NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Laka Strolistandiler]

What new low observability measures are likely to be employed on the B-21 Raider and should some of the more modern search radars such as the 91N6E radar from the S-400 be able to detect it?

On a completely unrelated note when did the belief that future of naval warfare would be railgun battleships died? What killed it?

If we were limited to MT only and had a ~250K$ budget per infantryman, how would you equip them? What training usually not given to your average grunt would you give them? Their task is to perform unopposed and lightly opposed landings as a part of combined arms landing force in a networked unison with other forces, as well as to serve as a spearhead-ish element of a theater-wide offensive ops. I am thinking that the LandWarrior program would be a good start, correct?

Can solid-shot high-caliber AT munitions reliably defeat APS intended to countrr APDS?

[Spirit of Hope]

What new low observability measures are likely to be employed on the B-21 Raider and should some of the more modern search radars such as the 91N6E radar from the S-400 be able to detect it?

It probably is mostly improved engineering with better computer modeling so it has less of a return. The point of low observability is less to make it undetectable but rather to shorten the detection distance/time/certainty. So would the 91N6E be able to detect it? Probably but the interesting, and for us rather unknowable, question is under what circumstances can the radars detect it? Range, altitude, bearing, etc.

On a completely unrelated note when did the belief that future of naval warfare would be railgun battleships died? What killed it?

In the real world it wasn't much of a thing, railguns never provided the theoretical benefits.

If we were limited to MT only and had a ~250K$ budget per infantryman, how would you equip them? What training usually not given to your average grunt would you give them? Their task is to perform unopposed and lightly opposed landings as a part of combined arms landing force in a networked unison with other forces, as well as to serve as a spearhead-ish element of a theater-wide offensive ops. I am thinking that the LandWarrior program would be a good start, correct?

The training and equipment given to the individual infantry will mater less than the major items supporting them and unit training. Are they getting unit level training doing amphibious landings? What are they using for transport? What are their supporting arms and how often do they train together?

Give the individual all the training you want, if the unit doesn't regularly train alongside it's supporting/supported forces in unscripted training it probably isn't going to be all that good.

Can solid-shot high-caliber AT munitions reliably defeat APS intended to countrr APDS?

Maybe, but generally probably not? Is going to depend a lot on the munition and the APS.

[New Vihenia]

This is "Kimberlly"



210mm 40 Cal. Will shoot anything from nuclear shell to conventional HE-shell. Her forte however would be a ramjet guided shell and fire on the move capability.
Since she is of course based on Larissa, the Hybrid-electric vehicle she will of course adopt similar propulsion. Crew of 3 all in hull.

Guess this would be my first serious effort on SPH's.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

In the real world it wasn't much of a thing, railguns never provided the theoretical benefits.

I mean on the internet “engineering” side- I remember seeing everyone do it in the mid 2010s for some reason both on NS (I like to read through old posts) and on other forums including Russian ones- then in ~2019 this trend has apparently died down.

The training and equipment given to the individual infantry will mater less than the major items supporting them and unit training. Are they getting unit level training doing amphibious landings? What are they using for transport? What are their supporting arms and how often do they train together?

Well, for transport to the theatre of ops they’re going to use US-like amphibious assault carriers, for directly landing ops the EFV-like landing vehicle (I remain convinced that most modern US programs could push out workable results if the congress didn’t say no), that or Russian-like tank landing ships to provide the landing mechanized infantry with armored support. Their supporting arms, as expected of a modern fully networked military include carrier and land-based fixed and rotary wing aviation (mostly carrier based), some landing support ships (I’ve decided to keep some Iowa-like battleships for landing support ops- they could also suppress the enemy artillery faster than the cruise missiles would and arguably cheaper- considering my armed forces IC-wise fairly often finding themselves doing landing ops maintaining a small fleet of battleships would seem wise), in general you could probably take the US Gulf War BGA as an equivalent to the amount of support the marines usually get size-wise. They train with them as often as the budget allows and as it would be reasonable- after all no one wants to over stress neither the personnel neither the machinery.

Give the individual all the training you want, if the unit doesn't regularly train alongside its supporting/supported forces in unscripted training it probably isn't going to be all that good.

Makes sense, noted

Maybe, but generally probably not? Is going to depend a lot on the munition and the APS.

Well, let’s take the 115mm Soviet 3UBM13 and put it against the Iron Fist APS (I think it has some counter-kinetic capabilities)- would it work?

This is "Kimberlly"

(Image)

210mm 40 Cal. Will shoot anything from nuclear shell to conventional HE-shell. Her forte however would be a ramjet guided shell and fire on the move capability.
Since she is of course based on Larissa, the Hybrid-electric vehicle she will of course adopt similar propulsion. Crew of 3 all in hull.

Guess this would be my first serious effort on SPH's.

Why no MG? How would it kill R3T20’s what flank?
On a more serious note that looks badass. Why would you choose a caliber this large though?

[New Vihenia]

Why no MG? How would it kill R3T20’s what flank?
On a more serious note that looks badass. Why would you choose a caliber this large though?

No MG ? FFS. It's an incomplete 3D model my man. I just modeled the fuken turret few hours ago.

210mm well as i said, honoring Gerard V Bull. and i feel high caliber artillery will still have place. particularly engaging fortifications and high caliber seems to work well with guided shell. allowing both precision guidance and long range without sacrificing much payload.

[Spirit of Hope]

In the real world it wasn't much of a thing, railguns never provided the theoretical benefits.

I mean on the internet “engineering” side- I remember seeing everyone do it in the mid 2010s for some reason both on NS (I like to read through old posts) and on other forums including Russian ones- then in ~2019 this trend has apparently died down.

We've mostly moved off site. It existed as an internet thing because people who didn't understand ship design all that well thought it was cool and the future and a way to get battleships again.

Maybe, but generally probably not? Is going to depend a lot on the munition and the APS.

Well, let’s take the 115mm Soviet 3UBM13 and put it against the Iron Fist APS (I think it has some counter-kinetic capabilities)- would it work?

Define work. It probably isn't going to do all that better than a APDS round at resisting shattering or yaw induced by the APS and even if it did it probably doesn't have a good shot of defeating the armor of the target behind the APS.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Define work. It probably isn't going to do all that better than a APDS round at resisting shattering or yaw induced by the APS and even if it did it probably doesn't have a good shot of defeating the armor of the target behind the APS.

I though that it would be more shatter-resistant than APDS, guess I was wrong here

[Gallia-]

iron fist gives sufficient slaps to 115mm long rod ( ) penetrators ( ) that even bimpu one can stop them t. that one bimpu that stopped a 115mm apfsds

[Laka Strolistandiler]

iron fist gives sufficient slaps to 115mm long rod ( ) penetrators ( ) that even bimpu one can stop them t. that one bimpu that stopped a 115mm apfsds

Where can I read more about this? Like about BMP’s tanking AT rounds? It may be the remains of me believing in Pentagon Wars :clown: but I’m just really interested in how the hell did it happen

[Gallia-]

there was a bmp in syria that somehow managed to hit by a long rod that ended up impacting at something like 70-80 degrees from horizontal, basically vertical, and split itself in half across the weld of the main hull plate

there was a fat dent in the weld and some splatter across the engine hatch but no serious damage

this proves bmp-1 is proof against 115mm something the m2 bradley has never topped eat it usa

who knows how the LRP ended up keyholing it may have hit a berm or the sabot had a really bad separation

[Spirit of Hope]

Its a Signal Regiment. One per Division, need to start laying out the equipment it has, but the table of organization is roughly done.

[The Grand World Order]

Its a Signal Regiment. One per Division, need to start laying out the equipment it has, but the table of organization is roughly done.

I don't think having an electronic fires/intelligence section within the signal regiment is the best organizational choice. Per the writeup, (copied verbatim) the main purpose of the Signals Regimental is to provide wide area networks and server services in support of division operations. Conducting EW/SIGINT on enemy systems falls outside of this mission statement, as though it does degrade enemy networks, it doesn't do anything to support the provision of these services to your forces. I know that in the US Marines, Royal Marines, and British Army, these tasks get their own units in the form of Radio Battalions, Y Squadron, and 14th Signal Regiment (which focuses on EW and is part of an ISR brigade,) at least when it comes to ground-based ops. SIGINT and EW often fall within the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance branch, though I do know that there's been efforts (at least in the US) to push some basic EW capabilities down to the infantry platoon level particularly in the face of drone threats. I haven't really kept up on that lately, so I couldn't tell you how it's going.

Notwithstanding that, you could probably just have the drivers for these sections be more ELINT/SIGINT fellas, and roll the electronic countermeasures operators and ELINT/SIGINT operators into the same role. The US Army splits them up, but in practice they typically end up doing the same job at their units. Overall, it makes more sense to have ELINT/SIGINT specialists get trained to drive a truck than to have truck drivers go through a background check to be trusted handling your country's SIGINT systems. If you're wanting them to conduct more advanced SIGINT, having one or two of them also be certified in a foreign language could be good. You'd end up with a team leader, assistant team leader, radio operator, linguist, and two system operators, at least billet-wise.

[New Vihenia]

What new low observability measures are likely to be employed on the B-21 Raider and should some of the more modern search radars such as the 91N6E radar from the S-400 be able to detect it?

The B-2 is actually good enough in terms of stealth feature. Probably it's the ultimate pokemon evolution of stealth bomber. B-21 probably adopt very similar measure, The real brekthrough is to make the stealth feature more maintenance friendly. B-2 requires special climate controlled hangar to be maintained and probably a group of specialized technician. B-21's LO feature may allow your average technician to maintain the bomber in standard hangar without need of climate control.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

What new low observability measures are likely to be employed on the B-21 Raider and should some of the more modern search radars such as the 91N6E radar from the S-400 be able to detect it?

The B-2 is actually good enough in terms of stealth feature. Probably it's the ultimate pokemon evolution of stealth bomber. B-21 probably adopt very similar measure, The real brekthrough is to make the stealth feature more maintenance friendly. B-2 requires special climate controlled hangar to be maintained and probably a group of specialized technician. B-21's LO feature may allow your average technician to maintain the bomber in standard hangar without need of climate control.

Probably a greater reliance on active radar cancellation so that even if the coating is degraded it can still just ECM its way in.

'tho at that point a B-52 could use the same tech, probably not quite as well since it'd need stronger ECM to deal with the larger RCS.
-I'd rather see that ARC-tech on a B-1R, tho.

[Gallia-]

What new low observability measures are likely to be employed on the B-21 Raider and should some of the more modern search radars such as the 91N6E radar from the S-400 be able to detect it?

The B-2 is actually good enough in terms of stealth feature. Probably it's the ultimate pokemon evolution of stealth bomber. B-21 probably adopt very similar measure, The real brekthrough is to make the stealth feature more maintenance friendly. B-2 requires special climate controlled hangar to be maintained and probably a group of specialized technician. B-21's LO feature may allow your average technician to maintain the bomber in standard hangar without need of climate control.

It's also likely substantially easier/simpler to build in terms of construction.

But yeah B-21's really a B-2 built for mass production and a slightly more refined shape (B-21 resembles the high altitude B-2s before it got the little sawtooth trail) for better maintainability.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

The B-2 is actually good enough in terms of stealth feature. Probably it's the ultimate pokemon evolution of stealth bomber. B-21 probably adopt very similar measure, The real brekthrough is to make the stealth feature more maintenance friendly. B-2 requires special climate controlled hangar to be maintained and probably a group of specialized technician. B-21's LO feature may allow your average technician to maintain the bomber in standard hangar without need of climate control.

It's also likely substantially easier/simpler to build in terms of construction.

But yeah B-21's really a B-2 built for mass production and a slightly more refined shape (B-21 resembles the high altitude B-2s before it got the little sawtooth trail) for better maintainability.

So it is likely that the USAF will get their 100-something B-21’s they want without it becoming the next F-35 in terms of going over-budget? Like the whole B-21 program seems extremely successful for now- they’ve kept it within budget, met all time requirements and did produce a first aircraft within mere 7 years- now that’s an achievement!

[Gallia-]

It's also likely substantially easier/simpler to build in terms of construction.

But yeah B-21's really a B-2 built for mass production and a slightly more refined shape (B-21 resembles the high altitude B-2s before it got the little sawtooth trail) for better maintainability.

So it is likely that the USAF will get their 100-something B-21’s they want without it becoming the next F-35 in terms of going over-budget? Like the whole B-21 program seems extremely successful for now- they’ve kept it within budget, met all time requirements and did produce a first aircraft within mere 7 years- now that’s an achievement!

Yes it's shaping up to be the most successful USAF acquisition of a genuinely new aircraft in about 30 years or so. 100 B-21s will replace the B-2 and B-52 in numbers. 150 will let them replace the B-1s too, I guess.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Yes it's shaping up to be the most successful USAF acquisition of a genuinely new aircraft in about 30 years or so. 100 B-21s will replace the B-2 and B-52 in numbers. 150 will let them replace the B-1s too, I guess.

Suffice to say that it’s the most successful program in the world barring China because there’s next to nothing we know about them- we’ve had a lecture in Sukhoi where they exemplified this program and told people to learn on the F-35’s mistakes. Suffice to say that even if they’re admiddint that it’s a good one it’s a good one.

Makes me wonder if the A-12 could also be “saved” that way… Or if this program was launched back in B-2’s glory days would it cost less?

[Gallia-]

A-12 would never have flown in the first place so not really. Maybe the tiny B-2 Northrop proposed for ATA would have worked but the USN didn't want to foot the bill.

It would have managed to be worse than Tomcat, somehow, which was the JSF of its generation. B-21's construction would have been impossible in 1992 because the technology to build it didn't exist until around 2015 or so. B-21 requires advanced knowledge of composites fabrication, and more importantly advanced fabrication machinery, both of that simply wasn't there at the time.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

A-12 would never have flown in the first place so not really. Maybe the tiny B-2 Northrop proposed for ATA would have worked but the USN didn't want to foot the bill.

It would have managed to be worse than Tomcat, somehow, which was the JSF of its generation. B-21's construction would have been impossible in 1992 because the technology to build it didn't exist until around 2015 or so. B-21 requires advanced knowledge of composites fabrication, and more importantly advanced fabrication machinery, both of that simply wasn't there at the time.

Googled that thing and it looks adorable. Will totally trace it, ruin everything and neither the less add it on to my II fleet.

Got it, shouldn’t try to push luck where the technology just tells me to fuck off no.

[Gallia-]

The USN was penny wise and pound foolish. It could have gotten a decent stealth attacker since 1990's composite fabrication was probably up to snuff to make a baby sized B-2 if you asked literally the best guys in the world.

Not so much for a strategic bomber that's the first of its kind and comes with all sorts of machinery investments and composites research funding baggage though. B-21 is sort of riding off the coattails of B-2 to the biggest extent, Scaled Composites to a lesser extent, and N-G's JSF work for the center body fuselage or whatnot to a middling extent plus whatever investments N-G has made since then in producing better stealth aircraft in general. Bear in mind that the USAF wants to test a BWB (or maybe it's HWB) aircraft soon which requires a huge amount of knowledge in composite fabrication and manipulation. Beyond "aluminum cylinder go brrr" that most planes have.

Also I drew him in a boatscale if you want:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/n75c834e9knoq ... .png?raw=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gj9bhqaddsg0rtj/he.png?raw=1

[Gonswanza]

So it is likely that the USAF will get their 100-something B-21’s they want without it becoming the next F-35 in terms of going over-budget? Like the whole B-21 program seems extremely successful for now- they’ve kept it within budget, met all time requirements and did produce a first aircraft within mere 7 years- now that’s an achievement!

Yes it's shaping up to be the most successful USAF acquisition of a genuinely new aircraft in about 30 years or so. 100 B-21s will replace the B-2 and B-52 in numbers. 150 will let them replace the B-1s too, I guess.

B-52 is remaining in service regardless, though I question your claims. Do you have a source to back that up? Or did you pull it out of your ass?

[Gallia-]

Yes it's shaping up to be the most successful USAF acquisition of a genuinely new aircraft in about 30 years or so. 100 B-21s will replace the B-2 and B-52 in numbers. 150 will let them replace the B-1s too, I guess.

B-52 is remaining in service regardless, though I question your claims. Do you have a source to back that up? Or did you pull it out of your ass?

There are 76 B-52s nearing the end of their useful aircraft lives and 20 B-2s in service with Global Strike Command. The former will need another overhaul within the next 10 years which they're supposed to get with the F130. There's a further 44 B-1s in service with Air Combat Command which have no nuclear strike mission, so they're not very important if they get retired without replacement. 100 B-21's are the minimum order the USAF thinks it needs. 150 are "nice to have", apparently.

It's not exactly top secret stuff lol they want to replace B-52 with B-21 and 100 will get them those numbers. That they aren't talking about replacing B-52 openly is just common sense given the Congress's hoarderesque attachments.

It's also because B-52 is useful as a maritime patrol aircraft, but if B-21 gets built in big numbers, it's possible some B-52s might get moved to ACC and be taken off nuclear missions, as the B-1 was. It's not like they have stealthy nuclear cruise missiles to sling or anything, else that might be a unique capability that could be retained.

[NotTheKievanPeople]

What new low observability measures are likely to be employed on the B-21 Raider and should some of the more modern search radars such as the 91N6E radar from the S-400 be able to detect it?

Low IR observability too. As others have said radar stealth is a solved problem for all practical purposes.

On a completely unrelated note when did the belief that future of naval warfare would be railgun battleships died? What killed it?

Railguns remain impractical as weapons.

If we were limited to MT only and had a ~250K$ budget per infantryman, how would you equip them? What training usually not given to your average grunt would you give them? Their task is to perform unopposed and lightly opposed landings as a part of combined arms landing force in a networked unison with other forces, as well as to serve as a spearhead-ish element of a theater-wide offensive ops. I am thinking that the LandWarrior program would be a good start, correct?

Cooled FLIR weapons sight + the gizmos needed to obtain the co-ordinates of what they see. Then everyman can see at night, through smoke and a couple of KM away. And call fire on it.

Can solid-shot high-caliber AT munitions reliably defeat APS intended to countrr APDS?

Difficult question because there are no APS intended to counter APFSDS which have entered use only different concepts which remain equally unproven. Long-range concepts like LEDS-300 seem like they would work better against APDS than short-range concepts like AMAP-ADS because they only need to destabilize the projectile enough to begin yawing in flight. Something like MHTK might collide hard enough to cause partial breakup of an APDS in flight.

[Gallia-]

This is the part of the anime season where we find out B-21 has a DAS derivative and piezoelectric skin for cloaking itself from orbital IR camera systems through background contrast matching.