NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[United Calanworie]

Also, Taiwan can't make shit lmao. Literally they can't make a proper light fighter so they instead have a flying turd with dogshit underpowered engines and garbage avionics with piss-weak performance. Don't even get me started on everything else like missiles or tanks. And if that wasn't embarassing enough, Wanwanese frog retards can't even make drones since they literally buy commercial components from the fucking Mainland.

*** Warned for trolling. ***

[Orcuo]

So, I had an idea: heat-seeking bullets.

[Cossack Peoples]

So, I had an idea: heat-seeking bullets.

If you mean for small arms, probably not in a modern tech situation and certainly not in a cost-effective way. On the other hand, for artillery or guided munitions, much more possible.

If you consider the missile a form of caseless ammunition and the launch tube a barrel, then a Javelin ATGM is a heat-seeking bullet that could possibly strike man-sized targets.

[Orcuo]

So, I had an idea: heat-seeking bullets.

If you mean for small arms, probably not in a modern tech situation and certainly not in a cost-effective way. On the other hand, for artillery or guided munitions, much more possible.

If you consider the missile a form of caseless ammunition and the launch tube a barrel, then a Javelin ATGM is a heat-seeking bullet that could possibly strike man-sized targets.

I was thinking an automatic with just a stream of bullets that direct themselves to wherever the enemy is. Think the ZF1 from Fifth Element.

[Cossack Peoples]

If you mean for small arms, probably not in a modern tech situation and certainly not in a cost-effective way. On the other hand, for artillery or guided munitions, much more possible.

If you consider the missile a form of caseless ammunition and the launch tube a barrel, then a Javelin ATGM is a heat-seeking bullet that could possibly strike man-sized targets.

I was thinking an automatic with just a stream of bullets that direct themselves to wherever the enemy is. Think the ZF1 from Fifth Element.

Well, if we're in zany French sci-fi land just consider the more advanced the seeker you put in the munitions, the more costly it is to fire, which is maybe something you don't want to give to mercenaries or any other enlistedman. So some general questions since we're working backwards:

1. What is your setting? (Nation or organization, its environment (a nation of many in its planet, a spacefaring power, a stellar empire, etc), its threats (internal or external), what technology is available, relevant to small arms design and procurement?
2. Who are you equipping this to? Is this something your military sees a need for, or is it a millionaire shooter's wet dream?
3. If you have heat-seeking bullets, does your enemy employ the same kind of smart-small arms?
4. Following on from the previous question, do you have any countermeasures against them? Does your enemy?

[Shangtianhua]

If you mean for small arms, probably not in a modern tech situation and certainly not in a cost-effective way. On the other hand, for artillery or guided munitions, much more possible.

If you consider the missile a form of caseless ammunition and the launch tube a barrel, then a Javelin ATGM is a heat-seeking bullet that could possibly strike man-sized targets.

I was thinking an automatic with just a stream of bullets that direct themselves to wherever the enemy is. Think the ZF1 from Fifth Element.

Smart bullets already exist IRL, so the concept of a bullet shifting its trajectory isn't far fetched. In terms of infrared-guidance, this one is going to be extremely-tricky, but that kinda depends by what type. True passive infrared homing, like the one used for heat-seeking missiles, is incredibly difficult to scale down to a bullet, while in comparison, laser-based infrared guided smart bullets have already been built and tested.

The big issue with putting an optical infrared seeker on a bullet is electronic miniturization. For example, a 5.56 NATO bullet has an overall volume of just 366 cubic millimeter. It's bullet diameter is only 5.7 millimeters while bullet length typically ranges from 18.8 to 24.4 millimeters depending on its weight and design. There's barely not enough space for both the infrared optronics lens and the onboard microchips for computation and calculation. The only solution would be to simply go bigger. The larger bullet of a .50 BMG bullet is around 4,140 cubic millimeter with a bullet diameter of 12.95 millimeter and bullet length usually around 58 millimeters on average. But then there's the second issue: Aeodynamics. When you look at infrared-guided missiles, their noses are blunt due to the optical seeker dome which is a big lens. From an aerodynamic perspective, this isn't an issue for missiles since they're powered using propulsion. Bullets do not have powered propulsion, so even with a .50 BMG infrared-guided bullet, the housing of the infrared seeker would have to be blunt, which actually has an effect on overal bullet performance (penetration agianst armor; ballistic coefficients; kinetic energy retention; long-range precision; downrange wind resistance; bullet arcing). An infrared-guided bullet would be much better in a more late-PMT/early-FT setting so you can fire it out of an electromagnetic firearm for increased projectile performance (is your nation PMT/FT?).

[Shangtianhua]

Also, additional hurdles towards an infrared-guided bullet in an MT-setting include extreme G-forces (the electronics must survive the massive shockwave from being fired out of the barrel) and spinning from barrel rifling (standard bullets spin thousands of times per second for aerodynamic stability, however, tracking a target and steering fins on a rapidly spinning bullet is an algorithmic nightmare for the onboard computer, so to solve this, smart bullets are actually designed to be fired from a smoothbore barrel, or use stabilizing strakes, so they can fly straight like a dart with minimal spin). In a more-futuristic setting, this can be counteracted by instead having the bullet fired out of an electromagnetic firearm with each bullet and its onboard electronics being nanomanufactured.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

If you mean for small arms, probably not in a modern tech situation and certainly not in a cost-effective way. On the other hand, for artillery or guided munitions, much more possible.

If you consider the missile a form of caseless ammunition and the launch tube a barrel, then a Javelin ATGM is a heat-seeking bullet that could possibly strike man-sized targets.

I was thinking an automatic with just a stream of bullets that direct themselves to wherever the enemy is. Think the ZF1 from Fifth Element.

Probably easier to give the gun's scope an automatic lead compensation and force it to hold fire until the gun is actually aligned with the target. Which is already a thing now as long as you're willing to use a half million dollar optic on a service-rifle.
Further reading- Smart Shooter SMASH series

There have been previous, bulkier attempts.

Not sure if it'd work as an interrupter for something set to full-auto, but that'd be interesting.

[Scandinavian Nations]

I was thinking an automatic with just a stream of bullets that direct themselves to wherever the enemy is. Think the ZF1 from Fifth Element.

If you can direct your bullets to wherever the enemy is, you only need one.

Maybe two if we fancy armor multi-hits are involved.

[Scandinavian Nations]

Also, additional hurdles towards an infrared-guided bullet in an MT-setting include extreme G-forces (the electronics must survive the massive shockwave from being fired out of the barrel) and spinning from barrel rifling

Guided shells exist, so we know the firing g-forces are OK for guidance electronics; small arms only increase the g-force ~10x vs artillery.
Spin is in theory good for the tracking computer, as it provides some sensor steering in a setting where you'd otherwise have none.

What's not OK with guided bullets is turning radius. A guided shell at 10 km and 1 km/s can correct its impact point by ~500 meters per 1 g of turning capability. For a bullet at 100 meters, the same 1 g only gives 50 mm of deflection. US studies give figures from 50 to 100 yards for median rifle kill range, so you still need to teach your soldiers to aim.

That's technically true, but only in the sense that different types of wood have different properties which are better suited to different roles in the construction of wooden warships. You can build the same ship from oak or fir

Late in the age of sail, the wood for warship construction was extremely specific. You didn't just need particular species of wood, but for many scantlings the tree itself had to be grown in a shape specific to that ship type. Different species, different climate, different aging - different design.
Since nothing was standardized, it also had to be done by builders familiar with that grower's wood. Anyone complaining about how long weapons programs take today should revisit the good old days.

That said, it was still possible to do something like WW2 Liberty ships and hack something buoyant together out of whatever wood shapes and species you had. Without shaped timbers and correct species, the joints rot fast, so so it would be more along the lines of a single-use armed coastal merchant than a fleet vessel.

[Shangtianhua]

Guided shells exist, so we know the firing g-forces are OK for guidance electronics; small arms only increase the g-force ~10x vs artillery.
Spin is in theory good for the tracking computer, as it provides some sensor steering in a setting where you'd otherwise have none.

What's not OK with guided bullets is turning radius. A guided shell at 10 km and 1 km/s can correct its impact point by ~500 meters per 1 g of turning capability. For a bullet at 100 meters, the same 1 g only gives 50 mm of deflection. US studies give figures from 50 to 100 yards for median rifle kill range, so you still need to teach your soldiers to aim.

The main issue for optical infrared seeker on bullets is the fragility of the optical lens, but yeah the g-force from firearms generated on a projectile is higher than on an arty shell. A 5.56 NATO bullet experiences 70,000 times the force of gravity, which is really bad for an optical seeker. Electronic components can be reinforced from mechanical deformation, structural failure, and structural sagging through different methods like structural encapsulation (such as solid putting), proper orientation of components (like aligning taller or heavier components parallel to the vector of the gravitational force rather than perpendicular to it), or using more-advanced printed circuitboard designs such as thicker substrate materials or applying specialized liquid epoxy underneath the microchips. The seeker lens is pretty much a structural weak link with current technology.

Institutional inertia will definitely play a big role in reforming infantry rifle training when it comes to using smart bullets. There's a lot of hypothetical scenarios for a futuristic army adopting smart bullets and changing training to accomodate their use. A negative scenario would be something like the big bosses at the top ordering the scaling down of rigorous rifle training and having soldiers rely more on the smart bullet for hitting a target at longer ranges, while a more positive scenario would be something like reforming the training by teaching riflemen to use smart bullets to compensate for factors like downrange wind or lose-of-energy the further the bullet flies all while still emphasizing on sharpshooting skills.

[I S T O]

Im tryint to think of what other combat ships I'll need for my space Navy.
Currently I have
"George Barnett" Class - Long range troop transport, planetary assault ship and drone carrier
"Khafji" class - Long range ship-to-ship combat missile truck Cruiser
"Italy" class - medium range capital ship escort Frigate
"Rine" Class - short range Orbital Combat ship (basically a space LCS)
ARP-1034 - Stealth Surveillance & Reconnaissance Ship

This seems like a pretty thin list, what else do I need? I was thinking about adding some sort of dedicated Anti-Air (well I geuss it would be Anti-Space) ship to supplement the defense of the rest of the fleet but I dont know what else to have

[Aeyariss]

Im tryint to think of what other combat ships I'll need for my space Navy.
Currently I have
"George Barnett" Class - Long range troop transport, planetary assault ship and drone carrier
"Khafji" class - Long range ship-to-ship combat missile truck Cruiser
"Italy" class - medium range capital ship escort Frigate
"Rine" Class - short range Orbital Combat ship (basically a space LCS)
ARP-1034 - Stealth Surveillance & Reconnaissance Ship

This seems like a pretty thin list, what else do I need? I was thinking about adding some sort of dedicated Anti-Air (well I geuss it would be Anti-Space) ship to supplement the defense of the rest of the fleet but I dont know what else to have

Auxiliaries. Fleet support.

[Shangtianhua]

Im tryint to think of what other combat ships I'll need for my space Navy.
Currently I have
"George Barnett" Class - Long range troop transport, planetary assault ship and drone carrier
"Khafji" class - Long range ship-to-ship combat missile truck Cruiser
"Italy" class - medium range capital ship escort Frigate
"Rine" Class - short range Orbital Combat ship (basically a space LCS)
ARP-1034 - Stealth Surveillance & Reconnaissance Ship

This seems like a pretty thin list, what else do I need? I was thinking about adding some sort of dedicated Anti-Air (well I geuss it would be Anti-Space) ship to supplement the defense of the rest of the fleet but I dont know what else to have

I see the term space navy and I'm already invested.

What type of combat spaceships does your space navy operate? Are they massive and internally spacious like what is seen in franches like Halo or Star Wars, or are they more closer to something more-conventional in appearance (like the ISVs from Avatar)?

Also, a dedicated anti-space warship wuouldn't be necessary since you have the missile truck cruisers in service. With missiles used for combat spaceships, technically they're already anti-space. However, you could also add a missile truck destroyer as a cheaper complement to the Khafji-class while still packing more firepower than the Italy-class. Aside from that, like Ayeriss pointed out, you should also add auxiliary vessels as well, in the case of a space navy, something like spaceship tenders, replenishment spaceships, etcetera.

[I S T O]

Im tryint to think of what other combat ships I'll need for my space Navy.
Currently I have
"George Barnett" Class - Long range troop transport, planetary assault ship and drone carrier
"Khafji" class - Long range ship-to-ship combat missile truck Cruiser
"Italy" class - medium range capital ship escort Frigate
"Rine" Class - short range Orbital Combat ship (basically a space LCS)
ARP-1034 - Stealth Surveillance & Reconnaissance Ship

This seems like a pretty thin list, what else do I need? I was thinking about adding some sort of dedicated Anti-Air (well I geuss it would be Anti-Space) ship to supplement the defense of the rest of the fleet but I dont know what else to have

I see the term space navy and I'm already invested.

What type of combat spaceships does your space navy operate? Are they massive and internally spacious like what is seen in franches like Halo or Star Wars, or are they more closer to something more-conventional in appearance (like the ISVs from Avatar)?

More conventional, this is the George Barnett for example

Also, a dedicated anti-space warship wuouldn't be necessary since you have the missile truck cruisers in service. With missiles used for combat spaceships, technically they're already anti-space. However, you could also add a missile truck destroyer as a cheaper complement to the Khafji-class while still packing more firepower than the Italy-class. Aside from that, like Ayeriss pointed out, you should also add auxiliary vessels as well, in the case of a space navy, something like spaceship tenders, replenishment spaceships, etcetera.

Spaceship tenders?

[I S T O]

Im tryint to think of what other combat ships I'll need for my space Navy.
Currently I have
"George Barnett" Class - Long range troop transport, planetary assault ship and drone carrier
"Khafji" class - Long range ship-to-ship combat missile truck Cruiser
"Italy" class - medium range capital ship escort Frigate
"Rine" Class - short range Orbital Combat ship (basically a space LCS)
ARP-1034 - Stealth Surveillance & Reconnaissance Ship

This seems like a pretty thin list, what else do I need? I was thinking about adding some sort of dedicated Anti-Air (well I geuss it would be Anti-Space) ship to supplement the defense of the rest of the fleet but I dont know what else to have

I see the term space navy and I'm already invested.

What type of combat spaceships does your space navy operate? Are they massive and internally spacious like what is seen in franches like Halo or Star Wars, or are they more closer to something more-conventional in appearance (like the ISVs from Avatar)?

More conventional, this is the George Barnett for example

Also, a dedicated anti-space warship wuouldn't be necessary since you have the missile truck cruisers in service. With missiles used for combat spaceships, technically they're already anti-space. However, you could also add a missile truck destroyer as a cheaper complement to the Khafji-class while still packing more firepower than the Italy-class. Aside from that, like Ayeriss pointed out, you should also add auxiliary vessels as well, in the case of a space navy, something like spaceship tenders, replenishment spaceships, etcetera.

Spaceship tenders?

[Shangtianhua]

More conventional, this is the George Barnett for example

([url=https://i.ibb.co/VWvHbSFZ/ships-23.png]Image)[/url]
([url=https://i.ibb.co/tpLCtgb7/ships-21-1.png]Image)[/url]

Also, a dedicated anti-space warship wuouldn't be necessary since you have the missile truck cruisers in service. With missiles used for combat spaceships, technically they're already anti-space. However, you could also add a missile truck destroyer as a cheaper complement to the Khafji-class while still packing more firepower than the Italy-class. Aside from that, like Ayeriss pointed out, you should also add auxiliary vessels as well, in the case of a space navy, something like spaceship tenders, replenishment spaceships, etcetera.

Spaceship tenders?

That's a really nice looking combat spaceship. As for what a tender ship is, basically it's a depot ship. IRL, there's submarine tenders and formerly destroyer tenders. Pretty much they provide mobile maintenance support, featuring workshops, warehouses, barracks, and medical and recreation facilities. Think of them as mobile mini-bases (though not as robust as both a carrier and a dedicated replenishment ship). Oh, and in terms of refueling spaceships, since your spaceships use fusion reactors, the refueling tanks would simply need to carry fuel for the reactors (like deuterium-tritium gas mixtures) but the spaceships don't need to be constantly refueled. Dedicated replenishment spaceships only need to carry ammunition and crew food supplies.

[Scandinavian Nations]

Institutional inertia will definitely play a big role in reforming infantry rifle training when it comes to using smart bullets.

There's more to it than inertia. Smart "bullets" change the equation of what one is to train for.
With normal bullets, you average ~1 casualty per 100,000 rounds. If engagements are won at a 10% casualty rate, of which 10% is from small arms, it takes about 1,000 rounds per soldier to dish out their expected share. IRL it's engagements in position where shots connect that you win, not a flat rate, but we're just establishing orders of magnitude and ignoring their suppressive role for the question.

If smart munitions get 1 casualty per 10 rounds, you only need 1 round per 10 soldiers to do the same damage. This calls in question whether the optimal launch system is still 10 gunpowder rifles per squad, each weighing 1000x more than the bullet it fires, and making guidance work worse due to the very problems you've mentioned. In space opera, where guided bullets cost no more than laser swords, it's fine - an easy, practical and economical way to futurize a story.

IRL it's clearly not. To practically deploy smart bullets, one has to somehow sit under a rock through 4-5 generations of tech miniaturization, while their opponents successively deploy smart weapons that deliver a kill per 4 kg, 1 kg, 400 g etc weight, until the tech gets so trivialized that you can buy spray-on bullet smarts in a convenience store.

[I S T O]

More conventional, this is the George Barnett for example

([url=https://i.ibb.co/VWvHbSFZ/ships-23.png]Image)[/url]
([url=https://i.ibb.co/tpLCtgb7/ships-21-1.png]Image)[/url]

Spaceship tenders?

That's a really nice looking combat spaceship.

Thanks! So far I've built all 5 ships over the past 3 years, but a few like the Khafji are in dire need for an rebuild

As for what a tender ship is, basically it's a depot ship. IRL, there's submarine tenders and formerly destroyer tenders. Pretty much they provide mobile maintenance support, featuring workshops, warehouses, barracks, and medical and recreation facilities. Think of them as mobile mini-bases (though not as robust as both a carrier and a dedicated replenishment ship). Oh, and in terms of refueling spaceships, since your spaceships use fusion reactors, the refueling tanks would simply need to carry fuel for the reactors (like deuterium-tritium gas mixtures) but the spaceships don't need to be constantly refueled. Dedicated replenishment spaceships only need to carry ammunition and crew food supplies.

Only the largest ships (Khafji and George Barnett) use fusion reactors, Rhine uses Methalox, and the Italy uses Magnetoplasmadynamic Thrusters, you think it would be better to have 2 diffrent replenishment ships, one containing the Duterium+Helium3 for the fusion engines and the other containing Methalox and extra lithium (I say extra because I'm probably going to make both tender ships powered by MPDs) for the non-capital ships or just have one "replinsh all" craft

On an unrelated note, what do ya'll think of Orion drives? Too overhyped? I want to incorporate one in my navy but I don't know which ship it'll be good for

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Institutional inertia will definitely play a big role in reforming infantry rifle training when it comes to using smart bullets.

There's more to it than inertia. Smart "bullets" change the equation of what one is to train for.
With normal bullets, you average ~1 casualty per 100,000 rounds. If engagements are won at a 10% casualty rate, of which 10% is from small arms, it takes about 1,000 rounds per soldier to dish out their expected share. IRL it's engagements in position where shots connect that you win, not a flat rate, but we're just establishing orders of magnitude and ignoring their suppressive role for the question.

If smart munitions get 1 casualty per 10 rounds, you only need 1 round per 10 soldiers to do the same damage. This calls in question whether the optimal launch system is still 10 gunpowder rifles per squad, each weighing 1000x more than the bullet it fires, and making guidance work worse due to the very problems you've mentioned. In space opera, where guided bullets cost no more than laser swords, it's fine - an easy, practical and economical way to futurize a story.

IRL it's clearly not. To practically deploy smart bullets, one has to somehow sit under a rock through 4-5 generations of tech miniaturization, while their opponents successively deploy smart weapons that deliver a kill per 4 kg, 1 kg, 400 g etc weight, until the tech gets so trivialized that you can buy spray-on bullet smarts in a convenience store.

Its competition being smarter scopes/fire-control, of course. And both are a bit lacking in the department of suppressive fire or firing at indistinct targets such as muzzle-flashes. Although better target-acquisition is an easier sell since it promotes more of the existing marksmanship but faster or over longer distances.
-Bullets would also remain dumb fast bullets, which logistically is a bit more economical with better terminal ballistics.

Basically the mass-adoption of optics vs countries that stuck with iron-sights. Red dots were in vogue for a bit due to their ability to run alongside night-vision without resorting to an IR laser-pointer.

[Shangtianhua]

Only the largest ships (Khafji and George Barnett) use fusion reactors, Rhine uses Methalox, and the Italy uses Magnetoplasmadynamic Thrusters, you think it would be better to have 2 diffrent replenishment ships, one containing the Duterium+Helium3 for the fusion engines and the other containing Methalox and extra lithium (I say extra because I'm probably going to make both tender ships powered by MPDs) for the non-capital ships or just have one "replinsh all" craft

Ah, I see. With the type of fuel carried by replenishment ships, I would personally go for having multiple different classes for carrying different fuel types so that way each vessel can maximize the amount of one specific fuel carried, but it does mean needing to build more replenishment ships in general just to accomadate the different types of fuel to be transported for fleet support.

On an unrelated note, what do ya'll think of Orion drives? Too overhyped? I want to incorporate one in my navy but I don't know which ship it'll be good for

Nuclear pulse propulsion is definitely viable, assuming you mean Orion drives as in the NPP used for Project Orion. In fact, compared to something like a fusion rocket of any type, fission-based NPP would not only be cheaper but also less technologically complex too. Alternatively, you could go for fission-fragment rockets instead, since compared to NPP it has vastly-higher exhaust velocity and specific impulse for far-greater speed potential. Either way, an NPP or FFR propelled spaceship would make for a great high-speed combat asset.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Only the largest ships (Khafji and George Barnett) use fusion reactors, Rhine uses Methalox, and the Italy uses Magnetoplasmadynamic Thrusters, you think it would be better to have 2 diffrent replenishment ships, one containing the Duterium+Helium3 for the fusion engines and the other containing Methalox and extra lithium (I say extra because I'm probably going to make both tender ships powered by MPDs) for the non-capital ships or just have one "replinsh all" craft

Ah, I see. With the type of fuel carried by replenishment ships, I would personally go for having multiple different classes for carrying different fuel types so that way each vessel can maximize the amount of one specific fuel carried, but it does mean needing to build more replenishment ships in general just to accomadate the different types of fuel to be transported for fleet support.

So basically keep the colliers and oilers separate since the handling and storage (or processing) of fuels for the fusion drives and the MPDs are disimilar enough that you probably don't want to lug a coal-refinery for an oil-based ship and vice-versa.

Likewise there's going to be hospital and provision ships for food and medical needs of the squishies. Munitions and parts-ships for extra explodies (or to refurbish/service damaged/malfunctioning/old munitions) freeing up the warship from having such extensive/specialized workshop-spaces. Tugs and floating drydocks for ships needing extensive repairs. Keeping these specialized is since not all ships of the fleet will need the same proportions of support. Fleet size may be dictated by how many ships/crew the most-scarce auxiliary can support and how long they can function without it.

Of course, for really small critical things, just sprinting a runabout to the nearest friendly starbase/planet or getting it planet-express'd to the fleet may be enough if you don't mind broadcasting where your fleet is.

[Allanea]

The chanceo f being shot up by a M1A1 Mangal is low. But never zero.

[Shangtianhua]

The chanceo f being shot up by a M1A1 Mangal is low. But never zero.

This basically proves my point about Tsar Mangal tanks being more akin to a static pseudo-artillery piece than a dynamic maneuvering tank. Plus, this footage shows the weight of the add-on armors limiting turret rotation. Ironically, this Tsar Mangal setup is less clunky and more leaner than other Tsar Mangal setups out there.

Also, relying on OSINTBros from Twatter for information is like relying on the Vatican Church for real-time updates on the latest scientific breakthroughs.

[Cossack Peoples]

We get it, we're all stinking westoids complacent from living in second-hand civilization for so long. Glory to the PRC and its divine technical and intellectual capital.

Anywho, I fear an entirely unintended consequence of these turtle tanks is that they have dramatically shifted the advantage of tank identification to the obsessive, smelly few who count the roadwheels rather than elegantly identifying the glacis and turret configuration (the sexy bits).