Cut out the middle man don't have an air force lol.
Advertisement
by Gallia- » Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:53 am
by Danternoust » Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:56 am
for high altitude radar coverage, just use aerostats, no planesGallia- wrote:Cut out the middle man don't have an air force lol.
by Gallia- » Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:14 am
by Danternoust » Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:03 pm
by Gallia- » Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:14 pm
by Danternoust » Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:23 pm
Gallia- wrote:An F-22 isn't going to be detected by a P-51. It flies faster than the pilot can hear. Checkmate.
by The Galactic Liberal Democracy » Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:25 pm
Cossack Khanate wrote:This shall forever be known as World War Sh*t: Newark Aggression. Now if I see one more troop deployed, I will call on the force of all the Hindu gods to reverse time and wipe your race of the face of the planet. Cease.
The Black Party wrote:(TBP kamikaze's into all 99999999999 nukes before they hit our territory because we just have that many pilots ready to die for dah blak regime, we also counter-attack into your nation with our entire population of 45 million because this RP allows it.)
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Galatic Liberal Democracy short-circuits all of NS with FACTS and LOGIC
by Gallia- » Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:39 pm
by The Manticoran Empire » Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:40 pm
Danternoust wrote:http://ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html
(Image)
Quite bluntly, if each town and city had their own airforce, incoming aircraft would have to deal with multiple interceptors with multiple air-to-air missiles, supported by ground launchers. If a city can launch into the air ten aircraft, each costing $10 million, each loaded with 2 air-to-air long-range missiles or 4 shorter range missiles, how can a $100 million F-22 not be knocked out, unless it replaces the internal payload with flares?
The problem of course is psychological, no one wants to plan for defeat, so it becomes a blindspot.
by Danternoust » Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:51 pm
The Manticoran Empire wrote:For someone who intentionally is using 70 year old equipment
The Manticoran Empire wrote:Estimates are that an Su-35 won't see an F-22 on radar until it is only 22 kilometers away.
by The Manticoran Empire » Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:25 pm
Danternoust wrote:The Manticoran Empire wrote:For someone who intentionally is using 70 year old equipment
Avionics and software is easier to upgrade. It is only thirty years.The Manticoran Empire wrote:Estimates are that an Su-35 won't see an F-22 on radar until it is only 22 kilometers away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_mirror
I will use noise rangefinders hooked up by fiber optic to the IADS, noises will be excluded based on distance and power.
This is only an eighty-year old concept, but it only works in unpopulated areas without sound reflection. Similar to passive sonar.
Coastal cities can be covered by tidal-powered buoys.
by Danternoust » Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:02 pm
The Manticoran Empire wrote:...as opposed to proper radars and fighters?
by Austrasien » Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:11 pm
Danternoust wrote:Quite bluntly, if each town and city had their own airforce, incoming aircraft would have to deal with multiple interceptors with multiple air-to-air missiles, supported by ground launchers. If a city can launch into the air ten aircraft, each costing $10 million, each loaded with 2 air-to-air long-range missiles or 4 shorter range missiles, how can a $100 million F-22 not be knocked out, unless it replaces the internal payload with flares?
The problem of course is psychological, no one wants to plan for defeat, so it becomes a blindspot.
Danternoust wrote:This is only an eighty-year old concept,
by Danternoust » Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:32 pm
Austrasien wrote: try to intercept them instead. Shame IFF isn't sound based.
I'm tempted to say this is a benefit not a problem.Austrasien wrote:A competent attacker to program software that would plot routes of least exposure through a sound-controlled air defense network.
Austrasien wrote:Namely, ram 100 F-22s or so through, then whenever those ten poor little fighters manage to get up in the air they are facing an enemy who is superior in every way and outnumbers them 10-to-1.
by The Manticoran Empire » Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:55 am
Danternoust wrote:Austrasien wrote: try to intercept them instead. Shame IFF isn't sound based.
I'm tempted to say this is a benefit not a problem.
Certainly simpler than the long-range signal flares I was considering.I'm tempted to say this is a benefit not a problem.Austrasien wrote:A competent attacker to program software that would plot routes of least exposure through a sound-controlled air defense network.
Although it isn't new I suppose, and even modern militaries aren't good at radar tracking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._mili ... r_trackingAustrasien wrote:Namely, ram 100 F-22s or so through, then whenever those ten poor little fighters manage to get up in the air they are facing an enemy who is superior in every way and outnumbers them 10-to-1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19 : "The basic tactic of the Syrian air force is to take to the air and to cross this imaginary line, which brings them outside the protective range of their home-based missiles."
The OODA loop is: detect unauthorized low flying aircraft via low frequency radar or passive sonar, compare to flightplans, scramble interceptors, mobilize tactical SAMs, turn on air-defence radars, etc.
If a 100 F-22s are going through, that just requires a proportion of fifty interceptors (first few to confirm, remaining to engage), several dozen long-range interceptors, and all in-sector SAMs firing. They would be forced to abort the mission or be damaged.
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/aircraft.htm
Regardless, there was only 2,600 aircraft defending the US at Cold War's end.
by Manokan Republic » Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:56 am
by The Manticoran Empire » Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:59 am
Manokan Republic wrote:Anti-aircraft weaponry is substantially cheaper than ordinary aircraft, easier to maintain, can be mounted almost anywhere, and requires very little skill to use in comparison. A bunch of missiles and AA guns can do a lot, especially in a small country. A missile defense system at the border, mobile missile defense systems (on trucks or on your navy if you have one), and some sort of AA gun can really do a lot. Another often overlooked feature of AA guns is anti-missile or anti-bomb work, detonating them in mid-air before they even reach the city or area.
Permanent defensive positions have the advantage of allowing for massive radar and targeting systems, as well as weapons, which means that they can be much more likely to intercept fast or stealthy aircraft, and are more useful for detecting aircraft in general. A neat idea is a laser defense system which, as it travels at the speed of light and allows for a continuous beam of potentially many minutes, can intercept a larger number of aircraft very quickly, or their weapons. The range also is potentially in to space, so altitude is sort of a non-issue.
by Manokan Republic » Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:01 am
The Manticoran Empire wrote:Manokan Republic wrote:Anti-aircraft weaponry is substantially cheaper than ordinary aircraft, easier to maintain, can be mounted almost anywhere, and requires very little skill to use in comparison. A bunch of missiles and AA guns can do a lot, especially in a small country. A missile defense system at the border, mobile missile defense systems (on trucks or on your navy if you have one), and some sort of AA gun can really do a lot. Another often overlooked feature of AA guns is anti-missile or anti-bomb work, detonating them in mid-air before they even reach the city or area.
Permanent defensive positions have the advantage of allowing for massive radar and targeting systems, as well as weapons, which means that they can be much more likely to intercept fast or stealthy aircraft, and are more useful for detecting aircraft in general. A neat idea is a laser defense system which, as it travels at the speed of light and allows for a continuous beam of potentially many minutes, can intercept a larger number of aircraft very quickly, or their weapons. The range also is potentially in to space, so altitude is sort of a non-issue.
He's basing his entire idea on the SR.177 and passive detection systems in the hope that he will be able to detect stealth fighters.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:26 am
Manokan Republic wrote:it's used on submarine to detect other submarines.
by Gallia- » Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:34 am
Danternoust wrote:I'm tempted to say this is a benefit not a problem.Austrasien wrote:A competent attacker to program software that would plot routes of least exposure through a sound-controlled air defense network.
Although it isn't new I suppose, and even modern militaries aren't good at radar tracking.
Danternoust wrote:The OODA loop is: detect unauthorized low flying aircraft via low frequency radar or passive sonar, compare to flightplans, scramble interceptors, mobilize tactical SAMs, turn on air-defence radars, etc.
Danternoust wrote:If a 100 F-22s are going through, that just requires a proportion of fifty interceptors (first few to confirm, remaining to engage), several dozen long-range interceptors, and all in-sector SAMs firing. They would be forced to abort the mission or be damaged.
by Austrasien » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:44 pm
Danternoust wrote:I'm tempted to say this is a benefit not a problem.
Certainly simpler than the long-range signal flares I was considering.
Danternoust wrote:Although it isn't new I suppose, and even modern militaries aren't good at radar tracking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._mili ... r_tracking
Danternoust wrote:The OODA loop is: detect unauthorized low flying aircraft via low frequency radar or passive sonar, compare to flightplans, scramble interceptors, mobilize tactical SAMs, turn on air-defence radars, etc.
If a 100 F-22s are going through, that just requires a proportion of fifty interceptors (first few to confirm, remaining to engage), several dozen long-range interceptors, and all in-sector SAMs firing. They would be forced to abort the mission or be damaged.
by The Manticoran Empire » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:48 pm
Manokan Republic wrote:The Manticoran Empire wrote:He's basing his entire idea on the SR.177 and passive detection systems in the hope that he will be able to detect stealth fighters.
A better idea might be magnetism, which is harder to hide from and already a somewhat developed technology as it's used on submarine to detect other submarines. To my knowledge aircraft are not well protected against it, and the static electricity they produce also a lot of times has an electromagnetic field, which would be harder to hide. If you had some sort of electromagnetic anomaly detector, it might be more useful than radar. There's also UV.
I'm tempted to say this is a benefit not a problem.Austrasien wrote:A competent attacker to program software that would plot routes of least exposure through a sound-controlled air defense network.
Although it isn't new I suppose, and even modern militaries aren't good at radar tracking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._mili ... r_tracking
Austrasien wrote:Namely, ram 100 F-22s or so through, then whenever those ten poor little fighters manage to get up in the air they are facing an enemy who is superior in every way and outnumbers them 10-to-1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19 : "The basic tactic of the Syrian air force is to take to the air and to cross this imaginary line, which brings them outside the protective range of their home-based missiles."
The OODA loop is: detect unauthorized low flying aircraft via low frequency radar or passive sonar, compare to flightplans, scramble interceptors, mobilize tactical SAMs, turn on air-defence radars, etc.
If a 100 F-22s are going through, that just requires a proportion of fifty interceptors (first few to confirm, remaining to engage), several dozen long-range interceptors, and all in-sector SAMs firing. They would be forced to abort the mission or be damaged.
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/aircraft.htm
Regardless, there was only 2,600 aircraft defending the US at Cold War's end.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:05 pm
Danternoust wrote:I will use noise rangefinders hooked up by fiber optic to the IADS, noises will be excluded based on distance and power.
This is only an eighty-year old concept, but it only works in unpopulated areas without sound reflection. Similar to passive sonar.
by Manokan Republic » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:00 pm
by The 1st Galactic Empire » Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:42 am
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Wielkopolsa
Advertisement