P/MT OOC Discussion and Argument Thread

[Distruzio]

Well...first of Helium is almost completely inert and nonreactive, which would make it less prone to Hindenburg type events. Additionally, while some lighter-than-air balloons can get up to some really high altitudes, you'd pretty much have to be at the edge of space to ensure that a fighter couldn't intercept (or protect), and as you get farther into PMT, even that becomes questionable. Additionally, walkers and mecha tanks are bad design concepts pretty much no matter what measures you take to make them "better". Not only do you generally have poorly protected legs, but you have to have a system of controls to power said legs, make them move, and keep the damn thing upright. This, in conjunction with the fact that the legs can't be heavily armoured (unless you don't want your "tanks" to have any reasonable mobility) gives anyone firing at them a realitively easy to hit, easy to damage area to hit (and if something hits your legs, it's bound to hit soemthing important).

Pretty much, a conventional tank design is better in every concievable way than a walker/mech, I'd go more in depth, but i have to go. I'm sure someone has that handy NSD link regarding walkers, though.

So, i did some extensive digging today and decided against the walker tanks. The criticisms out there are simply too convincing for me to resist them. Outside of the cool factor.... meh. I'm going to have to concede that they aren't practical. Still stuck on the airship idea though. Until someone convinces me otherwise. (note the invitation!)

[Licana]

Wut? I've never heard of a cannon round that could be intercepted.

As to above poster, I'll probably read over that and respond to it when in about an hour, when I have more time.

No one has ever needed to, but rest assured that a large cannon round certainly can be intercepted. It's slower than a missile and follows a ballistic trajectory, after all.

IIRC, most cannon rounds travel at speeds greater than the common antishipping missiles (discounting the lulzy ones that travel at Mach 4+ during their final approach). Although, I suppose interception is possible.

[Galla-]

Wut? I've never heard of a cannon round that could be intercepted.

As to above poster, I'll probably read over that and respond to it when in about an hour, when I have more time.

No one has ever needed to, but rest assured that a large cannon round certainly can be intercepted. It's slower than a missile and follows a ballistic trajectory, after all.

Cannon rounds generally travel at something like 1,200-1,500 m/s. Generally around there. They are supersonic for a reason. Most AShMs travel at subsonic speeds to increase range, since supersonic missiles are very short ranged and generally bad at hitting things that move.

[Kaukolastan]

No one has ever needed to, but rest assured that a large cannon round certainly can be intercepted. It's slower than a missile and follows a ballistic trajectory, after all.

Cannon rounds generally travel at something like 1,200-1,500 m/s. Generally around there. They are supersonic for a reason. Most AShMs travel at subsonic speeds to increase range, since supersonic missiles are very short ranged and generally bad at hitting things that move.

Terminal phase booster engine.

Of course, you could always make rocket propelled shells, too. *cough* Excalibur *cough* Although that kind of defeats the cheap and spammy aspect.

As for intercepting a cannon shell, there is a large difference between mission-killing a missile (fragile control surfaces, filled with explosive stuff) and out-and-out stopping a chunk of metal determined on planting itself firmly into your posterior. A damaged missile is no longer a missile. A damaged chunk of speeding tungsten is now a slightly-differently-shaped chunk of speeding tungsten. The accuracy and on-target force required to make a ballistic object stop dead are greater (and require more complex defenses) than "simply" rendering a missile ineffective. IRL CIWS is not a magic shield, and would be pathetic against shells, RAMS would be terribly suboptimal, and lasering them down would be lulzy. And remember: more complex means more likely to oops. The last thing you want is "Captain, It Won't Shoot".

*NOTE: Please do not take this as an endorsement of guns as a viable alternative to missiles in realistic modern/PMT naval battles. Missiles are better, but interception rates are not one of the reasons. I'd go more with engagement envelopes and see/shoot/hit/kill rates.

[Licana]

Cannon rounds generally travel at something like 1,200-1,500 m/s. Generally around there. They are supersonic for a reason. Most AShMs travel at subsonic speeds to increase range, since supersonic missiles are very short ranged and generally bad at hitting things that move.

*NOTE: Please do not take this as an endorsement of guns as a viable alternative to missiles in realistic modern/PMT naval battles. Missiles are better, but interception rates are not one of the reasons. I'd go more with engagement envelopes and see/shoot/hit/kill rates.

You aren't fooling anyone with your poorly suppressed love for oversized cannons that would be considered by others as "compensation".

[Kaukolastan]

*NOTE: Please do not take this as an endorsement of guns as a viable alternative to missiles in realistic modern/PMT naval battles. Missiles are better, but interception rates are not one of the reasons. I'd go more with engagement envelopes and see/shoot/hit/kill rates.

You aren't fooling anyone with your poorly suppressed love for oversized cannons that would be considered by others as "compensation".

MY PENI- cannons are completely fine.

You're just jealous of my tarted up light gas guns.

[Galla-]

You aren't fooling anyone with your poorly suppressed love for oversized cannons that would be considered by others as "compensation".

MY PENI- cannons are completely fine.

You're just jealous of my tarted up light gas guns.

Project Babylon guns on every vessel.

[Licana]

You aren't fooling anyone with your poorly suppressed love for oversized cannons that would be considered by others as "compensation".

MY PENI- cannons are completely fine.

You're just jealous of my tarted up light gas guns.

Jealous of their unfinished write up, yes. I hear Transnapastain is online lurking the forums, you may wish to tread carefully.

[Kaukolastan]

MY PENI- cannons are completely fine.

You're just jealous of my tarted up light gas guns.

Jealous of their unfinished write up, yes. I hear Transnapastain is online lurking the forums, you may wish to tread carefully.

You don't deserve my write-up. And Trans can bring-

[Transnapastain]

Jealous of their unfinished write up, yes. I hear Transnapastain is online lurking the forums, you may wish to tread carefully.

You don't deserve my write-up. And Trans can bring-

Whats this?!

[Kaukolastan]

You don't deserve my write-up. And Trans can bring-

Whats this!?

Nothing! Nothing! Just... uh... writing up MADAE, that's all.

[The Corparation]

Question: Air launched Ballistic missiles? I"m thinking a smaller FOBS type missile launched from a specially modified aircraft with say 5-6 MIRVs as a second strike system. Layout would be similar to the Pegasus launch system. The basic idea is that its a retaliation weapon in a crisis they'd be put on station scattered across the nation/world and in the event of an attack would launch. They could easily be moved from airbase to airbase to reduce the likelihood of them getting located and destroyed by an opponent. I call it Project R.O.N.I.N.(Retaliatory Orbital Nuclear International Neutralizer).

[Licana]

I don't see how it would be any more effective than a Ballistic Missile Submarine, to be honest. In fact, probably have to have lower yield (unless you want a lolbig aircraft) and higher probability of detection.

[Transnapastain]

Whats this!?

Nothing! Nothing! Just... uh... writing up MADAE, that's all.

*Pulls out an Ethernet cable, holding it like a garrote wire."

Good, you better be, or else.

*snap, snap* You gonna get it.

[The Corparation]

I don't see how it would be any more effective than a Ballistic Missile Submarine, to be honest. In fact, probably have to have lower yield (unless you want a lolbig aircraft) and higher probability of detection.

Mostly the idea is that it would be able to move faster then a missile sub an attack and have it less easily be tracked and thus be better able to evade. That, and it would fly within the nation and be escorted by fighters. (Or I could go lulzy and give it Air to air missiles) The MIRvs would due to size limitations be of a smaller size then those of slbms but they'd be designed for more precision strikes against enemy command centers. IT also wouldn't replace subs but would serve alongside them. Wouldn't field more then a few dozen carriers (20-50) each with a single missile. Their advantage would be their ability to move across the country and away from possible targets quickly and on short notice.

[Kaukolastan]

I don't see how it would be any more effective than a Ballistic Missile Submarine, to be honest. In fact, probably have to have lower yield (unless you want a lolbig aircraft) and higher probability of detection.

Mostly the idea is that it would be able to move faster then a missile sub an attack and have it less easily be tracked and thus be better able to evade. That, and it would fly within the nation and be escorted by fighters. (Or I could go lulzy and give it Air to air missiles) The MIRvs would due to size limitations be of a smaller size then those of slbms but they'd be designed for more precision strikes against enemy command centers. IT also wouldn't replace subs but would serve alongside them. Wouldn't field more then a few dozen carriers (20-50) each with a single missile. Their advantage would be their ability to move across the country and away from possible targets quickly and on short notice.

Nukes in aircraft: just use bombs/cruise missiles. SAC type stuff is cool, but not with ballistic missiles, that's just inefficient. Pack in six or nine nuclear cruise missiles (with stealth!) in a rotary launcher and call it a day.

You want flying-second-strike-cans-o'-doom? Put them in orbital batteries. It won't make you popular, but if you want a surprise second round after your capital just sucked radioactive happy-juice, that's where to go.

Or be more MT about it and put them in Boomers, like Licana said.

[Licana]

I don't see how it would be any more effective than a Ballistic Missile Submarine, to be honest. In fact, probably have to have lower yield (unless you want a lolbig aircraft) and higher probability of detection.

Mostly the idea is that it would be able to move faster then a missile sub an attack and have it less easily be tracked and thus be better able to evade. That, and it would fly within the nation and be escorted by fighters. (Or I could go lulzy and give it Air to air missiles) The MIRvs would due to size limitations be of a smaller size then those of slbms but they'd be designed for more precision strikes against enemy command centers. IT also wouldn't replace subs but would serve alongside them. Wouldn't field more then a few dozen carriers (20-50) each with a single missile. Their advantage would be their ability to move across the country and away from possible targets quickly and on short notice.

Aircraft will almost always be easier to track than a submarine. The problem is that, unless you plan to keep a few of these airborne at all times, it really wouldn't have any particular use, and if you do then you waste tons of fuel to keep them in the air (not to mention maintenance and other costs). Even if you did, an enemy probably could track and intercept these missile carriers (at least, much easier than they could a sub) before or immediately after an attack.

[Galla-]

Mostly the idea is that it would be able to move faster then a missile sub an attack and have it less easily be tracked and thus be better able to evade. That, and it would fly within the nation and be escorted by fighters. (Or I could go lulzy and give it Air to air missiles) The MIRvs would due to size limitations be of a smaller size then those of slbms but they'd be designed for more precision strikes against enemy command centers. IT also wouldn't replace subs but would serve alongside them. Wouldn't field more then a few dozen carriers (20-50) each with a single missile. Their advantage would be their ability to move across the country and away from possible targets quickly and on short notice.

Nukes in aircraft: just use bombs/cruise missiles. SAC type stuff is cool, but not with ballistic missiles, that's just inefficient. Pack in six or nine nuclear cruise missiles (with stealth!) in a rotary launcher and call it a day.

You want flying-second-strike-cans-o'-doom? Put them in orbital batteries. It won't make you popular, but if you want a surprise second round after your capital just sucked radioactive happy-juice, that's where to go.

Or be more MT about it and put them in Boomers, like Licana said.

A nuclear satellite is the most unstealthy thing.

Ever.

A nuclear explosion is more stealthy than a satellite.

[Licana]

Mostly the idea is that it would be able to move faster then a missile sub an attack and have it less easily be tracked and thus be better able to evade. That, and it would fly within the nation and be escorted by fighters. (Or I could go lulzy and give it Air to air missiles) The MIRvs would due to size limitations be of a smaller size then those of slbms but they'd be designed for more precision strikes against enemy command centers. IT also wouldn't replace subs but would serve alongside them. Wouldn't field more then a few dozen carriers (20-50) each with a single missile. Their advantage would be their ability to move across the country and away from possible targets quickly and on short notice.

Nukes in aircraft: just use bombs/cruise missiles. SAC type stuff is cool, but not with ballistic missiles, that's just inefficient. Pack in six or nine nuclear cruise missiles (with stealth!) in a rotary launcher and call it a day.

You want flying-second-strike-cans-o'-doom? Put them in orbital batteries. It won't make you popular, but if you want a surprise second round after your capital just sucked radioactive happy-juice, that's where to go.

Or be more MT about it and put them in Boomers, like Licana said.

Even then, you can track satellites fairly easily (IIRC, at least), and knock them out before an attack. Of course, with the giant clusterfuck that is NS low orbit, that may be difficult, but far from impossible. Either way, I'll be sticking to subs.

[Galla-]

Nukes in aircraft: just use bombs/cruise missiles. SAC type stuff is cool, but not with ballistic missiles, that's just inefficient. Pack in six or nine nuclear cruise missiles (with stealth!) in a rotary launcher and call it a day.

You want flying-second-strike-cans-o'-doom? Put them in orbital batteries. It won't make you popular, but if you want a surprise second round after your capital just sucked radioactive happy-juice, that's where to go.

Or be more MT about it and put them in Boomers, like Licana said.

Even then, you can track satellites fairly easily (IIRC, at least), and knock them out before an attack. Of course, with the giant clusterfuck that is NS low orbit, that may be difficult, but far from impossible. Either way, I'll be sticking to subs.

It is actually rly easy.

NASA tracks everything bigger than a golfball right now.

[Kaukolastan]

TO Galla and Licana:

I said cruise missiles with stealth, not satellites.

The satellites? Just tell everyone they're Weather Satellites, with special deployable Atmospheric Test Equipment. Is the atmosphere full of fire? Sure is now! You can't hide it from them, but you can lie about what it is, and most nations won't have the gall to poke it. Suspect what it is, sure, but not actually knock it down. If they go for ASAT, consider it an attack on your Deterrence, and make this doctrine PERFECTLY CLEAR. Mind you, this is only valid in a Cold War type scenario where Detterence is the understood policy, but I digress.

EDIT: Where did the stealth satellite thing come from anyway? Licana, you should know I wouldn't say something like that, especially since you posted in Kessler.

[Licana]

Aye, but if a nation's going to attack with nuclear weapons, they don't exactly care about your "deterrence", do they? At which point, I would assume, they would start knocking out everything that the defending country has in terms of these "questionable" satellites.

[Kaukolastan]

Aye, but if a nation's going to attack with nuclear weapons, they don't exactly care about your "deterrence", do they? At which point, I would assume, they would start knocking out everything that the defending country has in terms of these "questionable" satellites.

Well, that's just it. If you establish it as your Deterrence, then any move into ASAT position would be considered prep-for-strike, and would be responded to with a pre-emptive launch from orbit. Even if they completely ambush your orbital assets, they would have to hit those BEFORE your ground/sea second strike abilities, which could then be activated for moar lulz the end of modern civilization. Deterrence is not about not being able to be hit, it's about guaranteeing that everyone dies, and hoping all players are rational. Worked pretty well IRL, but with the insipidity of some NS leaders... well...

Enjoy your music.

[Licana]

EDIT: Where did the stealth satellite thing come from anyway? Licana, you should know I wouldn't say something like that, especially since you posted in Kessler.

I was on the subject of retaliatory strike capacity (what I thought Corporation was talking about?), where you either want to hide your launch vehicles from the enemy or put them somewhere that they can't hit. If the enemy knows where everything is, and can hit it, then they don't exactly work for retaliation in a nuclear scenario.

I know you wouldn't pull some bull "stealf stllite" out at us (because it's impossible), but when I think of retaliatory weapons, I think stealth.

[Kaukolastan]

EDIT: Where did the stealth satellite thing come from anyway? Licana, you should know I wouldn't say something like that, especially since you posted in Kessler.

I was on the subject of retaliatory strike capacity (what I thought Corporation was talking about?), where you either want to hide your launch vehicles from the enemy or put them somewhere that they can't hit. If the enemy knows where everything is, and can hit it, then they don't exactly work for retaliation in a nuclear scenario.

I know you wouldn't pull some bull "stealf stllite" out at us (because it's impossible), but when I think of retaliatory weapons, I think stealth.

Lying is cheaper!

"That's not a missile."

"It's got booster engines, a warhead, and is steaming in a silo! We've got the pictures right here to prove-"

"You misunderstand! That's just a hot-dog stand!"

"There are a dozen anti-aircraft guns around it that shot at our-"

"It was a parade, with fireworks."

"There was no parade-"

"Yes there was."

"Two defectors from your nation-"

"Defectors? You mean those two rapists who fled from prison? They are delusional. And rapists."

"WE SHOT DOWN ONE OF YOUR TARGETING AIRCRAFT-"

"No, that was a defector. We thank you for killing that pig-dog. He wanted to give you our hot dog recipes."