NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Spirit of Hope]

Wouldn't it be more cost-effective to use those line charges instead? I mean, paired to drones you'd have a very effective counter to minefields so long as the enemy isn't arsed to drop more mines in desperation.

Then again, I don't think anyone military force actually bothered with trying to combat mine-clearing vehicles through sheer volume and saturation, doubling up the number of mines to try to exhaust efforts in combatting mines... In an active conflict.

Its going to depend a lot on the type of mine used and under what situation you are destroying mines. With the right equipment you can blow sea mines with a helicopter flying over them trailing the proper equipment (generally magnetic or acoustic naval mines) this would be very economical, but may not be the fastest and doesn't work as well in a situation where the opposition could be over watching the minefield.

A USV may make more sense in another situation, such as in a situation where you don't necessarily want to alert the opposition that you are removing their mines.

In addition why are you having a USV suicide against a mine? Again, depending on the type, there are far better ways that a USV could be neutralizing them.

[Dtn]

Nobody relies exclusively on expendable ROVs or UUVs for naval mine clearance. They're for specific situations.

In addition why are you having a USV suicide against a mine? Again, depending on the type, there are far better ways that a USV could be neutralizing them.

If you have to visually identify a mine it's better than a diver.

[Gonswanza]

I still don't see a point in trying to swamp mine-clearing efforts by dumping more mines into the area or other areas until one of a few things happens:

1) You run out of mines and are unable to replenish the supply of mines due to various reasons.

2) They somehow run out of USVs and are unable to clear further mines from that point onwards due to (somehow) lacking the equipment necessary to continue... In spite of knowing full well that there is an active region full of mines.

3) The conflict somehow ends with the two sides giving up temporarily before mine-clearing resumes at a later date to open up the waterway to civilian traffic.

[Dtn]

Aerial mining campaigns last months or years. They're an ongoing interdiction effort that has to be continued in the face of constant sweeping.

Obviously naval minefields have to be replenished or they'll soon become useless.

[Gonswanza]

Aerial mining campaigns last months or years. They're an ongoing interdiction effort that has to be continued in the face of constant sweeping.

Obviously naval minefields have to be replenished or they'll soon become useless.

Newer naval mines are less akin to the old "floating contact-fused bomb" and more akin to a remote torpedo launcher. Those can stay under for years at a time, waiting for a submarine or surface vessel to pass over/nearby prior to attacking, with some even being tuned to attack certain targets so as to avoid firing upon civilian and friendly vessels.

Then there's the moored mine which is cheap, but also rather ineffective given how easy they are to remove and avoid. Those can sit there for decades, assuming nobody comes by to cut it loose for whatever arbitrary reason they may have beyond attempting to dispose of the mine improperly.

[Dtn]

Thank you for that slightly incorrect explanation.

Now try applying it to the actual techniques and goal of aerial mining.

[Cossack Peoples]

Its going to depend a lot on the type of mine used and under what situation you are destroying mines. With the right equipment you can blow sea mines with a helicopter flying over them trailing the proper equipment (generally magnetic or acoustic naval mines) this would be very economical, but may not be the fastest and doesn't work as well in a situation where the opposition could be over watching the minefield.

A USV may make more sense in another situation, such as in a situation where you don't necessarily want to alert the opposition that you are removing their mines.

In addition why are you having a USV suicide against a mine? Again, depending on the type, there are far better ways that a USV could be neutralizing them.

What I'm trying to approach is a minesweeper/hunter that is flexible and smaller in endurance and size than an Avenger-Class and is primarily used for swift demining of passages and less so maintaining the security of them for longer periods. It'll be equipped with other demining methods, such as the bare necessities of an oropesa and an optional team of divers, as well as conventional remote-controlled submersibles, but it'll feature an arsenal of something cheap and quick to deploy like the Seafox.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Anyone go about RPing where your country is one of the smaller and perceived to be "weaker" in your region? If so, How'd you go about worldbuild around it?

Well, up until 2007 we were perceived as one of the weakest combatant in just about every RP-conflict we joined.
-Which is kinda saying something when one of those forces consisted of T-34s with AMX-13 turrets slapped on. But most of the time we faced off against M8 Bufords and Nakil MBTs.

Usually as peacekeepers.

That reputation did not last long. Not for lack of trying, though.

So then our allies nuked our peacekeeprs around 2008.
-Like, intentionally targeting refugee-camps full of civilians in tents.

By March of 2009 things kinda escalated into a NS-global conflict, with Hurties generally being relegated to the sidelines for much of it due to suffering so many casualties in the opening stages.
-Still, we managed to blockade an entire country for half a decade and make one last hurrah to strike a multi-national carrier taskforce with B-52s and F-4 Phantoms.

By 2010 we weren't perceived as weak so much as absolutely crazy.

[Barfleur]

I understand the reasons why Britain wants the Type 26 and Type 31 frigates, but I do not see why they want (or Boris wants) the Type 32. Is that just supposed to be the UK saying "the LCS program went so well for the USA, we want to do the same!"?

Or is there a real need for the kind of modular, more regionally-focused capabilities the Type 32 is supposed to offer?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

I understand the reasons why Britain wants the Type 26 and Type 31 frigates, but I do not see why they want (or Boris wants) the Type 32. Is that just supposed to be the UK saying "the LCS program went so well for the USA, we want to do the same!"?

Or is there a real need for the kind of modular, more regionally-focused capabilities the Type 32 is supposed to offer?

Modular means the ship is WAY too small to be multi-purpose on its own, but it isn't cost-effective to have three classes of special-purpose destroyer anymore.

So now we procure enough to just barely meet the peacetime requirements of one of the mission-sets and pretend we can rip older boats out of mothball or something when a war actually happens.

Or rather, it's hopefully a design that hopefully will never actually ever see combat. And is built on a shoestring budget to match.

The good news is what makes for a good ASW/escort hull also makes for a decent hull for a surface-combatant.

[Gonswanza]

It can't possibly be any worse than the Ajax... Right? RIGHT?!

[Dtn]

I understand the reasons why Britain wants the Type 26 and Type 31 frigates, but I do not see why they want (or Boris wants) the Type 32. Is that just supposed to be the UK saying "the LCS program went so well for the USA, we want to do the same!"?

Or is there a real need for the kind of modular, more regionally-focused capabilities the Type 32 is supposed to offer?

To start a project budget for follow-on to the Type 31. Everything else is speculation.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Type 45 has deleted a lot of original designs because of financial problems.Even anti-ship missiles are only recently available.Given that Britain's current economic situation is worse than at that time, can these new ships really be built according to the design?
In addition, the displacement of type 26 is nearly 7000 tons. This volume can afford air defense and anti submarine tasks at the same time. And City class doesn't even have AESA with GB£1.23 billion?At this price, you can buy an aliburke class destroyer.Why is this frigate so expensive?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Type 45 has deleted a lot of original designs because of financial problems.Even anti-ship missiles are only recently available.Given that Britain's current economic situation is worse than at that time, can these new ships really be built according to the design?
In addition, the displacement of type 26 is nearly 7000 tons. This volume can afford air defense and anti submarine tasks at the same time. And City class doesn't even have AESA with GB£1.23 billion?At this price, you can buy an aliburke class destroyer.Why is this frigate so expensive?

Banksterism, greed, capitalism, accountants, MBA's and money launderers.

[Gonswanza]

You know, now I wonder if fast attack carriers are even viable in this day and age, in spite of using dated designs from a pre-nuclear world (unless one makes a more dedicated class using a more modern design...)

[Celritannia]

It can't possibly be any worse than the Ajax... Right? RIGHT?!

The Ajax is so aesthetically pleasing though, I wish it was functional

[The Manticoran Empire]

You know, now I wonder if fast attack carriers are even viable in this day and age, in spite of using dated designs from a pre-nuclear world (unless one makes a more dedicated class using a more modern design...)

Well, if you need carriers on the cheap, then maybe.

[Ideal England]

What is the military potential of the Channel Islands? Would they be suitable locations for air fields, submarine/naval bases and the sort? Consider the resident population of the Channel Islands as a non-issue in this case.

[The Corparation]

What is the military potential of the Channel Islands? Would they be suitable locations for air fields, submarine/naval bases and the sort? Consider the resident population of the Channel Islands as a non-issue in this case.

Negligible. There's nothing there of value to defend and it's much easier and cheaper logistically to just support a base on the mainland to support other things. During WWII the Allies effectively ignored them beyond a few token raids and never made any attempt to retake them.

[Antipatros]

What is the military potential of the Channel Islands? Would they be suitable locations for air fields, submarine/naval bases and the sort? Consider the resident population of the Channel Islands as a non-issue in this case.

Negligible. There's nothing there of value to defend and it's much easier and cheaper logistically to just support a base on the mainland to support other things. During WWII the Allies effectively ignored them beyond a few token raids and never made any attempt to retake them.

The Germans also funnily enough invested a lot of resources and times to build fortifications on the island, based on Hitler's personal orders and for propaganda reasons. It was a waste from a military perspective.

[Ideal England]

What is the military potential of the Channel Islands? Would they be suitable locations for air fields, submarine/naval bases and the sort? Consider the resident population of the Channel Islands as a non-issue in this case.

Negligible. There's nothing there of value to defend and it's much easier and cheaper logistically to just support a base on the mainland to support other things. During WWII the Allies effectively ignored them beyond a few token raids and never made any attempt to retake them.

I see. What about Trident? Would the Channel Islands be usable as bases for that? As Trident, if I recall rightly, is currently based in Scotland and they would of course be moved elsewhere in the event of Scottish secession.

[Gallia-]

There is literally no use for the Channel islands besides maybe reinventing feudalism, which is a good use, but not a particularly military one.

If Scotland leaves the UK then the UK will simply no longer have SSBNs. That's a much easier and more straightforward solution to the problem.

[Ideal England]

There is literally no use for the Channel islands besides maybe reinventing feudalism, which is a good use, but not a particularly military one.

If Scotland leaves the UK then the UK will simply no longer have SSBNs. That's a much easier and more straightforward solution to the problem.

Eh, I’d rather England retain its ballistic missile submarines in this scenario. I’ll have to consider another location to base them then, since the Channel Islands aren’t really usable for that purpose.

[Gallia-]

HMNB Devonport would be the easiest option since I think it has facilities for handling nuclear subs. The Astutes live there anyway, and the UK once operated 12 SSNs. It would require major facility investments though, mainly in the realm of missile maintenance, but I think there's enough space for all 11 or so nuke boats the UK has there physically. Whether that would actually be done is something of an open question I suppose.

[United Earthlings]

I have a hypothetical scenario for you all:

Let's suppose you need to perform a breaching operation against a fortified enemy position. The position cannot be bypassed or encircled from the outside, it must be seized for the broader operational plan to go forward.

The position is around 80 kilometers wide, and is held by 5-6 dug in enemy mechanized infantry divisions, reinforced with additional tanks, artillery, and air defense systems. Your forces must cross a river that is roughly 300 meters wide. This is followed by a marshy floodplain, which then leads up to a series of hills which rise to a height of roughly 50 meters, overlooking the river. There are belts of mines in front of the enemy position.

Question is, what would the breaching force look like and what would be its supporting assets? How would the breaching force attack the enemy position?

Limitations/guidelines: No weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, or nuclear) may be used. It is a MT scenario. You can use as much resources as you want, but I'm more interested in what the minimum required force would be.

Adding on to and modifying what others have already mentioned, especially Austrasien plus a little of my own out of the box thinking.

Assuming the required time was allowed to past for the preparations and the build-up of forces to be completed. While the build-up was taking place, in the interceding weeks a large scale air campaign was being waged over the designated AO to establish for Commonwealth forces either Air supremacy or at a minimal Air superiority.

Without knowing anything about the quality and capabilities of the enemy forces, I would say to start off with a minimum force requirement would be matching the enemies on a 1 for 1 basis. So, in that regard, specifically for the Commonwealth that would be one Field Army composed of 2 or 3 Corps with one Corps composed of three Infantry {Mechanized} divisions deployed along the MLR that will be the hammer for the planned upcoming offensive. As part of the initial hammer assault phase, three Heliborne Assault Regiments would be assigned with one regiment each assigned to assault positions within the foothills beyond each of the designated breakthrough points as assigned to one of the three forward deployed IMDs. Acting as a mobile support reserve would be the second Corps composed either with again three Infantry {Mechanized} divisions or two Infantry {Mechanized} divisions and a Armored Division. The Reserve Corps is there to reinforce the breakthrough point(s). A final supporting Corps to eventually move to the previous MRL of again probably either three IMD or the two-one combination just mentioned. In addition, as others pointed out, various support elements like an entire Engineering/Bridging Regiment, Corps Artillery Regiment composed of 155mm tube artillery, MLRSs, SRBMs and TBMs; various HQs attachments, various Logistics/Combat Support/Sustainment regiments, etc...

1. Three breakthrough points selected at a point where the river bends shorting the crossing somewhat, but also that recon has reveled is lightly defended and is close to stated operational objectives.
2. Each Breakthrough point would eventually see two pontoon bridges constructed to permit fast travel over the river and beyond the marshy terrain with additional bridging if required.
3. A Pre-dawn assault along the three selected BPs with a smoke screen laid to further obscure and cover the initial wave(s).
4. Until the bridges are constructed, to facilitate fast travel over both the river and the follow-on swampy marshland naval hovercraft and Airboats shipped in will transport the heavier equipment for the former and the infantry themselves for the latter.
5. Once each BP has seen at least one Regiment of Infantry and all their supporting equipment successfully crossed, other supporting units will follow especially the various engineering elements to start construction on the various pontoons bridges.
6. Within +24 hours of offensive opening, three entire Commonwealth IMDs should have successfully established a bridgehead for follow on forces.

So here's a thing. with the prevalence of drones, all shape and sizes.

What do you guys think on "AEW Drones" ? So basically instead of relying on large radar like usual AEW is. Instead, the manned element of the AEW controls some numbers of drones equipped with radars. Coordination is done via datalink. So the "drone controller" may still carry rotodome or just dome. But instead of radar it's a dedicated high speed datalinking antenna.

The benefit of this approach from what i see are following :

1.Deeper coverage as drones can "scout ahead"
2.Redundancy, since the drone group is the one doing surveillance while the "parent" aircraft controls it from a far, should one be shot down doesnt mean total loss of coverage as the other drone may still be operational.
3.Since datalink transmit informations and doesnt really do any tracking it can operate in much lower power level compared to Radar and at more optimum frequency. LPI operation can also be easier as unlike radar, real "noise like" transmission or DSSS (Diverse Spread Spectrum Signal) can be generated. While radar cannot do DSSS otherwise it cannot measure doppler effect and therefore it become WW-II radar.
4.Stealth, UAV is (usually) smol and therefore it's easier to make stealth out of this, this even more so in case of ground target surveillance where performance of clutter rejection is more important.
5.The UAV can be tailored for specific sensors. e.g One parent aircraft, controls 10 UAV's. 5 have air to air oriented radars, 2 GMTI UAV's while 3 more doing ESM work.
6.True Bi-static or Multistatic operations are possible as wide baseline and coverage can be made available.

The downside is of course the needs of having very sophisticated highspeed datalink. sensors can generate tons of data/seconds and all of these has to be processed and displayed in proper manner. Which may require the controller aircraft to have some good computers too. This scheme might be quite costly compared to just buy 1 AEW aircraft as the cost of UAV + its dedicated sensors as well as the need to provide the controls and the processors.

Jamming of the UAV's are possible but it might be hard especially with highly directional phased array datalink antenna (e.g MADL) Another concern is cyberattack or theft of information where potential enemy may intercept the intel from the UAV's and use it for their own gains. Solvable by directly talks to Satellite or an extremely high altitude UAV which acts as pseudo-satellite (e.g Zephyr).

Redundancy is nice, but not at the overly complex solution your currently proposing when just as effective simpler and cheaper solutions exist. In addition, information overload does exist, gathering all that data is meaningless if at the end there's just to much information for the assigned personnel to shift thru. Yes, computers can help sort most {maybe all?} that nonsense into something useful, but at the end of the day some person somewhere has to overview all that information and make a time-critical decision.

For the same effect I was thinking of doing something a little bit simpler, but slightly similar. I already have the Commonwealth building AEW platforms especially small ones like helicopter based. The Commonwealth has built drone UAV helicopters in the past, building a UAV of the manned AEW helicopter would be the next logical step. Eventually, integrated manned and unmanned squadrons would be deployed and utilizing the already developed in your words "very sophisticated highspeed datalink" that is the Commonwealth Integrated Battle Network, any manned platform can access the specific data they would require to ensure an successful mission from any unmanned platform within their own network range, which thanks to the various air and space platforms the Commonwealth has deployed would be almost global in nature. Therefore, you don't need to develop complex and expensive drone carriers, since a dedicated ground station crew controls the UAVs themselves while the active manned combat platforms can tie and access that information at will.

From there, just build the specific types of UAVs you need and link it into your military information network. That's what has been going on for the past 20+ years, I see no reason to try for something that is overly complicated when you should already have a well developed battlefield network system that the various branches of your armed forces can tap into when and where required.

Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, which works great, just play around the margins to make the wheel even more efficient.

Makes sense right?

Good post though, what have you been working on lately?