StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So... PeZook, maybe it's time to .. build up a decent navy for a nation your size? Like... a couple of carriers?

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:So... PeZook, maybe it's time to .. build up a decent navy for a nation your size? Like... a couple of carriers?

What use would he have for them? What overseas interests does PeZookia have to justify the expense of aircraft carriers?

With Cascadia I gave us holdings in Veleria, even pre-game (Adabani), to justify the expense of a powerful presence in the ocean north of Veleria.

Steve wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:So... PeZook, maybe it's time to .. build up a decent navy for a nation your size? Like... a couple of carriers?

What use would he have for them? What overseas interests does PeZookia have to justify the expense of aircraft carriers?

With Cascadia I gave us holdings in Veleria, even pre-game (Adabani), to justify the expense of a powerful presence in the ocean north of Veleria.

How about sea control of the Mediterranean and the Northern shores?

Ryan Thunder wrote:AM-2 Longbow

This is preliminary, btw. The design shouldn't be ready for production for another 3 days or so.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:So... PeZook, maybe it's time to .. build up a decent navy for a nation your size? Like... a couple of carriers?

Heck, I have a a bigger claim for needing a full on Carrier than PeZook has.

MariusRoi wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:So... PeZook, maybe it's time to .. build up a decent navy for a nation your size? Like... a couple of carriers?

Heck, I have a a bigger claim for needing a full on Carrier than PeZook has.

Isn't your defence rather beholden to your neighbours?

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

MariusRoi wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:So... PeZook, maybe it's time to .. build up a decent navy for a nation your size? Like... a couple of carriers?

Heck, I have a a bigger claim for needing a full on Carrier than PeZook has.

Isn't your defence rather beholden to your neighbours?

Yes and no. I maintain a precision Deep-Strike force (The Huslters), and a relatively modern Air Force. The Navy is getting up there in age, but is being replaced. The Air Defense Command still has it's large numbers of BOMARC SAMs in use in addition to the EVOLVED-NIKE facilities. The One thing Alaska needs is the Sea Lanes to be open (and yes that means that the MESS is relied on to a degree). A pair of CV(N)s would give some indigenous capabilities in that respect (better capabilities than my Jeanne d'Arc clones offer me).

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote: How about sea control of the Mediterranean and the Northern shores?

Mediterrenean is a pond - not only it doesn't justify a carrier, it's too small to provide the space necessary for proper carrier warfare. My plan is to spam AShMs and/or strategic bombers loaded with those awesome missiles we've been developing. The five-six billion necessary to buy two carriers and assorter escorts plus infrastructure will buy a lot of shore defence missiles. Add in some modernized weapon systems for my SSKs, a good network of those nuclear powered sonar buoys deployed in several layers and nuclear-tipped Iskanders all over the place, and we can turn the Med into an unpenetrable fortress with relatively little expense, compared to what you'd need to spend to penetrate it.

As for northern shores...what northern shores? There's Cialan and Vulpesia there, and while the MESS would probably be able to overcome them and land, they'd have to push through the mountains into PeZookia proper, being on the tip of a long supply chain harassed by inevitable partisan activity. Cialan is part of the continental defence system, too - and I think we'd all pour weapons to their partisans in any amount they wanted

I'm not all that concerned about the MESS, BTW. Certainly, I don't really think Canissia or Shinra are going to come gunning for us, but the recent wave of upgrades to MESS navies and amphibious units prompts inclusion of some prudent defence measures, methinks.

PeZook wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote: How about sea control of the Mediterranean and the Northern shores?

Mediterrenean is a pond - not only it doesn't justify a carrier, it's too small to provide the space necessary for proper carrier warfare. My plan is to spam AShMs and/or strategic bombers loaded with those awesome missiles we've been developing. The five-six billion necessary to buy two carriers and assorter escorts plus infrastructure will buy a lot of shore defence missiles. Add in some modernized weapon systems for my SSKs, a good network of those nuclear powered sonar buoys deployed in several layers and nuclear-tipped Iskanders all over the place, and we can turn the Med into an unpenetrable fortress with relatively little expense, compared to what you'd need to spend to penetrate it.

The trouble with the Mediterranean is that it is a rather large choke point that extends all the way around Shroomania. Your coastal missiles aren't going hit that far away, unless you are using something like a Kh-101 with 5000km range (if I am not wrong) or a missile with at least 1000km range. But, with missiles like those, you still have to spam a few hundred of them just to ensure they sink any CVBG. That leaves submarines, and SSKs have their limitations in that they lack staying power. Of course, in a nuclear war, you are going to have Nuclear tipped ASROCs flying around as well. Note also, that Tomahawks have 2500-3000km range and that actually shaves off a good bit of distance. See, even if the Mediterranean is small, the fact that the Tomahawks have 2500km range means they can strike from 2000km away. Granted that the S-500 system should be able to intercept Tomahawks somewhat cheaply, but the fact they strike that far away means you have to travel out far away to deal with the threat.

Stas himself said the USSR came to a conclusion that it needed carriers to defend its submarine groups. I am not entirely sure of the rationale, but I can guess why, but the only sure way of defeating a CVBG is to send another CVBG with submarine escorts against it.

Speaking of the sonar buoys, I am going to assume we spent the last 2 years laying out a fairly dense field.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote: The trouble with the Mediterranean is that it is a rather large choke point that extends all the way around Shroomania. Your coastal missiles aren't going hit that far away, unless you are using something like a Kh-101 with 5000km range (if I am not wrong) or a missile with at least 1000km range. But, with missiles like those, you still have to spam a few hundred of them just to ensure they sink any CVBG.

Actually, it's almost exactly 1000 kilometers to Shroomania, and we can cover the Khitan-Canissian gap with missiles that have a 500 kilometer maximum range. Spamming several hundred of such systems is still far cheaper than buying and maintaining a fully loaded CVBG.

The ideal defence would run in layers, though: first, submarines and heavy bombers would pecker the battle group with missiles from beyond the envelope of shore-based batteries. Then the battle group will have to close to within the range of shore based missiles in order to actually conduct an air campaign - even discounting the losses they will inevitably suffer while rolling back air defences, the carrier's air assets will now ave to deal with waves of cheap missiles in the 500 kilometer range, as well as further attacks by surviving SSKs and short-range ground based aircraft. Then there's mines and artillery defending the shore from forced landings and a defence-in-depth strategy for dealing with any landings.

Oh, and many of those missiles will be nuclear-tipped, too

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:That leaves submarines, and SSKs have their limitations in that they lack staying power.

So what? The Med is shallow and small - SSKs will be perfectly fine there, especially once I convert them all to have the ability to run on RTGs

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Of course, in a nuclear war, you are going to have Nuclear tipped ASROCs flying around as well. Note also, that Tomahawks have 2500-3000km range and that actually shaves off a good bit of distance. See, even if the Mediterranean is small, the fact that the Tomahawks have 2500km range means they can strike from 2000km away.

Tomahawks can be shot down rather easily, and to attack from 2000 kilometers away, they'd have to risk going to war with Shroomania as well (since its inevitable some of the missiles would veer off course of even strike the wrong places).

And I have eight heavy SSGNs to pester carriers from afar, eventually they will use hypersonic nuclear tipped AShMs to do that.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Granted that the S-500 system should be able to intercept Tomahawks somewhat cheaply, but the fact they strike that far away means you have to travel out far away to deal with the threat.

Why? Tomahawks can be shot down by anything down to the ZSU.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Speaking of the sonar buoys, I am going to assume we spent the last 2 years laying out a fairly dense field.

Me as well. I actually had some funds assigned to it.

We could arm some of them with antisubmarine torpedoes, too

PeZook wrote:Actually, it's almost exactly 1000 kilometers to Shroomania, and we can cover the Khitan-Canissian gap with missiles that have a 500 kilometer maximum range. Spamming several hundred of such systems is still far cheaper than buying and maintaining a fully loaded CVBG.

Which means bringing ships within range of the Carrier Air Group of a carrier.... Fighters can fly out with Harpoons ya know, which are cheaper than supersonic missiles.

The ideal defence would run in layers, though: first, submarines and heavy bombers would pecker the battle group with missiles from beyond the envelope of shore-based batteries. Then the battle group will have to close to within the range of shore based missiles in order to actually conduct an air campaign - even discounting the losses they will inevitably suffer while rolling back air defences, the carrier's air assets will now ave to deal with waves of cheap missiles in the 500 kilometer range, as well as further attacks by surviving SSKs and short-range ground based aircraft. Then there's mines and artillery defending the shore from forced landings and a defence-in-depth strategy for dealing with any landings.

Oh, and many of those missiles will be nuclear-tipped, too

There is the clicker. A single STAR equiped destroyer carries some 100 or so SM-4s which can intercept at least 90% incoming missiles. Add to the fact that there are several ships with that, which means you have to drain out at least 800 of these missiles.

And Hypersonic missiles aren't exactly cheap compared to a SM-4. They cost quite a bit. I would say a few million a piece. Which means 1000 of them would drain out a billion. Nuclear tipping them means we better be prepared for waves of nuclear missiles from B-1 bombers coming in.

So what? The Med is shallow and small - SSKs will be perfectly fine there, especially once I convert them all to have the ability to run on RTGs

Well, I how the RTGs can turn in a few MWs.. because I haven't heard of RTGs that can deliver that much energy. THere is a Russian effort, but no word of success yet.

[quoteTomahawks can be shot down rather easily, and to attack from 2000 kilometers away, they'd have to risk going to war with Shroomania as well (since its inevitable some of the missiles would veer off course of even strike the wrong places).[/quote]

I think the probability of that is rather low... especially with GPS guidance. We'd have to rig some MiG-31Ts or MiG-105s to go out and kill some satellites.

And I have eight heavy SSGNs to pester carriers from afar, eventually they will use hypersonic nuclear tipped AShMs to do that.

That might help.

Why? Tomahawks can be shot down by anything down to the ZSU.

Er? A ZSU is a point defence SAM. YOu have to physically move it close to the missile itself, assuming you detect a terrain following missile with 100% accuracy.

We could arm some of them with antisubmarine torpedoes, too

I guess that is possible, though it might give away the position of the buoy.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote: Which means bringing ships within range of the Carrier Air Group of a carrier.... Fighters can fly out with Harpoons ya know, which are cheaper than supersonic missiles.

Huh?

We have an entire continent to act as an unsinkable aircraft carrier...

There is the clicker. A single STAR equiped destroyer carries some 100 or so SM-4s which can intercept at least 90% incoming missiles. Add to the fact that there are several ships with that, which means you have to drain out at least 800 of these missiles.

That's why you mix the missiles and launch them in waves, only having the hypersonics kick in their final stage motors when on the very edge of the STAR engagement envelope. First the STAR destroyer is attacked by waves of cheap missiles to deplete SM-4 stocks and wear out the operators, then we use more and more expensive systems in succession to finally launch a wave of hypersonics. We could airburst one or two nukes as well to obscure the sensor images, too.

And Hypersonic missiles aren't exactly cheap compared to a SM-4. They cost quite a bit. I would say a few million a piece. Which means 1000 of them would drain out a billion. Nuclear tipping them means we better be prepared for waves of nuclear missiles from B-1 bombers coming in.

Dude, any war with the MESS will have waves of nuclear missiles flung both ways.

Well, I how the RTGs can turn in a few MWs.. because I haven't heard of RTGs that can deliver that much energy. THere is a Russian effort, but no word of success yet.

I already have then on four of my boats, and nobody protested. They have to creep along real slow while recharging their batteries using RTGs, but that's not really much of a problem.

I think the probability of that is rather low... especially with GPS guidance. We'd have to rig some MiG-31Ts or MiG-105s to go out and kill some satellites.

I'm kind of assuming GPS will be less than reliable when it is being engaged by ASAT missiles and Mig-105s

Er? A ZSU is a point defence SAM. YOu have to physically move it close to the missile itself, assuming you detect a terrain following missile with 100% accuracy.

Uh, yes, yes it is. And it can easily engage and destroy Tomahawks, which are not stealthy or all that fast. Why would you need to move them, when Tomahawks will be gunning towards obvious places like radars, launch batteries, airstrips and power infrastructure?

I guess that is possible, though it might give away the position of the buoy.

Only when it launches, and you lose one buoy for the price of one submarine. Quite a good exchange ratio

Have it launch on command, of course, so that we can do various flexibly nasty things.

PeZook wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote: Which means bringing ships within range of the Carrier Air Group of a carrier.... Fighters can fly out with Harpoons ya know, which are cheaper than supersonic missiles.

Huh?

We have an entire continent to act as an unsinkable aircraft carrier...

Er PeZook, if you can ground fire missiles 500km away, it is likely they will start firing their Tomahawks outside that engagement radius.

That's why you mix the missiles and launch them in waves, only having the hypersonics kick in their final stage motors when on the very edge of the STAR engagement envelope. First the STAR destroyer is attacked by waves of cheap missiles to deplete SM-4 stocks and wear out the operators, then we use more and more expensive systems in succession to finally launch a wave of hypersonics. We could airburst one or two nukes as well to obscure the sensor images, too.

The longest range cheap missile that can be launched is the Klub at 300km max. Granted there is an improved version with smaller radar cross-section and thermal output being tested now, the range isn't going to improve much.

But the tactic is sound, again with hte range caveats involved.

Dude, any war with the MESS will have waves of nuclear missiles flung both ways.

One can hope...

Have it launch on command, of course, so that we can do various flexibly nasty things.

Technically they are linked to a ground station, of which one is in Shroomania and another in Athens/Crete.

Coyote, dude - why do you want the Eagle to be at 1 atmosphere?

It would be far easier to use 0.3 and 100% oxygen, saving weight and complexity of the life support system - and extending endurance as well.

100% oxygen has a small problem of flammability. Namely, pretty much everything is flammable.

We're hoping for a shirtsleeve working environment. It could be slightly less pressure; in truth we just need something that is human-tolerable for extended periods of time.

Any thoughts on the new Longbow stats?

Beowulf wrote:100% oxygen has a small problem of flammability. Namely, pretty much everything is flammable.

Apollo used a pure oxygen atmosphere on all flights, and the program turned out fine by simply designing the spacecraft with the fire hazard in mind (or rather redesigning it after the Apollo 1 fire...)

I suppose you could use a mixed nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere, but there's no real need to go all the way with pressure.

To re-iterate, given Zor's new post, Veleria has coastal jungles (though some countries like Rangatara might have non-jungle sections nearer to the coast) with a continent-wide mountain range where the local rivers like the Dragonsnake start, then the interior of the continent is an arid desert and quite possibly home to nasty Ebola-like diseases that are highly dangerous.

I figure that the countries established in Veleria basically cover the coast to the mountain foothills, with human habitation dropping off precipitously as you move inland, with no habitation at all along the "inner" foothills and the adjoining desert.

PeZook wrote:

Beowulf wrote:100% oxygen has a small problem of flammability. Namely, pretty much everything is flammable.

Apollo used a pure oxygen atmosphere on all flights, and the program turned out fine by simply designing the spacecraft with the fire hazard in mind (or rather redesigning it after the Apollo 1 fire...)

I suppose you could use a mixed nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere, but there's no real need to go all the way with pressure.

The Space Shuttle in contrast, uses a normal atmosphere (79% N2, 21% O2) for pressurization. Gives increased firefighting ability, as well as making it easier on the crew. Also makes it take long for atmosphere to vent in the event of a leak.

Steve wrote:To re-iterate, given Zor's new post, Veleria has coastal jungles (though some countries like Rangatara might have non-jungle sections nearer to the coast) with a continent-wide mountain range where the local rivers like the Dragonsnake start, then the interior of the continent is an arid desert and quite possibly home to nasty Ebola-like diseases that are highly dangerous.

I figure that the countries established in Veleria basically cover the coast to the mountain foothills, with human habitation dropping off precipitously as you move inland, with no habitation at all along the "inner" foothills and the adjoining desert.

For eastern Veleria, something to that effect. The Ironridge mountains are a large formation which goes North/south with desert on the West side side, which after two thousand klicks westward bleeds into scrubland and Savanah. As for diseases, fairly well known disease can be devestating if you don't know what you are doing in a jungle (Malaria in praticular). Working out a Geographic Map of Veleria should be something that we should work out.

Zor

PeZook wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote: Which means bringing ships within range of the Carrier Air Group of a carrier.... Fighters can fly out with Harpoons ya know, which are cheaper than supersonic missiles.

Huh?

We have an entire continent to act as an unsinkable aircraft carrier...

Not when your opponents can spam GPS bombs for a lot less than you will spend in SAMs. If your average SAM costs in the $1mil range a decent stand off IR/GPS guided bomb will run 500k-750k meaning a huge cost savings for the attacker just on unit cost alone.

There is the clicker. A single STAR equiped destroyer carries some 100 or so SM-4s which can intercept at least 90% incoming missiles. Add to the fact that there are several ships with that, which means you have to drain out at least 800 of these missiles.

That's why you mix the missiles and launch them in waves, only having the hypersonics kick in their final stage motors when on the very edge of the STAR engagement envelope. First the STAR destroyer is attacked by waves of cheap missiles to deplete SM-4 stocks and wear out the operators, then we use more and more expensive systems in succession to finally launch a wave of hypersonics. We could airburst one or two nukes as well to obscure the sensor images, too.

Lets take a full blown cluster-fuck scenario, a full WIN taskforce consisting of 2 CVNs, 6 CGNs, and 6 DDGNs. They would carry, on typical loadout just over 1,100 SM-4 standard SAMs plus an additional 200 SM-4A BMD/SAMs. So that's a little over 1300 (1,332 to be precise) missiles that can shoot yours down, at a 90% kill rate that means just about 1,200 missiles exactly would be needed just to defeat the missile traps. Add in another 50 ESSMs, the CIWS, the need to double target everything and you are looking at 2,500+ missiles to get hits. An SS-N-27 costs on the order of $5-7mil each, assuming you go hypersonic that means at least $10mil a unit or $25 Billion in missiles to get hits on a carrier taskforce that costs only about $21Bn. Now the aircraft and other costs may push the total value of the group over the $25Bn Mark but just the hardware, software, and material costs of shooting down a TF is likely equal to, or greater, than the cost of the TF itself.

Now lets say you go with the cheap first wave and expensive follow on waves. Here are your problems:

1) The STAR engagement envelope is anywhere from 150-250nm depending upon how much sensor coverage assets other than the ship itself can provide.

2) The engagement process can be fully automated, that is you can literally fight the ship on autopilot which means the operators will be watchign everything but their response time won't get slower because all they are doing is marking off non-threat/threat on questionable targets (supersonic and/or wave-skimming is a pretty good threat indicator). Moreover if neccesarry you can bring additional operators online in other ships to help take the load off, that is the computer can funnel the sensor data to other stations meaning that in a full blown engagement you could have a whole room full of operators sitting safely in the Wilkonian MoD fighting half the missile swarm.

3) You have to have a deent target identified before launching and that means gettng a sensor platform out where you can identify the ships and their rough position...and do this without getting your sensor platform shot down.

4) Your launch sites are then subject to counter-battery fire.

5) Nuke tipping is just as likely to screw up your own missiles on the outbound leg as it is the SM-4s and the defensive weapons you face. The ships may not have as much individual power as a ground station can draw but part of the reason for goign nuclear and with IPS means that they can throw a lot more RF energy out there than you might expect and they are, by definition, scanning within a tighter perimiter.

Well, these are all good points, except for the GPS one: GPS sats will be one of the first targets in such a giant clusterfuck. We may not have the capability to massacre the constellation yet, but we're working towards it

Wilkens wrote:...that is the computer can funnel the sensor data to other stations meaning that in a full blown engagement you could have a whole room full of operators sitting safely in the Wilkonian MoD fighting half the missile swarm.

I wouldn't go that far...there's comms delay and EW to worry about, and of course communications will get disrupted by nuke detonations.

Wilkens wrote: 3) You have to have a deent target identified before launching and that means gettng a sensor platform out where you can identify the ships and their rough position...and do this without getting your sensor platform shot down.

In the Med, you can do that easily with shore-based EW stations and perhaps EW aircraft flying around safely deep in friendly airspace, based on the battle group's emissions.

Plus, there are submarines and massive sonar nets all around the place.

In fact, I believe Stas has nuclear-tipped Shkvals? I may want to buy some

Wilkens wrote: 4) Your launch sites are then subject to counter-battery fire.

Well, this is obvious. Of course, land-based launch sites are sitting under friendly airspace, protected by the air defence system and are far more hardened than ships.

And every bomb that's used for them is one which doesn't blow up industries...

I suppose it depends on whether or not Canissia is included in the scenario or not. If it's not, an invading force is facing an air force that's vastly numerically superior (you only get what's on CVNs + any long range fighter that can make it from MESSica, while the continent can use everything that flies to fight).

Fortunately, it's really more of a thought excercise - since the war would have apocalyptic proportions

Savannah in the interior? Zor, it was established back when the game started that the high mountain range that completely circles the continent's interior prevents rainfall and has created an arid desert in the interior.

And so, the Great Space Drug Trip begins!