NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Husseinarti]

Best drone hunter is very well trained birds

go back to being hung over

[New Solaurora]

How realistic is using high altitude bombers for a countervalue nuclear attack in order to take over a nation? I'm trying to work around a hole I dug myself into. The nation being attacked has an SDI-like system so I'm thinking bombers are probably the best way to go.

[The Manticoran Empire]

How realistic is using high altitude bombers for a countervalue nuclear attack in order to take over a nation? I'm trying to work around a hole I dug myself into. The nation being attacked has an SDI-like system so I'm thinking bombers are probably the best way to go.

Realistic, possibly. Will it work, not likely. High Altitude bombers can be intercepted by missiles and fighters and are vulnerable to detection a good distance from their targets.

[New Solaurora]

Realistic, possibly. Will it work, not likely. High Altitude bombers can be intercepted by missiles and fighters and are vulnerable to detection a good distance from their targets.

In other words low-altitude and as fast as possible?

[Dayganistan]

Realistic, possibly. Will it work, not likely. High Altitude bombers can be intercepted by missiles and fighters and are vulnerable to detection a good distance from their targets.

In other words low-altitude and as fast as possible?

That's why the B-1 was developed. To penetrate Soviet air defence at low altitude and supersonic speeds. You can do the same thing with something along the lines of the F-111 or Tornado as well, just with a smaller payload. I'm not sure how effective it would have ended up being in that role however.

[New Solaurora]

That's why the B-1 was developed. To penetrate Soviet air defence at low altitude and supersonic speeds. You can do the same thing with something along the lines of the F-111 or Tornado as well, just with a smaller payload. I'm not sure how effective it would have ended up being in that role however.

So here's the thing. For lore reasons I'm realizing that low altitude probably won't work considering that the primary target is the capital city. How could a high altitude bomber attack work in this case.

[The Corparation]

Neither high altitude nor low altitude are the answer you're looking for.

[New Solaurora]

Neither high altitude nor low altitude are the answer you're looking for.

Cruise missiles never developed in the same capacity as our world simply due to the tech not being realized until much later.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Neither high altitude nor low altitude are the answer you're looking for.

Cruise missiles never developed in the same capacity as our world simply due to the tech not being realized until much later.

Push it.

That, or go low altitude and become the manned embodiement of a cruise-missile.

Failing even that, gotta go fast. Gotta go faster. Faster-faster-faster.

And ICBMs, lots of them.

[New Solaurora]

Failing even that, gotta go fast. Gotta go faster. Faster-faster-faster.

And ICBMs, lots of them.

I’ve already stated why ICBMs are out of the question. I will take your advice about speed though. Just gonna get a ton of high altitude supersonic bombers to try and outrun any ground to air weapons. Or at least with stealth to hide. Any recommendations for a high altitude, supersonic, stealth bomber?

[Kassaran]

Failing even that, gotta go fast. Gotta go faster. Faster-faster-faster.

And ICBMs, lots of them.

I’ve already stated why ICBMs are out of the question. I will take your advice about speed though. Just gonna get a ton of high altitude supersonic bombers to try and outrun any ground to air weapons. Or at least with stealth to hide. Any recommendations for a high altitude, supersonic, stealth bomber?

Any universe in which you've developed any of the aforementioned !notICBM solutions, you have ICBM's. If anything, you have a rudimentary understanding of how high altitude flight works and can just utilize stand-off cruise missiles. Just drop waves upon waves from high-flying bombers kitted with them and you never even have to get close to the target's capital city. Lots of people often overestimate how many incoming projectiles a defense system can adequately handle. A salvo of just ten to fifteen missiles will generally net you the results you want with all nuclear-tipped missiles. If you want to be exceptionally dastardly, tie-in a bunch of traditional warheads too and it only gets easier. That's the poor-man's ICBM in a manner of speaking.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

At low altitude you get killed by ZU-23-2 and Igla. At high altitude you get killed by... nothing. SAM's have historically a 1% hit rate on the greatest of days. Besides at 41,000 feet you do see the SAM site on ESM and can do something about it, don't you?

[Austrasien]

How realistic is using high altitude bombers for a countervalue nuclear attack in order to take over a nation? I'm trying to work around a hole I dug myself into. The nation being attacked has an SDI-like system so I'm thinking bombers are probably the best way to go.

Realistically you should just use the ICBM anyway but I digress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-160_MALD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/ALE-55 ... owed_Decoy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-131_SRAM_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-Sol_M ... ort%C3%A9e
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASALM

Some good options. Lots of long-range cruise missiles has already been mentioned, a long-range stealthy nuclear cruise missile like the ACM is the best nuclear delivery system not an ICBM, but using short-medium range missiles is another potential option. The main threat to a high altitude aircraft is other aircraft, EW is an effective defence against SAMs. If targets can be struck 300, 400 or more KM from the launching point it will be very challenging to intercept an incoming bomber before it is launching position.

Arming the bomber with long-range AAMs will also cause a lot of grief for interceptors.

[Triplebaconation]

At low altitude you get killed by ZU-23-2 and Igla. At high altitude you get killed by... nothing. SAM's have historically a 1% hit rate on the greatest of days. Besides at 41,000 feet you do see the SAM site on ESM and can do something about it, don't you?

Yes, the "Igla belt" consisting of hundreds of thousands of dudes with little missiles stretching across the vast frontier of the Soviet Union was a great concern to strategic planners.

[Austrasien]

MiG-21bis any good as a drone hunter?

It isn't a great choice. A lot of drones will be flying at or below its allowable minimum speed, while very large drones like the Globalhawk happily cruise above its operating ceiling. None of this precludes intercepting them but it makes it less than ideal.

An ideal drone fighter doesn't exist. CAS aircraft would be a good start but they usually don't have high enough operating ceilings.

[Miku the Based]

Best drone hunter is very well trained birds

Mongolian Gang.

On topic of nuclear bombers. has there been attempt at putting a nuke with a long fuse/delay so low altitude bombers could bomb.
Like with conventional weapons designed for the same purpose.

[Austrasien]

Yes, the "Igla belt" consisting of hundreds of thousands of dudes with little missiles stretching across the vast frontier of the Soviet Union was a great concern to strategic planners.

http://www.thinkpool.com/MiniBbs/ViewPo ... sn=1179546

To be fair...

[New Solaurora]

Thank you for your help! I shall now try to bs my way through my own lore with this new information!

[Triplebaconation]

Yes, the "Igla belt" consisting of hundreds of thousands of dudes with little missiles stretching across the vast frontier of the Soviet Union was a great concern to strategic planners.

http://www.thinkpool.com/MiniBbs/ViewPo ... sn=1179546

To be fair...

Yes, that is theatrical air defense around a single city. The idea that battlefield AA is more dangerous during strategic penetration than long-range SAMs is quite silly.

Not to mention that simply waltzing through these systems is quickly becoming a hivemind meme.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Failing even that, gotta go fast. Gotta go faster. Faster-faster-faster.

And ICBMs, lots of them.

I’ve already stated why ICBMs are out of the question. I will take your advice about speed though. Just gonna get a ton of high altitude supersonic bombers to try and outrun any ground to air weapons. Or at least with stealth to hide. Any recommendations for a high altitude, supersonic, stealth bomber?

Oh yeah! Mostly I'm operating under the presumption that targeting in your dimension is so nerfed that you can slip in under the reaction-times of the enemy by just going balls-fast at high altitude while employing just enough ECM to blast through anything that actually does pose a risk like the 1980's Kool-Aide dude.

Once you reach target just pile-drive into the ground because the chances are you won't survive long enough to make a second pass, let alone RTB through a thoroughly alerted enemy ADS.

At such velocities stealth no longer remains an option. As you're about as stealthy as getting shot six times point blank in a dark alleyway behind the police-station with a snub-nosed .44 magnum revolver.

[The Corparation]

Best drone hunter is very well trained birds

Mongolian Gang.

On topic of nuclear bombers. has there been attempt at putting a nuke with a long fuse/delay so low altitude bombers could bomb.
Like with conventional weapons designed for the same purpose.

A fuse that delays detonation long enough for the launching aircraft to get clear is standard for most nuclear weapons. Further tactics for low level bombers not getting hit with their own nuke include parachutes and my personal favorite, Over-the-shoulder toss bombing

[Gallia-]

Yes, the "Igla belt" consisting of hundreds of thousands of dudes with little missiles stretching across the vast frontier of the Soviet Union was a great concern to strategic planners.

http://www.thinkpool.com/MiniBbs/ViewPo ... sn=1179546

To be fair...

B-52 fears no man only Su-27.

re: robits

I suppose it also depends on the industrial-economic circumstances of the drone in question. Shooting down an MQ-1 or MQ-9 is going to hurt a lot more than TB-2 or Heron, for instance, because the former are no longer in production and the latter still have factories opened up (and expanding). Probably why the USAF is so antsy about losing MQ-9s is because they cost as much as an attack helicopter too, when they should really cost closer to a Tomahawk to be truly disposable.

RAH-66 really did have a true air-to-air target set it was just Predator drones and TB-2s flying low altitude attacks. ):

[Crookfur]

Mongolian Gang.

On topic of nuclear bombers. has there been attempt at putting a nuke with a long fuse/delay so low altitude bombers could bomb.
Like with conventional weapons designed for the same purpose.

A fuse that delays detonation long enough for the launching aircraft to get clear is standard for most nuclear weapons. Further tactics for low level bombers not getting hit with their own nuke include parachutes and my personal favorite, Over-the-shoulder toss bombing

Pppfft, needs more momentum bomb. The bomb tosses itself before the big finish...

Maximum 60s gigachad solution is supersonic vulcan with quad skybolts...

[Miku the Based]

A fuse that delays detonation long enough for the launching aircraft to get clear is standard for most nuclear weapons. Further tactics for low level bombers not getting hit with their own nuke include parachutes and my personal favorite, Over-the-shoulder toss bombing

Pppfft, needs more momentum bomb. The bomb tosses itself before the big finish...

Maximum 60s gigachad solution is supersonic vulcan with quad skybolts...

I'll slap my Kinzhal's on my MIG-31's. Checkmate mig-31 haters.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I'll slap my Kinzhal's on my MIG-31's. Checkmate mig-31 haters.

They'll know you are coming from basically the moment you hit those afterburners to take off.