NATION

PASSWORD

Guide to Aerial, Ground and Naval Warfare

A staging-point for declarations of war and other major diplomatic events. [In character]
User avatar
Questers
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13867
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Basic Primer to Naval Warfare

Postby Questers » Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:52 am

Basic Primer to Naval Warfare

Image


Synopsis: I have noticed a shocking deterioration in the quality of naval battles here on NS. I feel, since nobody else will do it, and I believe my name carries some authority or weight, it's my responsibility to at least attempt to address these problems. What this primer won't do is turn you into a super naval RPer. It won't make you win your battles. What it will do is teach you how naval warfare should properly be conducted, and as something you can link new players/people who think you're godmodding. Any questions or disagreements with this should be voiced here, openly, and not in telegram. I don't take well to people who do not like to voice opposition in public. This primer will teach you how a naval battle unfolds, key do's and dont's, and I suppose, some elementary tactics and facts. This guide is strictly MT.

Present Issues: There are some key present issues I see being presented on NS. I will list them here:
1. No understanding of the importance or even existence of range and range restrictions.
2. No understanding of proper reconaissance or sensors.
3. No understanding of how naval defences work.

These are what I intend to address here. I will also add some elementary tactics at the end and some good links.

1. Range: It is so, so common to see people move up aircraft to attack, fire missiles, and then strafe the enemy ships or attack them with bombs or torpedoes in the same post. This is totally unrealistic; they would be swatted out of the sky. A modern AEGIS system is capable of detecting normal-sized fighter planes at up to 300 or 400 kilometres if they are in the radar horizon. It is capable of firing so many missiles so quickly at these targets, and also at targets that it can't see but are being shown to it by look-down AWACs craft, that to charge aircraft in at the range required to strafe or launch torpedoes -- we're talking between 20 and 2 kilometres here -- is absolute suicide. It is also a godmod because realistically speaking they would not get within that range.

So let's look at this diagram I've created for this purpose.

Image


Note that to bring an aircraft within 2-20 kilometres of the enemy task fleet would require you to remove the following: Enemy AWACs for detection, enemy fighters for patrol, and then to fly below radar horizon so you can come in at say, 30 or 40 kilometres (the rough radar horizon for a ship trying to detect an aircraft flying at say, 100 or 50 metres or lower). This can not be done in one post. You can not skip 500 kilometres worth of layered defences in one post, because that is a godmod -- it's like saying you drive your tanks through the enemy lines straight to their capital, ignoring anything inbetween.

Another thing about range: you should check the combat radius of your aircraft and the range of the missiles they're using. If the enemy is 3,000 kilometres away, you cannot fire a Harpoon missile from an F-18; it would plunge harmlessly into the water. So you should know the ranges of your equipment. That is the single most important thing to know and use to your advantage in naval warfare, because unlike aerial and ground warfare, you cannot close the distance quickly. To cross 1,000 kilometres at 30 knots, takes 17 hours.

And, I'm sorry, but you will almost never get within strafing or torpedo range. Past defences such as long-range missiles, you also have to deal with short range missiles, fighters, guns, CIWS, so on and so forth. You cannot go in and come out; you might be able to attack, but there would certainly be no escape for your force. That's why proper naval combat is conducted with long range missiles, so your delivery strike elements like planes or ships ahead of the main force are not at threat. But that leads us on to our second point.

2. Reconaissance: To be able to attack an enemy you must first know where they are. Simple, huh? No. Not according to most NSers. What I commonly see is an assumption that they know where the enemy is. "The fighters set off to attack the Questarian fleet." Well, sorry, but unless you RP it, there's no way you'd know where my fleet is. You have to look for it. What can you use as reconnaissance to look for an enemy task force? I am going to list them in order of what I view as their effectiveness. You should use them all in conjunction with one another though.

1. AWACs
2. Any other aircraft
3. Radar satellites
4. Submarines
5. Any other satellites

I will explain them briefly.

1.AWACS: AWACS can fly out to long distances and their radars have long range. I have seen a description of an E-2C Hawkeye radar listed as 600km operable range. For targets which are stealth/low RCS, it is certainly lower, but as you can see, it's still a long distance. Now I will detail the two types of radar usage that an AWACS can use to detect things;

(a) Area Search (Active Radar) On an active radar, an AWACS is actively looking for targets with its radar. On the other hand, it is broadcasting, which will light it up on a radar sensor suite to be easily seen.
(b) Listening (Passive Radar) On a passive radar, an AWACS is not using its radar. It is simply listening for other radar sounds; i.e. things using their passive radar.

If you took two AWACS, broadly speaking, one on passive and one on active, the active one would pick up the passive one because it is looking for it, and the passive one would pick up the active one because it is broadcasting its radar. So you need a balance. Plus AWACS can turn their radars on and off very quickly, which will give them a bit of both aspects.

2. Any other aircraft: Other aircraft have RADARs too. A modern fighter with an AESA RADAR can perform the function of an AWACS, just less well. The advantage of this is that it can work in an "armed reconaissance role;" give it a lot of drop-tanks and some missiles and it can defend itself or an AWACS, whereas a lone AWACS has no way of defending itself.

3. Radar satellites: Commonly known as RORSATs; Radar Ocean Reconaissance Satellite, these are satellites in low earth orbit that use a radar to scan the ocean from space. Unfortunately, their resolution is very low, to the point where, like OTH radars, they may not be able to distinguish a cruiser from a tanker. Radar satellite technology is improving, but I don't rate its resolution or its reliability. It is certainly not what most RPers use it as, i.e. "Oh I found you with my satellites." Radar sats are definetly better than optical sats for doing this, but they're still not perfect, because there's no real way to distinguish what it is that you're looking at (contacts come up as pixels on a radar screen; on a high-resolution radar, an aircraft carrier could be 1000 pixels and a destroyer 100, but on a low-resolution radar, they both might be even 1 pixel) or even what nation's flag its flying under. They're also pretty much defenceless and can be shot down with ASATs within the opening days of a war.

4. Submarines: Submarines can stay underwater undetected and follow an enemy task group by the sound of their propellers, breaking off occasionally to send encoded message as to the makeup and whereabouts of who they're tailing. However, actually finding a task group is difficult in a large body of ocean, but relatively easy in a small one. It makes sense that the larger the body of water you're fighting in (i.e. the Atlantic vs the North Sea), the more difficult it is to find enemy ships; needles in haystacks, so to speak.

5. Other satellites: Almost entirely useless. No way to determine what nationality a ship is (suppose a situation where two nations use the same military equipment; how do you tell if its from Navalprimeristan or Warfareguideland?) Not to mention that scanning the Earth's water surfaces for ships on a satellite that is in orbit, i.e. that makes overpasses, is not reliable at all. You may take a picture of a fleet that you think is an enemy fleet. Well, it could be a friendly or neutral fleet and it could be 100 or 500 kilometres away by the time you act on it. So it's not reliable.

3. No understanding of how naval defences work: Ships are defended by layers of defences, if we don't include other things that cover them like other ships or fighters, then this is a rudimentary list of the defences enjoyed by one ship, largely in order of their usefuless in defending themselves.

(a) Long-range SAMs: Normally launched from VLS. Surface to air missiles with ranges between 200 and 500km. Normally have an active-radar seeker head and are reliably accurate.
(b) Short-range SAMs: Normally launched from either VLS or box launchers. Surface to air missiles with ranges between 5 and 50km. Very small so can be compactly fitted.
(c) CIWS: 20 or 30mm chainguns guided by radar. Can take down single missiles or even two missiles but could easily be overwhelmed. Smaller calibre CIWS like 20mm have doubtful value against very large missiles (6,000kg+)
(d) Guns: 76mm+ guns. Sometimes have a rapid rate of fire and are radar guided, but not fast enough to be reliably useful. Might down a missile or two. Fields of flak are not particularly useful because the amount of guns required to generate them would be better spent on more accurate missiles.
(e) Radar Jamming: Using EW equipment to scramble the lock of a missile. An anti-ship missile with an active radar that has a lock on your ship can be scrambled and so is likely to miss. Largely useless against missiles with inertial or IR terminal guidance.
(f) Chaff: Chaff. Designed to spoof radars into believing there are hundreds of targets in the air so it locks on to one of them instead of the ship. Largely useless against missiles with inertial or IR terminal guidance.

Most people bypass the first and second stages and go for the second. Anything past short-range SAMs is a last resort weapon, it should not be the first thing that comes up in your RPs. Long-range SAMS are long range for a reason, that is because they can shoot down or deter targets from entering the sort of range required to use last-resort weapons.

4. What about Battleships? Battleships with big main guns and thick armour are popular on NS. I should know; I export one, and she sells valiantly. (See what I did there?) But they are of no real concern to a serious opposition. Let's examine the difference between the battleship and the carrier, the two prime opponents:

1. Reconaissance capacity; the carrier has independent and organic reconaissance, in the form of AWACS. The battleship does not. UAVs do not have the range or radar capacity of an AWACS, and in any event, are not MT. There is no UAV with a range or a sensor suite to match an AWACS that is presently launchable from a carrier deck. The reason is that they are much more susceptible to crash-landings, they are much more likely to happen because our technology has not yet evolved to the level of making an "artificial pilot." One crash on a carrier deck can be fatal; it can put the carrier out of operation for days. The battleship can not find the carrier. The carrier can easily find the battleship, and because the battleship can't launch fighters, can monitor it with impunity.

2. Protection; The battleship is well protected with a lot of armour. It takes a large and powerful missile to penetrate the belt or deck armour of a well defended battleship. Carriers on the other hand, are usually unarmoured, and for good reasons (it detracts too much from hangar space, and damage takes much longer to repair). A hit with a missile might just bounce off a battleship but might severely damage a carriers deck. While this seems crucial, its meaningless. The carriers deck is vulnerable. The battleship's sensor suites, its radar and targeting systems, are also vulnerable. They cannot be protected because you can't shield radar behind inches of steel. One missile hit to the superstructure might knock out the radar permanently and force the ship to withdraw or else go blind. So all that armour is absolutely wasted.

3. Weaponry; Big guns versus planes. Yamato's 18.1in guns had a range of 42km~. An F-18 has a combat radius of 800 kilometres and can launch anti shipping missiles with a range of 300km. That's a real big difference right there. And a gigantic shell is not really as powerful as people suggest. It does weigh a lot; 1,200kg for Yamato's 18.1in guns, but supersonic missiles go much faster and can weigh much more. But guns have stupidly short range compared to aircraft.

Summary; Battleships have no organic reconnaissance, have very short ranged weapons, and are equally as vulnerable despite their thousands of tons of steel. Don't use them: it's a waste of money. And yes, that applies to the battleship that I export (If anybody wants to retcon their purchase of the Valiant class after reading this, that is acceptable. It's only fair.) The first thing that was destroyed on the Bismarck in the last battle with HMS Rodney and King George V were her fire directors. That's why she gave such a pathetic show against those two British battleships (as well as the destroyed rudder.) All the belt armour in the world didn't help her there; she was torn to shreds by accurate 16in fire from Rodney. One of my favourite quotes of the war, actually, comes from Rodney's CO. After delivering a volley of 16in fire and watching sailors jump overseas from the burning Bismarck, he ordered; "Cease fire! This is a holocaust!"

If only he knew, huh?

5. Conclusion: If you read this or use it as a reference your RP will be more realistic. That doesn't mean that you will have a funner RP experience. But in my view, I try to play as realistically as I can. I don't accept people charging planes at me and strafing my ships with 20mm cannons. If you don't want to play modern naval warfare like it's the 1940s then you shouldn't either. I plan to expand this in the coming weeks, so keep tuned. If you want a subscription, i.e. me TGing you when I've made significant edits, just post so.

Questions and Answers Section
Question from Allanea re; torpedoes
Q: A question I'd like to ask is this - and this is not in any way meant to disparage the excellent work you've done here -is this. You state torpedoes are launched 2-20 kilometers away from the enemy fleet, yet I've seen several RL torpedo designs with a range of 50 kilometers or more. Most of them are ship-launched, but I assume they could be fitted to a bomber or soemthing (or an existing helicopter-launched torpedo could be upscaled, or a player could figure ot a more innovative solution to increase the range of air-launched torpedoes). Is this range defined by torpedo motors or by some other mechanics that would keep the range at 2-20 kilometers even if (big if, I know) better motors were developed?

A: Now, yes it is possible to get larger range on torpedoes, but we should look at some key problems here:
1. I doubt you can make an air launched torpedo with the range to fire outside of SAM defences. Against a properly equipped fleet, it's still a suicide run.
2. Even if you could, it would be very difficult for it to be accurate, since torpedoes are slow moving. A torpedo design is a balance between payload, fuel, and overall weight. You could make it large enough to have 100km range and a good warhead, but it would then be too large to be air launched from a plane (a small bomber anyway; using large bombers in that capacity is just suicidal). And it would still be slow, easy to evade, etc.
[spoiler]
Questers wrote:
LINTYLAND wrote:Hey Questers, how can a person defeat a stealth ship?
The same way you defeat stealth anything. Stealth is simply measures taken to reduce radar observability. A stealth vehicle, be it ship or aircraft, broadcasting full transmissions is louder than a non-stealth vehicle not broadcasting anything. The answer is proper and thorough ELINT.


So yes, it is possible to make torpedoes with a longer range than what I've specified; but the point stands, as a weapon they are too short ranged for most engagements, and certainly not ones where you can afford to fly aircraft off a carrier deck. Helicopters dropping light torps against small boats like corvettes, maybe.[/spoiler]

This sounds like techwank, which is boring! Just because I have given advice on types of aircraft, weaponry, ranges given in figures and numbers, doesn't mean you have to make your RPs as such.
SNS Alliance
The briefing officer blinked for a moment and looked at the selection of pilots beneath him; there were sixteen in total, manning eight aircraft, and they were a mixed bunch. The difference on their faces was pronounced; the younger officers having a look of excitement about them, this being their first combat mission. The older, more experienced pilots sported furrowed brows and a look of concern. They were all jotting down notes of some form.

He watched a small wisp of cigarette smoke curl its way into the air to be sucked into a ventilation shaft, gulped down the remnants of his coffee and sighed. "Okay chaps, listen up." He clicked a button on the briefing screen. "These are the radar patterns from our AEW birds. As you can see, this looks very much like an aircraft carrier, three accompanying destroyers and what is probably a cruiser." He flicked onto the next screen, which detailed the eight aircraft, their crews, and their weapons. "We'll be flying four Cossacks for the strike package and four Battles for CAP. The flight crews are attaching three P-900s to each strike plane as I speak. No enemy AEW has been detected. You'll approach at fifty metres altitude and release when you feel comfortable. Flag is advising between four and six hundred klicks for this op."

"Sir -" one of the older pilots; the briefing officer recognised him as Captain Harrison, piped up. "How old is this data? They could have AWACS up by now, the carrier is probably large enough for it. Or a CAP." The briefing officer looked less than pleased at this interruption. It was true, though. The data was hours old, and at any rate, the enemy AEW could have gone undetected. He frowned momentarily and then turned it into a smile.

"We still have an AEW bird up on station, she's just on passive at the moment. As I was going to say, that's where you'll be getting your targeting data from. If you run into any bandits then that's what the CAP will be for. Any other questions?" There were none. It was a textbook op, and the briefing officer could see that they were all raring to go. He flicked the briefing monitor off. "The met boys say that the skies will be clear today." Resounding laughter from the pilots. He knew just how reliable they thought the meteorological reports were. "So I don't need to tell you to expect cloud cover." More laughter. "Good luck and good hunting."


Endorsements:
Allanea
Libertarian Governance
Lamoni
Lyras
Amastol
North Point
Last edited by Questers on Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:26 pm, edited 10 times in total.
Restore the Crown

User avatar
The PeoplesFreedom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 588
Founded: Oct 09, 2005
Ex-Nation

Ground Warfare Guide

Postby The PeoplesFreedom » Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:30 pm

Fellow Players of International Incidents,

Greetings. I am TPF, for those who do not know me. I have been roleplaying now for nearly five years, and have focused most of my efforts on military roleplay. It has been my intention to write a guide to modern ground warfare in order to help the noobs of this board and dispell some myths and misconceptions. Contrary to those who believe I am JUST a troll, I am in fact smart. A few notes on this guide. The vastness and complexity of ground warfare means that a true guide would be much longer and in-depth than this. It was my objective to cover some of the more common and glaring flaws that I see players using. I consider this guide a work-in-progress, and will be adding or expanding additional sections as time goes on. If there is a specific question you'd like answered, or a specific top you'd like covered, do not hesitate to post.

So what is the first rule of Modern Warfare? Morale is everything.
Image

Ground Warfare Guide


Trench Warfare And Fortifications

Image
There are quite a few common misconceptions regarding trench warfare, and, by extension, fortifications within the realm of NS RP. While there are some players whom use large-scale trench constructs as seen in the First World War, the main problem is simply that most players outright ignore trenches and fortifications thinking they are are useless and obsolete.

In fact, fortifications and digging in is an essential part of modern warfare. The use of minefields, anti-tank ditches, and other obstacles can be used to funnel the enemy forces into kill zones or can delay the enemy for critical periods of time, mine-deploying artillery shells are especially useful for this. In addition, fortifications can be used to funnel the enemy into certain terrain. Let's say you have 3 paths, and fortify 2 of them. The enemy commanders first instinct would be to go for the gap that is not defended by fortifications, allowing you as the defender to know this and orientate your forces to exploit this. Another effective way to use fortifications is in hedgehog defense. Like the previous example, most commanders will ignore any hardpoint in order to keep the speed and momentum of the attack. This allows you to keep hundreds, or even thousands of troops intact in these hard points behind enemy lines. One can then use these groups to attempt a break-out or carry out harassment of the enemy supply lines or troop formations.

However, this is not to say that hundreds of kilometers long trench lines should be used like the kind that have been seen in World War 1. The enemy can simply focus a lot of strength at one point at the trench line, breaking through it. With the speeds of armored and motorized vehicles, an army can cover dozens, if not, hundreds of kilometers in one day, meaning that you cannot contain the breakthrough and your entire trench line becomes obsolete. Contrary to popular belief, trench lines are not all that effected by modern smart weapons. They are still markedly resilient and dugouts can be hard to detect and destroy. While smart weapons would give an attacker an advantage, it does not render the trench system obsolete.

As a general rule you need 5:1 odds for an attack.

This is NOT Call of Duty
Image
There are far too many players running around acting like this is Call of Duty. It is important to note that this game is a unrealistic depiction of modern warfare. Your soldiers are not elite people whom run around with akibo g19's with juggernaut and red tiger camo or whatever and massacre other nations soldiers. Your Humvee shouldn't really run around with gattling cannons on them and you're not going to disable an entire nations national defense grid by copying a single satellite. As a rule, throw everything you think you know about modern warfare from this game out of your head and assume you're an idiot.

Conscripts and Professional Soldering

Image

Numbers don't always mean everything. This has been proven time and time again through the ages, from Thermopylae to Khe Snah. If your nation decides to have a conscript army, you should do so for other reasons besides the plan to “zerg” an opponent.

Generally speaking, conscript armies are inefficient compared to a professional soldier for a variety of different reasons. Firstly, today's ideal soldier is a highly-educated, highly-trained, and highly-motivated engine of war. The cost and length of training means that a nation invests heavily in a soldier. In today's high-technology battlefield, training takes a long time and soldiers themselves are highly specialized. Thus, it would be really dumb to have a conscript and require only a years service out of them. This is far too short of a time for a soldier to train and become specialized at anything, which means your soldier will be no better than an average grunt in WW2. Even with a two-year term, this is not long enough for the investment to pay off or even for advanced training to be completed. If your nation does decide to use conscripts, do so for a minimum of three years if not longer. Your nation is not 100% full of fanatically-motivated zealots whom love the military and want to serve your glorious state. Conscripts are not as highly-motivated as professional volunteers, and this should factor into your nations decision to use them. Military operations require a very precise and serious military mentality which not everyone is suited for, and training can't always indoctrinate it into your men and women. They will have a higher chance of being defeated on the battlefield. Admittedly, how motivated your conscripts are likely depends on the kind of nation and the specific war the nation is facing, for example being invaded compared to an imperialist counter-insurgency. Regardless, as a general rule professional soldiers are better than conscripts.

The conscript problem is especially worse with officers. Being an officer is a highly-demanding job which require the absolute pinnacle in mental-preparedness and skill and merit. An officer should want to be an officer, and have the skills to do so with the proper training. Forcing a conscript to be an officer could be a recipe for disaster. The same goes for noncom soldiers.

If your nation chooses to have conscripts, one should use them for a large, but technologically inferior military, and furthermore both officers and noncoms should be career soldiers. It is wrong to assume your military will be as highly-motivated as any professional force, and one should take that into account when roleplaying. However, roleplaying a conscript army would allow for interesting roleplaying stories, which is what RP is all about. Just remember the advantages and disadvantages.

Air Force is not an IWIN Button
Image
It is a common myth that an Air Force automatically leads to victory. The Air force is an integral part of modern warfare, but it by no means automatically grants victory.

There are numerous way for a ground force to dampen the effectiveness of a hostile air force. Ultimately a lot of these tactics depends on the terrain and the kind of army, but moving in smaller formations, avoiding detection, and fighting the enemy at very close ranges helps to dampen the effectiveness of the Air Force. A hostile air force is not going to bomb its own men if you are danger-close with them as long as the situation is not critical. In addition, a well-designed and operated mobile air defense network will continue to bother an enemy air force for the duration of the campaign. Still, it is advisable to work hard to attain air parity or air superiority, as the Air Force does act as a massive force multiplier for the enemy, and that should be taken into account.

Infantry are not useless

Image

Contrary to popular belief NS is not a RTS game where your infantry are completely useless as soon as the first vehicle comes out onto the field. Hands down, infantry are THE most vital piece to any military and will form the bulk of your ground arsenal.

Highly trained and well equipped infantry are capable of fighting against all other ground forces, including both armored formations and enemy attack helicopters. Infantry are absolutely essential in fighting in jungle or urban environments and for holding ground. One cannot wage a counter-insurgency war without them nor a high-tempo, high-intensity war.

The infantry's vulnerabilities can be made up through the usage of APCs and IFV's as well as helicopters. One can use infantry in specialized situations such as paratroopers, mountain warfare, special forces, and the like.

Assuming infantry suck and sending your tanks in alone against them is one way of very quickly finding out just how wrong you are.

Logistics and Supply

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a269/ ... 2_copy.jpg

This is an area virtually ignored on NS except by the upper echelon of experienced military
roleplayers. Huge armies are moved and supplied on NS without any regard to the logistical complexities of maintain such a force. Supplying millions of men is herculean effort made by men who are virtually unknown but without whom modern war could not function. Let us imagine the amount of items that must be moved:

Boots, Food, 120mm ammo, fuel, 5.56mm ammo, 7.62mm ammo, 155mm shells, bug repellent, parkas, fatigues, bulletproof vests, guns, computers, dog tags, medical supplies, packages from home, personal hygiene equipment, spare parts, telephones, engineering equipment, demolitions, water, books, shovels, the list is endless.

As you can see, while some of these things may be easy to move, such as letters from home or books, others, such as the 155m and fuel, prove quite hard. Let us look at just how many tons of AMMUNITION ALONE were used in World War 2 per day.

US Daily Ammunition Expenditure In Tons
Action: Attack Defense Delay Pursuit
Armor: 436-832 596-969 321 107
155 Battery: 66-121 86-142 51 15
Infantry: 353-658 472-768 256 83


For attacking alone, for one day, it requires 138 six-ton trucks to deliver the nesseracy ammo. And that does not even begin to include casualty evacuation or any of the other equipment needed for a modern military to function.

To this end, supply lines and the security of them are of vital important, not only for the physical function of your army, but also for the morale aspect. Your soldiers are going to loose morale very quickly if their letters from home keep getting blown up by some jackass with an RPG or a artillery shell landing on that truck or from a manportable SAM soothing down that transport helicopter.

But there's even more to consider. Remember it takes 138 trucks to deliver that ammo to that armored division. But who's going to drive these trucks? Escort them? Repair them? Load them with supplies? Ah, yes. Look at all that manpower you need to even keep a modern division operating and in fighting shape. Next time instead of wanting to spam 5 million men, you'll want to use just enough to get the job done and your men supplied.

Urban Warfare
Image
Ever heard of Hue? Perhaps Fallujah? What about Grozny? No? How about Berlin? Leningrad? Stalingrad. Surely you have heard of Stalingrad.

Urban battles are unimaginably bloody, horrific, and savage and WILL result in mass casualties against any remotely competent opponent even if you hold significant advantages in about every area. Urban battles should be avoided at all costs, and enough troops left behind to contain the city. If one chooses to invade a city, your opponent will merely grin and prepare himself to grind your troops up in the cheese grater. There is no IWIN to taking a city. You can level it, gas it, bomb it, starve it, firebomb it, or any other thing or combination but your enemy can still resist and will do so in the rubble.

There has been number of debates on NSD and elsewhere about the best way to assault the city. No consensus can be reached, but most everybody agrees you should avoid cities unless you have to take one. How you do that, and the tactics involved, are up to you.

Modern Warfare is not WWII
Image
While the scale of NS warfare may have WW2 pale in comparison, certain operations done during that conflict would not bode well in a modern war.

Large scale paradrops are difficult to pull off in modern warfare against a competent enemy even if you have air superiority. The speed of enemy forces on the ground and the anti-air weaponry available make full-scale airborne operations extremely hazardous, although modern payloads allow for better resupply of encircle paratroopers.

Strategic Bombing on the scale seen on WW2 is an inefficient strategy unless used in a terror aspect. Strategic bombers are slow and heavy and easy to shoot down and engage. Furthermore, the use of smart bombs make bombing much more accurate and efficient, largely negating the need for massive bombers with hundreds of gravity bombs.

Amphibious operations would look drastically different than in World War 2. Advances in technology allow for much more effective means, such as a hovercraft that can literally deliver a MBT onto the beachhead, and helicopters which allow attackers to get behind the fortifications at a beachhead. This is if the beach is even defended at all, and furthermore, the fact that most hovercraft can land on 80% of beaches mean many of them are vulnerable to attack stretching defenders thin. The days of Omaha beach type attacks are over.

Recon
Image
You WILL NOT know where your enemy is and what he has at ALL TIMES. Like logistics, Rping of proper recon is not very well done in most NS RP. It does not matter how many satellites, UAV's, ground patrols, and the like you will have, you will not know where and what your enemy has at all times, and there are numerous ways of hiding even large formations.

Still, the proper RP of recon will allow to know more about enemy dispositions and placements more than you would if you ignored it.
Last edited by The PeoplesFreedom on Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
If you have any questions please let me know. I'd be happy to help in any way I can.

National Information
NS Draftroom[/spoiler]

User avatar
Mikoyan-Guryevich
Minister
 
Posts: 2010
Founded: Jun 26, 2007
Ex-Nation

Guide to Air Warfare

Postby Mikoyan-Guryevich » Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:42 pm

The Complete & Concise Guide to Aerial Warfare
Complete and Unabridged
Now available in full colour

Aerial warfare is the use of military aircraft and other flying machines in warfare. In comprises of a number of different roles and tasks, which certain aircraft are designed for. These roles are not interchangable, and you should be aware of the limitations of the aircraft you are using.

Air Power operates within the air space. Control of the airspace is essential for almost every successful application of air power.

Firstly, lets look at some strengths and weaknesses of airpower. To be able to use airpower properly within NS, you need to be aware of these strengths and of these weaknesses.

Advantages
  • Aerospace power can concentrate force in time and space, where and when required.
  • Aerospace missions can occur concurrently. Concurrent operations are a range of military actions that are undertaken simultaneously to achieve maximum effect.
  • Aerospace power does not need to occupy terrain or remain constantly near to areas of operation to bring force to bear on them.
  • Physical barriers do not limit the operational employment of an aircraft.
  • Aerospace power’s perspective (what they can see) greatly complicates the enemy’s defensive strategy and tactics.
  • Aerospace power can accurately attack targets while minimising collateral damage.
  • Aerospace power can reach any point in the battlespace.
  • Aerospace power can respond to an event in the battlespace, deploy rapidly and undertake operations almost immediately.
  • Aircraft are generally fast. Speed reduces the time that an aircraft is exposed to hostile fire and facilitates surprise.
  • Aircraft can be switched rapidly between targets

Disadvantages
  • Modern air vehicles are inherently fragile and hence susceptible to damage.
  • Aircraft cannot stay airborne indefinitely nor can they hold ground.
  • Aerospace power is dependent upon operating bases and the supporting elements they
    contain.
  • The limited payload of an aircraft can be offset by speed, reach and number of targets.

What not to do
Before we start, here are some basic things that you should never do.

Use a lot of aircraft in a single sortie: Ok, so you have decided in order to screw his defences that you will send 1000 fighter jets to attack the enemy. Wrong. Here are some flaws with your plan. The first is that it will take about three hours for that many jets to take off from one airfield. Secondly, why do you have that many jets in such a small area anyway? Thirdly, why are you sending so many jets? Don't use huge numbers of aircraft on one mission. Why? You will lose a fair portion of them.

Keep a lot of your jets in a small area: By doing this, you are only inviting somebody to dispose of them. Spread them across several airfields, and spread your airfields out.

Overstock and overuse your carriers: Like the above. An aircraft carrier may be able to hold 100 jets, but it will only be able to use about 4-8 per mission. Don't RP that your naval strike force has just launched 1000 fighter jets, this is just pure shit.

Assume that countermeasures always work: They don't.

Never forget logistics

Logistics is one area of warfare which cannot be overlooked, no matter the situation. In reality, logistics is the area of aviation which provides the most restraints to the use of air power in combat.

First and foremost is the time and practicality of getting aircraft and their crews into the air. To fuel and arm a single fighter would take around twenty personnel roughly twenty minutes and an airfield might have fifty or more of these aircraft on station. Because there isn't around a thousand spare groundies running around to load and arm all aircraft at once, it would most likely take the better part of a day to get all aircraft on the airfield ready in preparation. Then you have to consider how you are going to get them all airborne, safely, without having the aircraft which took off first loiter around for too long while waiting for the remainder to take off. Consider the amount of runways you have as well, some could be factored out by range, damage by enemy, runway length constraints etc.

Also remember the ordnance and fuel itself which is needed to go into an aircraft. Thousands of gallons of fuel is needed for a single F-16 to complete an average mission (even though we measure aviation fuel in weight), hundreds of thousands of gallons for a large bomber aircraft. Once this fuel goes into the aircraft, you can't get it out or get it back so each gallon of aviation gas you pump into your F-16 means it's one less gallon that you can pump into your AWAC/s aircraft or your strategic bomber. Even though many nations may claim to be have an enourmous oil production industry, this doesn't make the distillation to Av Gas any easier. And you have to transport it to and store it at each airfield.

Ordnance poses a similar problem. Because of vibrations in the wings and airframe, missiles and bombs can only perform a set number of flight hours before they must be discarded, so you put a strain on your resources whether you use the ordnance or not. Plus, transport and storage to and at the airfield can be more problematic than the production of bombs itself. However with ordnance, the more missiles you make for aircraft, the less you can make for other areas of your military. Think about other areas of your military which need supplies also.

So now, lets take a look at some of the roles which aircraft can fulfill, and are generally categorised under.

Tactical Air Power The battle for the skies. The role of tactical air power is to control the airspace, which then opens doors for other roles to take their place. This role is fulfilled by fighter aircraft, and the many types of aircraft that operate under them. This role can apply to threats on the ground which may threaten air power, which can also call for ground attack aircraft to be employed.

Strategic Air Power We have all seen the World War II movies where the massed convoys of bombers go to bring the war to Germany. This is called strategic air power and refers to the specific targeting of an enemies resourses, such as factories or even bridges. Anything which will effect the war effort can be targeted by this role. This can include naval operations.

Close Air Support Aircraft can't hold the ground, as we previously discussed, but that does't mean they can't protect the guys that do. Close Air Support involves protecting troops from other troops. An example of this would be an A-10 Thunderbolt destroying a coloumn of tanks that are threatening to break through allied lines. This can include naval operations.

Reconnaissance. Reconnaissance is the oldest and original role of air power before some bright spark decided to strap machine guns to the side of an aircraft. This role involves observing enemy formations and collecting intelligence, thus helping to plan offensives or other military action. Do not ignore this role, it is certainly essential for victory.

Airlift The Airlift role involves transporting men and materials from A to B. There are two distinct types. The first is Strategic Airlift, which involves moving supplies or troops to the theatre of war. An example of this would be a C-5 Galaxy delivering ammunition to Afghanistan. The second is tactical airlift, which involves moving supplies and troops within the theatre. An example of this would be a C-130 Hercules inserting a group of troops near a Taliban camp.

Force Multipliers Every other kind of aircraft involved in aerial warfare will come under this category. We will delve into this role later, when we explore some of the aircraft that fulfill it.

Image


You will never see a one make air force, nor should you try to create one. To be succesful, you need to fulfill each of the roles we just discussed, and remember that each role can be divided up into sub-categories. So what do you want in your airforce? Step this way.

Fighters
These fulfill the tactical air power role. There are three different main categories of fighter aircraft, but luckily, you are able to combine some of these roles.
Air Superiority Air Superiority fighters are designed specifically for destroying other enemy fighters, and they are optimised for this role. The most deadly aircraft in the sky for other aircraft are Air Superiority fighters. They are generally larger, faster and much more expensive than other multirole fighters. While they may be able to be used in ground attack missions, it would be unwise as you should have other aircraft which are cheaper and smaller, and also being better optimized for the ground attack role. Instead, you should employ these against other aircraft, in the escort, air patrol and interceptor roles.
Image

Multirole Fighters
You can call these Multirole Fighters, Fighter-Bombers or Strike Fighters. Regardless of the name, they all do the same job, or rather the same jobs. Multirole fighters blend the typical air-to-air role of an air superiority fighter and combine it with that of a ground attack fighter. Be aware, while they are designed for both roles, they are optimized for neither. Air Superiority fighters will out-fight them, Ground Attack Aircraft will do the job better. Don't ignore them however, their versatility is their main advantage. These aircraft are generally less expensive, smaller and slower than their Air Superiority counterparts.
Image

Interceptors
Much like Air Superiority Fighters, but then again different. These are optimized soley for the interceptor roles and they are generally useless at every thing else. An air force may keep a small stock of these to intercept specific enemy aircraft. They are generally very big and very, very fast.
Image

Ground Attack Aircraft
These are employed in the close air support role and are also referred to as tactical bombers. They have a dangerous job and are often well armoured.
Ground Attack Aircraft
Ground-attack aircraft are military aircraft designed to attack targets on the ground and are often deployed as close air support for, and in proximity to, their own ground forces. The proximity to friendly forces require precision strikes from these aircraft that are not possible with typical strategic bomber aircraft, and the often high contentration of enemy fire requires protection.
The definition of ground attack is a little vague. The main difference between it and otherwise similar designs like multirole aircraft is the expectation that they will receive small arms fire and are generally armored to protect the pilot against this threat. In general a ground-attack aircraft will also be smaller and less "fighter like" than designs like strike fighters, attack aircraft or interceptors. They will usually have less speed, range and ordnance than fighters. More often they carry more powerful guns and other weapons than fighters.
Image

Bombers
These fulfill the strategic air power role, although some can fulfrill the close air support role.
Bombers
A bomber is designed to attack ground and sea targets, primarily by dropping bombs on them or engaging them with another form of ordnance. Strategic bombers are primarily designed for long-range strike missions with bombs against strategic targets such as supply bases, bridges, factories, shipyards, and cities themselves, in order to damage an enemy's war effort. These are generally very large with a huge payload and a very long operational range.
Image

Reconnaissance
Recon aircraft fulfill the role which they share their name with. This is a vital role so don't shun it. Here, you will see the biggest variety of aircraft. Some, like the SR-71, are very fast. Some, like the U-2, can fly very high. And some, like the Nimrod MR2, have a powerful arsenal of cameras.
Image

Airlift
Airlift Aircraft obviously fulfill the airlift role. As mentioned, there are two categories.
Strategic Airlifters Strategic Airlift involves moving supplies or troops to the theatre of war. An example of this would be a C-5 Galaxy delivering ammunition to Afghanistan. These aircraft are often the largest owned by a nation with a huge range and cargo space. However, more often than not, they need a long, smooth runway to operate from.
Image

Tactical Airlifters Tactical airlift involves moving supplies and troops within the theatre. An example of this would be a C-130 Hercules inserting a group of troops near a Taliban camp. These aircraft are generally smaller with a smaller cargo capacity and can land basically anywhere, if they even need to.
Image

Force Multipliers
Anything else that doesn't fit into the above categories.
Tankers
The flying petrol station. These project an aircraft's range and thus its time in the air, by refuelling it while it is flying. This is an important factor in force projection.
Image

AWAC/S
AWAC/S stands for Airborne Early Warning and Control System. An airborne early warning and control system is an airborne radar system designed to detect aircraft. An AWACs has a far greater radar range than any fighter, and can be used to spot enemy aircraft long before fighters would have. This gives the element of suprise, and vital information on enemy movements. This projects a fighter aircrafts force by informing it of the enemy.
Image


Things that bring you down
Fragility is a limiting factor of air power. Unfortunately, aircraft are very fragile and the enemy will want to take you out the sky sooner rather than later. Lets look at some factors that will bring you down.

Enemy Aircraft Unless you are pitting 200 F-22's against 20 P-51's, you will encounter losses and it is foolish to pretend otherwise. Even the most advanced aircraft is not invincible and you should be aware that you are bound to lose aircraft. Enemy aircraft are your biggest threat, as they will try and prise control of the airspace from you. Be aware of interceptors and fighters. Flares and chaff DO NOT have a 100% success rate.

Surface to Air Missiles Getting shot down by a SAM depends on two things. The competency of the aircraft and the incomptency of the SAM. Even with countermeasures, defeating the SAM is not always probable and you are lucky to shake one off. Flares and chaff DO NOT have a 100% success rate. Be aware of the danger these pose.

Anti Air Guns AA guns and AA artillery are deadly. Some can fire up to 1000 rounds per minute and can reach up to 5000 feet. The shots these things fire are enough to rip open any aircraft and enough sustained hits, or hits in the right places will bring your aircraft crashing down. No countermeasure can dodge bullets, only speed and cunning will allow you to evade. Low and slow flying ground attack aircraft and helicopters are especially vulnerable.

Small Arms Dont ignore the bloke with the AK-47. A few good hits to your engines in an unarmoured aircraft could have a derogatory impact. 90% of all aircraft destroyed in the war in Afghanistan were shot down in the small arms range, not the SAM belt.

Engaging the enemy
Firstly, you need to work out the specifics of the target you are wanting to engage. Is it a troop coloumn, enemy facility, enemy fighter or enemy bomber. After you have worked out which role the mission would come under, select the appropriate aircraft. For example, if you want to shoot down an enemy bomber, I would recommend using an interceptor. If you want to provide on going support, you might consider using a gunship helicopter, like the AH-64.

Calculating Losses
Work out what you are going up against, and remember that you aren't invincible, no matter what you or anybody else says. If you are going up against mass SAM formations, be prepared to lose basically every aircraft you are attacking with. RP your losses properly, it is plain stupid to pretend that you can dodge every missile sent at you. And remember, there will be lots of those.

Appropriate Numbers
Don't be stupid. Gone are the days when we send thousands of aircraft on a single sortie and you can thank guided missiles for that. If you intend to use mass amounts of aircraft, you will lose a large number of them. And those things are expensive. Also be aware of how many aircraft you can deploy. While a carrier might be able to carry 100 aircraft, it might take hours to get them all airborne. Instead, use small flights in hit and run raids.

Cost
Aircraft are expensive. Posessing a ridiculous amount of fighters would cost you trillions, and even more to maintain. Don't get carried away, sometimes less is more. There is no need to have 20,000 fighters.

Operational Limits
A B-52 cannot take off from an aircraft carrier, regardless of the below picture. Nor can a C-5 land in a field. Also, be aware that you will not be able to deploy more than 500 aircraft to the average airfield. Keep your force spread out.

Ordnance

Guided Bombs These can be radar or laser guided onto their target below. These are highly accurate, but also more expensive than un-guided weapons. These can vary in size, from tiny 50kg bombs to bombs in excess of 1000kg.

Unguided Bombs Not as accurate as guided bombs, and not as well used in MT. Drop these from a low altitude. These can vary in size, from tiny 50kg bombs to bombs in excess of 1000kg.

Guided Missiles Either radar guided, laser guided or heat seeking. Radar guided missiles require a radar lock, laser guided requires the target to be in a line of sight, heat seekers require a heat source. The latter can be employed on aircraft, the middle on ground targets and the former on either.

Unguided Rockets See these on helicopters. Aim these on the target, then fire. Can vary in explosive size, but these are very effective against enemy armour and enemy infantry.

Machine Guns/Cannon Usually a backup weapon on aircraft in MT. Simply line the gun up with the target and fire. The MG can usually engage anything, excluding objects with heavy armour.

Remember, you are not invincible. Remember the advantages and limitations, the roles and aircraft, and go and project Air power throughout the NS world

Any questions post them here.

No, Im not doing this for the sole reason of making a guide. I want to give something back to the NS community. Ok, I wanted to make a guide.
Last edited by Mikoyan-Guryevich on Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:22 pm, edited 9 times in total.
[strike]I'm a former NS Mentor! If you have any roleplaying related questions, feel free to ask me over telegram!


If I ever appear to be inactive, it's because I am.

User avatar
Mikoyan-Guryevich
Minister
 
Posts: 2010
Founded: Jun 26, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Mikoyan-Guryevich » Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:48 pm

Glance at common aircraft types

This part of my guide is for those who would like to try making some of their own aircraft. In this section, we will discuss some of the primary aspects and defining factors of some common aircraft types, and I will provide some basic details on what you should and shouldn't need. By no means is this a complete guide, but I hope to provide a basic idea about the role of aircraft, the features of aircraft, the general dimensions and specifics of aircraft and some things you will and will not need.

A good website to know is theDraftroom. The Draftroom is where you can go to submit your designs and have someone iron out the creases while informing you of where you are going wrong. Professionals like myself who are friendly are more than happy to review your design and offer advice of things that need improvement, and possibly futher your understanding of aircraft. The Draftroom is not soley for aircraft, but all designs in general, so if you want to design a tank, a boat or even a car, visit the Draftroom and we will help you out.

Fighters

Air Superiority fighters
Image

An air superiority fighter is solely restricted to engaging other aircraft. While many can be employed in a strike role, this is unadvisable as you should have other cheaper Multirole and Ground attack aircraft that can do this. Ground attack missions are probably the most dangerous, so don't waste your precious and expensive Air Superiority fighters.

An Air Superiority fighter will generally have a large airframe, roughly 18-20 metres long with a wingspan of 13-16 metres, to give it a lot of space for ordnance and fuel, it will have powerful yet thirsty engines to give it a high maximum speed and cruise speed, and it will cost considerably more than other smaller multirole fighters due to the extra materials and more advanced technology. Rarely will these be launched from carriers, and they should always be kept in a medium number because they will not see as much action as other versatile multirole fighters, unless you are recreating the Battle of Britain.

AESA Radar is a feature to consider if you would like to invest in some stealthy technology or simply build a much more modern an up-to-date fighter. AESA (Active Electronic Scanned Array) is more resistent to jamming, harder to detect and more powerful than PESA (Passive Electronic Scanned Array) radar which it replaced. The primary difference between AESA and PESA is that AESA uses a variety of radar frequencies which makes it harder to detect over background noise, thus allowing the user to remain undetected. I am not going to delve into the physics behind it, as I think it is far beyond the average user on NS, and I have no idea how I can explain it via typing.

If you wish to travel down the stealth path, you may want to invest in some radar absorbant paint (which transforms radar energy to heat), or some radar disrupting shape (I forget the technical name, but google F-117 for an example). But be aware, this will come at a cost to expense and reliability, and remember that there is no guarantee that this system is 100%, you are still likely to be detected.

One of the paramount factors in a dogfight is manueverability. You can enhance this in a fighter by giving it a large, stable fixed wing (look at the F-15 and F-22 for an example) and you can give it some thrust vectoring capabilities (directing engine power in opposite direction). The large fixed wing is a must, as it increases fuel and ordnance, however thrust vectoring is not required. Sure it helps, but it is expensive and isn't as reliable as non-vectoring thrust nozzles.

Don't stress too much about STOL and VTOL, you don't want those in an Air Superiority fighter. 9 times out of 10, these could and should take off from a dedicated air base with a proper runway. Messing around with S/VTOL will only increase weight and cost, and will detract from your airborne prowess. Spend the R&D money on lengthening the runway instead.

For the average Air Superiority fighter, it will spend most of its time at sub-sonic speeds, therefore it requires an engine to match its role. This is the realm of the turbofan. However, add afterburning to give it extra kick when you really need it.


Multirole Fighters

Image

Multirole fighters need to be good at more than one feature. More often than not, they are more manueverable than Air Superiority fighters because they are smaller and lighter, however they don't carry as much ordnance or fuel and are generally slower. A multirole can be tasked to do pretty much anything, the F/A-18 and the F-16 are prime examples of this trait.

A modern Multirole generally will have an airframe that is roughly 3/4 the size of a comparable Air Superiority Fighter, a length of roughly 12-16 metres and a wingspan of roughly 9-12 metres. In days gone by, big fighter-bombers like the F-105 'Thud' were huge in comparison to the dedicated fighter jets, however that is no more. A Multirole these days is small and light, carrying a smaller fuel and weapon load than an Air Superiority. Their versatility is their number one advantage, and this should be the mainstay of any air force.

If you are going to have an aircraft in large numbers, this is the type to have. A flight of F-22's might be sent out to provide a combat air patrol and shoot down 4 aircraft, whereas a flight of F-35's might be sent out on a close air support role and destroy 10 tanks, 7 APC's 4 IFV's, 2 Helicopters and 4 enemy fixed wings. Multiroles will also see operation from carriers, because they are small and light. This again shows the advantage over Air Superiority fighters. This is why the US Air Force wants F-22's AND F-35's, but the Australian Air Force just wants F-35's. While the F-22, and Air Superiority fighters in general, may be better on paper, it isn't suited for everything.

AESA Radar is a good option. AESA (Active Electronic Scanned Array) is more resistent to jamming, harder to detect and more powerful than PESA (Passive Electronic Scanned Array) radar which it replaced. The primary difference between AESA and PESA is that AESA uses a variety of radar frequencies which makes it harder to detect over background noise, thus allowing the user to remain undetected. It may be worthwhile providing Terrain Following Radar, or integrating it into the existing AESA system, allowing your Multirole to perform its strike role more effectively.

Stealth, or low observability, could be a welcome feature on a Multirole fighter. But stealthy technology always comes at a cost and it doesn't work perfectly. You could try radar absorbant paint which absorbes radar waves by converting them to heat, but this will require the aircraft to be kept in a climate controlled hanger. You could also try a radar disrupting shape (I forget the technical name, but google F-117 for an example), but this will make the aircraft hard to maintain. And both these will add significantly to cost.

Manueverability is vital on a Multirole, as you will need to be able to pull high g's (the force of gravity is greatly increased) to out-manuever enemy fighters and enemy missiles, which could come at you from the ground and the air. A Multirole is generally more manueverable than an Air Superiority fighter because it is smaller and lighter, so there isn't a great demand for features like thrust-vectoring. However, it will certainly improve dynamic performance. Again, go with large fixed wings to give you lots of fuel, lots of ordnance and lots of lift. Multiroles, like Air Superiority fighters, will mainly stay subsonic.

STOL and STOVL can be useful on a Multirole, especially for carrier based operations. However, don't muck around with STOL and STOVL unless you are going to use drastically short runways. Generally, these little planes will be practically STOL capable anyway, don't add a vertical landing and take-off feature unless you are really, really going to need it.

Again, you will probably want one or two afterburning turbofans to provide power. Turbofans because they will be the most efficient at the speeds the aircraft will travel. One engine will be cheaper to operate and purchase, two engines means the plane can lose one and keep flying. Choose wisely. Having two engines won't make a large difference in performance, as speed is effectively governed by drag, not power.


Interceptors

Image

First, be aware that you don't actually need interceptors. They are only employable for one thing, shooting down high priority enemy targets that can't shoot back. They also share this role with long range interceptor missiles, which some would argue are more effective. An Air Superiority fighter should also be able to perform basic point interceptor duties thus further reducing the need for an Interceptor. The arrival of ballistic missiles conincided with the reduction of bomber numbers and thus, the obsoletion of the interceptor, generally one of the most beautiful and stunning types of aircraft.

But you can still find a use for them, albeit in small numbers. It could pay to keep a stock of 20-50 Interceptors for use on high priority targets that are out of range of air-to-air missiles and that need the speed on an interceptor for a successful mission.

There are two kinds of interceptors; point defence and area defence. The point defence role is fast becoming obsolete, due to increases and advances in radar technology. Point defenders need to gain altitude quickly, destroy targets, and then return to base. Generally, these are associated with 'scramble' missions, and the aircraft rarely travels above a short distance. Usually, the average air superiority fighter will easily fulfill this role, unless your ASF is an underpowered slug. Surface-to-Air missiles are also excellent for this role. The combination of surface-to-air missiles and ASF jets means that you don't need an interceptor for this role.

Area defence interceptors are where the money lies. This role requires an aircraft that can defend a large area from attack, or perform long range interceptor duties. Area defenders require a lot of powerful long range air-to-air missiles, a very high speed and a powerful radar system. Again, this role can still be easily fielded by Surface-to-Air missiles and ASF jets, but the interceptor will be more effective than an ASF, and will possibly give better coverage than a SAM battery, provided you have adequate radar and depending on the area of coverage required. You may also require an interceptor to shoot down enemy aircraft where speed and suprise is paramount and a SAM is unavailable. Handily, they also make great recon planes so you can kill two birds with one stone.

The best bet is the use the interceptor as a back up to eliminate any aircraft that penetrates the SAM network, basically in a home defence aspect.

So, what does an interceptor need? For starters, they are very big and very, very fast. They will have a powerful radar system and a decent number of long range air-to-air missiles. For this type of aircraft, aim for a length between 18-22 metres, a wingspan of 12-15 metres, meaning they are very long but very narrow. This helps to reduce drag at high speeds, or basically meaning it can fly faster with less power required.

The emphasis on speed will mean that stealth techology is redundant and shouldn't be used, the exception being the AESA radar because it has other applications. Lets face it, at Mach 2 any fighter will light up an enemy's radar like Times Square, no matter how much the design crew has tried to reduce its observabilty. So let me repeat this, forget about stealth!

For engines, ditch the turbofans for turbojets. An interceptor will be required to travel at supersonic speeds very often and almost always, therefore it is paramount to choose the engine which matches the speed. These are heavy on fuel, but the interceptor will have room for a lot of fuel, thanks to the huge airframe.

AESA Radar is a good option. AESA (Active Electronic Scanned Array) is more resistent to jamming, harder to detect and more powerful than PESA (Passive Electronic Scanned Array) radar which it replaced. The primary difference between AESA and PESA is that AESA uses a variety of radar frequencies which makes it harder to detect over background noise, thus allowing the user to remain undetected. It is also a very powerful system which is absolutely necessary for an interceptor.

For armament, it will need several large long range air-to-air missiles, and possibly a few short and medium range ones for self defence.

Don't even bother considering STOL or VTOL, this is utterly unsuitable for this aircraft. The interceptor will rarely see service on the front line and should be employed for self defence.
Last edited by Mikoyan-Guryevich on Fri Sep 03, 2010 2:46 am, edited 8 times in total.
[strike]I'm a former NS Mentor! If you have any roleplaying related questions, feel free to ask me over telegram!


If I ever appear to be inactive, it's because I am.

User avatar
Jenrak
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5676
Founded: Oct 06, 2004
Ex-Nation

Guide to Aerial, Ground and Naval Warfare

Postby Jenrak » Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:46 pm

Okay, finally open for business.
Last edited by Jenrak on Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Questers
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13867
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Questers » Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:46 pm

Good work: one thing, Jenrak, possibly you should format -- OK, I'm biased, I know -- the other guides to have the same formatting as mine; that is, centred images with spaces below and above them, and possibly resize a few of them. Just a suggestion!
Restore the Crown

User avatar
Grasmere
Diplomat
 
Posts: 914
Founded: Jul 10, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Grasmere » Thu Sep 02, 2010 7:19 pm

In my small experience, I have noticed that a lot of "new" players forget that it takes time to deploy and army. Like, you announce a war, next post they say "we have one million troops in your capital and are shooting your president" or stuff like that. I think that should be included, as well as how you get there. If they are planning to drive trucks up to a snowy, remote mountain hideaway, same thing. You sort of covered it with your logistics thing, but still...

Ah hah hah, lies my friend. What brought the Germans forward to almost pure domination of europe? Their "pathetic" technologies. We base many of our attacks and strategies upon WWII and WWI ways of fighting.

Well congrats then. Your armies will last about an hour in a modern battlefield.

MAKE LOVE LOUDLY
MAKE WAR SILENTLY

Osthian Peace Conference: Won
Jazanian Conflict:Lost
Assasination of Osthian Empress:
Lost
Yukodian war of independence: Won
Polarex-Zonolian War: Withdrew
Second Grasmeran Civil War: Won

User avatar
Sailsia
Senator
 
Posts: 4475
Founded: Mar 05, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Sailsia » Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:06 pm

I...just...jizzed...my...pants

n00bs beware, you now have NO reason to suck at rp'ing!
RIP RON PAUL
Author of the U.S. Constitution
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

User avatar
Jenrak
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5676
Founded: Oct 06, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Jenrak » Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:12 pm

Questers wrote:Good work: one thing, Jenrak, possibly you should format -- OK, I'm biased, I know -- the other guides to have the same formatting as mine; that is, centred images with spaces below and above them, and possibly resize a few of them. Just a suggestion!


Hmmmmmmmmmm.

That said (sorry, I have an ear-splitting something-ache), it's modifiable by all three original guide writers, so I suggest you three talk it out and find a middle ground. Once you do, I'll try and set it to that, but any help is appreciated.

User avatar
Wikipedia and Universe
Senator
 
Posts: 3897
Founded: Jul 30, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Wikipedia and Universe » Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:36 pm

Grasmere wrote:In my small experience, I have noticed that a lot of "new" players forget that it takes time to deploy and army. Like, you announce a war, next post they say "we have one million troops in your capital and are shooting your president" or stuff like that. I think that should be included, as well as how you get there. If they are planning to drive trucks up to a snowy, remote mountain hideaway, same thing. You sort of covered it with your logistics thing, but still...

I remember an RP I was in where I made sure to cover logistics. Ater a joint amphibious force moved in with naval air support and some long-range air strikes and secured the city where they landed, the first thing we did after getting the city under control was to take the international airport and set it up as a base, so that the main supply could be moved in. Setting up FOBs was also a major part of the plan as well as combined arms. Unfortunately the thread died out ( :( ), so later on after the fact we hammered out an epilogue in TG's.

Here is what ended up getting posted.

Also if anyone would like to evaluate that RP, at least as far as it got, it would be nice. :)
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get pissed, they'll be a mile away- and barefoot.
Proud Member and Co-Founder of the MDISC Alliance
An ODECON Naval Analyst wrote:Superior tactics and training can in fact triumph over force of numbers and missile spam.
Bottle wrote:This is not rocket surgery, folks.
Senestrum wrote:This is relativity, the theory that takes everything we know about the world, bends it over, and fucks it to death with a spiked dildo.

User avatar
Hornopolis
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5992
Founded: Sep 26, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Hornopolis » Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:37 pm

In my own opinion I find it easier to read if the pictures were spoiler'd.
4/11/11

User avatar
Aldarminia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1581
Founded: Mar 15, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Aldarminia » Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:16 pm

To be perfectly honest, I have to say, at least until after reading this, I sucked at RPing naval combat and I had no real understanding of all of the roles of aircraft. This seriously helped. A LOT. ESPECIALLY naval wise. My knowledge of RECON has certainly improved too.

Good guides all around.
This is FanT/PT/MT/PMT/Nightmare, you can find more Cajun Cossack Slavs IN SPACE! here:
The Rabusmyyk Stellar Association (Xenos included!!!)
First High Roller of the NationStates Future Tech Discord Server
Founder and Boss of the Losieda Bratva Criminal Syndicate
"I dated an Aldarminian once, but when he proposed 'annexing' my 'southern border regions' I decided it might be best to break it off."
Riflemoor

'This is Tanya Zaldano, live on the street... We've just received word that Aldar's next form will be... Yes, that's right... A New Orleans Street Band. That's right - it's a street band. Live from the Big Easy and already drinking, I'm Tanya Zaldano...'
Sunset

User avatar
Onyenu
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1240
Founded: Jan 17, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Onyenu » Fri Sep 03, 2010 5:31 pm

this is awesome, good jobs guys, this is being endorsed by me and going in el sigo.

User avatar
Ozymos
Minister
 
Posts: 3082
Founded: Oct 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Ozymos » Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:50 am

An excellent compilation concerning warfare on NS.

"My name's Oz and this is my favorite Warfare Guide on Nationstates"
"Through adversity, to the stars!"
The Intersystems Alliance
Liu Xiu | Excalibur Squadron

User avatar
Hornopolis
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5992
Founded: Sep 26, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Hornopolis » Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:19 pm

Ozymos wrote:An excellent compilation concerning warfare on NS.

"My name's Oz and this is my favorite Warfare Guide on Nationstates"

Mass Effect humour. Priceless.
4/11/11

User avatar
Concordeia
Senator
 
Posts: 4422
Founded: Sep 30, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Concordeia » Sat Sep 04, 2010 3:46 pm

Question for Warfare Guide Staff: Can airships be incorporated into modern warfare tactics?

For example, unmanned high altitude airships operating at altitudes of ~60,000 feet could act as surveillance platforms in between AWACS and satellites.

Image

Large hybrid airships could act as both strategic and tactical airlifters because of their ability to carry large quantities of troops and supplies as well as their VTOL capability in different terrains, even being able to land on water.

Image

Would this be acceptable in an MT setting?
Last edited by Concordeia on Sat Sep 04, 2010 3:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Funny Quotes:
Falkasia wrote:
Concordeia wrote:Dammit, and I got accused of tech-wanking for using megawatt-scale free electron laser CIWS on my (nuclear powered) vessels to block missile spam! And I'm freakin early PMT! :mad: :(

I gotta say it. First time I read through this, I could have sworn it said something like this:
Dammit, and I got accused of tech-wanking for using megawatt-scale free electron laser CIWS on my (nuclear powered) vessels to block spam missiles!

I was like, "Who the hell are you fighting... or more importantly, was your lunch meat laced?"


Grossrheinland Reich wrote:
CTALNH wrote:3 words: S&M and BSDM

Let it be known that God hates you.
OOC: so fkn hawt


Take the World Census 2011 at http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=83868

User avatar
Mikoyan-Guryevich
Minister
 
Posts: 2010
Founded: Jun 26, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Mikoyan-Guryevich » Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:56 pm

It would be acceptable to use them, but keep in mind how easy they would be to shoot down. I would strongly advise against using them.
[strike]I'm a former NS Mentor! If you have any roleplaying related questions, feel free to ask me over telegram!


If I ever appear to be inactive, it's because I am.

User avatar
The Dog Hold
Envoy
 
Posts: 236
Founded: Dec 03, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dog Hold » Sat Sep 04, 2010 8:14 pm

Mikoyan-Guryevich wrote:It would be acceptable to use them, but keep in mind how easy they would be to shoot down. I would strongly advise against using them.

That would not be a good loss. In my RP navy we actually have a missile, known as the Banhammer missile, which is designed specifically to shoot down blimps using a charge warhead that sends out 8 very sharp blades in an upward radial direction which can tear right through the lining. Another scary thing is that it is very cheap and easily mobile. Just imagine all of your troops and supplies going in the sky over the ocean and then plummeting to the ground because of a single, (relatively) cheap missile that was launched from a cruiser. It would be better to use them if you have total control of the air and sea on the way to wherever you are going. Even then there is so much volume used just to lift the airship into the air, so you have just a big target in the sky that can only carry whatever is in the lower end of it. It's like it is multiple times larger than its actual usable space. I would just use something like a C-17 (I saw a few of them going in to the airport, something to do with NATO, and those planes are HUGE) for your airlifting.
A pic of me. | HOLY EPIC SONG, I'M ADDICTED | Proud NYMPHOMANIAC
Mushet wrote:hottest NSer I've seen so far
Power and Stability wrote:You are the hottest NSer I have seen, seriously, what are you doing here?
Zions Rebel Court wrote:My god woman. You are hot/gorgeous/sexy/amazingly and incredibly cute. Just sayin.
Voted Sexiest Female NS'er 2010. Also congratulations to Old Erisia for his victory in the Men's Thread.

User avatar
Hegstoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5657
Founded: Dec 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Hegstoria » Sat Sep 04, 2010 8:20 pm

Great idea guys, glad to see all three of them together. Taging for further reading.
"Quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit."-Oscar Wilde

Defcon 5: Pax Hegstoriana
Defcon 4: Ehh, things are pretty good, but a bit heated
Defcon 3: War seems near, but not at the moment, and far from the mind
Defcon 2: Get a helmet
Defcon 1: Put on said helmet

Colonies: South-West Hegstodia, The Hegstoria Rhodesian Confederacy(3 independent colonies), Fuair

Major Leaders: President Jonathan F. Shepherd, Vice President Francis P. Sinclair, Minister of the Interior Samuel D. Lisbon, Minister of the Armed Forces General Stanley C. McAlister

Map: -currently under a redesign-

Size: 7,825,600 km^2

Life Expectancy: 84.59 years Courtesy of Unibot

Alliances: Skyguard Defense Network

embassy program

User avatar
Minnysota
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6395
Founded: Mar 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Minnysota » Sat Sep 04, 2010 8:37 pm

I have a question for Questers on Naval Combat.

If aircraft are most likely to be shot down either on the approach or retreat to/from a fleet, then why are carriers even needed in fleets? Wouldn't it be much better off just to use smaller carriers for defense and support roles if that is the case?
Minnysota - Unjustly Deleted

User avatar
Hegstoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5657
Founded: Dec 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Hegstoria » Sat Sep 04, 2010 8:39 pm

Just a note for the ground warfare guide, the part where you talk about Conscripts and professional soldiers, you said Khe Snah instead of, or at least what I think you meant, Khe Sanh. It's not a big deal, but for clarity sake I thought you'd like to know. Other than that I like the guide a lot.
"Quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit."-Oscar Wilde

Defcon 5: Pax Hegstoriana
Defcon 4: Ehh, things are pretty good, but a bit heated
Defcon 3: War seems near, but not at the moment, and far from the mind
Defcon 2: Get a helmet
Defcon 1: Put on said helmet

Colonies: South-West Hegstodia, The Hegstoria Rhodesian Confederacy(3 independent colonies), Fuair

Major Leaders: President Jonathan F. Shepherd, Vice President Francis P. Sinclair, Minister of the Interior Samuel D. Lisbon, Minister of the Armed Forces General Stanley C. McAlister

Map: -currently under a redesign-

Size: 7,825,600 km^2

Life Expectancy: 84.59 years Courtesy of Unibot

Alliances: Skyguard Defense Network

embassy program

User avatar
United States of PA
Senator
 
Posts: 4317
Founded: Apr 01, 2009
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby United States of PA » Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:40 pm

Minnysota wrote:I have a question for Questers on Naval Combat.

If aircraft are most likely to be shot down either on the approach or retreat to/from a fleet, then why are carriers even needed in fleets? Wouldn't it be much better off just to use smaller carriers for defense and support roles if that is the case?



Im just weighing in my thoughts on the issue.



Large Carriers generally have greater survivability. You need fewer escorts to escort 1 Large CVN than 4 Smaller CVEs (Compare Invincible and Nimitz), but yet, can get the same job done.

Smaller Carriers have less Endurance, and you will eat up more escorts to get the same amount of Strike Power. Plus, Smaller Carriers cannot embark larger aircraft. Comparison, once again, is the Invincible vs Nimitz. Invincible Can embark with, at largest, Harriers. Nimitz can embark with Aircraft as large as F-14D and F/A-18E/F. This is true even in the real world, where the Navies that have generally gone for Smaller Carriers in recent years (French and Royal Navies are the first two that come to mind, emplying, respectively, ~37,000 tonne and ~22,000 tonne carriers) are today, going for 65,000 tonne Supercarriers, rather than smaller replacements.
In other words, conservatives are generous with their own money, and liberals are generous with other peoples money.
"I object and take exception to everyone saying that Obama and Congress are spending money like a drunken sailor. As a former drunken sailor, I quit when I ran out of money." ~ Unknown
"See, it doesn't matter how many people you have, how old your civilization is, or any such tripe. We're still the by-God US of A and we will seriously bitch slap you so hard your ancestors going back millenia will feel it if you piss us off."

User avatar
Concordeia
Senator
 
Posts: 4422
Founded: Sep 30, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Concordeia » Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:52 pm

The Dog Hold wrote:
Mikoyan-Guryevich wrote:It would be acceptable to use them, but keep in mind how easy they would be to shoot down. I would strongly advise against using them.

That would not be a good loss. In my RP navy we actually have a missile, known as the Banhammer missile, which is designed specifically to shoot down blimps using a charge warhead that sends out 8 very sharp blades in an upward radial direction which can tear right through the lining. Another scary thing is that it is very cheap and easily mobile. Just imagine all of your troops and supplies going in the sky over the ocean and then plummeting to the ground because of a single, (relatively) cheap missile that was launched from a cruiser. It would be better to use them if you have total control of the air and sea on the way to wherever you are going. Even then there is so much volume used just to lift the airship into the air, so you have just a big target in the sky that can only carry whatever is in the lower end of it. It's like it is multiple times larger than its actual usable space. I would just use something like a C-17 (I saw a few of them going in to the airport, something to do with NATO, and those planes are HUGE) for your airlifting.


Good point about having control of shipping corridors, but I really don't think they any more vulnerable than any other large cargo transport. The hybrid airships in particular would be large enough to support their own anti-missile/anti-aircraft defense systems. Of course, they would still have armed escorts. Plus, if I wanted to move over at least 10,000 troops somewhere fast, it would take at least a hundred C-17s, and I'm pretty sure that would overwhelm any regular airport. And amphibious transport ships would take too long. I see the hybrid airship as an ideal compromise, with the added benefit of being to land anywhere on land and on water.

Another thing, not to nitpick, but they aren't blimps. Hybrid airships actually have a rigid outer shell which is specifically shaped to produce aerodynamic lift.
Funny Quotes:
Falkasia wrote:
Concordeia wrote:Dammit, and I got accused of tech-wanking for using megawatt-scale free electron laser CIWS on my (nuclear powered) vessels to block missile spam! And I'm freakin early PMT! :mad: :(

I gotta say it. First time I read through this, I could have sworn it said something like this:
Dammit, and I got accused of tech-wanking for using megawatt-scale free electron laser CIWS on my (nuclear powered) vessels to block spam missiles!

I was like, "Who the hell are you fighting... or more importantly, was your lunch meat laced?"


Grossrheinland Reich wrote:
CTALNH wrote:3 words: S&M and BSDM

Let it be known that God hates you.
OOC: so fkn hawt


Take the World Census 2011 at http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=83868

User avatar
United States of PA
Senator
 
Posts: 4317
Founded: Apr 01, 2009
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby United States of PA » Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:58 pm

Regular Airports handle hundreds of Aircraft as big as or bigger than a C-17 on a daily basis. 100 C-17s would be nothing to them as long as you get them turned around ASAP.

Plus, it would be more efficient to use 747s or other Airliners to transport the troops, and use the C-17s to transport in initial supplies, stuff that cant wait until a Sea Lane is set up.
In other words, conservatives are generous with their own money, and liberals are generous with other peoples money.
"I object and take exception to everyone saying that Obama and Congress are spending money like a drunken sailor. As a former drunken sailor, I quit when I ran out of money." ~ Unknown
"See, it doesn't matter how many people you have, how old your civilization is, or any such tripe. We're still the by-God US of A and we will seriously bitch slap you so hard your ancestors going back millenia will feel it if you piss us off."

User avatar
Concordeia
Senator
 
Posts: 4422
Founded: Sep 30, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Concordeia » Sat Sep 04, 2010 11:02 pm

United States of PA wrote:Regular Airports handle hundreds of Aircraft as big as or bigger than a C-17 on a daily basis. 100 C-17s would be nothing to them as long as you get them turned around ASAP.

Plus, it would be more efficient to use 747s or other Airliners to transport the troops, and use the C-17s to transport in initial supplies, stuff that cant wait until a Sea Lane is set up.


Weird though, why is it that whenever I see real life footage of troop transport, it always involves dedicated airlifters and not military passenger aircraft?

I guess this means I should go ahead and start using militarized Airbus A380 type aircraft to transport the troops instead of C-17s...
Funny Quotes:
Falkasia wrote:
Concordeia wrote:Dammit, and I got accused of tech-wanking for using megawatt-scale free electron laser CIWS on my (nuclear powered) vessels to block missile spam! And I'm freakin early PMT! :mad: :(

I gotta say it. First time I read through this, I could have sworn it said something like this:
Dammit, and I got accused of tech-wanking for using megawatt-scale free electron laser CIWS on my (nuclear powered) vessels to block spam missiles!

I was like, "Who the hell are you fighting... or more importantly, was your lunch meat laced?"


Grossrheinland Reich wrote:
CTALNH wrote:3 words: S&M and BSDM

Let it be known that God hates you.
OOC: so fkn hawt


Take the World Census 2011 at http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=83868

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to International Incidents

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads