NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC: Any feedback is welcome. Also, I would like ideas regarding a launcher to get the missile to scramjet speed without a Pegasus or similar rocket. If I ommited anything important, please tell me. I am very forgetful, so don't mind me. ;) Ideas for improvement are welcome, and they may garner discounts for the provider.

IC:

Many nations have developed supersonic cruise missiles in the tradition of the Yankhont and Moskit. Still others have developed hypersonic cruise missiles that make the Yankhont and Moskit look like child's play things. But few nations have developed a hypersonic cruise missile that can threaten the massive ships of the world, such as the Doujin, while remaining outside of their range. Fluffywuffy is one such nation, and Fluffywuffy is proud to announce the culmination of several decades of intensive research and development: the AS-12 Habu.


http://www.jhuapl.edu/newscenter/pressreleases/2002/images/Freejet2.jpg
Habu cruise missile during development

History

The quest for ever longer range and ever more powerful weapons is one that all nations have journeyed on. Many grow tired and retire as soon as they develop a marginal technological increase over past cruise missiles such as the Yakhont. But Fluffywuffy kept on running, and numerous designs were considered for everything from an ICBM replacement to anti-shipping cruise missiles. The AS-X-12, the 12th varient of a hypersonic cruise missile prototype, was chosen and given the name Habu, after the snake.

Engine

The Habu uses a two-stage system to deliver devastation at maximum range and speed. The first stage, a Pegasus rocket, propels the rocket to Mach 2 before releasing the second stage. The second stage is a dual-combustion ramjet fueled by conventional hydrocarbon liquid fuels. This DCR propels the craft to an astounding Mach 6.5. There are two versions of the missile: the AS-12A and AS-12N. The -12A is the dual stage, version, while the -12B is a navalized, one stage, version designed to be fired from a specialized launcher. The launcher is incomplete at this time, and may be completed and sold in the future. Both have a range of 600 nautical miles.

Guidance

The Habu is controlled by an active radar seeker head, similar to that in the Harpoon. Also, should the situation require more stealth, it can be directed by the radar of warships, aircraft, and land installations. The guidance system allows both sea and land targets to be targeted, and land-attack mode turns on a terrain-following mode using an all digital terrain map.

Launch

Because of the size of the weapon, the Habu must be launched from either a B-52 or a land based facility. The missile then flies to an altitude of 90,000 feet before then first stage detaches and the second stage activates. Possible alternatives include a specialized launcher for ships, and a solution is currently being developed by Imperial scientists. International cooperation is welcome, and if a solution is developed it is likely to decrease costs and remove the ship-based missile's requirement of flying to 90,000 feet by allowing the scramjet to activate at once.

Cost

Because of the numerous technologies invested in this missile, and the lengthy development, the Habu is expensive, currently at $100,000,000 per missile. In order to decrease the cost, the Second Empire is preparing to export production to nations with cheap labor. Any nations that wish to apply may apply here. Also, developing a launcher that removes the Pegasus rocket system could potentially cut costs.

Bump

What's the altitude and flight path? I'm assuming it flies really high and then comes crashing down, but I could be wrong.

Ah, yes, that is something that I forgot. You are correct. The missile flies to an altitude of 90,000 feet and then comes down on top of its target at top speed.

ooc: And it somehow avoids a huge IR signature, is easy to spot, and doesn't tear apart diving down how?

It has a massive IR signature, but I suppose I did put a little in there alluding towards stealthiness. And yes, it does keep itself from destroying itself on the way down. I did not specify this in the post (yet more ommision on my part), but the missile is made of titanium with reinforced carbon-carbon control surfaces and ceramic tiles similar to those on the space shuttle.

bump

OOC: one way to get it to high enough speeds is a coilgun. Albeit it would have to be a stationary launching pad, but with either a loop system or just one really long, you could accelerate the missile to a speed inwhich the scram could be used.

OOC: Would it be possible to make, say, a barge with a railgun and two nuclear reactors? One powers the ship while the other powers the railgun. The entire ship needs to turn to aim, but if it aims close enough the missile won't end up 1K miles off course. Any comments on that?

OOC: I'd think so, cause the only real problem with coil/rail guns is power, and that should be enough to power 'em.

ooc: a railgun/coilgun may detonate the warhead or fry the guidance system.

And also, add a KE tip on the missile. It's hidden, but reveals itself as drag tears off the nose cone of the missile on the way down.

OOC: It *could* make it boom, depending on the explosive your using but usually magnetism would not do it, if you misplaced some wires so it could convert back then yes. Guidance you coudl just have off till it left the field.

Meh. High IR signature plus low maneuverability due to speed makes this thing not too hard to target and engage, though you would have to do it awful fast due to speed. At least it has a decent range, unlike the Sunburn, and thus is actually useful.

Of course the best way to deal with it is to find and engage the launching platform before it can fire *shrug*

Production costs are likely to be high, especially if you use a complex launching system such as a coilgun.

OOC: It is traveling Mach 10 or somesuch like that. You hit something going that fast.

It has IR signature and maneuverability issues, but I feel that its speed more than makes up for its lack in stealth. Production costs are really high, and that begs another question: any ideas on reducing the cost? Right now it is not competitive (0 have been sold), and I feel that reducing costs are in my best interests,

And I suppose I should add a KE tip. The missile's already constructed of titanium/ceramic tiles, but what else should I add? A tungsten tip?

Re the point defense issues: It would be quite visible to assorted sensors, especially in it's boost phase. If it has a top attack profile, it may actually be not that hard for a ship to evade, since maneuverability would be almost nonexistant at those velocities (atmospheric heat and friction would pretty much tear apart any sort of control survace).

Even a small amount of damage would tear it apart, though *shrug*

I don't think it would be that useful in the antiship role except against the largest and most unmaneuverable of ships, but it certainly could see a role as a deep earth penetrator provided you could equip it with a payload that wouldn't just be destroyed on impact.

OOC: Solid slug with a SCRAM jet, dont blow up just put a fraking huge hole in something.

To: Fluffywuffy
From: Chief-of-Military,
Manjit
Subject: Partnership/Trade

It has come to our attention that you are currently developing a new hypersonic cruise missile. We at Space Union could need these as a viable deterant in high-scale bombardment if it dreadfully ever came. For that reason we also have discovered that you are looking into the B-300EL that is manufactuared by Tylon Aerospace Industries. Since we both need each other's technologies, we would be interested in a trade. For limited production rights to the B-300EL for production rights to the AS-12 Habu. How does this sound? We can change the terms but we would like to hear your response to our offer soon. Thank You.

Signed,
Manjit, Chief-of-State

To: Space Union
From: Defense Minister Zachariah Simon

We do need each other, technologically. We proposet that we give each other an equal monetary amount in technology--$1 billion in missiles to $1 billion in aircraft, as an example--per year. We find this to be most fair.

To: Fluffywuffy
From: Space Union
Subject: Trade

We can agree on that but instead could we sell each other $1,674,000,000 worth of equipment. This allows us to give you 2 full aircrafts instead of 1 and some spare parts. We hope you find this acceptable. Thank You. May this be the beginning of a strong relationship.

Signed,
Chief-of-Military,
Manjit

The Second Empire agrees to this, and our missile factories have begun earmarking weapons for the Space Union. The trade between builds a bridge between our nations, one which we hope will be used in the future.

OOC: Actually, the speed of this unit falls squarely into the realm of possible interception. The S-300V and Patriot PAC-3, as well as the cancelled RIM-156B SM-2ER Block IV, can all engage targets moving of speeds up to 3000 m/s (10,800 km/h, or Mach 10.152 at altitude). This can be done with the missile intercepting the target of a range of up to 40 km. This kind of capability is needed for engaging SRBMs, MRBMs, and GLCMs, which are the targets of such ABM systems. The newer Antey-2500 promises to hit targets up to 4500 m/s (16,200 km/h, or Mach 15.228), leaving it well beyond the speed of this missile.
Heck, even the original SM-2 and Patriot were designed to engage high-speed missiles like the AS-4, which could fly at speeds of up to Mach 4.6.

So, fast as this is, any fleet or installation with a halfway-decent ABM capability can and will engage it, with a decent degree of success. That said, not everyone has a halfway-decent ABM system on their fleets and/or installations ;)

What tech is this?

Actually, what worries me is that this could be modified for a SAM role against my airships http://www.animeleague.net/~berrik/emot-gonk.gif

*Arms Axis Nova's enemies with an AA version of the Habu*

Roachbusters: It's modern tech

To: Fluffywuffy
From: Chief-of-Military, Manjit
Subject: First Batch

The completion of the 2 B-300s have been finished for our allies and trade partners in Fluffywuffy. We are shipping them. Also we have constructed new facilities to mass produce B-300s just for Fluffywuffy. We will start expanding the number built for your country dramatically.

Signed,
Your Friend Manjit, Chief-of-Military

Fluffywuffy has recieved the bombers, and has shipped out its supply of missiles and spare parts (16 missiles), and has similarly set aside a portion of its annual missile production for Space Union. As before, we continue to look forward to building this new relationship.

Bump

On behalf of the Freudotopian Imperial Army (FIA), I would like to place an order for one (1) AS-12 Habu missile. The total cost will be $100,000,000. Money will be wired automatically upon confirmation of order. Thank you for your business.

--Colonel Edgar Doolittle, Director of Procurement, FIA.

Freudotopia's massive order has been noted, and in the future we may have to provide discounts from such bulk purchases. :rolleyes: Confirmed.

*Arms Axis Nova's enemies with an AA version of the Habu*

Roachbusters: It's modern tech

http://www.animeleague.net/~berrik/emot-gonk.gif

OOC: Welcome to hell, Axis, population - you. Hurk, hurk, hurk... see, the problem with the big air thingies - it's really hard to miss them. And the faster the missile, the bigger the *WHAM* when it hits. (KE = 1/2 m * v^2... which means the speed makes it a very big ouch).

I'm not too sure this missile on a single impact is going to be anywhere near enough to "one-hit-one-kill" a Doujin... hurt, probably, but kill?

Actually these are not much of a threat as a SAM unless they caught my stuff by suprise. :p

Lack of maneuverability = bad when trying to hit an aircraft.

OOC: Welcome to hell, Axis, population - you. Hurk, hurk, hurk... see, the problem with the big air thingies - it's really hard to miss them. And the faster the missile, the bigger the *WHAM* when it hits. (KE = 1/2 m * v^2... which means the speed makes it a very big ouch).

I'm not too sure this missile on a single impact is going to be anywhere near enough to "one-hit-one-kill" a Doujin... hurt, probably, but kill?
There's no way a penetrator would kill a Doujin. Whether or not you hurt it depends largely on where you hit. If you hit the armoured belt, or most parts of the turret / conning tower, I doubt it would do much. This missile may be faster than anything in RL, but the Doujin's armour is also much better than anything in RL. The main problem, however, is that although it has a lot of KE, it concentrates it over a very small area.

I think that this would penetrate the Doujin's armor, regardless of where it hits. However, penetrating does not always equal death. For example, hitting a turret and blowing that up isn't going to sink the ship or achieve a mission kill. It'll damage the ship and remove at least one gun, but who cares? I certainly don't. It all depends on where it hits, and one can always get lucky and get a one shot, one kill type situation, especially a mission kill.

Actually these are not much of a threat as a SAM unless they caught my stuff by suprise. :p

Lack of maneuverability = bad when trying to hit an aircraft.

Lasers, on the other hand... :D

The main problem, however, is that although it has a lot of KE, it concentrates it over a very small area.This is a good thing if you want to penetrate something. The smaller the area the KE is concentrated on, the higher the energy density, the higher the stresses the target material has to endure, and the higher the chance to penetrate.

And once penetrated, the standard solution would be to have $Explosive_Warhead blowing up... Like they do since, oh... The 19th century.

Freudotopia's massive order has been noted, and in the future we may have to provide discounts from such bulk purchases. :rolleyes: Confirmed.

OOC: You make me laugh. Thanks.

ooc: Funny missile. I'd expect better from you frankly.

1) a Missile revolving around a small penetration is not meant for Naval Warfare against a Super-Dreadnaught like the Doujin or my Red Star Class (Which uses the same armour, only thicker).

2) Low maneuverability + predictable flight path + high speed = easy CIWS kill

3) Meowmix.

Well, I don't think my missile is based upon small penetration, unless you mean it penetrates a small area.

I think that the missile is probably about the same to shoot down. Besides, every claims 95% accuracy against missiles anyways.

But you've gotta love a missile launched from a missile.

Can your hypersonic missile be an antiship missile???

Yeah, I meant small penetration area.. in a large battleship, there are so many bulkheads and compartments, it makes damage control much easier. The task at hand is to damage as many compartments as possible.

Anyways, I have a new msn account, rugbyfiend@gmail.com, contact me on there, cause I do see a use for such a missile ;)

[OOC: Last time I argued with Clan Smoke Jaguar on cruise missiles and super dreadnoughts - I think it was when I was talking about Praetonia's first super dreadnought - CIWS doesn't do well against cruise missile periods - I think that CIWS is better adept at taking out low flying anti-shipping missiles, but when something comes from above, especially when you take in mind the build of a CIWS platform, CIWS isn't as effective.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/images/ciws-031103-n-6939m-001.jpg

It would depend on the velocity that CIWS mount could turn and the velocity of the missile, and if the missiles is moving at hypersonic speed, I don't think that CIWS would make much of an impact, especially when you take in mind that peole on NS don't fool around with two missiles, instead they send at least ten to fifteen. The chances that CIWS will eliminate all of them is null.]

Um... a millenium gun spewing out hundreds if not thousands of rounds at an incoming Mach 6.5 bigassmissileofdoom(TM) thats on a straight ballistic course will destroy it, no matter the caliber... simply because if a Mach 6.5 7000kg hunk of metal hits a mach 3+ round, the round will penetrate and possibly pass right through... the hole would cause such significant structural damage that air would flow into the hole... and at Mach 6.5 it'll literally ripe the missile from the inside out. All from one lucky bullet... and a millenium fires plently of lucky bullets. Its even worse when these bullets are tungsten sabots/flechettes.

[OOC: Most CIWS use tungsten/DU penetrators, but that's not the point. Of course, if you hit it, it would destroy the missile - that's not the question. The question is whether or not the CIWS platform would be able to manuever up, down, left and right, fast enough to catch more than one cruise missile, or hypersonic cruise missile, coming - albeit on straight plains within themselves - from different directions.]

[Which is not the question. One CIWS versus One Missile. What ship on NS getting attacked by a missile of this quality would have one CIWS Mac? And launched at a range of 600nm on a ballistic trajectory, the CIWS would have a fair amount of time to adjust its targeting.]

[Which is not the question. One CIWS versus One Missile. What ship on NS getting attacked by a missile of this quality would have one CIWS Mac? And launched at a range of 600nm on a ballistic trajectory, the CIWS would have a fair amount of time to adjust its targeting.]

[OOC: I don't claim to be an expert on weapons designs of any type, but I have learned enough through NS to say this: don't pit this missile against a Testudo-equipped Praetonian ship. That poor missile will get its ass kicked. Badly. (/shameless plug for IPS)

Mass-fired it might have a chance, but then, so does pretty much every other missile in existence. Which is not to say that this is a bad missile; I certainly couldn't design anything like this. But I agree with the others who've posted above me in saying that it might not fit the anti-Doujin mission profile you've given it.]

[Which is not the question. One CIWS versus One Missile. What ship on NS getting attacked by a missile of this quality would have one CIWS Mac? And launched at a range of 600nm on a ballistic trajectory, the CIWS would have a fair amount of time to adjust its targeting.]

[OOC: CIWS only has a range of about a thousand meters, perhaps a bit more. So, the range the hypersonic cruise missile is coming from isn't important, because CIWS will start adjust to the first target found, however, after that first missile comes within a thousand meters it takes a good thirty seconds to take it out, by that time the second missile, which could be coming from directly the opposite direction could have cut the distance to around one hundred meters, or even less - the CIWS won't have enough time to turn and take it out, there's no way.

Now, a ship might have around eight CIWS, no modern ship has more than six that I know of - and I know there's some on NS who have around ten - but ten to twenty is still not very good odds, especially when you take in mind that some of those CIWS mounts will be on the wrong side of the ship, while all the missiles are hitting on the other side - meaning not all CIWS will be able to direct their fire against the threat.

CIWS is not an end all be all - it never will be.]

[You refuse to understand or admit when your wrong. A DOUJIN CAN CARRY ANYWHERE FROM 30 TO 80 CIWS, AND THEY ARE NOT THESE SHITTY AMERICAN PHALANXS. We use millenium guns and metal storm... tend to be a lot more advanced than a Phalanx or Goalkeeper. And if your resonably intelligent, you'll have your Radar connected with your CIWS system... mine is all integrated. This means longer interception range, and faster engagement time.]

[You refuse to understand or admit when your wrong. A DOUJIN CAN CARRY ANYWHERE FROM 30 TO 80 CIWS, AND THEY ARE NOT THESE SHITTY AMERICAN PHALANXS. We use millenium guns and metal storm... tend to be a lot more advanced than a Phalanx or Goalkeeper. And if your resonably intelligent, you'll have your Radar connected with your CIWS system... mine is all integrated. This means longer interception range, and faster engagement time.]

[OOC: You're not understanding what I'm saying. I don't care what your penetration is; and was it not you who absolutely sure MetalStorm did not work? (which was verified by others by the way). Range is range - it's not the type of round, it's the propellant and the type of barrell use and since all known types of CIWS use things which are relative to the GAU-8, the range remains similar 1,000 meters to 2,000 meters.

So, all CIWS are hooked up to RADAR, no matter on what ship they are - and U.S. Phalanx is not a 'shitty American' CIWS system, it's amongst the best in the world. You can even hook up CIWS to LIDAR and LADAR - you can do whatever you want. That still doesn't stop the fact that CIWS is heavy, so I can care less if you hit that first cruise missile - it's still going to take around thirty seconds to down it (due to velocity, penetration time, and pure range things take time, they're not instantanous).

The problem comes with the CIWS mount has to turn to meet the next threat. That takes another ten to thirty seconds. A hypersonic or supersonic cruise missile can cover two thousand meters in about forty seconds - so you'll have time to shoot down one, turn and get a few rounds on a second one. It's just common sense, and you refuse to see that.

And if a Doujin carries eighty CIWS mounts you can be damn sure that your foe is going to use over two hundred cruise missile on a single ship - it's much cheaper for him to use two hundred cruise missiles to destroy a 300 billion dollar ship.]

[And what happens when you saturate the air with that many cruisemissiles mac? You launch high explosive Skyhigh SAMs, or its considered a "Target Rich" environment for the other 500+ warships in a fleet supporting a doujin to fire at.]

[And what happens when you saturate the air with that many cruisemissiles mac? You launch high explosive Skyhigh SAMs, or its considered a "Target Rich" environment for the other 500+ warships in a fleet supporting a doujin to fire at.]


[OOC: Of course, but then again, you don't expect someone to launch missiles just at a Doujin and expect none of the other ships to response - it's just not common sense. Any naval battle would have to be done systematically - missiles have never been an end all be all, just like CIWS.

I'm just dispelling any myths that CIWS can do unbelievable acts of God.]

[In this case, a CIWS is your safest bet against this missile. The ROF will prove to be its best bet, as a missile will generally miss another at Mach 6.5... plus they take a little longer to launch, aye?]

One must remember that CIWS are only a last resort when it comes to air defence, and certainly you won't expect only the sole dreadnaught to engage the missile either. WHile high altitude, high flying missiles are easier to intercept with long-range systems, I'm inclined to agree with the fact that the CIWS is simply impractical at intercepting high speed targets. With seaskimming missiles, the disadvantage is that they are slower, but the advantage is that they are relatively difficult to detect and engage (for example, the minimum altitude of long range SAMs such as the SM-2 isn't too great for engaging seaskimming targets).

But then again, letting hundreds of missiles leak past your escort rings means that your commanders should reenter a Naval Academy and be reeducated about naval tactics again.

[In this case, a CIWS is your safest bet against this missile. The ROF will prove to be its best bet, as a missile will generally miss another at Mach 6.5... plus they take a little longer to launch, aye?]


[OOC: You're best bit would be a mix of every damn defense you have on your ship - it's always been like that. Mixed arms and complex arms have always been victorious over single arms - which is why you always launch different types of missiles for different roles, and always have different types of defense for different roles.

My SAMs always have snapshot missiles on stock, inside the launchers - as most other SAM launchers do - so the time it takes to launch would only be around twelve seconds. Moreover, most NS SAMs aren't direct impact SAMs, instead they rely on spread burst, or what I love, MetalStorm/DREAD canisters that are one time use things - I stole the idea from Verdant Archipelago.

Regardless, the best defense would be a mix of everything, I would say.

But this is getting wayyy off topic.]

[Man! I forgot about Lasers!!!!]

[Man! I forgot about Lasers!!!!]

[OOC: That's a possibility, but I'm not a believer in anti-missile lasers used in modern technology - maybe post modern. The THEL system has only been proven to be able to shoot down rockets, and rockets are small, fly low, and don't have the protection the more expensive anti-shipping and cruise missiles have.

Now, they are coming out with the MTHEL. But last time I heard NG and the Air Force tried to test it out on a 747 Boeing the transmitter melted. Consequently, the problem I find with lasers is that there's no known superalloy, or superconductor at that, which could withstand the heat of a very high energy laser. The transmitter would melt - as proven - and the conductors would fry, because generally conductors have to be cold, and lasers, of course, produce heat, which produce friction, which produces fried systems.

So, lasers aren't really an option in modern warfare. The last civilian article I read was on CNN online around two months ago.]

OOC: What could work would once its that close to a target it could, instead of being one missile, break into several smaller ones designed to penetrate the top armor (not all way through ship as this *could* do). Thus increasing the targets at a moment quite late in the game to pull out explosives for a "rich" target field and increase damage area.

Artista, you seem to forget the size of a Doujin, which gives it far more area to cover. Your 30 CIWS will be mounted all over the ship - which will mean at most 20 of them can cover an attack on one side (and I'm being generous here).

I fire 2,500 hypersonic, mach 6.5 missiles at you. Your CIWS detects them and - we'll give you the benefit of the doubt here - destroys 20 of them on the first attack. Then you destroy another 20 on the second targeted bursts.

Now you're hit with 2,460 missiles as the rest have covered the area between your maximum and minimum ranges (work the math out).

Your guns are not going to be able to instantly move from target to target in zero time - and that's the flaw of CIWS, it has to change targets by mechanical movement.

I'm surprised no one has metioned centrifuge weapons as a CIWS, or the DREAD centrifuge-powered system.

Here read up: http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_DREAD,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl

Regardless - and this system has some inherent problems - it has to retarget and this takes time. Given no one launches "just a few missiles" at a target, that is time you don't have even in a perfect world of "CIWS downs everything it shoots at". It simply does not have the time to target-fire-retarget-fire-retarget-fire enough times to stop the entire horde of missiles.

Cause Vastiva, you know my Red Star Super Dreadnaught doesn't have 4,500 SAMs, 6,800 Mini-Sams, 62 Millenium Guns, 44 Metal Storms, and 18 THEL stations... and it certainly isn't supported by at least 4 TAMD Mk III's... (Theatre Air-Missile Defence Ship... which tends to have double the airdefence of that Super Dreadnaught.)

And, you know, it really doesn't matter, because all that is concentrated on one target - we can ignore the rest of the fleet because you're still not getting it - which means each gun has to retarget repeatedly, meaning a heavy enough concentration is going to get through - and as more gets through, your ability to defend drops, and so on.

It's not a god ship, it's a long target with lots of bristles. Does Not Matter. You've missed the point repeatedly.

Bad Artitsa. No Doujin.

This is a good thing if you want to penetrate something. The smaller the area the KE is concentrated on, the higher the energy density, the higher the stresses the target material has to endure, and the higher the chance to penetrate.

And once penetrated, the standard solution would be to have $Explosive_Warhead blowing up... Like they do since, oh... The 19th century.
I dont think you understand. The KE penetrator itself will do almost no damage (if it penetrates...) and $Small_warhead that you could fit on a missile capable of accelerating to mach whatever and hitting a target X hundred miles away with $Uber_accuracy is unlikely to do much either.

And I dont understand why everyone thinks that these missiles have some god given right to automatically penetrate anything. The Iowa's 16" AP shell weighed 1.2 metric tonnes and travelled at Mach 2.3, and yet I doubt anyone would think that a 16" shell could automatically penetrate any armour in the world ever (z0rz) even though it has huge KE. SDs are generally given protection against 30" shells...

*meh*

I'm surprised no one has metioned centrifuge weapons as a CIWS, or the DREAD centrifuge-powered system.

Here read up: http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_DREAD,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl

The weapon doesn't work (or at least, it doesn't work as well as the guy claims it works).

The weapon doesn't work (or at least, it doesn't work as well as the guy claims it works).


DREAD does work. It's only drawback is that is looses accuracy - but in the end, it doesn't matter because you have so much metal in the sky that the missiles are going to have a hard time dodging those little balls. But then again, the only current DREAD designs are all man operated, not automated.

Well, comrade Praetonia, a GBU-28 bunker-buster can destroy targets hardened against nuclear weapons, despite being completely conventional. Although it is far from a perfect comparison, the comparison is still there--the only difference is that the bunker-buster has a large bomb that destroys the bunker. My missile is supposed to be fired in a large salvo at the SDs. With no explosives, chances are one missile isn't going to kill you (unless I get lucky and hit the engine room on the first shot). I, therefore, launch a large salvo for two reasons: more targets to hit (and therefore a much greater chance of a hit), and greater chance of hitting critical systems (engine room, CIC, weapons storage, etc.).

As others have argued, CIWS isn't going to kill everything. In fact, it'll fail miserably. However, the wise commander would place his most valuable ships in the center of his fleet (and with the range of modern weapons, they can still shoot everything) with something along the lines of a SAM. The even wiser commander would fight me in the middle of the ocean far away from my nearest base; the Pegasus rocket that is required for this missile (to get the scramjet to work) is air-launched by something no smaller than a B-52 (there is a special civilian craft that launches the Pegasus for sattelites, but that's another matter).

In the end, it's not a perfect system. Because of cost-effectiveness concerns, it is mainly aimed only at the SD. Also, it requires a large fleet of aircraft to launch, more than I currently have available. Perhaps in the future I can develop an aircraft that not only makes use of this missile, but can reduce the size of my fleet. I don't know.

[OOC: What I think Praetonia is trying to say is that the KE penetrator might penetrate through the armor of the ship, but that just means there's a thick depleted uranium [or tungsten] rod in the ship's hull, and how dandy that it penetrated, but what next? The explosion is what actually seeps in through the penetration and tears everything up from the inside. Then again, just as you said, the penetrator might be lucky and hit a magazine on the ship - then all hell will break loose. But on a ship the size of a carrier, or larger, the chances of this are slim - especially when you taking in mind that no RPer wants to loose his SD, and that most RPers are haughty enough to use this reason for not loosing it.

On the bomber, although a bit unorthodox, maybe even on NS, I would suggest you start researching of hypersonic flight. Although, sure, the IR signature would be massive, not only to ground detectors, but to the tealesque sattelite detectors in space, the range you would be firing these missiles means that your foe probably wouldn't have the time to come into range to fire off SAMs, or to put up an effective air umbrella. So, in my view, super heavy hypersonic bombers are your friend.]

Yes, and those hypersonic bombers would not need the Pegasus rocket to launch these things--they just drop the things at the speeds required. And the unorthodoxy of this is a boon--with this comming so far from left-field, there aren't going to be very many SAMs with a 600nm range that can hit a hypersonic bomber at a high altitude. Maccabees, comrade, you've just given me a quite evil idea.

OOC: That's how I launch my supersonic cruise missles, from a supersonic bomber that flies at high altitude, gravity aids the rocket in accelerating to hypersonic speeds. The energy required to fire a hypersonic rocket from the ground or a ship, is of course it's biggest limiting factor. There is also no reason that it can't have explosives behind the kinetic dart to blow through the hole made by the dart in the targets armour.

IC:

Narvik Advanced Ordinance would be interested in obtaining production rights and or assisting in the further development of the Habu Hypersonic Missle. Narvik Advanced Ordinance currently builds the Apollo Supersonic Cruise missle and has toyed with the idea of a hypersonic variant.

Please contact my office if this is acceptable.

Alexsandr Von Ruakov
VP of Development
N.A.O.

[OOC: I know that the AS-19 Koala Supersonic Cruise Missile, normally armed with a 2KT nuclear payload, has a reported range of 4,000 to 6,000 kilometers, according to FAS. So, if this cruise missile was to have a SCRAMjet, and anything smaller of a fuel supply, I think it could still get 600nm, no problems.]

DREAD does work. It's only drawback is that is looses accuracy - but in the end, it doesn't matter because you have so much metal in the sky that the missiles are going to have a hard time dodging those little balls. But then again, the only current DREAD designs are all man operated, not automated.

It doesn't work the way the guy claims it does.

Read the comments (scroll down)

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=727

Macbees, Can your missile also be used as an anti-ship missile?? Is the Missile friendly with all Destroyers, Cruisers, Frigates, etc. I basically own Arleigh Burke destryers, Ticonderoga Cruisers, and All american ships.

OOC: While hypersonic heavy bombers are nice, they are nevertheless still in the realms in the future, considering that even now there are a lot of problems with hypersonic aircraft, nevermind something that can travel over an intercontinental range and carry a heavy payload. Similarily, using a bomb bay at hypersonic speeds will also present its own problems, because of the air flow characteristics at such a speed. Things like the HyperSoar are still nevertheless rough concepts, and its application as a military strike aircraft is still questionable. Hypersonic aircraft could therotically make a good futuristic missile-carrier nevertheless, but don't count on it to carpetbomb a city.

As for SAMs, there are still a few nations (including me) who has built either long range conventional SAM designs, or ultra-large long-range, high speed and altitude Bomarc style missiles. The Omzian Army employs a rather high number of these missiles to guard against the exact same threat mentioned above (though OOCly I will still have a problem if some proclaims that they will be able to have a cluster of dumb bombs landing in a few-kilometers-wide circle).

Finally, while FAS is a great source for some information (such as nuclear weaponry), I wouldn't count on it in being able to provide reliable information for every weapon systems in existance. Trying to recall what I had read from other sources, I don't recall any Soviet long-range cruise missile project that aims to develop a missile that can travel as far as 6000km. Even then, they will be clearly visible to ground and air-based sensors, though interception is another matter.

OOC: That's a good point,Omz222, my supersonic sub-orbital bombers are mostly engine and only carry four cruise missles , but rely on pinpoint accuracy to be effective.

Macbees, Can your missile also be used as an anti-ship missile?? Is the Missile friendly with all Destroyers, Cruisers, Frigates, etc. I basically own Arleigh Burke destryers, Ticonderoga Cruisers, and All american ships.

[OOC: It's not mine, it's Fluffywuffy's.]

OOC: While hypersonic heavy bombers are nice, they are nevertheless still in the realms in the future, considering that even now there are a lot of problems with hypersonic aircraft, nevermind something that can travel over an intercontinental range and carry a heavy payload. Similarily, using a bomb bay at hypersonic speeds will also present its own problems, because of the air flow characteristics at such a speed. Things like the HyperSoar are still nevertheless rough concepts, and its application as a military strike aircraft is still questionable. Hypersonic aircraft could therotically make a good futuristic missile-carrier nevertheless, but don't count on it to carpetbomb a city.

As for SAMs, there are still a few nations (including me) who has built either long range conventional SAM designs, or ultra-large long-range, high speed and altitude Bomarc style missiles. The Omzian Army employs a rather high number of these missiles to guard against the exact same threat mentioned above (though OOCly I will still have a problem if some proclaims that they will be able to have a cluster of dumb bombs landing in a few-kilometers-wide circle).

Finally, while FAS is a great source for some information (such as nuclear weaponry), I wouldn't count on it in being able to provide reliable information for every weapon systems in existance. Trying to recall what I had read from other sources, I don't recall any Soviet long-range cruise missile project that aims to develop a missile that can travel as far as 6000km. Even then, they will be clearly visible to ground and air-based sensors, though interception is another matter.

[OOC: You're right, there are no RL hypersonic heavy bombers...but there is Space Union's B-300 Hurricane. :)

And I believe you have one as well, I tried to buy some off you, but you refused. :p]

[OOC: I actually took the outline for the Hypersoar, and the general concept - printed off the net - to the local Lockheed Martin factory in San Diego, after being hooked up by my teacher, and they claimed that the concept, within itself, was totally doable, with a few restrictions - meaning, the Hypersoar is not something that is post modern - however, the Hypersoar is scheduled for release by the U.S. in 2012, nonetheless, a few Airforce Special Ops. NCOs and officers I've talked to claim that the actual release date is around 2018. However, I think that has more to do with money, than the technology.]

OCC: Sorry Macbees, I asked the wrong person.

Now Fluffywuffy , Can your missile also be used as an anti-ship missile?? Is the Missile friendly with all Destroyers, Cruisers, Frigates, etc. I basically own Arleigh Burke destryers, Ticonderoga Cruisers, and All american ships.

OOC: Agreed, though by all means a hypersonic aircraft flying at very high altitudes is going to be past post-modern, depending on how you define it. For a futuristic timeframe however, a hypersoar airframe would make an excellent platform for Fluffywuffy's AS-12; otherwise, for MT/PMT, I'd prefer a heavy supersonic bomber to do the job, and possibly modifying ship-based launchers to launch it as well (you'd need a rocket booster, though).

Halberdgardia - Depend on how you define hypersonic, though most people will define it as speeds that are equal or greater than Mach 5. As for the second statement, I belive it was explained. Further, we let sheer profits taking a second seat, and we allow responsibility, national security, and our allies (i.e. not having our products used to attack our allies) take the first first seat.

Anyways... /end hijack. Sorry, Fluffywuffy.

Halberdgardia - Depend on how you define hypersonic, though most people will define it as speeds that are equal or greater than Mach 5. As for the second statement, I belive it was explained. Further, we let sheer profits taking a second seat, and we allow responsibility, national security, and our allies (i.e. not having our products used to attack our allies) take the first first seat.

Anyways... /end hijack. Sorry, Fluffywuffy.

OOC: Oh, I wasn't blaming you. I was just saying you didn't sell it to me, is all. No worries about it, I can understand where you were coming from. Besides, I've got about 24 B-300s now, and I'm anxious to bomb somebody back to the Stone Age with 'em. ;)

It's alright to hijack my threads. Just as long as you return them to me at some point. ;)

Roman Republic: The AS-12 is an air-launched cruise missile. It is quite a large missile because I am using the Pegasus rocket to achieve the high speeds required for the engine to work. It, therefore, requires something the size of a B-52 (there is a cheaper, I think, commercial jet that is used to launch the Pegasus. The Pegasus is used to launch stuff into space and it was cheaper to air drop it.) to launch it. I am actually going to release a new bomber sometime in the future specifically for missiles like this one (other hypersonic cruise missiles). Those missiles will be cheaper because they do not require the booster to get to those high speeds--they are just dropped from the super-fast bomber and go. Of course, they require the bomber, but they are primarily meant for me anyways.

Well, comrade Praetonia, a GBU-28 bunker-buster can destroy targets hardened against nuclear weapons, despite being completely conventional. Although it is far from a perfect comparison, the comparison is still there--the only difference is that the bunker-buster has a large bomb that destroys the bunker. My missile is supposed to be fired in a large salvo at the SDs.
Bunker buster bombs work by tunnelling into the earth and then exploding, rather than exploding on the surface or simply using the KE of the bomb to penetrate. I should also point out that nothing can withstand direct nuclear blast, not even a silo, but when the silos were being built ICBMs were too inaccurate to hit them and the warheads not powerful enough to collapse a bunker or silo from a great distance. The USSR built massive bombs and the US built more accurate missiles... either way, it doesnt work anymore.

With no explosives, chances are one missile isn't going to kill you (unless I get lucky and hit the engine room on the first shot). I, therefore, launch a large salvo for two reasons: more targets to hit (and therefore a much greater chance of a hit), and greater chance of hitting critical systems (engine room, CIC, weapons storage, etc.).
Correction - you ARENT going to destroy my ship with one hit, or even lots. The Bismark was shelled for hours before finally being finished of with torpedos, and bombarded using very similar weapons (although shells, not missiles). The Bismark was effectively an very good WWI design, and it was less than 250m long. An SD is generally 700 - 1000m long, and 2020 tech (or more accurately, 2006 tech with lots of money).

And most credible fleets these days on NS use large numbers of SAAMs to destroy incoming missile attacks. I agree that CIWS plink-guns wont do much, but I can build a small anti-missile missile cheaper than you can build a mach <<godawfully large number>> missile and I can fit more into any given volume. You'll hit with a few, but not a very large number and defiantely not a large enough number to sink a competently designed SD. That's why I maintain that the only ways to destroy SDs inside decent fleets and used by people who use decent tactics is with tactical nukes (again problematic, but meh), another SD or very large torpedos.

Anyway, sorry for the off-topic crap. Im done now.

The Bismarck was shelled by highly inaccurate and, probably, infinitely slower shells. I wonder exactly how many of those shells hit, what size they were, if they were KE or HE shells, and how fast they were. And of those that hit, how many were KE or HE shells? Which ones performed better? Where did those shells that hit land?

And your conclusion based upon the Bismarck with ancient weapons is highly inaccurate. I'm sure if I fired one of these missiles at the Bismarck, the Bismarck would have a big-ass hole. If I got lucky and hit its engine room, it's dead--end of story. The same goes for your battleships: they will penetrate your armor, but the question is not of when but where. If it's the galley that got hit, then you live and the missile failed. But if I hit your ammo, say goodbye to your tin can. You do not understand that, I suppose, otherwise you wouldn't keep saying "explosives, explosives!" I understand the B-B used explosives. However, it has to penetrate the bunker before it goes off, does it not? Does it not detonate after penetration? The explosion kills you. But for this, the missile keeps going and penetrates something that ought not to be penetrated.

As for the SAMs; if you spend all your money on massive SDs armed with SAMs, then I suppose my job is done. You've now converted your SDs in massive SAM launchers and have reduced your firepower or increased costs. Now I just send in my fleet of missile destroyers, cover the air in massive amounts of missiles, launch these missiles, and watch your SAMs run dry on the cheaper missiles. If you decide to wait for the other missiles, the cheaper missiles will inevitably destroy some of your SAMs and possibly sink your ship. If you don't wait, the other missiles get a "get out of jail free" card and bomb you with relative impunity, complete with at least a little damage from the other missiles.

The Bismarck was shelled by highly inaccurate and, probably, infinitely slower shells. I wonder exactly how many of those shells hit, what size they were, if they were KE or HE shells, and how fast they were. And of those that hit, how many were KE or HE shells? Which ones performed better? Where did those shells that hit land?
The Bismark was shelled by 14" and 15" guns, and the rate of fire doesnt matter. It was hit by hundreds of shells, most of them AP. By the end of it, the Bismark was a blazing wreck. But it didnt sink. And it was an old design, and it was small and weakly armoured compared to even normal NS battleships (or indeed any modern battleship, had production continued), let alone a dreadnaught.

And your conclusion based upon the Bismarck with ancient weapons is highly inaccurate. I'm sure if I fired one of these missiles at the Bismarck, the Bismarck would have a big-ass hole.
Yes it probably would... but the Bismark was built 70 years ago to a 90 year old design, so whatever.

If I got lucky and hit its engine room, it's dead--end of story.
Why?

The same goes for your battleships: they will penetrate your armor, but the question is not of when but where. If it's the galley that got hit, then you live and the missile failed.
No... not when you're fighting a ship with a meter and a half of armour (real, not RHA) at its thinnest point. You'd be lucky to penetrate, especially over something important like a magazine and or an engine room. And again, why would a tungsten rod into something like a nuclear reactor cause a ship destroying explosion? It would just leak high-pressure radioactive water, which ok is bad, but not ship-threatening. And that's IF you get through the armour, IF you get through the extrenal armour and IF you penetrate the thick reactor bulkhead.

But if I hit your ammo, say goodbye to your tin can. You do not understand that, I suppose, otherwise you wouldn't keep saying "explosives, explosives!" I understand the B-B used explosives.
There are ways of getting around that, like filling the magazines with carbon dioxide or argon. Again, how are you getting through all of the armour :/ proportionally, an SD has enough armour to shrug off 16" shells like a BB would shrug off 4" guns, and can withstand 30" shells in the same way as an Iowa or Vanguard Class could resist 16" shells. What makes you so sure that this missile will penetrate all of the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of armour?

However, it has to penetrate the bunker before it goes off, does it not? Does it not detonate after penetration? The explosion kills you. But for this, the missile keeps going and penetrates something that ought not to be penetrated.
No it doesnt. It explodes in the ground, which amplifies the explosion. It doesnt explode in the bunker, unless it's a really shallow bunker / weak bunker.

As for the SAMs; if you spend all your money on massive SDs armed with SAMs, then I suppose my job is done. You've now converted your SDs in massive SAM launchers and have reduced your firepower or increased costs.
What?

1) Where did I say I'd converted all of my weaponary into SAAMs and SAMs. You may not agree with me, but that doesnt mean I'm some kind of cretin *rolleyes*

2) Does this mean to say that you dont have any similar defences on your ships? Becuase if that's the case, you probably wouldnt even get into range.

Now I just send in my fleet of missile destroyers, cover the air in massive amounts of missiles, launch these missiles, and watch your SAMs run dry on the cheaper missiles.
As I said before, I can fit more SAMs into a given space than you can fit missiles. Also, you should remember that a missile destroyer wont be able to carry many of these uber explosive RAMjet tungsten penetrator missiles of 3tonne metal doom. This is worsened by the fact that I can fire cheaper, smaller missiles back at you that will destroy your missile destroyers wherever they hit you. Especially as you've point out that all your point defence is little CIWS guns.

If you decide to wait for the other missiles, the cheaper missiles will inevitably destroy some of your SAMs and possibly sink your ship. If you don't wait, the other missiles get a "get out of jail free" card and bomb you with relative impunity, complete with at least a little damage from the other missiles.
Hmmm. Should probably have quotes this paragraph together. See above.

No... not when you're fighting a ship with a meter and a half of armour (real, not RHA) at its thinnest point. You'd be lucky to penetrate, especially over something important like a magazine and or an engine room. And again, why would a tungsten rod into something like a nuclear reactor cause a ship destroying explosion? It would just leak high-pressure radioactive water, which ok is bad, but not ship-threatening. And that's IF you get through the armour, IF you get through the extrenal armour and IF you penetrate the thick reactor bulkhead.
I'd have to think that high-pressure radioactive water is a terrible thing for your ship. If your pumps are destroyed, your reactor meltdown from extreme heat. At worst you've got no or limited power (from lack of nuclear reactor) and at best you've got no power AND a crew threatened with radioactive death.

Why?When you stop moving, I have achieved a mission-kill. I can just sail away and leave you there.


There are ways of getting around that, like filling the magazines with carbon dioxide or argon. Again, how are you getting through all of the armour :/ proportionally, an SD has enough armour to shrug off 16" shells like a BB would shrug off 4" guns, and can withstand 30" shells in the same way as an Iowa or Vanguard Class could resist 16" shells. What makes you so sure that this missile will penetrate all of the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of armour? Well, for one, it's moving at Mach 6 and is at several hundred degrees F. Maybe even in the thousands, which can't possibly be good for you. It's also roughly 1/2 ton. We'll say that you've got a two ton 30" shell moving at, say, Mach 2.

KE=1/2 * Mass(kg) * velocity(m/s) squared
KE=1/2 * 1 814.36 * (680.58)squared
KE= 907.18 * 463,189.1364
KE=420,195,920.759352

KE=1/2 * 433 * 2 041.74(squared)
KE=216.5 * 4,168,702.2276
KE=902,524,032.2754

As you can see, my missile has roughly twice the KE of a two ton shell moving at Mach 2.


No it doesnt. It explodes in the ground, which amplifies the explosion. It doesnt explode in the bunker, unless it's a really shallow bunker / weak bunker. So it explodes to amplify the explosion? My, what an intersting conclusion!


What?

1) Where did I say I'd converted all of my weaponary into SAAMs and SAMs. You may not agree with me, but that doesnt mean I'm some kind of cretin
You didn't. However, if you fill your ships up with more SAMs than AS missiles, one must assume you have lost at least some offensive power.

2) Does this mean to say that you dont have any similar defences on your ships? Becuase if that's the case, you probably wouldnt even get into range.

Well, if I am in your range, you are in my range. That presents a problem, as formation play a much smaller role in modern warfare. It's more a question of arranging yourself to shoot down missiles and fighters more efficiently, rather than surrounding the enemy fleet.


As I said before, I can fit more SAMs into a given space than you can fit missiles. Also, you should remember that a missile destroyer wont be able to carry many of these uber explosive RAMjet tungsten penetrator missiles of 3tonne metal doom. This is worsened by the fact that I can fire cheaper, smaller missiles back at you that will destroy your missile destroyers wherever they hit you. Especially as you've point out that all your point defence is little CIWS guns. These missiles are air-dropped from something the size of a B-52. The destroyers fire normal missiles, like the Yakhont. If they feel like fitting "ghetto style" they can fire the $5,000 cruise missile developed by a guy in Australia (a quick Google search should turn him up).

I'd have to think that high-pressure radioactive water is a terrible thing for your ship. If your pumps are destroyed, your reactor meltdown from extreme heat. At worst you've got no or limited power (from lack of nuclear reactor) and at best you've got no power AND a crew threatened with radioactive death.
Believe it or not, my ship has more than 1 reactor. IIRC the Nimitz Class has 8 or something. And there isnt nearly enough fissible material in a ship's reactor to cause a melt down, not to mention the fact that the whole area is very well sealed and the relatively small amounts of radiation would be abosorbed by said extremely thick armour, and also all the boronated foam I'll be pouring into the reactor.

When you stop moving, I have achieved a mission-kill. I can just sail away and leave you there.
What? Why would losing 1 reactor stop my ship completely?

Well, for one, it's moving at Mach 6 and is at several hundred degrees F. Maybe even in the thousands, which can't possibly be good for you. It's also roughly 1/2 ton. We'll say that you've got a two ton 30" shell moving at, say, Mach 2.

KE=1/2 * Mass(kg) * velocity(m/s) squared
KE=1/2 * 1 814.36 * (680.58)squared
KE= 907.18 * 463,189.1364
KE=420,195,920.759352

KE=1/2 * 433 * 2 041.74(squared)
KE=216.5 * 4,168,702.2276
KE=902,524,032.2754

As you can see, my missile has roughly twice the KE of a two ton shell moving at Mach 2.
Yes, because the figures are wrong. A 16" shell would move at Mach 2 and weigh 2 tonnes. A 30" shell would weigh *does sums and comparisons* about 25 tonnes.

So it explodes to amplify the explosion? My, what an intersting conclusion!


What?

<.< >.> Being underground amplifies the explosion. *rolleyes*

You didn't. However, if you fill your ships up with more SAMs than AS missiles, one must assume you have lost at least some offensive power.
Why yes I have. But then my navy isnt made up entirely of SDs, is it? Artitsa employs arsenal ships full of SAAMs to provide fleet-wide coverage, as do I. I also include a number of SAMs and SAAMs on my ships. THe RL Arleigh Burke Class carries 8 Harpoons and 90 SM-2 SAMs. My ships actually carry more SSMs by comparison, and you're forgetting those guns again.

Well, if I am in your range, you are in my range. That presents a problem, as formation play a much smaller role in modern warfare. It's more a question of arranging yourself to shoot down missiles and fighters more efficiently, rather than surrounding the enemy fleet.
No you arent, because I'm firing 30" guns and regular HE missiles whilst you're firing missiles that have to achieve mach 6+ whilst carrying a heavy tungsten penetrator and warhead. Something has to give, and that's either size and weight (in which case these missiles wont fit into your destroyers) or range (in which case I get the first shot).

These missiles are air-dropped from something the size of a B-52. The destroyers fire normal missiles, like the Yakhont. If they feel like fitting "ghetto style" they can fire the $5,000 cruise missile developed by a guy in Australia (a quick Google search should turn him up).
Oh even better. Now your bombers have to cope with my CAP before they can even fire, and SAMs on the bombers as well as the missiles. And nothing that costs $5,000 will get any kind of decent range, speed or penetration, and will either get shot down instantly or not pose any real threat to my ships (which have armour, because my navy isnt cheapskate like RL navies).

Actually, the Nimitz has four reactors. The Enterprise has eight, though when Apple Zero was here, he mentioned the Enterprise was getting a ninth reactor installed.

The most that disabling one nuclear reactor will do to a ship is slow it down. Depending on the design, that slowdown might not even be as substantial as you might hope.

The biggest problem with creating a missile that could do major damage to a SD without a nuclear warhead is that to achieve that, you must have three things: 1) Speed; 2) Penetrating ability; 3) Size. I'd also add to that the ability to explode once you've penetrated. Claiming that you're getting all three of those into one missile in the MT/PMT realm would be little more than a Godmode.

If you're thinking of firing a missile at a SD and thinking that will even result in a mission kill, never mind sinking the bloody thing, it's going to have to be a tactical nuke. And be prepared for a quick and severe nuclear retaliation.

What? Why would losing 1 reactor stop my ship completely? I assumed, incorrectly, that you have one nuclear reactor. That's why.


Yes, because the figures are wrong. A 16" shell would move at Mach 2 and weigh 2 tonnes. A 30" shell would weigh *does sums and comparisons* about 25 tonnes. But would it be moving at Mach 2 while weighing about 27 tons? I'd have to imagine not.





Why yes I have. But then my navy isnt made up entirely of SDs, is it? Artitsa employs arsenal ships full of SAAMs to provide fleet-wide coverage, as do I. I also include a number of SAMs and SAAMs on my ships. THe RL Arleigh Burke Class carries 8 Harpoons and 90 SM-2 SAMs. My ships actually carry more SSMs by comparison, and you're forgetting those guns again. But the guns are more than useless, save for against your hopelessly expensive SDs, due to a lack in range. I can have a PT boat with a single BrahMos (joint India-Russia missile) fire and escape well outside your guns' range.


No you arent, because I'm firing 30" guns and regular HE missiles whilst you're firing missiles that have to achieve mach 6+ whilst carrying a heavy tungsten penetrator and warhead. Something has to give, and that's either size and weight (in which case these missiles wont fit into your destroyers) or range (in which case I get the first shot). They don't fit on ships. Period. They are, for the umptienth time, air launched only. They use Pegasus rockets, which, I believe, must be launched at 40,000 feet. The Pegasus carries sattelites into orbits at speeds of Mach 6+. The point of the Pegasus for me is to get the SCRAMjet up to speeds at which it functions.


Oh even better. Now your bombers have to cope with my CAP before they can even fire, and SAMs on the bombers as well as the missiles. And nothing that costs $5,000 will get any kind of decent range, speed or penetration, and will either get shot down instantly or not pose any real threat to my ships (which have armour, because my navy isnt cheapskate like RL navies). The point of the $5,000 missile is to absorb SAMs. Your ships can't tell that the missile poses no threat (it poses at least some threat, if your sailors mutiny from having to check for scratched paint continuously.). And if you haven't read my orginal post, the missile has a range of 600nm, probably outside the range of your CAP, and probably outside of your SAM's range.

I assumed, incorrectly, that you have one nuclear reactor. That's why.

But would it be moving at Mach 2 while weighing about 27 tons? I'd have to imagine not.
Shells arent missiles. The bigger the gun, the bigger the charge and generally the faster it goes. Missiles, because they have to carry their fuel with them, get expotentially heavier and eventually hit a maximum useful size before they jsut get too big to be used. A mach 6.5 missile it REALLY pushing that limit and sacrifices (like warheads and range) will have to be made.

But the guns are more than useless, save for against your hopelessly expensive SDs, due to a lack in range. I can have a PT boat with a single BrahMos (joint India-Russia missile) fire and escape well outside your guns' range.
Errr... no? A 12" gun can get a 45km range with primative rocket-assist shells. A 30" or (as I use) a 25" shell could, with SCRAMjet assist, get about 600km, if not more. The Doujin's guns get 700km+ I believe. Maybe 900, I cant remember exactly. And your piddly little BrahMos will do nothing to an SD, whereas a 30" or 25" shell will destroy and seriously damage an whole formation of destroyers, and annihilate any grouping of missile boats, if I even bothered to waste a shell on them.

They don't fit on ships. Period. They are, for the umptienth time, air launched only. They use Pegasus rockets, which, I believe, must be launched at 40,000 feet. The Pegasus carries sattelites into orbits at speeds of Mach 6+. The point of the Pegasus for me is to get the SCRAMjet up to speeds at which it functions.
Ok.... then they're extremely vulnerable to CAP and SAMs, and you cant use them in anything approaching large numbers, and you can only use them close to the coast. Happy now?

The point of the $5,000 missile is to absorb SAMs. Your ships can't tell that the missile poses no threat (it poses at least some threat, if your sailors mutiny from having to check for scratched paint continuously.). And if you haven't read my orginal post, the missile has a range of 600nm, probably outside the range of your CAP, and probably outside of your SAM's range.
Well I can tell, because these missiles will be really small, very slow and keep falling apart in mid air. And you havent answered a fundamental problem... what are you launching them from? Anything you can build for $5000 (I assume this doesnt include fuel...) wont have any kind of range, and the launch platform will be most likely destroyed before it gets in range.

Anyway do you have AIM or MSN, because I'm spamming up your thread.

OOC: Just want to throw in my two cents here. Thermite. Wonderful substance, burns at tempatures greater than 2,500 degrees C. That stuff melts carbonized steel (about 1500 degrees C). Since it is ignitable by explosion put it in a missile cover a fairly good sized area and disable, if not destroy what it covers.

A partially melted turret wont fire, missile tubes with their covers melted shut, radar and comm gone. Hit a ship, even a SD, with enough to cover its surface (or a goodly part) and thats a pretty good mission kill right there.

Fire suppression? Thermite comes with its own oxygen and just causes steam explosions with water. Yup, my good old thermite antiship missiles.

OOC: Just want to throw in my two cents here. Thermite. Wonderful substance, burns at tempatures greater than 2,500 degrees C. That stuff melts carbonized steel (about 1500 degrees C). Since it is ignitable by explosion put it in a missile cover a fairly good sized area and disable, if not destroy what it covers.

A partially melted turret wont fire, missile tubes with their covers melted shut, radar and comm gone. Hit a ship, even a SD, with enough to cover its surface (or a goodly part) and thats a pretty good mission kill right there.

Fire suppression? Thermite comes with its own oxygen and just causes steam explosions with water. Yup, my good old thermite antiship missiles.

http://www.scehardt.com/videos/thermite.wmv

Gotta love thermite.

The only trouble is getting the thremite to spread enough to burn a big enough hole. Imagine men standing in the bridge of an SD, then THUD, a missile hits the room, and the thermite burns right through.

Errr... no? A 12" gun can get a 45km range with primative rocket-assist shells. A 30" or (as I use) a 25" shell could, with SCRAMjet assist, get about 600km, if not more. The Doujin's guns get 700km+ I believe. Maybe 900, I cant remember exactly. And your piddly little BrahMos will do nothing to an SD, whereas a 30" or 25" shell will destroy and seriously damage an whole formation of destroyers, and annihilate any grouping of missile boats, if I even bothered to waste a shell on them.


Unfortuantely, SCRAMjet doesn't work in the lower atmospheres, consequently, a SCRAMjet powered shell won't really do well against a direct fire operation against another ship. You can 'shell' the foe, or fire into the upper atmosphere and hope to hit your target, but your accuracy decreases. Consequently, the SCRAMjet argument doesn't really help.

And last time I checked those 16" on the Iowa only have a range of around twenty miles - or that was according to 1960s resources. It might have increased due to better propellants or a better gun, dunno.

Unfortuantely, SCRAMjet doesn't work in the lower atmospheres, consequently, a SCRAMjet powered shell won't really do well against a direct fire operation against another ship. You can 'shell' the foe, or fire into the upper atmosphere and hope to hit your target, but your accuracy decreases. Consequently, the SCRAMjet argument doesn't really help.

And last time I checked those 16" on the Iowa only have a range of around twenty miles - or that was according to 1960s resources. It might have increased due to better propellants or a better gun, dunno.
And the Iowa has guns designed and built in WWII, and they didnt use rocket assisted shells. Much smaller shells too, mind you, and they arent ETC either. That is a point about SCRAMjets, but I could always use a RAMjet, and battleship shells will get high enough for them to be used (they arent fired flat like rifles... and the longer the range you need, the greater the elevation).

And Im not convinced by the thermite stuff. It only just burnt a hole through the microwave. I doubt it will melt through multiple layers of titanium and ceramics.

And the Iowa has guns designed and built in WWII, and they didnt use rocket assisted shells. Much smaller shells too, mind you, and they arent ETC either. That is a point about SCRAMjets, but I could always use a RAMjet, and battleship shells will get high enough for them to be used (they arent fired flat like rifles... and the longer the range you need, the greater the elevation).

And Im not convinced by the thermite stuff. It only just burnt a hole through the microwave. I doubt it will melt through multiple layers of titanium and ceramics.

Did you see how little thermite was used? It only burned for a few seconds, and it still was able to burn through. I assume that the thermite used was home made.

Now imagine a hundred pounds of military grade thermite burning for a good five minutes. That will definitely melt through the titanium.

[OOC: I don't have any substantial evidence to back any claims, however, of what I heard, thermite doesn't do that great when applied to anti-shipping missiles.]

OOC: Thermite doesn't because of all the water.

Thermate, on the other hand, does nasty things and doesn't have the problems thermite does.

Or you could go to my solution, and use a vaporous enhanced thermate which burns at 5500 C in a tacky cloud of gas and fire. Rather good for making carriers useless (large holes tend to do that). And if you hit with thermate, you can make guns useless (melted metal is rather difficult to turn with), but it would be a better use to aim at sensors with such things - their necessary design for function makes them more vulnerable. And a melted RADAR is a nice centerpiece, nothing more.

As to these SuperDrednaughts - we consider their usage a WMD and respond accordingly. It's that simple.

OOC:

[quote]Thermite doesn't because of all the water. [quote]

Thermite doesn't what because of water? It burns underwater! Plus, if you're attacking top-down, then you'll hit the deck, not the side.

Thermite has been used in past wars. In fact, American troops used thermite grenades to destroy artillery at Point Du hoc in WWII during Operation Overlord.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=417880

Well that's my response to the SuperDreads. Please do not post there, because I'd rather not have the process broken up.

Sorry for hijacking Fluffy.

Well, back on topic. With thermite, you can burn a hole into the armor, then use GPS guided missiles to fly into the hole you made. If you're lucky, you'll hit magazine storage and kaboom.

*sigh*


The addition of barium nitrate distinguishes thermate from thermite, and it allows the mixture to burn even when submerged underwater.

The catch is in putting enough of it on site to do enough damage to the target - thermate tends to make a hole straight down, and small bits here and there are not going to do enough to stall out an SD. Our solution was the vaporous cloud because of the larger area of effect and early detonation.

The hypersonic missile is a solution, but as all solutions to the megaships, it works only if applied to the right place, in sufficient numbers.

Our solution was the vaporous cloud because of the larger area of effect and early detonation.

A cloud would float away. Keep it a liquid and a top attack weapon, an explosive ignition would cause enough dispersion as it is. That and by being a liquid it will stay in contact in the ship longer, causing more damage and other fun things.

Thermite does burn underwater, it has its own oxygen supply, why wouldn't it.

A cloud would float away. Keep it a liquid and a top attack weapon, an explosive ignition would cause enough dispersion as it is. That and by being a liquid it will stay in contact in the ship longer, causing more damage and other fun things.

Thermite does burn underwater, it has its own oxygen supply, why wouldn't it.

"Vapor cloud" would not drift or float - it is heavier then water. This creates a larger "splash" of many more "droplets", which means a much larger area is affected then a simple glob, which would make a single hole. Our weapon covers a 50' diameter area in burning gunk.

And as we said, it is tacky - as in it adheres when it lands. It is also immune to being "washed off".

And I suggest you research thermite and thermate.

You are still putting less of it over a wider area. We want a long burn, not a short burn. A short burn is perfect for a grenade, or when your trying to catch things on fire. But 40 seconds is not gonna be enough to really damage something save the comm and radar. But even iwth those out its escorts can still provide something, either via hand signals or hamradios.

With more over less of an area, say 10ft square, burning for 4 minutes, anything that was there is gone, be it reinforced gun turrets, missile boxes, or the galley, not just scorch the surface which may or may not disable something like a turret that is designed to take the pressure and heat of firing a 25" shell.

*sigh*

Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen, and does not require any external source (such as air). Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment (it will burn merrily underwater, for example), given sufficient initial heat.

See.

You are still putting less of it over a wider area. We want a long burn, not a short burn. A short burn is perfect for a grenade, or when your trying to catch things on fire. But 40 seconds is not gonna be enough to really damage something save the comm and radar. But even iwth those out its escorts can still provide something, either via hand signals or hamradios.

With more over less of an area, say 10ft square, burning for 4 minutes, anything that was there is gone, be it reinforced gun turrets, missile boxes, or the galley, not just scorch the surface which may or may not disable something like a turret that is designed to take the pressure and heat of firing a 25" shell.

Numerically, our version burns at 5500 C in a 50' diameter area for approximately 80 to 120 seconds. This is sufficient to cause serious problems to the target - hitting missile launchers or missiles alone will cause secondary explosions and disable weaponry. But there are better targets:

Without any sort of targeting sensor, a SD - or any other ship - is dead for all intents and purposes. A hit on the sides will result in holes. A hit near fuel or ammunition will result in explosions.

Finally - just so you get this right - Wikipedia is not your best source of information, but I'll fight fire with fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_grenade)


These kind of grenades produce extreme heat by means of a chemical reaction. The body is practically the same as smoke and gas grenades. The filler consists mostly of 600 to 800 grams thermate (TH3), which is an improved version of thermite, the incendiary agent used in hand grenades during World War II. A portion of the thermate mixture is converted to molten iron, which burns at 2200 degrees Celsius (4000 degrees Fahrenheit). It will fuse together the metallic parts of any object that it contacts. The thermate filler of the AN-M14 grenade burns for 40 seconds and can burn through a 1/2-inch (13 mm) homogeneous steel plate. There is no need for an external source of oxygen and will burn under water. White phosphorus (see Smoke grenade) also has a very good incendiary effect; burning at a temperature of 2800 °C (5000 °F).

Thermate and phosphorus burns are the worst and most agonizing burns because thermate and phosphorus burn at such a high speed and temperature that one particle of those chemicals burns through almost everything (skin, nerves, muscles and even bones), even in places where there is little or no oxygen. In addition, white phosphorus is very poisonous. A dose of 50-100 milligrams would be lethal for the average sized person.


(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_grenade)

Now, one more time - Thermate burns underwater and Thermite does not. That the term "thermite" has become the "kleenex" of incendiary grenades does not change chemistry.

Vapourous thermite (or thermate, whatever) would just diffuse into the atmosphere and not affect much to any great extent.

OCC: why are you talking about termite. I suggest Depleted Uranium. I is very reliable.

A portion of the thermate mixture is converted to molten iron, which burns at 2200 degrees Celsius (4000 degrees Fahrenheit). It will fuse together the metallic parts of any object that it contacts. The thermate filler of the AN-M14 grenade burns for 40 seconds and can burn through a 1/2-inch (13 mm) homogeneous steel plate. There is no need for an external source of oxygen and will burn under water.

First you say it burns at 5000 C now your own quote agrees with that I've been saying, about 2500 C. Thermite, is a compound made of iron oxide and aluminum, thats it. Maybe thermate is adding something a bit more, but thermite is the proper chemical name for a substance purely of those two things.

And a SD has 400mm armor minumun anywhere (or so they've been saying haven't bothered to look at the stats) so no, your vapor would do squat.

First you say it burns at 5000 C now your own quote agrees with that I've been saying, about 2500 C. Thermite, is a compound made of iron oxide and aluminum, thats it. Maybe thermate is adding something a bit more, but thermite is the proper chemical name for a substance purely of those two things.

And a SD has 400mm armor minumun anywhere (or so they've been saying haven't bothered to look at the stats) so no, your vapor would do squat.

:rolleyes:

Let's try again. We use a different form of thermate - obviously, I'm not giving you the chemical formula, you can google it for yourself.

Ours is vaporous, much like a large splatter. Due to early detonation, strikes a footprint approximately 50' across, and burns at 5500 C for 80 to 120 seconds. Will it completely penetrate a SDs deck? No. Multiple hits might, a single won't. We don't expect it to, ACRATHERM is an anticarrier weapon, not an anti-SD weapon (for those, as they're considered WMDs, we use WMDs).

However, it will cause melting and deforming. A deck gun barrel struck will malform and hole, which will reduce it to negligible usability. On a smaller vessel, such as a destroyer, a hit by ACRATHERM will cause a loss of functionality, possible detonations, and possibly mission-kill the ship.

You don't have to destroy the vessel, only stop it from working properly.


Vapourous thermite (or thermate, whatever) would just diffuse into the atmosphere and not affect much to any great extent.

Thou doest not read the posts above about the density and reasoning behind said weapon. So thou mayest hush, we're not interested in your opinion.

OCC: why are you talking about termite. I suggest Depleted Uranium. I is very reliable.

OOC: What sort of target? An SD? Nuke it. Our current response works well against one or several.

And if you're using DU shells, alright, you might penetrate the armor - then what? We're not talking about a tank, where the nasty splinters bounce around and fragmental bits destroy everything insides the heated metal doesn't get. We're talking about a ship - much bigger target. A single small hole won't do very much to it (note: I'm not discussing a KE weapon kill, which is a beast of another color).

Water pressure (or rather, overpressure) is a better weapon against a ship. So are waterline hits, where the ship will begin filling with water. Fire is also an excellent weapon in ships - one they defend against, but overwhelming one with fire is a nasty morale killer (where are you going to go if your ship sinks?).

There are other methods. We don't hold so much with DU penetrators for naval combat, but I'm sure there are those who do.

OOC: What sort of target? An SD? Nuke it. Our current response works well against one or several.
If you did that to me (or pretty much anyone in the OMP for that matter) you'd have your entire navy nuked back in return. If you responded and annihilated my navy, then a full strategic responce would be ordered.

If you did that to me (or pretty much anyone in the OMP for that matter) you'd have your entire navy nuked back in return. If you responded and annihilated my navy, then a full strategic responce would be ordered.

...at which point you and the OMP would cease to exist via IGNORE. Wasn't that just special? Welcome to NationStates - it's a GAME.

If you attack with an SD, our policy says it gets nuked. No fuss, no muss, no bother. At which point, lots of people nuke each other and a mass IGNORE happens.

In other words - don't bother with using one, its a waste of everyone's collective time.

Any more questions about the doctrine in use here? No? Good. Now if we all could stop the hijack and get back to "hypersonic missiles"? Thanks.

So you're saying that you will allow yourself to use nukes, but if anyone else respond then you will ignore them because you'll lose? That seems a very silly and n00bish policy in my book.

And "Any more questions about the doctrine in use here? No? Good. Now if we all could stop the hijack and get back to "hypersonic missiles"? Thanks."

What the hell? It was you that started this SD doctrinal 'argument'. Stop being so down-right rude.

So you're saying that you will allow yourself to use nukes, but if anyone else respond then you will ignore them because you'll lose? That seems a very silly and n00bish policy in my book.

:rolleyes: Read it again, real slowly. Maybe it will sink in.

Official Policy on Enemy Usage of SuperDrednaughts: Immediate Nuclear Response if Enemy does not withdraw same from theater. They are considered to be Weapons of Mass Destruction and use of such will be treated as such

This has nothing to do with "who wins, who loses". It has to do with "We consider them to be WMDs: use of WMDs results in immediate counterusage of WMDs". I've now spelled that out twice.

Any other comments you can manage without a flame will be responded to - though I'm sure the thread owner might want them in their own thread.



And "Any more questions about the doctrine in use here? No? Good. Now if we all could stop the hijack and get back to "hypersonic missiles"? Thanks."

What the hell? It was you that started this SD doctrinal 'argument'. Stop being so down-right rude.

Pot? This is kettle. Drop the whole SD thing - they're pointless. Get back to the thread at hand. [/hijack]

:rolleyes: Read it again, real slowly. Maybe it will sink in.
Huzzah for vague insults!

Official Policy on Enemy Usage of SuperDrednaughts: Immediate Nuclear Response if Enemy does not withdraw same from theater. They are considered to be Weapons of Mass Destruction and use of such will be treated as such

This has nothing to do with "who wins, who loses". It has to do with "We consider them to be WMDs: use of WMDs results in immediate counterusage of WMDs". I've now spelled that out twice.
Now ignoring the stupid text-editting (in fact it has been removed), this is well understood. However, what you seem not to understand is this (and look! no silly font-editting! Huzzah!):

"It is Praetonian policy to respond to any use of nuclear weapons against the Imperial navy with a full tactical responce against the opposing nation's navy."

"It is Praetonian policy to respond to any use of nuclear weapons as a blanket weapon against the entire Imperial navy with a fulls trategic responce against the enemy's populace."

Now, there is no actual difference between your policy and mine. Both involve the use of WMDs. The only difference is, I am prepared to accept your policy, because it involves a legitimate attack. You, on the other hand, are not prepared to accept my policy despite it involving a legitimate attack.

Any other comments you can manage without a flame will be responded to - though I'm sure the thread owner might want them in their own thread.
If you believe that I was flaming then do please report me to the moderators. Saying someone is "down-right rude" is not, however, a flame. Luckily, I am not so easily baited as I have seen others become when debating with you.

If you wish to continue this, then do so via telegram. I have no intention of posting on this thread again.

I would like to purchase 88 if possible.