NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Gallia-]

For some reason I thought SABMIS was supposed to be a mobile Sprint missile battery but apparently it was Cobra Judy-sized panels and an unspecified interceptor rocket probably based on an SLBM.

RIP.

Zone RV defense like the Carrier Dichotomy of the US Navy in the '50s.

[Kouralia]

I remember reading an article about creating Air force SF teams whose purpose would be to deploy by ground, sea and air behind enemy lines to attack enemy aircraft with SAMs. I'm thinking uses for this could be a) countering a known hostile operation, b) general interference with major air operations (e.g. downing a C5 Galaxy doing an airlift with 6 Apaches on it is going to be painful), and c) skirmish screen to prevent hostile air support countering preplanned friendly major air operations.

What sort of weapons would I be looking for to do this? Would it be a case of deploying men with ManPADS in the vicinity of hostile airbases, or would some kind of compact SRAAM launcher and radar set pulled by/mounted on a pair of Land Rovers be required to hit the sort of major targets this might be aimed at?

[Gallia-]

Cargo aircraft are more at risk of lazy loadmasters and rusty tie-downs than MANPADS.

[Austrasien]

This would do.

[Rhodesialund]

This would do.

Oh god, now Ford is gonna roleplay himself as a Missile now.

[Gallia-]

This would do.

Now shoot it out of a gun or drop it from a plane.

Deep air assault denial minefields.

Barrier protection against enemy Hind/Comanche counter-assault regiments prowling the rear area.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

For some reason I thought SABMIS was supposed to be a mobile Sprint missile battery but apparently it was Cobra Judy-sized panels and an unspecified interceptor rocket probably based on an SLBM.

RIP.

Zone RV defense like the Carrier Dichotomy of the US Navy in the '50s.

They missiles were to be Nike Spartans.

KEI would have been the modern answer but like most other things of promise the last few decades it got canceled because *gasp capable weapons tend to cost money.

[Gallia-]

More like USA is being sacrificed on the altar of free trade and market subversion.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Would it be sensible to convert a container ship into a Landing Helicopter Dock? Would that even be feasible? How much would it cost to upgrade and what kind of armament and landing capability should it have? I know that Cuba converted a fishing trawler into a "frigate" and Iraq converted a civilian airliner into an AEW platform, so I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. Of course, I could be wrong, which is why I'm asking.

I know that these are all highly speculative questions, but I'm curious as to what y'all think!

The brits still have on on-roster as a hospital-ship.

It cures Ebola.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

But the upper-level BMD capability got moved to the orbital Brilliant Pebbles constellation and the AShBM capability was sort of sidelined. Might make a comeback later.

I'd be wary of brilliant pebbles and its more modern SBI incarnation as with the limited ~2.5 km/s delta-V capability od each interceptor they can be rather easily countered with faster burning boosters which can burn out before the interceptor can reach them. The only feasible counters to this would be to increase the number of intercepts by an order of magnitude to make up for the shorter intercept ranges, massively increasing manufacturing and launch costs, or to give the SBIs more delta-V which would entail increasing their mass by an order of magnitude or more (as delta-V is a logarithmic function of mass ratio), also massively increasing launch costs. Cost wise the cost of launching enough SBIs to effectively counter X ICBMs is much more than the cost to add another X ICBMs, hence against a peer competitor the numbers will always favor the attacker.

The only truly effective space-based defense would be SBL (or neutral particle beams) since attacking at lightspeed (or near lightspeed) means you could care less if the booster burns out in 150 versus 300 seconds. You would also only need around 20-24 in orbit for global coverage as opposed to say 40,000 SBIs so it might actually end up cheaper despite being massive more technologically complex. DEWS, whether land, air, sea, or space based, are the only really cost-effective methods (theoretically) of countering ICBMs. Terminal AShBM defense s would be well within means for a MIRACL type multi-megawatt laser although a naval version of THAAD might also be good enough to do the trick since unlike SM-3 it can engage endo-atmospheric targets like AShBMs or TBMS other flying highly depressed trajectories.

[Gallia-]

IS is still a good meme weapon.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

So, how do you get the dozens to hundreds of megawatts of power you need for a space based FELs or particle beam cannons in a relatively compact and lightweight package?

Oh, I don't know, how about a nuclear-thermal rocket exhausting through a massive magnetic field?

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRec ... =ADA339004

[The Akasha Colony]

I'd be wary of brilliant pebbles and its more modern SBI incarnation as with the limited ~2.5 km/s delta-V capability od each interceptor they can be rather easily countered with faster burning boosters which can burn out before the interceptor can reach them. The only feasible counters to this would be to increase the number of intercepts by an order of magnitude to make up for the shorter intercept ranges, massively increasing manufacturing and launch costs, or to give the SBIs more delta-V which would entail increasing their mass by an order of magnitude or more (as delta-V is a logarithmic function of mass ratio), also massively increasing launch costs. Cost wise the cost of launching enough SBIs to effectively counter X ICBMs is much more than the cost to add another X ICBMs, hence against a peer competitor the numbers will always favor the attacker.

The only truly effective space-based defense would be SBL (or neutral particle beams) since attacking at lightspeed (or near lightspeed) means you could care less if the booster burns out in 150 versus 300 seconds. You would also only need around 20-24 in orbit for global coverage as opposed to say 40,000 SBIs so it might actually end up cheaper despite being massive more technologically complex. DEWS, whether land, air, sea, or space based, are the only really cost-effective methods (theoretically) of countering ICBMs. Terminal AShBM defense s would be well within means for a MIRACL type multi-megawatt laser although a naval version of THAAD might also be good enough to do the trick since unlike SM-3 it can engage endo-atmospheric targets like AShBMs or TBMS other flying highly depressed trajectories.

It was simply a matter of timing and political expedience.

The first incarnation of the system was deployed in the 1990s and there were no other feasible options anywhere near as ready for deployment. FBOW, Brilliant Pebbles is relatively simple and straightforward technology and some kind of public declaration of initial operating capability was required to justify continued expenditure on the system. The constellation was never fully intended to be a complete shield against any and all ballistic missile attack, but a "show of national will" and essentially a regional anti-ballistic missile capability more in line with the scaled back proposals Bush 41 was pushing after the climbdown from Reagan's full-on SDI. It also punted the thorny political question of the diplomatic effects of a "true" ABM system further down the road.

There are still plans to field a more robust, multi-element system incorporating laser platforms once feasible and tests are underway but none have been put into service yet, which is to say I haven't bothered taking any serious look into it. I found the discussion on SBL interesting and would welcome any further information on it, but at the moment I'm sort of in a slump and not doing anything big, hence the interest in minor things like nitpicking tank transmissions.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

The first incarnation of the system was deployed in the 1990s and there were no other feasible options anywhere near as ready for deployment. FBOW, Brilliant Pebbles is relatively simple and straightforward technology and some kind of public declaration of initial operating capability was required to justify continued expenditure on the system. The constellation was never fully intended to be a complete shield against any and all ballistic missile attack, but a "show of national will" and essentially a regional anti-ballistic missile capability more in line with the scaled back proposals Bush 41 was pushing after the climbdown from Reagan's full-on SDI. It also punted the thorny political question of the diplomatic effects of a "true" ABM system further down the road.

There are still plans to field a more robust, multi-element system incorporating laser platforms once feasible and tests are underway but none have been put into service yet, which is to say I haven't bothered taking any serious look into it. I found the discussion on SBL interesting and would welcome any further information on it, but at the moment I'm sort of in a slump and not doing anything big, hence the interest in minor things like nitpicking tank transmissions.

SBL is the most technologically feasible of all the DEWs studied by SDIs as chemical lasers are rather straightforward and have been around for a few decades and thus present the least amount of risk. Ground based version of HF lasers and DF lasers have been tested and destroyed targets (MIRACL, ALPHA, THEL). The hard, fundamental design parts had mostly all been solved, the problems that would lie ahead of it being operational would mostly be matter of integrating the laser and the various targeting systems. Now antoher advantage is that since the energy comes from the fuel you don't need a multi-megawatt power system for the multi-megawatt laser, only solar cells for hotel loads. I was attracted to SBL because I wanted to defend my satellites from missile based ASTs while also having a system which itself could be used as an ASAT. By melting/frying satellites and missiles in orbit you don't generate debris fields which can be a serious hazard to orbital assets. Now advantage of an SBL type system is unlike brilliant pebbles/SBI i sthat it is fully capable of attacking targets within atmosphere; things like hypersonic glide vehicles or TBMs and SLBMs launched on depressed trajectories which would be impossible to intercept with exo-atmospheric systems like SBI. A DF fueled SBL (which is literally as simple as changing the fuel) would let it attack ground targets at a slight penalty in effective radiated power. The political implications of a literal space-to-surface death ray are rather.....uncomfortable which is why I suspect that HF (which due to the atmospheric absorption of its lower wavelength cannot penetrate down more than ~10km above SL) was chosen for the operation SBL while DF would be used for surface based chemical lasers like MIRACL and THEL.

The biggest challenge IMO you would face with SBL IMO would be the launch costs. To put in a ~50 ton SBL into orbit would require a super-heavy launch vehicle with a > 10m diameter payload fairing which with legacy systems generally run around a billion per launch. The only existing systems which theoretically could do it would be derivatives of Saturn V (Saturn INT-20 specifically) and Energia and the only currently in development system which could launch it would be SLS, all which adjusted for inflation or using conservative launch cost estimates would be well over a billion per launch. And to refuel each SBL would require a heavy lift-system capable of placing ~ 25 tons into LEO (probably a lot more) as you would need to launch a spacecraft which could dock with the SBL and refuel it with the 20-25 tons of laser fuel it would carry.

[Palmyrion]

Hyperbar vs opposing piston diesel

you choose

[Laritaia]

Hyperbar vs opposing piston diesel

you choose

why not both

[Palmyrion]

Hyperbar vs opposing piston diesel

you choose

why not both

Real-life example pls

[Laritaia]

there aren't any

but that doesn't mean it can't be done

[Palmyrion]

there aren't any

but that doesn't mean it can't be done

L Y R A N A R M S

[Laritaia]

there aren't any

but that doesn't mean it can't be done

L Y R A N A R M S

?

mechanically speaking there is nothing the prevents you from making an opposed piston hyperbar engine

[Arthurista]

Does anyone have any idea what the 'realistic' max range of a Meteor is? Open source info just seem to indicate '100km+' but surely that's just MBDA being coy, isn't it?

[Palmyrion]

Ferritic nitrocarburizing treatment for bolts and pistons to make it more resistant to hastened wear and tear rate by 62,366 psi pressure load of M855A1

Possible or nah?

[Laritaia]

Does anyone have any idea what the 'realistic' max range of a Meteor is? Open source info just seem to indicate '100km+' but surely that's just MBDA being coy, isn't it?

maximum range for AAMs is very situational

Meteor is not like legacy BVRAAMs, it's engine is throttleable allowing it to maintain energy at extended range. so under ideal conditions 100km is entirely possible

however conditions are rarely ideal

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Does anyone have any idea what the 'realistic' max range of a Meteor is? Open source info just seem to indicate '100km+' but surely that's just MBDA being coy, isn't it?

Yes, it is.

In a head-on engagement at high altitude against a non-manueverig target? Try more like 300 km. Or slightly less than twice the range of an AIM-120D.

But in a tail-chase against a maneuvering target at sea level? Try 20-30 km.

[The Akasha Colony]

Real-life example pls

There's only one hyperbar engine in the world, so it's not like there are a lot of examples floating around out there. Hyperbar is a specialized system so it hasn't seen any applications outside of the one it is presently used for. It's not good for fuel efficiency which is why it's of little commercial interest. It's of interest to the French because it helped them create a 1,500 horsepower V-8 diesel rather than a bigger V-12 engine, but this came at the cost of fuel efficiency.

Opposed-piston engines for tank use in general though haven't been a smashing success. Their compact size has made them attractive but the high operating pressures needed to squeeze the maximum power from their displacement has often negatively affected reliability. The Leyland L60 in the Chieftain is a particularly good example, and the 5TDF and 6TD engines used in the Soviet T-64 series and its successors have had problems as well. A hyperbar would only exacerbate this situation by increasing the pressure even further; I can't find any reference to the 5TDF or 6TD being turbocharged at all (compared to the competing V-2-series diesel in the D-72 which has turbocharged variants).