar altimeters. Used to defend high value targets like main operating bases.

Everything else can be dealt with by a RBS 70 or something.

[Purpelia]

The best air defense system is any air defense system that is moderately capable combined with a good fighter force. One can keep the enemy occupied whilst the other kills them or strikes at their bases.

[Ideal Britain]

How to stop local “civilians” of low intelligence from attacking soldiers during war?

[Purpelia]

How to stop local “civilians” of low intelligence from attacking soldiers during war?

You shoot them dead when they try. You have guns, they don't. And if they do why the hell haven't you confiscated their guns?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

How to stop local “civilians” of low intelligence from attacking soldiers during war?

Shoot them in the head. If that somehow doesn't work because "Ideal Britain" consists of people of IQ 50 run them over with tanks.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

How to stop local “civilians” of low intelligence from attacking soldiers during war?

How are they "low intelligence"? Are you calling them stupid because they're Northern?

[Gallia-]

norf fc

[Ideal Britain]

How to stop local “civilians” of low intelligence from attacking soldiers during war?

You shoot them dead when they try. You have guns, they don't. And if they do why the hell haven't you confiscated their guns?

But what they are civilians?
Then haven’t you given the enemy a load of free propaganda.

[Purpelia]

How to stop local “civilians” of low intelligence from attacking soldiers during war?

How are they "low intelligence"? Are you calling them stupid because they're Northern?

To be fair, would anyone not of low intelligence look at a column of heavily armed men wearing body armor and possibly supported by armored vehicles, aircraft and artillery and go "I can take that."?

[Gallia-]

ffs make a ooc thread for your dumb rp questions jfc lmao

[Spirit of Hope]

How to stop local “civilians” of low intelligence from attacking soldiers during war?

How are they "low intelligence"? Are you calling them stupid because they're Northern?

Can we not have you arguing about your RP in this thread please?

You shoot them dead when they try. You have guns, they don't. And if they do why the hell haven't you confiscated their guns?

But what they are civilians?
Then haven’t you given the enemy a load of free propaganda.

If they are attacking you by definition they aren't civilians. If someone openly attacks you just kill them, eventually people will get the idea that openly attacking you just leads to death. There is a reason why most insurgencies involve a lot of IED's, bombings, and booby traps, there less likely to get you shot dead right away.

[Dayganistan]

How to stop local “civilians” of low intelligence from attacking soldiers during war?

I'd be more worried about the high intelligence civilians that don't want you there. They'll be the ones laying IEDs and carrying out coordinated ambushes as an organized insurgency.