Ukraine legalizes slavery (OPEN/OOC)

[Yagerist Ukraine]

OOC for this.

@ Laka Strolistandiler, it is my belief that all targetted ships will be sunk, citing what they are targetted with. Even if 4 out 5 launched missiles are shot down, 500 kg worth of HE is sufficient to sink a carrier, or at least heavily damage it. Of course I am willing to let you shoot down some of my stuff, because it is only fair that I take causalities too.

You are welcome to try to convince me otherwise, and I am willing to concede this point should you offer a sufficient explanation.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

((FFS long posr deleted by forced page refreshment j love you Safari)
500 kg HE is hardly enough to sink a carrier or a battleship- consider, firstly, the case of the USS Forrestal fire, which has seven or eight 1,000-pound bombs, one 750-pound bomb, one 500-pound (227 kg) bomb detonate- that’s well more than 1 500 kg detonations. And USS Forrestal was built in 1955, without all of the modern materials, design features and fire-fighting systems featured in this aircraft carrier. Should I mention them more precisely? I could also include other instances of major fires/bomb hits on USN and IJN ships during WW2, but I dont think that another example is needed.
The battleship should actually have a better shot at surviving the attack- because we also have an example of a battleship surviving multiple bomb hits- the IJN Yamato. It took, I believe, 3-4 1000-lb bomb hits, as well as 2-3 500-lb bombs, and sunk primarily due to damage from torpedo hits. It also had extremely ineffective firefighting crew, bad pumps, ineffective bulkhead design, cramped crew compartments, etc. So I believe that if this abomination somehow survived the attack, way more modern and optimized ship should have a better shot at this.
Correction: I do understand that comparing warheads traveling at hypersonic speeds to free-fall bombs is a bit stupid, but first of all, the major force of the impact can be taken by the deck armor on warships, theoretically not allowing the missile to penetrate into the lower decks or even hangar before detonating and in case of battleship it’s more or less the same.
Air Defense Cruiser should be considered a warship specialized in air defense against primarily warheads- and while it surely is not as armored as other ships, I’d say that it possesses much more close-in defense systems than other ships in the fleet- and I believe that it should be defended by the missiles targeted at it. The layout of the fleet as I’ve mentioned it in the telegrams is more or less supposed to provide a multi-layered defense against ASM attacks- and due to OHP’s (Perry’s) not being targeted, they can fully utilize their air defense systems to attack the missiles in flight.
AEGIS afaik was IRL created primarily as a defense system, giving it some ability to intercept DF-21D (I believe you’re using this version)- and during trials it was able to intercept ballistic missiles in groups, using SM-3’s. Now it uses a way more advanced SM-6, and I do believe that with assistance from OHP’s they should be able to defend themselves- maybe a couple of ships will be hit and crippled, but damage control parties should at very least allow them to retain sailing capabilities to return to Lakan base at Malta or if they’ll be leaking fuel/their reactor or propulsion unit would be damaged (some of the ships are nuclear-powered) to limp to the Russian ports of Sochi or Novorossiysk or many naval bases in the area.
I’d be stupid to think that only defense against missile threats is armor or Aegis so let’s talk about stuff. I need to ask a few clarifying questions: how do they missile mask their launch from active radar of the warships (AN/SPY-1 used by some warships should have the capability to detect ballistic and cruise missiles taking off) and AWACS. I do understand that extensive jamming can be done in the area to prevent them from doing it but should they detect them a few seconds after taking off neither the less?
AWACS has the capability to detect even targets with extremely small RCS when looking down, as demonstrated by E-2C’s during some war games (I don’t remember which ones exactly but I do know this)- and no grapes should be able to accelerate to such absurd speeds as cruise missiles. I also need some information about Type 2011 time of flight and speed. What defenses does it has against decoys being used, such as the Naval Decoy IDS300, AN/SLQ-49 chaff decoy and the Nulka decoy? How would they detect hits/carrier being sunk?

Now about the ship’s close in defenses- as I’ve previously mentioned, every ship you’ve targeted carries THEL/AN/SEQ-3 hybrid (because there’s not much know about THEL I am also using the AN/SEQ-3 as an analogue). AFAIK, they’re VERY effective at dealing with projectiles traversing at very large speeds, because even a small but painful burn is a death sentence at speeds exceeding 5 Mach.

For now this is all may edit in more stuff later

Edit-1: I forgor the main air defense system of the fleet- the timed-fuse nukes. Battleships’ and battle cruiser cannons are programmed to function as part of air defenses of the fleet, firing guided small-yield nuclear shells designed to attack hostile targets by a combination of EMP and air blast and programmed to detonate in missile’s flight path. And they will (if OP allows) use them at full power- because previously Laka has used nukes extremely liberally.

[New Aeyariss]

500 kg HE is hardly enough to sink a carrier or a battleship- consider, firstly, the case of the USS Forrestal fire, which has seven or eight 1,000-pound bombs, one 750-pound bomb, one 500-pound (227 kg) bomb detonate- that’s well more than 1 500 kg detonations. And USS Forrestal was built in 1955, without all of the modern materials, design features and fire-fighting systems featured in this aircraft carrier. Should I mention them more precisely? I could also include other instances of major fires/bomb hits on USN and IJN ships during WW2, but I dont think that another example is needed.

First of, I would like to point out that all the damage we have discussed here is in relation to airborne bombs, not cruise missiles. In case of a cruise missile, kinetic energy and fuel weight matter as much as the warhead itself. We are talking of 1800 kilomgrams striking a ship at 950 kilometers per hour directly above waterline, then exploding. Multiple times if necessary.

I need also to point out that merely two missiles - both of them with smaller warheads than 500 kilograms on Otsuki and 1000 kilograms lighter - were enough to sink "Moskva" this year, a cruiser that was at full load at 11,490 tons.

The battleship should actually have a better shot at surviving the attack- because we also have an example of a battleship surviving multiple bomb hits- the IJN Yamato. It took, I believe, 3-4 1000-lb bomb hits, as well as 2-3 500-lb bombs, and sunk primarily due to damage from torpedo hits. It also had extremely ineffective firefighting crew, bad pumps, ineffective bulkhead design, cramped crew compartments, etc. So I believe that if this abomination somehow survived the attack, way more modern and optimized ship should have a better shot at this.

I am going to concede this point here though.

Air Defense Cruiser should be considered a warship specialized in air defense against primarily warheads- and while it surely is not as armored as other ships, I’d say that it possesses much more close-in defense systems than other ships in the fleet- and I believe that it should be defended by the missiles targeted at it. The layout of the fleet as I’ve mentioned it in the telegrams is more or less supposed to provide a multi-layered defense against ASM attacks- and due to OHP’s (Perry’s) not being targeted, they can fully utilize their air defense systems to attack the missiles in flight.

Of course, but there is still the issue of low observability of Type 2011.

AEGIS afaik was IRL created primarily as a defense system, giving it some ability to intercept DF-21D (I believe you’re using this version)- and during trials it was able to intercept ballistic missiles in groups, using SM-3’s. Now it uses a way more advanced SM-6, and I do believe that with assistance from OHP’s they should be able to defend themselves- maybe a couple of ships will be hit and crippled, but damage control parties should at very least allow them to retain sailing capabilities to return to Lakan base at Malta or if they’ll be leaking fuel/their reactor or propulsion unit would be damaged (some of the ships are nuclear-powered) to limp to the Russian ports of Sochi or Novorossiysk or many naval bases in the area.

Yeah, it is DF-2D. There are two thing that I want to point out:

1) Historically, ballistic missile defence has proven itself far less effective than advertised. I still do believe that you should be able to intercept couple of my warheads - hence I fired 4, all at the aircraft carrier

2) Okay, I was wrong. Apparently, a DF-21D on a re-entry has a kinetic energy of an exocet. It won't be able to sink the carrier - not alone at least.

I’d be stupid to think that only defense against missile threats is armor or Aegis so let’s talk about stuff. I need to ask a few clarifying questions: how do they missile mask their launch from active radar of the warships (AN/SPY-1 used by some warships should have the capability to detect ballistic and cruise missiles taking off) and AWACS. I do understand that extensive jamming can be done in the area to prevent them from doing it but should they detect them a few seconds after taking off neither the less?

1) Not just jamming. At the moment of firing Ukrainian S-400 start firing at whatever aircraft they an pick up, with AWACS being top priority. This ought to force whatever AEW that survives at lower altitudes, preventing them from fully exploiting their potential.

2) AN-SPY 1 for sure will be able to detect the ballistic missile launch, but there is no chance it will be able to detect the cruise missile launch that far away due to radar horizon. We need to remember that our targets are flying at 17 meters.

3) The claim that E-2C can detect VLO targets is a bit of a stretch. First, it depends on what kind of LO target, as RCS changes depending on angle and time. So yes, from time to time E-2C can pick up a LO target, however such a capability is insufficient to create a consistent track necessary to guide a weapon on target.

AWACS has the capability to detect even targets with extremely small RCS when looking down, as demonstrated by E-2C’s during some war games (I don’t remember which ones exactly but I do know this)- and no grapes should be able to accelerate to such absurd speeds as cruise missiles

Thing is, we are ignoring the issue of wave clutter here, as well as other forms of clutter. In addition to that, most modern radars are programmed to ignore such "errors" which actually further reduces the chances of detection.

I also need some information about Type 2011 time of flight and speed. What defenses does it has against decoys being used, such as the Naval Decoy IDS300, AN/SLQ-49 chaff decoy and the Nulka decoy? How would they detect hits/carrier being sunk?

I honestly have not designed said missile as of that much yet, but it is a LRASM equivalent. It has an active radar seeker (activated in the detminal phase ), passive radar and IR seeker, combined with datalinks, swarm capability and artificial intelligence. Hence I imagine that resistance to ECM would be quite high.

Type 2011 is transonic, means roughly 30 minutes would take between the launch and reaching of Lakan fleet.

AN/SEQ-3

It is funny because I heard only bad things about AN/SEQ-3...

AEGIS afaik was IRL created primarily as a defense system, giving it some ability to intercept DF-21D (I believe you’re using this version)- and during trials it was able to intercept ballistic missiles in groups, using SM-3’s. Now it uses a way more advanced SM-6, and I do believe that with assistance from OHP’s they should be able to defend themselves- maybe a couple of ships will be hit and crippled, but damage control parties should at very least allow them to retain sailing capabilities to return to Lakan base at Malta or if they’ll be leaking fuel/their reactor or propulsion unit would be damaged (some of the ships are nuclear-powered) to limp to the Russian ports of Sochi or Novorossiysk or many naval bases in the area.

Well I do believe that we can reach a deal here. How about...

- Carrier is crippled, unable to launch aircraft and basically becomes a floating junk.
- Battleship has only minor damage.
- AEGIS cruisers sink.
- 1 Battlecruiser sinks, one moderate damage and still in operation.

How about this? Ukrainians would already realise their operational goals, citing that their main goal of phase 1 is merely to remove Lakan aviation from the equation by targetting the carrier.

Edit-1: I forgor the main air defense system of the fleet- the timed-fuse nukes. Battleships’ and battle cruiser cannons are programmed to function as part of air defenses of the fleet, firing guided small-yield nuclear shells designed to attack hostile targets by a combination of EMP and air blast and programmed to detonate in missile’s flight path. And they will (if OP allows) use them at full power- because previously Laka has used nukes extremely liberally.

I prefer if we abstained from using nukes at all.

Of course nothing prevents them from being used, but this pretty much guarantees that next wave is nuclear tipped, and results in further escalation that goes beyond fun..

[Laka Strolistandiler]

First of, I would like to point out that all the damage we have discussed here is in relation to airborne bombs, not cruise missiles. In case of a cruise missile, kinetic energy and fuel weight matter as much as the warhead itself. We are talking of 1800 kilomgrams striking a ship at 950 kilometers per hour directly above waterline, then exploding. Multiple times if necessary.

I need also to point out that merely two missiles - both of them with smaller warheads than 500 kilograms on Otsuki and 1000 kilograms lighter - were enough to sink "Moskva" this year, a cruiser that was at full load at 11,490 tons.

Moskva can hardly be called en expample of a good cruiser- because of it being extremely vulnerable to surface attacks because of the gigantic missile tubes, extremely badly trained crew, bad hull condition, horrible fire prevention systems, bad maintenance, etc. Moreover than that, Moskva has a crew with a VERY bad moral condition- I hardly doubt that the majority of those who survive secondaries going off are have done anything regarding damage control rather than abandon ship.

Of course, but there is still the issue of low observability of Type 2011.

Neither the less the launch is sure to be picked up by the all of the systems present, including satellite reconnaissance. I’m not sure if these were mentioned in the post but I have historically always used satellite photo recon ops- and they may have a chance here. Of course, the Ukrainians can cosplay serbs and make faux launch sites but there is still a very good chance that satellite will pick up the launch a few minutes after taking off and transmit said data to the fleet.

Yeah, it is DF-2D. There are two thing that I want to point out:

1) Historically, ballistic missile defence has proven itself far less effective than advertised. I still do believe that you should be able to intercept couple of my warheads - hence I fired 4, all at the aircraft carrier

2) Okay, I was wrong. Apparently, a DF-21D on a re-entry has a kinetic energy of an exocet. It won't be able to sink the carrier - not alone at least.

It did- however the main issue here is that missile defense systems often suffer from underfunding- not an issue in the nearly stratocratic Laka where ballistic missile defense, especially against US-based Pershing-2’s was always an issue.

1) Not just jamming. At the moment of firing Ukrainian S-400 start firing at whatever aircraft they an pick up, with AWACS being top priority. This ought to force whatever AEW that survives at lower altitudes, preventing them from fully exploiting their potential.

2) AN-SPY 1 for sure will be able to detect the ballistic missile launch, but there is no chance it will be able to detect the cruise missile launch that far away due to radar horizon. We need to remember that our targets are flying at 17 meters.

3) The claim that E-2C can detect VLO targets is a bit of a stretch. First, it depends on what kind of LO target, as RCS changes depending on angle and time. So yes, from time to time E-2C can pick up a LO target, however such a capability is insufficient to create a consistent track necessary to guide a weapon on target.

1) Why on earth would it be flying in the vicinity of the area where S-400’s are present? Laka does have suicide units but AWACS sure are none of them. S-400 can attack targets at distances of up to 250 km, while E-2D radar has a range of ~550 km. Sure, if it was sitting at 550 it’d be blind, but given that Laka themselves operate S-400 they should be able to calculate optimal distance at which AWACS should circle, being safely out of range of hostile SAM’s while also maintaining a reasonable amount of surveillance capability.

2) Detection of ballistic missile launch would be more then enough for the fleet to immediately go active and begin spamming the area with decoys, launching all planes currently on deck, moving all munitions into safe zones and preparing for damage control. I do believe that the T-50 squadron and Su-33 squadron doing CAP might be ordered to fly towards Ukrainian side of the sea and they just may be able to detect the cruise missiles and/or attempt to engage with them, given their superior speed, as well as NO36 Belka’s ability to detect low-flying low-RCS targets in close range. Also IRST which might be effective considering that the missiles hot thrust will be detected in front of the rather cold sea (idk how you spell this in English)

3) It will be able to pick it up, however it will not be able to track/acquire it. And picking stuff up is more than enough for the AWACS to start screaming to the fleet who already know that they’re under ballistic missile attack about potential cruise missiles in the area, moreover than that with just a few seconds of tracking it can deduce their speed, altitude, where they’re roughly headed towards- and both ships and planes can use this. I do believe that with this information the T-50’s might actually have a shot at intercepting some of the missiles- given aforementioned Belka radar’s capabilities. And IRST.

Thing is, we are ignoring the issue of wave clutter here, as well as other forms of clutter. In addition to that, most modern radars are programmed to ignore such "errors" which actually further reduces the chances of detection.

As I’ve previously said, given the situation, they’ll probably turn said system off- sure, it may result in some SM-6’s being fired at nothing and some Su-33’s/T-50’s intercepting nonexistent targets but given the amount of planes present, I do believe that this severely increases the fleet’s survivabiloty chances.

I also need some information about Type 2011 time of flight and speed. What defenses does it has against decoys being used, such as the Naval Decoy IDS300, AN/SLQ-49 chaff decoy and the Nulka decoy? How would they detect hits/carrier being sunk?

I honestly have not designed said missile as of that much yet, but it is a LRASM equivalent. It has an active radar seeker (activated in the detminal phase ), passive radar and IR seeker, combined with datalinks, swarm capability and artificial intelligence. Hence I imagine that resistance to ECM would be quite high.

Type 2011 is transonic, means roughly 30 minutes would take between the launch and reaching of Lakan fleet.[/quote]
I am not talking about ECM in forms of passive/active jamming of different types that attempt to interfere with the missile’s radar (but they’re also use and AFAIK ECCM severely reduces the effectiveness of active sensors aboard the ECCM’ing thing), I am talking about the ways they’re going to counter dozens upon dozens of ship-like radar targets being pumped into the area, some of which are also going to maneuver and even transmit signals mimicking ships. I do know that Nulka decoy, for instance was very effective against US ASM’s.

It is funny because I heard only bad things about AN/SEQ-3...

It’s more of less the same issue with other direct-energy weapons- they potentially have much power but cost incredibly high and have a lot of teething issues which require an awful lot of funding to fix. Again, not a problem in a state where military is necessary for the survivabikity of the economy (these pesky rebels in them colonies sometimes have ASM’s).

[quote]

Well I do believe that we can reach a deal here. How about...

- Carrier is crippled, unable to launch aircraft and basically becomes a floating junk.
- Battleship has only minor damage.
- AEGIS cruisers sink.
- 1 Battlecruiser sinks, one moderate damage and still in operation.

How about this? Ukrainians would already realise their operational goals, citing that their main goal of phase 1 is merely to remove Lakan aviation from the equation by targetting the carrier.[quote]
Eh considering everything I’ve stated above, I’d say that the carrier loosing all capabilities to launch planes should be a bit of an overstatement. Can we come into an agreement with it loosing 1 catapult but still being able to launch aviation? It’s going to be very vulnerable but neither the less able to defend itself. Battlecruisers historically have had more or less the same armor as battleships- so I think that instead of 1 vattlecruiser being sunk it should be severely damaged- maybe ammunition detonation in one of the secondary towers with severe fires. Think Bismarck after the attack of the swordfishes but able to maintain flooding control and fires being eqtunquished. After said fires ravage through the majority of the ship’s upper decks, making it as combat-cabaple as the supply ship.
I don’t think or see any reason for Aegis/air defense cruisers sinking because, as I’ve mentioned above, they are well within abilities to defend themselves against missile attacks both as a ship and as a fleet.


But nuclear war roleplayed right, within nukes vaporizing entire cities and both sides understanding what RCBN is will be a very fun thing! I mean both of us know what the effects of nuclear weapons and Operations Crossroads have shown that even after a nuclear attack some vessels can still regain some combat ability

[New Aeyariss]

Moskva can hardly be called en expample of a good cruiser- because of it being extremely vulnerable to surface attacks because of the gigantic missile tubes, extremely badly trained crew, bad hull condition, horrible fire prevention systems, bad maintenance, etc. Moreover than that, Moskva has a crew with a VERY bad moral condition- I hardly doubt that the majority of those who survive secondaries going off are going to do anything regarding damage control rather than abandon ship.

Neither the less the launch is sure to be picked up by the all of the systems present, including satellite reconnaissance. I’m not sure if these were mentioned in the post but I have historically always used satellite photo recon ops- and they may have a chance here. Of course, the Ukrainians can cosplay serbs and make faux launch sites but there is still a very good chance that satellite will pick up the launch a few minutes after taking off and transmit said data to the fleet.

Ok. Explain to me how exactly would satellite be able to pick up a launch of Type 2011 (unless you are talking about DF-21D, in which case you are correct), because there is zero chance for a satellite to do so. Let alone how would a satellite be in precise spot at precise time.

Also, I think you missed that I wrote that the launch of ballistic missiles occurred roughly when the cruise missiles were half their way. Which means that there would be 15 minutes from ballistic launch to impact of cruise missiles.

I also need to add that AEGIS operating in BMD mode is incapable of targetting low flying cruise missiles.

It did- however the main issue here is that missile defense systems often suffer from underfunding- not an issue in the nearly stratocratic Laka where ballistic missile defense, especially against US-based Pershing-2’s was always an issue.

I seriously doubt that one could call US a case of "underfunding", especially considering the infamous failure of Patriot missiles to intercept SCUDs during the Gulf War, which was then covered up with claim that US intercepted 45 of 47 SCUDs, which later proven to be false.

Hitting a target at such a speed, especially one which possesses a set of countermeasures, manouvereres, etc. is considerably difficult.

1) Why on earth would it be flying in the vicinity of the area where S-400’s are present? Laka does have suicide units but AWACS sure are none of them. S-400 can attack targets at distances of up to 250 km, while E-2D radar has a range of ~550 km. Sure, if it was sitting at 550 it’d be blind, but given that Laka themselves operate S-400 they should be able to calculate optimal distance at which AWACS should circle, being safely out of range of hostile SAM’s while also maintaining a reasonable amount of surveillance capability.

Actually, with the range is 400 km (40N6E missile). From shore of Crimea to Turkish in a straight coast there is only 320km, which means that S-400 near Sevastopol (in this universe Crimea was recaptured) reaches just short of Isambul.

Pretty much nowhere except a small tip near the furthermost eastern Turkish coast is safe for high flying targets. You could of course station your AWACS there, but that means you won't have any view into what is going on inside Ukraine.

I am talking about the ways they’re going to counter dozens upon dozens of ship-like radar targets being pumped into the area, some of which are also going to maneuver and even transmit signals mimicking ships. I do know that Nulka decoy, for instance was very effective against US ASM’s.

I am not denying effectiveness of Nukla decoy. If you read what I wrote, my point is that advanced AI onboard is capable of "sensor fusion" technology that makes it quite resistant to ECM.

It’s more of less the same issue with other direct-energy weapons- they potentially have much power but cost incredibly high and have a lot of teething issues which require an awful lot of funding to fix. Again, not a problem in a state where military is necessary for the survivabikity of the economy (these pesky rebels in them colonies sometimes have ASM’s).

There actually far more technological issues with such weapons at this point, that as far I am aware scientsits have not yet found effective solution to. Bad weather is the most important issue here.

Well I do believe that we can reach a deal here. How about...

- Carrier is crippled, unable to launch aircraft and basically becomes a floating junk.
- Battleship has only minor damage.
- AEGIS cruisers sink.
- 1 Battlecruiser sinks, one moderate damage and still in operation.

How about this? Ukrainians would already realise their operational goals, citing that their main goal of phase 1 is merely to remove Lakan aviation from the equation by targetting the carrier.

So, are you in or not? Mind this is made on assumption that 2/5 missiles hit each target (except the 2nd battlecruiser which is successfully defended), + 1/4 of the DF-21D hits the carrier.

RPing is ultimately a cooperative game, and we need to find a common ground somehow.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Ok. Explain to me how exactly would satellite be able to pick up a launch of Type 2011 (unless you are talking about DF-21D, in which case you are correct), because there is zero chance for a satellite to do so. Let alone how would a satellite be in precise spot at precise time.

In this case I was talking about the DF-21D, however concerning the Type 2011 it could be picked up by infrared sensors… Probably. Honestly I’m not so sure about this issue and would rather leave it to you.

I seriously doubt that one could call US a case of "underfunding", especially considering the infamous failure of Patriot missiles to intercept SCUDs during the Gulf War, which was then covered up with claim that US intercepted 45 of 47 SCUDs, which later proven to be false.

Hitting a target at such a speed, especially one which possesses a set of countermeasures, manouvereres, etc. is considerably difficult.

In case of Patriots failing to do anything in Iraq may also be the result of the Patriot initially being developed as a SAM, later adapted to counter ballistic missile threats, all while AEGIS was “from the get-go” developed as an BMD system, thus I do believe that comparing them is a bit of a stretch. Moreover than that, in trials Aegis was able to intercept multiple missiles.


Aaaand I didn’t knew about this. I thought that I was at worse fighting against Ukraine which reconquered all of Donbass, not Donbass and Crimea. In other situations I’d ask to reckon both yours and mine posts blah blah blah but who cares.

Concerning 40N6E claims of being able to intercept aerial targets within 400 km, I again have extreme doubts about this being the case. Because of it being a two-stage missile, it has to fly the majority of the 400km range suborbitally, like the ABM- and theoretically it could be intercepted by the fleet- not because they want to protect the AWACS’es but because of them mistaking it for another DF-21D. Also planes carry MALD-ish decoys which can be used to counter 92N6A radar. Considering that 40N6’es are made in Russia I do believe that Ukrainians have a very limited supply of them and will be unable to launch them en masse to destroy a single AWACS (I’m not saying that they can’t do this but this will be a waste of missiles- sure they killed the AWACS but it has already detected the missiles and is screaming about it to teh world

[/quote][/quote][/quote]
With everything you’ve explained to be I can agree to the battle cruiser beink sunk, but neither the less I do not see the reasoning behind both Aegis’es sinking and the cruiser being crippled. Yet again if it is hit by 2/5 of missiles (I’d reduce it to 1/5 because of the AA aboard being much more potent especially during close-in phase), and 1 DF-21D than it’s still way less than USS Forrestal took. In case of it, it actually retained the ability to launch the planes (if you look at the pictures detailing her after the fire you can clearly see that the launch catapults are more or less intact- and while it is unable to land any planes, it can launch them. I do believe that this should also be the case here- and given the circumstances it’s most likely going to launch all it can because of it fearing the second attack. The planes will be much safer in Russia after all.

[New Aeyariss]

but neither the less I do not see the reasoning behind both Aegis’es sinking and the cruiser being crippled.

What is the displacement of said cruisers?

And don't worry, the second attack is coming in my next post . In fact to finish the job, it will be even larger than the first.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

but neither the less I do not see the reasoning behind both Aegis’es sinking and the cruiser being crippled.

What is the displacement of said cruisers?

And don't worry, the second attack is coming in my next post . In fact to finish the job, it will be even larger than the first.

Cruisers have a displacement around 13000-15000 metric tons. All of them are nuclear-powered of course because fun.

During the second attack can I use nuclear AA shells? At this point it is the question of life or death to the fleet and I don’t see any reason for them not to resort to such dire actions

[New Aeyariss]

Cruisers have a displacement around 13000-15000 metric tons. All of them are nuclear-powered of course because fun.

During the second attack can I use nuclear AA shells? At this point it is the question of life or death to the fleet and I don’t see any reason for them not to resort to such dire actions

I want to abstain from using any kind of nuclear weapons in this RP. Not to be unfair to you, but I kinda don't like RPing with WMDs.

Yeah... Ukraine only has 500 Otsuki missiles. The General HQ, knowing sheer numbers coming at them in the future wanted to preserve as many as possible... but now it will not have a choice. To quote a certain character "An Ocelot never lets it's prey escape".

Things are not looking good for Ukraine in the long run, but so far it has accomplished far more than most slavers around on II .

Oh and just so you know - in this RP Black Sea Fleet has been handed over to Ukraine as a war reparation.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Cruisers have a displacement around 13000-15000 metric tons. All of them are nuclear-powered of course because fun.

During the second attack can I use nuclear AA shells? At this point it is the question of life or death to the fleet and I don’t see any reason for them not to resort to such dire actions

I want to abstain from using any kind of nuclear weapons in this RP. Not to be unfair to you, but I kinda don't like RPing with WMDs.

Yeah... Ukraine only has 500 Otsuki missiles. The General HQ, knowing sheer numbers coming at them in the future wanted to preserve as many as possible... but now it will not have a choice. To quote a certain character "An Ocelot never lets it's prey escape".

Things are not looking good for Ukraine in the long run, but so far it has accomplished far more than most slavers around on II .

Oh and just so you know - in this RP Black Sea Fleet has been handed over to Ukraine as a war reparation.

So what are the agreed losses? Aircraft carrier loosing around 50 crew and ability to safely land planes (not that it can’t take em “smigol-style” but without the arrestor wire landing anything will be a nearly impossible), 1 battle cruiser sank,1 aegis cruiser damaged?

Also can I bring in more ships? There may be a replacement carrier because this one is probably going to spend some time in Novorossiysk. And subs. We will need sum subs…

[New Aeyariss]

So what are the agreed losses? Aircraft carrier loosing around 50 crew and ability to safely land planes (not that it can’t take em “smigol-style” but without the arrestor wire landing anything will be a nearly impossible), 1 battle cruiser sank,1 aegis cruiser damaged?

Works for me.

Also can I bring in more ships? There may be a replacement carrier because this one is probably going to spend some time in Novorossiysk. And subs. We will need sum subs…

Of course. However IC wise, it is going to take about a week - and that is minimum - of constant sailing to get to the AO, depending on where Laka is located.

I plan to launch the second attack an hour after the first one, so losses are likely to grow. It has to be noted that this strike was only intended to be Phase 1 of the Ukrainian plan, which failed to fully achieve it's objectives.

Phase 2 is about to begin. So let us see if "Exploder" will make it to Novorossiysk in one piece.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

So what are the agreed losses? Aircraft carrier loosing around 50 crew and ability to safely land planes (not that it can’t take em “smigol-style” but without the arrestor wire landing anything will be a nearly impossible), 1 battle cruiser sank,1 aegis cruiser damaged?

Works for me.

Also can I bring in more ships? There may be a replacement carrier because this one is probably going to spend some time in Novorossiysk. And subs. We will need sum subs…

Of course. However IC wise, it is going to take about a week - and that is minimum - of constant sailing to get to the AO, depending on where Laka is located.

I plan to launch the second attack an hour after the first one, so losses are likely to grow. It has to be noted that this strike was only intended to be Phase 1 of the Ukrainian plan, which failed to fully achieve it's objectives.

Phase 2 is about to begin. So let us see if "Exploder" will make it to Novorossiysk in one piece.

Eh there is IC’ly a naval base in Malta (well the country in which it’s located ain’t called Malta but who cares) so some submarines from there could make it there in several days. The problem here is that these are diesel and nuclear attack submarines. Like sure- they can use Kalibrs but actual boomers, based on Canaries will take a week to arrive.

[New Aeyariss]

Works for me.



Of course. However IC wise, it is going to take about a week - and that is minimum - of constant sailing to get to the AO, depending on where Laka is located.

I plan to launch the second attack an hour after the first one, so losses are likely to grow. It has to be noted that this strike was only intended to be Phase 1 of the Ukrainian plan, which failed to fully achieve it's objectives.

Phase 2 is about to begin. So let us see if "Exploder" will make it to Novorossiysk in one piece.

Eh there is IC’ly a naval base in Malta (well the country in which it’s located ain’t called Malta but who cares) so some submarines from there could make it there in several days. The problem here is that these are diesel and nuclear attack submarines. Like sure- they can use Kalibrs but actual boomers, based on Canaries will take a week to arrive.

Then go ahead, I have no problem. I would prefer to end this battle first, though.

[New Aeyariss]

Awesome post Laka, thank you.

Question: What is rough location of your aviation? I am asking because my next posts involves air strike on your navy and I want to know how many and how fast your aircraft could respond.

I am assuming you are fielding about 30 T-50s and 30 Su-33s ?

[Laka Strolistandiler]

It’s more of 50 T-50’s and 30 Su-33’s. I can provide you with a more detailed map including the location and direction the vessels are headed at later on as well as the maneuvers the planes utilize when idle. Give me an hour or so

[South Reinkalistan]

PFR might involve itself on an espionage basis to organise and arm Russian resistance cells as opposed to direct military intervention. Is this okay?

[Yagerist Ukraine]

PFR might involve itself on an espionage basis to organise and arm Russian resistance cells as opposed to direct military intervention. Is this okay?

Of course.

[Yagerist Ukraine]

Also.

From now on, I am asking that everyone deploying forces actually took time deploying them. Consider that there is a certain distance between your nation and AO, which will take time to traverse.

One post departure, one post arrival. Not necessarily this scheme, but I ask that we don't see teleportation of more forces on the Black Sea.

People refusing to adhere to this rule will be ignored.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

With the help of my crappy Picsart skills I bring you the map of the current Lakan plan of running away tactical retreat into the port of Sochi. Because novorossiysk will be targeted by a shit ton of missiles from Crimea. Red dot is the disposition of the fleet during the initial attack, and the red line of them retreating into Sochi. Yellow area is where the CAP missions are flown, black line is the escape route of the ELINT plane, orange is the area where ASW things are happening and purple spirals is the flight paths of the AWACS’es doing AEW things

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Should I await the second post for the next 2 hours or go to sleep? irs nearly 2200 here in Moscow and I have to go to work tomorrow because I do

[New Aeyariss]

Should I await the second post for the next 2 hours or go to sleep? irs nearly 2200 here in Moscow and I have to go to work tomorrow because I do

My apologies but I will be a little delayed due to health issues.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Glad to have you back here. Now time for questions because questions are fun (no)

1) Do said UUV’s also emit an active signature of a Kilo? Given nearly every ASW unit equipped with active sonars and stuff they would be probably hesitant to launch before they get a passive confirmation that whatever they’re targeting is really a submarine.

2) How high are your aircraft flying and what type of laser (including power) are they using? Are we talking YAL-1 level here or else?

3) What types of orbital target detection other than AEW does Ukraine use in the engagement? Note that we are talking here about satellites reminiscent of the US Misty program’s inflatable shield which limits its detection from RADAR (as far as I remember correct me if I’m wrong here.

4) What is the warhead yield, speed, etc of the Type 1985? Can I take the Russian Kh-35 as an equivalent?

5) How efficient would SDI-ish orbital defense systems be against DF-21D’s? Sure- the majority of them are not in the AO, but some are and potentially can contribute to the equation especially considering that between the two attacks some time (at least 30 minutes because that’s the flight time of DF-21D from taking off to impact should be)

6) Are Su-24’s escorted? What version they are? From what I knew during my time at the Sukhoi, base version Su-24 IRL SEVERELY lacks in terms of ECM and has an abysmally large RCS, thus being very weak to BVR engagements.

[New Aeyariss]

1) Do said UUV’s also emit an active signature of a Kilo? Given nearly every ASW unit equipped with active sonars and stuff they would be probably hesitant to launch before they get a passive confirmation that whatever they’re targeting is really a submarine.

I apologize but you mentioned in your post that your navy is "firing at anything resembling a submarine". No, they are merely emitting passive acoustic signature of a kilo.

I do need to raise the issue that shallow, rugged waters like Black Sea love playing tricks at active sonar though.

2) How high are your aircraft flying and what type of laser (including power) are they using? Are we talking YAL-1 level here or else?

The lasers are ground based and their purpose is to damage optics of the satellite, not shoot down satellite itself. I am not sure about power but it is commonly done.

4) What is the warhead yield, speed, etc of the Type 1985? Can I take the Russian Kh-35 as an equivalent?

My apologies, I forgot to mention that. It is actually more similar to anti ship version of Tomahawk.

It has reach of 550 km when in sea skimming mode, weight of 1700kg, warhead of 500kg, on board jamming equipment (albeit inferior to that of Type 2011), and some features similar to that of Russian Anti ship missiles, such as similar capability to share data between missiles. It lacks, however, stealth.

5) How efficient would SDI-ish orbital defense systems be against DF-21D’s? Sure- the majority of them are not in the AO, but some are and potentially can contribute to the equation especially considering that between the two attacks some time (at least 30 minutes because that’s the flight time of DF-21D from taking off to impact should be)

Define orbital defence, and I need to point that I have serious doubt it could get in place in time. Satellites move on predictable orbit and changing said orbit is... demanding.

6) Are Su-24’s escorted? What version they are? From what I knew during my time at the Sukhoi, base version Su-24 IRL SEVERELY lacks in terms of ECM and has an abysmally large RCS, thus being very weak to BVR engagements.

We are talking about Su-24M2 ('Fencer-D'), that said I doubt that anything could be done about them. By my calculations, the ones above Mykolaiv are 550 km from your fleet, and the ones above Melitopol - 450. Their task is to fire their missiles at stand-off range and return home.

So even if there was an attempt at interception, by the time your fighters are in range, the Su-24 would be long home. And when flying at altitude of 1 km above sea level, they are below maximum reach of your long reach anti air missiles.

And no, they are not escorted.

[New Aeyariss]

Also, if I may ask, has not the AWACS turned it's radar off in recent post?

In such a case the fleet may have an issue with spotting the cruise missiles at all.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

I apologize but you mentioned in your post that your navy is "firing at anything resembling a submarine". No, they are merely emitting passive acoustic signature of a kilo.

I do need to raise the issue that shallow, rugged waters like Black Sea love playing tricks at active sonar though.

Eh I didn’t mean to say that they’ll be able to deduce that each and every single decoy was not an actual target, but more of them just attacking a large percentage (40-50%)of such targets and reserving some weapons in case they get any launch transmits which would signify that they have indeed detected a submarine

The lasers are ground based and their purpose is to damage optics of the satellite, not shoot down satellite itself. I am not sure about power but it is commonly done.

FFS couldn’t read the damn article because of a paywall I cannot go through because I live in a shithole country disconnected from SWIFT fuck you Putin
I see, I didn’t meant for lasers to shoot down satellites (because we both know about such thing as cubic square law), I just meant that some satellites should be able to evade such attacks

My apologies, I forgot to mention that. It is actually more similar to anti ship version of Tomahawk.

It has reach of 550 km when in sea skimming mode, weight of 1700kg, warhead of 500kg, on board jamming equipment (albeit inferior to that of Type 2011), and some features similar to that of Russian Anti ship missiles, such as similar capability to share data between missiles. It lacks, however, stealth.

So theoretically the scrambled planes should be able to detect said missiles and engage with them? I do believe that their active jamming might either allow them to home in and attack them by using HOJ mode/IRST, is that correct? (I do n9t mean to say that they’ll shoot down all of them)

Define orbital defence, and I need to point that I have serious doubt it could get in place in time. Satellites move on predictable orbit and changing said orbit is... demanding.

Some elements of the Raegan-era SDI program were supposed to deploy on geostationary orbits- and I do believe that in order to counter Lechia (located in Poland) and some other contemporaries some Lakan satellites might be present in the area even before the attack

We are talking about Su-24M2 ('Fencer-D'), that said I doubt that anything could be done about them. By my calculations, the ones above Mykolaiv are 550 km from your fleet, and the ones above Melitopol - 450. Their task is to fire their missiles at stand-off range and return home.

Copy, but do they take any attempts to conceal the launch? Do they maintain radio silence?

So even if there was an attempt at interception, by the time your fighters are in range, the Su-24 would be long home. And when flying at altitude of 1 km above sea level, they are below maximum reach of your long reach anti air missiles.

And no, they are not escorted.

[/quote]
Understood, no Top Gun(

Also, if I may ask, has not the AWACS turned it's radar off in recent post?

In such a case the fleet may have an issue with spotting the cruise missiles at all.

After teh S-400 missiles have been shot down it turned it back on- they understand that they’re sitting ducks but are more than willing to sacrifice themselves to save the fleet. Also 2 more AWACS’es have been scrambled from the ship because reasons