NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Gallia-]

"dp" #uwu#

PAK DP will just be the latest Su-35XYZ 4.69++ generation fighter.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

mfw hiding is futile

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Could someone lose a security clearance because their brother is an insurgent? Why or why not?

[New Visayan Islands]

Could someone lose a security clearance because their brother is an insurgent? Why or why not?

It depends on how the institution handles background checks and such. A thorough background check would spot suspicious aspects of a person being considered for a security clearance. In this case, having an insurgent for a brother militates against a security clearance, especially if that person was particularly close to said brother.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Could someone lose a security clearance because their brother is an insurgent? Why or why not?

It depends on how the institution handles background checks and such. A thorough background check would spot suspicious aspects of a person being considered for a security clearance. In this case, having an insurgent for a brother militates against a security clearance, especially if that person was particularly close to said brother.

Thanks

[Crookfur]

Could someone lose a security clearance because their brother is an insurgent? Why or why not?

It could go either way. If the subject is open about and strongly denounces their sibling then that's probably going to allow them to granted basic clearance but they will forever be closely monitored and have to get used to there always being a plumbers/cable service/taco truck parked in their street.

[The Corparation]

Could someone lose a security clearance because their brother is an insurgent? Why or why not?

It depends. To use the US as an example, the wonderful SF-86 "form" ( I call it a "form" but depending on your personal history it can easily exceed a hundred pages in length) the US has applicants for clearances fill out has a disclaimer for every question about past criminal activity or drug use along the lines of: "Answering yes to this question does not disqualify you from a national security position"
I think this is noteworthy as in addition to family links to terrorism one of the questions asks if *you the applicant* have been convicted or participated in terrorism against the US (And if yes, to please explain). That's right, the US goverment does not consider you yourself being a terrorist an automatic disqualification from a clearance. (Although you probably need a damn good explanation and references to still pass) The only answer you can put on the form that results in an automatic disqualifier is an answer you know to be false and that they discover is false. e.g. Answering "no" to have you ever done drugs even though you tried pot once in High School 4 years ago. In the case of the brother it would be extremely dependent on 1) Whether or not they were forthcoming about the brother, 2) How close their current contact is with said brother and 3) How vital is it that this person maintains a their clearance.

[The Akasha Colony]

Is the MiG-31 still a viable concept today?

Most countries have gone towards multi-role aircraft. Would a nation be better off going for a Su-27 or F-16 variant than something as costly and without the same branching path towards multiple capabilities as the MiG-31?

It's not a binary choice.

Multi-role fighters are the backbone of a modern air force and there aren't any replacements for them if you want to have a real combat air force. This why the US, USSR, and everyone else continued developing or importing multi-roles at the same time more specialist aircraft were in development. MiG-25 and descendants were never a viable alternative for this role.

[Miku the Based]

Mig-31 is a interceptor and is made to intercept fast flying aircraft. It's not made to be a cost effective multirole fighter and you can't really compaire the two roles. Can a SU-37 catch a sr-71 or a X-43, 51, 53.
I thought the consensus here is that SAMs do not make a air defence and is entirely obsolete over a "competent air force" so that the only option to catch these aircraft is a interceptor?

[Austrasien]

Mig-31 is a interceptor and is made to intercept fast flying aircraft. It's not made to be a cost effective multirole fighter and you can't really compaire the two roles. Can a SU-37 catch a sr-71 or a X-43, 51, 53.
I thought the consensus here is that SAMs do not make a air defence and is entirely obsolete over a "competent air force" so that the only option to catch these aircraft is a interceptor?

Since literally all an SR-71 does is take pictures a few SAM shots to shoe it away is perfectly acceptable - like I said unless there has been a sudden resurgence of Mach 3 bombers there is no dire need for an expensive dedicated high supersonic interceptor. The Mig-31 would have a lot of trouble intercepting a hypersonic aircraft it can't be considered an effective defence against them.

So if you are facing down a fleet of Super Valkyries the Mig-31 is a worthwhile concept. If not, pass.

[Spirit of Hope]

Mig-31 is a interceptor and is made to intercept fast flying aircraft. It's not made to be a cost effective multirole fighter and you can't really compaire the two roles. Can a SU-37 catch a sr-71 or a X-43, 51, 53.
I thought the consensus here is that SAMs do not make a air defence and is entirely obsolete over a "competent air force" so that the only option to catch these aircraft is a interceptor?

SAMs have low kill probabilities against maneuvering enemy aircraft that are fighting back, if you don't maneuver or fight back a SAM has a good chance of killing you. SAMs are great at deterring and disrupting aircraft. If all you are worried about is a couple of reconnaissance planes flying really fast then SAMs are great.

If you are worried about fleets of high speed bombers with combat escorts then SAMs are less good and an interceptor fleet makes more sense. However that scenario is rather unlikely, since ICBMs exist.

[Miku the Based]

SAMs didn't stop the SR71 from doing its job in Libya.
And phasing out the MIG 31 won't make the threat of mach 3+ bombers disappear. I don't see how the existance of ICBM's negates this.

[Spirit of Hope]

SAMs didn't stop the SR71 from doing its job in Libya.
And phasing out the MIG 31 won't make the threat of mach 3+ bombers disappear. I don't see how the existance of ICBM's negates this.

Libya didn't have advanced, for the time, SAMs. Neither did they have MIG 31s.

There currently isn't a threat of Mach 3+ bombers, so having a counter to a threat that doesn't exist is rather silly. If someone starts seriously developing Mach 3+ bombers then people can worry about developing an interceptor to defeat them.

What is the point of a Mach 3+ bomber? To deliver nuclear weapons into an enemy nation with sophisticated defenses. An ICBM can also deliver nuclear weapons into an enemy nation with sophisticated defenses, while being constantly ready, having a shorter flight time, and being far harder to intercept. All while being a proven technology that is robust and less expensive.

[Miku the Based]

I believe in Murphy's law. As soon as these get phased out suddenly these high speed bombers start flying through ones airspace with relative impunity, no one is going to let each other know who is developing what when. The thing with icbms is the flights are predictable and you basically just need a large SAM (anti-ballistic missile) to take it down.
The SR 71 just slowed down it's speed and manuvered to dodge the missile.
I also heard of new types of ICBM's that work to go low altitude and operate like a high speed UAV before hitting its target which would necessitate a interceptor similar to the MIG 31.

[Triplebaconation]

is everybody wrong again

[Spirit of Hope]

I believe in Murphy's law. As soon as these get phased out suddenly these high speed bombers start flying through ones airspace with relative impunity, no one is going to let each other know who is developing what when.

You have spies for a reason, developing a Mach 3+ bomber and building them in large enough numbers to actually be useful isn't going to be easy to hide.

The thing with icbms is the flights are predictable and you basically just need a large SAM (anti-ballistic missile) to take it down.

ICBM reentry vehicles are not easy to intercept, and are quite capable of evasive maneuvers to avoid interception from any defenses, plus they are going much faster than any bomber could accomplish.

The SR 71 just slowed down it's speed and manuvered to dodge the missile.

The SR-71's response to missiles was generally just to speed up, they were generally flying high enough and fast enough that most missiles couldn't intercept.

I also heard of new types of ICBM's that work to go low altitude and operate like a high speed UAV before hitting its target which would necessitate a interceptor similar to the MIG 31.

That would be the various concepts of getting the reentry vehicle to have glide capability for ICBMs. Those aren't really a good target for the MIG 31 either.

is everybody wrong again

I always find your perspective helpful, feel free to jump in.

[Miku the Based]

If the mig 31 gets phased out another high speed interceptor has to take its place to counter the threats I've mentioned above. There is no use to get complacent and there are consequences for doing so.
When the Anglos found out the Argentines brought anti-ship missiles from the French it was too late. But fine let's just throw away everything we don't need at the moment and just wait to see if it bites us in the behind like the idiots we are. Worst to have it and not need it then to not have it and need it.

I estimated that we could beat the rocket-powered missiles to the turn

The SR-71 menuvered and changed trajectory, hence the "beat it to the turn". It wasn't able to handle the change, but it's able to go faster than it the SR-71 can't "outrun" a SA-2.

[Spirit of Hope]

If the mig 31 gets phased out another high speed interceptor has to take its place to counter the threats I've mentioned above. There is no use to get complacent and there are consequences for doing so.
When the Anglos found out the Argentines brought anti-ship missiles from the French it was too late. But fine let's just throw away everything we don't need at the moment and just wait to see if it bites us in the behind like the idiots we are. Worst to have it and not need it then to not have it and need it.

I wouldn't necessarily argue to phase out the MiG-31, just that if the main reason you are keeping it around is to counter a threat that doesn't currently exist (Mach 3+ bombers) or a threat it isn't good against (ICBMs and glide based ICBMs), it isn't a good investment.

Its great to say "Worst to have it and not need it then to not have it and need it," but it's existing is taking away money from other potential aircraft and projects that might better serve what you are actually facing.

[Triplebaconation]

The reason most countries don't have anything like the MiG-31 is because if you look at a map most countries don't look very much like Russia. Those with similar requirements during the Cold War have simply abandoned the capability offered by their MiG-31 analogues, but the integrity of the Motherland is probably more imperative than defending a carrier group or patrolling the GIUK gap.

The speed of the MiG-31 (currently Mach 1.5 at most) is probably its least important attribute. It's obviously useless against Mach 3 bombers (tactics used against the SR-71 won't work) and ICBMs (although I guess if you had an airborne ABM the MiG-31 would probably be as good a platform for it as anything else). What it's good at is controlling a lot of airspace for a long time a long way from an airbase. Like in the Arctic where SAMs are problematic.

If your situation is anything like Russia something like the MiG-31 may be a good investment, otherwise probably not. Russia will probably keep them around for a while because symbolic capabilities are almost as important as actual ones.

[Miku the Based]

A MIG-25 can sustain a Mach 2.83 and that's the previous generation that basically every soviet aligned country has which was forced into a role it wasn't designed for in those countries.
It's a Gas Guzzler, it does not actually do long patrols. Those are left to the more efficent aircraft. It fits it's role as a interceptor and I argue it's the only aircraft able to shoot down a SR-71 and other craft with such speeds.

I don't get the argument of making a bunch of one thing instead of diversifying the portfolio. It makes you a one trick pony and your enemies will exploit it to ruthless abandon.
They think it's a good idea to use this argument with 223, 545 calibers when that makes it obvious to the enemy to use a different tactic and doctrine to defeat you, simply engage you from outside effective range and put you in situations where you are forced to do so.
These SU-37's certainly do have deficiencies and to only use them or only use "multi-role fighter" as a force multiplier is only going to exacerbate that problem. Things like AWACS, Recon aircraft, short take off and landing craft for supply, interceptors, Drones with short payload and able to patrol a wide area for a long time, bush aircraft for jungle supply, and so on shouldn't be neglected unless you want the enemy to exploit it.

[Triplebaconation]

it does not actually do long patrols

MiG-31s are certainly based in interesting places for aircraft that don't do long patrols.

[Gallia-]

MiG-25 is XF-108.
MiG-31 is Avro Arrow.

Sad!

[Miku the Based]

can a f22 attack 4 targets simultaneously? Or at least more than one?
The only ones I could pick out is the f-14, mig-31 and Rafael. This is due to the on board radar system right?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

If you redline the speedo on the Foxbat two things are gonna happen:
1. The regimental commissar is going to give you a dressing down.
2. The plane's engines are getting taken out for a complete inspection and repair.

[Radictistan]

can a f22 attack 4 targets simultaneously? Or at least more than one?
The only ones I could pick out is the f-14, mig-31 and Rafael. This is due to the on board radar system right?

Any fighter designed in the last forty years is going to have a Track-While-Search mode which allows simultaneous missile attacks against multiple targets, assuming the targets are close enough together and you're using Active Radar homing missiles. An aircraft with a phased array track, such as the F-22 and Rafale, is going to be especially good at this as it can scan very, very, fast.