NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Amidia-]

I guess they're just aiming to high with their jokes.

[Triplebaconation]

https://politics.theonion.com/retreatin ... 1819578596

lol

imagine being fooled by this

then posting on fb about obama's muslim prayer curtains and OPERATION JADE HELM

[Eukaryotic Cells]

https://politics.theonion.com/retreating-clinton-campaign-torches-iowa-town-to-slow-a-1819578596

lol

imagine being fooled by this

then posting on fb about obama's muslim prayer curtains

[Doppio Giudici]

If the engine takes up 38% of the cost of a M1 Abrams, how much could I save on the latest models, if I made them with a cheaper and better engine?

[Purpelia]

If the engine takes up 38% of the cost of a M1 Abrams, how much could I save on the latest models, if I made them with a cheaper and better engine?

The real savings would be in the long term as modern engines, even turbines, are much more fuel efficient.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

I believe that General Dynamics tested a diesel engine in the Abrams for the Turkish tank competition. I don't know if they produced any information about the expected cost for such a vehicle, relative to the turbine version.

[Gallia-]

"gayla" is the type that tricks people with onion articles

I thought garfield killed osama bin laden for two months because of his tomfoolery

https://d2h1pu99sxkfvn.cloudfront.net/b ... C05/P7.jpg

[Almadaria]

What is the best aircraft engine for reaching speeds of ~Mach 3?

Also, are there noticable effects on stealth from using a turbojet engine (i.e. on a fighter aircraft)?

[Eukaryotic Cells]

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/sto ... -the-math/

“So at almost $67,000 per mile you’ve got a tank that only goes 205 miles before you have to ‘hit it with fuel.’ And in order to help that happen you’ve got to carry 195,000 gallons of fuel with you, to basically do a LOGPAC [logistics package] every 12 hours,” Cannon said. “And you’re limited in your range to 205 miles. So that’s 126 fuel truck drivers, 15 M969A1 5,000 gallon fuel tankers, and 48 M978 2,500 gallon fuel tankers.

“But if you put the diesel engine in the tank you’ve just decreased that cost by $10,000 per mile.”

Specific GDLS supplied figures for the ABCT with dieselized Abrams are $57,636 per mile (14 percent reduction), while also creating a 300+ mile range for all vehicles, decreasing fuel truck drivers by 14, decreasing 5,000 gallon fuel tankers by three, and decreasing 2,500 gallon fuel tankers by four.

Apparently GDLS pitched a re-engining project to the Army as well.

[Gallia-]

Tanks have such shitty range it's not really worth it to talk about range. Removing a fuel platoon for an entire brigade of 150 M1 tanks is hardly ground breaking. Replacing engines makes sense for spare parts more than fuel efficiency tbh. And AGT-1500 is still made. Would cost more to re-engine the M1s than it would be to just pay for fuel for another 100 years I guess.

GD is just begging for a subsidy because they're incompetent buffoons and can't make a profit in today's environment that doesn't involve cutting off their own feet. "Defense Media Network" being funded by GD, Lockheed, and a few other big names should tell it's just a shill for "give money for stupid ideas please". Like USNI. Lol.

Giving Abrams an autoloader and replacing the 4th crewman would save like 10x as much and even that is debatably not worth it because a 4th crewman might be useful for operating UGVs or something in the mega radio future.

Galla's futuristic M1 tank probably has 4 crewmen again because it never went for a software radio and just has like 4-5 radios in different bands.

I still haven't decided if the M1 it builds in the 1970s has 4 or 3 crewmen though. 3 crewmen lets me keep a shortboi turret but 4 crewmen means someone gets to be snuggled between DEM THIGHS and also radio man.

[The Manticoran Empire]

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/abrams-dieselization-project-doing-the-math/

“So at almost $67,000 per mile you’ve got a tank that only goes 205 miles before you have to ‘hit it with fuel.’ And in order to help that happen you’ve got to carry 195,000 gallons of fuel with you, to basically do a LOGPAC [logistics package] every 12 hours,” Cannon said. “And you’re limited in your range to 205 miles. So that’s 126 fuel truck drivers, 15 M969A1 5,000 gallon fuel tankers, and 48 M978 2,500 gallon fuel tankers.

“But if you put the diesel engine in the tank you’ve just decreased that cost by $10,000 per mile.”

Specific GDLS supplied figures for the ABCT with dieselized Abrams are $57,636 per mile (14 percent reduction), while also creating a 300+ mile range for all vehicles, decreasing fuel truck drivers by 14, decreasing 5,000 gallon fuel tankers by three, and decreasing 2,500 gallon fuel tankers by four.

Apparently GDLS pitched a re-engining project to the Army as well.

The US Army adopted the turbine knowing that it was expensive. However, gas turbines also run on just about anything that will go in the tank and the US figured that any war they fought in Europe would be difficult to resupply.

[Gallia-]

I'm pretty sure they bought the turbine because Chrysler needed an industrial subsidy lol.

If TACOM had any say in the matter the M1 would probably be powered by a 1,200 HP AVDS-1790 to this day.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

I can see engine improvements or replacements as being worthwhile if the original engine has fundamental reliability issues which limit the usefulness of the tank.

The British experience with the Leyland L60 comes to mind. They went through quite a few iterations of that engine before they got it to an acceptable state. Probably helps that the engine could be removed and replaced relatively easily on the Chieftain.

[Austrasien]

If the engine takes up 38% of the cost of a M1 Abrams, how much could I save on the latest models, if I made them with a cheaper and better engine?

No. Newer engines cost even more. There is no significant difference in the price of new-build M1s and other modern tanks. There is a case for a newer engine (smaller, lighter, reduced fuel consumption) but it's not going to make the tank cheaper to buy.

[The Akasha Colony]

The US Army adopted the turbine knowing that it was expensive. However, gas turbines also run on just about anything that will go in the tank and the US figured that any war they fought in Europe would be difficult to resupply.

The Army bought the turbines hoping that they'd eventually meet all the efficiency improvements that had been promised and because they had a few other advantages (quieter, easier to start in cold temperatures, no smoke, simpler design, lower weight, greater room for growth). Of course, the Army also stopped funding substantial upgrades to the engines so many of these promises for improved fuel efficiency and higher output never panned out.

[Almadaria]

What is the best aircraft engine for reaching speeds of ~Mach 3?

Also, are there noticable effects on stealth from using a turbojet engine (i.e. on a fighter aircraft)?

Am I right in believing that electronic countermeasures fulfill the role of chaff for aircraft countermeasures?

And what do you guys think is the best guidance setup for a medium-range air-to-air missile?

[Crookfur]

What is the best aircraft engine for reaching speeds of ~Mach 3?

Also, are there noticable effects on stealth from using a turbojet engine (i.e. on a fighter aircraft)?

Am I right in believing that electronic countermeasures fulfill the role of chaff for aircraft countermeasures?

And what do you guys think is the best guidance setup for a medium-range air-to-air missile?

For mach 3 you are probably looking at some kind of variable cycle engine, the j58 is the obvious starting point but the engine from the yf-23(yf-120 iirc) would be a more modern approach.

I can't think of any stealth issues with pure turbo jets but I can't think of any real reason you would use one over a modern very low bypass turbofan which give you better cooling and vastly better reheat performance. If you aren't going to use reheat then you might get some issues with a turbojet exhaust plume being hotter.

ECM and chaff have different places in the ew field and aren't replacements for each other. Even if you have super super defensive ecm kit you will still have chaff cartridges in your deployable counter measures launchers. Sticking a big shiney mirror could between you and a missile can sometimes help a lot.

You probably have to define what you mean by medium range but assuming you mean the 30-100km region then active radar with mid course updates would be the way to go. Imaging ir can get you out to approx 50km though.

[Gallia-]

I can see engine improvements or replacements as being worthwhile if the original engine has fundamental reliability issues which limit the usefulness of the tank.

The British experience with the Leyland L60 comes to mind. They went through quite a few iterations of that engine before they got it to an acceptable state. Probably helps that the engine could be removed and replaced relatively easily on the Chieftain.

The most reasonable argument for a newer engine is increasing the internal fuel load to compensate for the loss caused by the under-armor APU.

Right now this probably costs more than just eating the fuel consumption costs for so many decades though.

The US Army adopted the turbine knowing that it was expensive. However, gas turbines also run on just about anything that will go in the tank and the US figured that any war they fought in Europe would be difficult to resupply.

The Army bought the turbines hoping that they'd eventually meet all the efficiency improvements that had been promised and because they had a few other advantages (quieter, easier to start in cold temperatures, no smoke, simpler design, lower weight, greater room for growth). Of course, the Army also stopped funding substantial upgrades to the engines so many of these promises for improved fuel efficiency and higher output never panned out.

Lol.

Chrysler made the choice to use the turbine in their M1, not the Army, and it was against the Army's wishes because TACOM considered the AGT-1500 to be too high risk based on how the prototype 600-900 HP turbines performed in things like T95. The Army's preferred engine was the variable compression ratio (AVCR-1360) diesel they were monkeying with that wouldn't have worked, so they probably would have gone with AVDS-1790 uprated to 1,200 HP like the Merkava, and just accepted slightly worse mobility, had Chrysler not done that. It wasn't until Chrysler showed up at Detroit in 1974 with a turbine tank that the Army actually started to prefer it because it worked, unlike their dumb diesel, and the original choice was going the GM tank with a AGT-1500 but the SECDEF said no and had the contract selection phase redone with both tanks.

The turbine was mostly serendipity by Dr. Phillip Lett, and the fact that it actually worked quite OK, really.

Everything else is a post-hoc rationalization. Up until TACOM actually saw the Chrysler turbine tank motoring around the obstacle course in Detroit in 1973, they were fairly wedded to a variable compression diesel for the new tank and were trying to kill AGT-1500 to free up money for other stuff.

[Austrasien]

And what do you guys think is the best guidance setup for a medium-range air-to-air missile?

Active radar seeker + INS w/GPS and command updates.

Main contenders:

• Semi-active radar: Nearly obsolete, only worth considering in special applications where space/weight/power is at a premium.
• IR: Has many good features but the acquisition range against head-on, subsonic targets is inherently not good because they don't have a strong IR signature. Since head-on shots are the most important aspect for medium-range missiles...

Special snowflake:

• Passive radar: Too situational to be anything other than a supplemental for air-to-air.
• Electro-optical: Has good characteristics but only during the day. Only really interesting for counter-UAV.
• LADAR: Not enough range with a reasonably powerful laser.
• Semi-Active Laser: Fairly short range. Marginally interesting for SHORADS and counter-UAV. Used in one Chinese MANPADs. Laser designators are incoherent and so cannot suppress illuminated ground clutter (though the narrow beam helps a lot).
• UV: Rear aspect engagements only, short range. No particular merit except as an augment to something else like IR. Often part of MANPADs seekers.
• Command guidance: Pure command guidance is too demanding on the guidance radar for medium or long range engagements without a terminal seeker and/or nuclear warhead.

Special mentions:

• Active radar + IR: Most promising alternative but has significant packaging issues, infrared and radar don't easily share the same nose. Is used operationally in the Standard missile and Stunner but neither is really a perfect implementation.
• Active + Passive radar: $$$ and limited value-added for most air-to-air engagements outside the mostly hypothetical counter-AWACs role.
• IR + Passive radar: Used successfully in the RAM but relevance to air-to-air missions is rather questionable.

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

Could non-nuclear EMP weapons be effective? How would they be employed? Would it be similar to the use of carbon bombs, or could they actually be used against military units to some effect?

[Manokan Republic]

Expounding on the attack helicopter discussion earlier:
When ever actually... has light cavalry, horsebacked or in helicopters ever done what light cavalry officers always dreamt of? I.e. raiding the rear of a peer level enemy? Without the tremendous amounts of carrying from air forces, artillery or the infantry?
*thinking*

This is an admittingly rare aspect of cavalry, and costly at that, usually costing a lot of lives to air deploy like in most airborne operations, be it Normandy or otherwise, so it's not worth doing for the small tactical or strategic gain you may make. Without massive numbers and extremely good armor and self suffiency, airborne or fast maneuvering forces in this manner is only ever going to do okay. "Armored airborne" forces with absolutely massive vertical transport capabilities, or heavy self sufficient mechanized units are really the only things capable of achieving this, or than hit and run skirmish attacks with light vehicles that has actually worked.

In practice, aircraft tend to operate primary in already controlled territories rather than braving tons of enemy anti-aircraft fire, except in very specific offensive operations, and are better at operating within controlled territory to provide logistics support or a firepower boost, or slightly beyond it. Deep raids in to enemy territories with bombing runs had an impact in WWII and in most wars since then, but it's the oddity rather than the average use of the aircraft given the risk it poses to the pilots and aircraft for a relatively small gain materially, unless directed at very specific high value targets.

[Manokan Republic]

Could non-nuclear EMP weapons be effective? How would they be employed? Would it be similar to the use of carbon bombs, or could they actually be used against military units to some effect?

I think so yes, especially as an anti-aircraft weapon, which would fry a lot of the more sensitive electronic components, without having to get a close or as a secondary effect. It also would be useful against all electronics, so it could damage vehicles or infantry equipment, especially really expensive stuff with relative ease. If the area of effect is larger than a normal bomb, which it generally is, and it can penetrate through certain barriers small shrapnel might not, then it could be more useful to use, especially right before a major battle. EMP's can fry electronics, so with a powerful enough blast, over a wide area, it could be more useful than a regular bomb, depending on it's range. It also would specifically be useful against aircraft and drones, in part for this reason, so these are all benefits.

[Austrasien]

Could non-nuclear EMP weapons be effective?

In some situations. Though you are probably thinking of explosively driven weapons which have not seen any widespread use. Their area of effect isn't usually any better than conventional warheads of a similar size and their effects on targets (true of EMPs in general) are extremely unpredictable.

How would they be employed?

So far neutralizing IEDs in front of vehicles and short range attacks on UAVs have been the most promising applications.

Would it be similar to the use of carbon bombs, or could they actually be used against military units to some effect?

Not sure what a carbon bomb is supposed to be.

[Doppio Giudici]

If the engine takes up 38% of the cost of a M1 Abrams, how much could I save on the latest models, if I made them with a cheaper and better engine?

No. Newer engines cost even more. There is no significant difference in the price of new-build M1s and other modern tanks. There is a case for a newer engine (smaller, lighter, reduced fuel consumption) but it's not going to make the tank cheaper to buy.

And if a lot of the spare parts were running out or the engines were reaching the end of their life cycle? Let's say the owner of the tanks doesn't own or have easy access to factories that even make Abrams, just facilities to upgrade them or install parts.

[Gallia-]

There is literally no difference between those two things. The only thing the USA doesn't do to build M1s is produce new hulls. This is a trivial obstacle since the machinery exists for everything else and is regularly used. It would require about 36-48 months of training time for new factory workers.