NationStates Jolt Archive

Griffincrest corporate designers are proud to announce the creation that will undoubtedly save GAF pilots lives for years to come. The new counter measure is known as TALON, or Tactical Air Launched Ordnance Neutralizer. The countermeasure is based off of the design found on downed TPF planes, shot down over the Confederacy after the last war to remove your beloved company.

The system is actually a quite simple design, using no advanced technology other than the propplelant used to fire the TALON. Hundreds of tiny glass shards are encased inside of a metal pod. Once activated, the pod will blow out, projecting the shards towards the missile. The senstive computers on the missile are likely to be scratched or damaged when the hail of sharp glass scrapes along it. With the guidance system of the missile damaged, it is now far more avoidable.

Computers are located inside the missile, not on its outsides. You might be able to damage the guidance for an IR missile, but that's it. It'll also be fairly simple to armor against this.

ooc: So, in essance, a flak missile?
If so, why not just use ball-bearings or something similar to wreck the missile rather than just screwing with its guidance system?

OOC: Has the draftroom agreed to this?

Computers are located inside the missile, not on its outsides. You might be able to damage the guidance for an IR missile, but that's it. It'll also be fairly simple to armor against this.

I can also screw up the LIDAR too, no?

OOC: Has the draftroom agreed to this?

The draftroom isn't a mandatory thing. It's just a bunch of guys going over ideas. He doesn't have to have them agree to his design. They arn't the kings of NS.

Perfectly well said [NS]Zukariaa.

Now of course the first question about this system is: why use glass instead of soemthing potentially more damaging like steel or tungsten cubes?

The secodn question is how on earth do you aim it? i suppose you could try and wire it into your Missile Approach Warning Sensor system if you have one.

The third question is what sort of coverage do you get? i would make a stab at a fairly limited sector of the aircraft being covered.

And finally what is the point of developing an expensive self defence system your your borderline useless bargin bucket tactical aircraft.

Perfectly well said [NS]Zukariaa.

Now of course the first question about this system is: why use glass instead of soemthing potentially more damaging like steel or tungsten cubes?

The secodn question is how on earth do you aim it? i suppose you could try and wire it into your Missile Approach Warning Sensor system if you have one.

The third question is what sort of coverage do you get? i would make a stab at a fairly limited sector of the aircraft being covered.

And finally what is the point of developing an expensive self defence system your your borderline useless bargin bucket tactical aircraft.

Answer one - Glass is way cheaper than the others

Answer two - When the enemy missile reached within 200 yards of the aircraft the tubes will blow out

Answer three - something like two thousand little glass beads can cover a pretty big area

Answer four - This is cheap too.

Answer one - Glass is way cheaper than the others

Answer two - When the enemy missile reached within 200 yards of the aircraft the tubes will blow out

Answer three - something like two thousand little glass beads can cover a pretty big area

Answer four - This is cheap too.

1:Glass is also useless and unlikely to acutally damage a missile, let lone succesfully survive being ejected

2: And how exactly do you detect that? you would at least need a radio proximity device capable of detecting not just the rnage to the missile but also its appraoch vector and triggering the correct cluster of "tubes"

3: Not as large as you would imagine if you wanted any sort of acceptable desnity, perhaps you mis udnerstodd me so i will make it plain: would you have tubes covering every single appraoch vector to your aircraft and possibly destroyign your aircrafts aerodynamics? or are you just going to go with a relatively painless fit ona small clsuter of tubes in the tail fin root and some in under fusalage/under wing pods.

4: Actually not ture, even your half assed useless version would be anything but cheap and good one properly tied into a well designed DASS (Defensive Aides Sub System) is going to cost a fair bit more.

Really like all your other attempts at "cheap" stuff, this, as it stands is a false economy and unliekly to be accepted by your already stupidly overworked pilots who go to war in a 1950s light fighter, don't have thier own radar and some how have to apparently operate a AMRAAM missile management and launch system while beign plinked by enemies they can not see, not even china is that cavalier with the lives of thier pilots.

I don't think glass would be hard enough, metal ball bearings would be better.

Zukariaa;12026814']The draftroom isn't a mandatory thing. It's just a bunch of guys going over ideas. He doesn't have to have them agree to his design. They arn't the kings of NS.

Thats what you think....



Anyway, glass is a poor choice of material as even the really expensive heat resistant stuff will melt due to the explosion propelling it out of the tube, the heat from the jet exhaust and exposure to the massive air friction when travelling at high speeds.
The milted glass would be wildly innacurate and you would be lucky to hit the missile and even if it did hit minimal damage would be casued.

Better materials would include tungsten, steel and depleted uranium

I'm here to learn fella's, Crookfur, you have to relax, you are like taking this to heart here.

Missile guidance systems like IR and LIDAR can be damaged by the glass, as it will scratch up the screen, the goal is not to destroy the missile, but to lose it.

A proximity device placed on the tail would tell the pilot when a missile is in range of the TALON, and he would then hit the launch button.

Each plane would have one under each wing.

The glass would be gas propelled, like BB's, so there would be no heat generated to melt them.

Glass beads in a metal tube would really not cost much. The most expensive thing would be the proximity device.

There is learning, then there is posting radom crap without actually takign time to think it through...

The glass might sratch the screen and that is a big case of "might" but all that would do is perhaps cause soem degredation in image/signature resolution/reception which is unlikely to have any major impact on the missile's engagement capability.
Oh and if it is manual release you should just forget it, even in an up to date plane with a reduced workload your pilot simply won't have time to be concentrating on releasing coutner measures.

See, now you insulted me, so I will have to respond equally belligerently. One thing, take the time to type like you aren't in eighth grade, maybe people will isten to you more.

It is not a big might at all actually. TPF used this system against me already for one thing, and people supported its use, and one guy even said he heard that the military was creating a similar system. How true that is, I don't know. However, point stands that when about two thousand glass beads come showering out of a tube going at a high speed and made to be like an aerial shotgun will cover alot of space. Also, when a half dozen or so glass beads crack into a delicate computer system, it is going to destroy it.

And really, pulling a cord is not that big a deal.

One thing, take the time to type like you aren't in eighth grade, maybe people will isten to you more.

You're the only one who doesn't listen to him.


And really, pulling a cord is not that big a deal.


You do realize that with a missile coming in at Mach 4, he has a total of one tenth of a second to engage the system with a 200 yard range, right?

1) The computers, sensors etc. on a missile tend to be inside the missile.

2) The inside of a missile is usually protected by metal; the outside of the missile.

3) It is rather difficult for glass to penetrate metal, especially hot metal (the area around a NS-style missile traveling at Mach 4+ will be very hot because of all the energy being given off to get it to that speed). The glass would most likely melt and cover the missile in shiny spots, which will look cooler for the half-second or so before it blows up the aeroplane anyway.

4) The likelihood of glass damaging IR or LIDAR sensors is rather low.

5) It'll be impossible to aim properly and likely ineffective.

Try a traditional CIWS, or something that is more likely to take out/disable a missile (like an electromagnetic pulse, tungsten ball bearings etc.)

The problem is that you are suddenly introducing a very bulky system onto a fighter, and using weapon hard points for something that probably wouldn't work. Please take what I'm saying as constructive criticism. Air to air missiles will normally engage from above your aircraft (they are designed to travel through the ionosphere and then come up above the aircraft), and these missiles/rockets would be too small to maneuver fast enough. Furthermore, at 200 yards you would more likely damage your aircraft than you would damage the missile you are trying to stop - you don't have enough time to respond and the capsule is more likely to blow nearer to your aircraft. You are better off training your pilots how to maneuver than to rely on this system. Even at 200 yards, the explosion of the missile will cause structural damage to your aircraft (depending on the size of the warhead, that is).

Ok, so lets say I give it ball bearings instead of glass, didnt' use it on a Gnat but rather a different fighter, and put the range out to say 500 meters. Would that be any better?

Ok, so lets say I give it ball bearings instead of glass, didnt' use it on a Gnat but rather a different fighter, and put the range out to say 500 meters. Would that be any better?

The problem is the bulk of the system (and the lack of aerodynamic qualities, at that) and the fact that chances are it will do more harm to your aircraft than it will to incoming missiles. It will probably miss the missile entirely. I've read about putting small (thigh size) close-in weapon systems on aircraft, but those are specifically on bomber type aircraft (subsonic) and on a fighter you are better off trying to outmaneuver the missile.

The problem is the bulk of the system (and the lack of aerodynamic qualities, at that) and the fact that chances are it will do more harm to your aircraft than it will to incoming missiles. It will probably miss the missile entirely. I've read about putting small (thigh size) close-in weapon systems on aircraft, but those are specifically on bomber type aircraft (subsonic) and on a fighter you are better off trying to outmaneuver the missile.

So it might work on a bomber?

OOC:
I don't see how glass would work. What if they have an anti-strach film on the missile? The glas would be cut off entirely from doing any damage. Filling it with small M-80's that when launched and they explode around the missile would do more damage than glass.