Jump to content

Rebel Army-Kingdom of Cochin War


Voodoo Nova

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1324235566' post='2881287']
If without a proper reason, correct?
[/quote]
If someone disappears without proper notification, warning or reason, the world can not be expected to pause for them forever. Should someone return exclaiming they've been diagnosed with cancer or, been in an earthquake and without power for a month or whatever then I'm sure people would be more than willing to make concessions. 10 Days seems quite adequate for someone to find time to at least make an appearance and explain in the less dire everyday situations that most people find themselves in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1324236012' post='2881291']
You can't go into a lock after you invade someone else's territory. That said, we'll continue making efforts at trying to contact Cochin, but posting ten days isn't an unreasonable thing in an interactive war. Cochin has been offered a set of peace terms which tries to meet all what he wants to do, except it will give him a bit of a loss of face. Additionally he has the option on the table of doing the war as character RPs in exchange for higher advances. We're not spending 2 months on the beginning of this war. Other people have been in this same situation that he is in before.
[/quote]

Further...

His last activity was 12/18/2011 at 12:05 AM. So it isn't like he is inactive in game.

So yeah, 10 days is a bit much without any sort of word as to having some sort of OOC situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm calling shenanigans on your use of electro-optical targeting Cochin. EOTS is a [url="http://defense-update.com/features/2009/december/eots_production_111209.html"]combined forward-looking infrared and infrared search and track functionality sensor[/url]. In addition, it's used as a precision air-to-surface targeting system, with detection capabilities for some air-to-air targets. While you can see the targets on the EOTS, you wouldn't be able to launch surface-to-air missiles because the EOTS isn't designed to guide the missile. That's the job of the local RADAR, which works in conjunction with the EOTS. To put in simple terms, EOTS gives a better visual image. That's all it does. Nothing more and nothing less.

[quote]While the AESA radar provides the F-35 pilot with an all-weather, active targeting sensor, the electro-optical targeting system incorporates day/night passive sensors, unable to be detected by enemy warning systems. Providing high-resolution infrared imagery that is software-enhanced through signal processing, EOTS can give the F-35 pilot a closer look at the target area initially detected by the radar. "If you see [with the radar] a ground object of interest, you can pass the coordinates to the EOTS, to zoom in for long-range confirmation," says Porter.

"The two sensors complement each other," adds Mike Skaff, F-35 pilot/vehicle interface lead with Lockheed Martin. "Radar works well in weather, while EOTS is good for targeting, especially air-to-surface targeting, because of its high definition."

EOTS is part of the F-35's electro-optical sensor system (EOSS), developed by Orlando, Fla.-based Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. Lockheed also serves as lead in the EOTS's development, with support from BAE Systems. EOTS incorporates a targeting laser, TV camera and a third-generation infrared sensor.

What makes the internally mounted EOTS unique is that it is not turret-mounted. And its capabilities are comparable to those of the low altitude navigation and targeting infrared for night (LANTIRN) system but without the aerodynamic drag of a pod. (EOTS technology derives from Lockheed's Sniper targeting pod.) Rather, the EOTS' automatically boresighted sensor is positioned behind a glass-like sapphire housing that blends into the F-35's nose, just under the radar antenna, easily accessible by maintenance personnel.

The EOTS incorporates an air-to-surface FLIR tracker and air-to-air IRST system. It also includes a single aperture design and advanced, third-generation focal plane array, as well as a "spot tracker," capable of tracking a laser beam directed by a remote source.

EOTS has been sent to Lockheed Martin's F-35 mission systems integration lab in Fort Worth for testing in simulated scenarios. [/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1324358510' post='2882410']
Is Malatose saying there is no such thing as a SAM that uses Electro-optical targeting as its primary guidance system?
[/quote]

Indeed, and if it were used. EOTS can only designate one target at a time, which means it'll be a lot less capable than RADAR. For instance, if someone launched 100 cruise missiles at you, EOTS can only designate and target one at a time. In the time it takes to target just one, you'd already be dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]The Electro Optical targetting units of the AADN would immediately ensure that these are in fact only jamming missiles and a full fledged cruise missile attack is not on the way. However this distraction would be the ruse for a real attack so the AADN readied more Electro Optical Tracking units in case things heated up and this preparation did not go to waste.[/quote]

I would say, I'd find the main issue in this two things. First I do think that a electro optical scope as far as I know does have to home in on one thing to track it at a distance. I would say that getting that good a look at missiles 'immediately' after they are launched from very long distances stretches the rules of credulity. EO scopes aren't that good.

Second, readying more? Like how exactly. To track things over huge areas of battle you'd need a clear field of view. My guess is the missiles traveling hundreds of miles and hour if not thousands reach the targets first.

Beyond all of this, unlike radar, thermoscopes while effective at doing stuff like monitoring the ground directly below you for SAMs, would really be searching for a needle in a hay stack with the cruise missiles wouldn't they? I mean we're talking about objects no more than a foot in a half across over literally thousands and thousands of miles of open sky. A radar sends out a signal, and that signal bounces off an object right back at the radar. No such signal is sent with an IR detection system, it hoping to notice some anomaly in that vast expanse. So yes I think it could detect, but I think you'd need to let missiles get a lot closer, close to the point where they're almost in range to hit the target. So while an effective countermeasure up close, you'd take quite a few more hits than that.

Edited for inexplicable grammar. Thought I'd mention since Kankou posted she agreed after.

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Malatose' timestamp='1324354740' post='2882357']
I'm calling shenanigans on your use of electro-optical targeting Cochin. EOTS is a [url="http://defense-update.com/features/2009/december/eots_production_111209.html"]combined forward-looking infrared and infrared search and track functionality sensor[/url]. In addition, it's used as a precision air-to-surface targeting system, with detection capabilities for some air-to-air targets. While you can see the targets on the EOTS, you wouldn't be able to launch surface-to-air missiles because the EOTS isn't designed to guide the missile. That's the job of the local RADAR, which works in conjunction with the EOTS. To put in simple terms, EOTS gives a better visual image. That's all it does. Nothing more and nothing less.
[/quote]

Those systems were used in that post only to confirm whether the multiple bogeys detected are in fact cruise missiles and not just creative jamming, especially in the circumstances in which they appeared. Once confirmed that they are in fact real targets they would be handled pretty much the same way as other threats by the radars of AADN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly how does the AADN work? If you're talking about the launchers themselves, the missiles are too far away. If the missiles, then there is too little time for a good reaction. Basically, under current technology (and the supposed tech twenty years from now) there is no feasible way for a ground/missile based EOTS to react fast enough to filter all the bogeys. About 50% would be pushing it, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I have no doubt that the Cochinese EOTS is among the finest in the world. I do question how much detail you think you could get on a jamming missile versus a cruise missile at hundreds of miles away if see anything at all. I think this might be doable at like 20. Obviously you can see the missiles at far longer than that, but could you distinguish between the two? I think thats unlikely.

Also if I may add to what Kankou is saying, I think that you have to remember, this is an area with lots of stuff flying around on both sides. Not only would there be all these things to filter through. There would be Swedish, Cochinese, German, stuff flying back and forth beyond just these missiles.

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1324436153' post='2882975']
Exactly how does the AADN work? If you're talking about the launchers themselves, the missiles are too far away. If the missiles, then there is too little time for a good reaction. Basically, under current technology (and the supposed tech twenty years from now) there is no feasible way for a ground/missile based EOTS to react fast enough to filter all the bogeys. About 50% would be pushing it, IMO.
[/quote]

AADN is a cloud solution integrating Ground radars, airborne radars, satellites as well as all the targetting and reconnaissance systems in any particular sector with all the offensive and defensive weaponry in the region. Part of AADNs systems are the various Aerostats, that are assigned to Border Guards which have the EOTS in question here.

As per Malatose's attacks, the twenty drones would as they approach Cochin borders start emitting signals corresponding to 50 additional cruise missiles. Now this sudden bloom up of targets would no doubt be picked up by the radar network as an anomaly and the EOTS aboard the various Aerostats in the sectors would be assigned to ensure the nature of targets coming in. Their sole purpose here is to determine whether 20 inbounds are coming or 70 or 20x50 and that I suppose should not be hard for Aerostats that have been in field for some years.

As regards the filtering out, the signal anomaly would of course be liable to be narrowed down and tabulated by the radar networks and it would be studied by the super computers which form part of the computing power of AADN so that it may be filtered out effectively, ie the additional signal sources would be seen for what they are at the moment, as decoys. Also this mode of attack would also alert the AADN to be aware that more such attacks could be in the offing which is why for the second salvo of cruise missiles, AADN chose for a confirmation from the EOTS before downgrading the threat.

Also this detection of incoming missiles would happen from the moment they near say 100-50 kms near the Cochin borders. The interdiction of these missiles would happen from the moment they cross the Cochin borders.


[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1324436519' post='2882980']
While I have no doubt that the Cochinese EOTS is among the finest in the world. I do question how much detail you think you could get on a jamming missile versus a cruise missile at hundreds of miles away if see anything at all. I think this might be doable at like 20. Obviously you can see the missiles at far longer than that, but could you distinguish between the two? I think thats unlikely.

Also if I may add to what Kankou is saying, I think that you have to remember, this is an area with lots of stuff flying around on both sides. Not only would there be all these things to filter through. There would be Swedish, Cochinese, German, stuff flying back and forth beyond just these missiles.
[/quote]

The point is not to distinguish between two types of missiles, but to ascertain whether the numbers of missiles is correct or not. Surely one source suddenly multiplying to 50 sources would be visibly obvious to an EOTS as opposed to one source just carrying on. Again EOTS used in this defense is not as a targetting tool, but to confirm the numbers of inbound systems.

Hope that answers the doubts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cochin a couple things. First I think that you're really putting a lot of over degree of faith in a computer program. Basically this computer program seems to take all human analysis out of the picture and that just feels like its unlikely to me. If you detect something moving that fast at 50-100 clicks, that is not a lot of time to do any sort of analysis when its moving really fast. Integrating all that data, making a decision, etc across all these fronts? That seems to be a stretch for computing power to do with this degree of accuracy. Its really hard for the most advanced missile defense equipped ships to shoot down a missile only focusing on one. With this many, decoys, this much input to take in, I don't see how a computer could get as good as the system you've described above, considering its dealing with all my !@#$, all cent's !@#$, all Shammy's !@#$, all Justits !@#$, all IA's !@#$... a lot of !@#$ :lol1: I can see how a well staffed air command could deal with that, but humans can't work that fast with such a short detection range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1324450322' post='2883175']
Cochin a couple things. First I think that you're really putting a lot of over degree of faith in a computer program. Basically this computer program seems to take all human analysis out of the picture and that just feels like its unlikely to me. If you detect something moving that fast at 50-100 clicks, that is not a lot of time to do any sort of analysis when its moving really fast. Integrating all that data, making a decision, etc across all these fronts? That seems to be a stretch for computing power to do with this degree of accuracy. Its really hard for the most advanced missile defense equipped ships to shoot down a missile only focusing on one. With this many, decoys, this much input to take in, I don't see how a computer could get as good as the system you've described above, considering its dealing with all my !@#$, all cent's !@#$, all Shammy's !@#$, all Justits !@#$, all IA's !@#$... a lot of !@#$ :lol1: I can see how a well staffed air command could deal with that, but humans can't work that fast with such a short detection range.
[/quote]

It is not just the computer that is doing the work. There are also teams of technicians in each and every sector. And it is not like one single computer. These are multiple networks which are however integrated in a tight manner.

For example in this case: The sudden increase in bogeys would definitely ring an alarm in the AADN and the order to get the EOTS to look would be done by the manual operators who would then classify it as a decoy attack. Similarly the order to check the second salvo would also be issued by the technicians albeit using the tools of AADN to locate the source vector of threat and assigning units which checks it.

And it is not like one single team is responsible for the entire AADN. Various threat sectors have their own tactical teams who oversee the AADN operations in their own sectors. I mean, Triyun is attacking along the Eastern borders of Xinjiang and Tibet, those are effectively three or four separate AADN sectors themselves, Lavo from Punjab/Sindh, Cent from south of Kyrghyztan, Shammy from West/North of Kyrghyztan, Malatose from Pavlodar/Akmola and Impy from East Kazakhstan, North Xinjiang. There is an interchange of information, but that is on a strategic level and on primarily information sharing. The AADN sector operators in Hami for example would have nothing to do with the AADN operations along Almaty border. After all attacks are coming from multiple vectors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just noticed something: Malatose has eight squadrons of bombers launch 20 drones per bomber, meaning the total is close to 1920 drones. Not sure if we're even allowed that, since I never seen him develop/deploy such drones. If he did, please tell him to link me to the development/deployment. I wouldn't even go into the spamming argument as of yet.

Furthermore, the vast amount of drones emitting the jamming would most likely interfere with each others signals, thereby pretty much neutralizing the entire system down. It is virtually impossible for the 1920 drones to make it seem as if 96000 cruise missiles are flying around without severe degradation in the jamming itself. One might argue that the developors might have somehow overcome this, but it begs the question: Exactly what is the use of having that signal in the air pretty much neutralizing its very effectiveless by drowning itself in all that signal? At the rate thigns are going, it's more likely that Cochin;s AADN would be able to slightly have its receptors changed to screen out drone jamming out (like how subs can cancel out all other noises to get to one specific frequency) and focus entirely on the actual cruise missiles.

I really can't see Malatose getting out of this without heavy modification or a wipe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be a bit amusing to see several hundred drones and cruise missiles in one huge vortex of confusion over a single foxhole with some scared private first class inside of it who is crapping his pants something fierce.

Out of consideration for the entertainment need of the community I implore you all to make this happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1324464046' post='2883234']
It would be a bit amusing to see several hundred drones and cruise missiles in one huge vortex of confusion over a single foxhole with some scared private first class inside of it who is crapping his pants something fierce.

Out of consideration for the entertainment need of the community I implore you all to make this happen.
[/quote]

You got it!! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1324452134' post='2883187']
I just noticed something: Malatose has eight squadrons of bombers launch 20 drones per bomber, meaning the total is close to 1920 drones. Not sure if we're even allowed that, since I never seen him develop/deploy such drones. If he did, please tell him to link me to the development/deployment. I wouldn't even go into the spamming argument as of yet.

Furthermore, the vast amount of drones emitting the jamming would most likely interfere with each others signals, thereby pretty much neutralizing the entire system down. It is virtually impossible for the 1920 drones to make it seem as if 96000 cruise missiles are flying around without severe degradation in the jamming itself. One might argue that the developors might have somehow overcome this, but it begs the question: Exactly what is the use of having that signal in the air pretty much neutralizing its very effectiveless by drowning itself in all that signal? At the rate thigns are going, it's more likely that Cochin;s AADN would be able to slightly have its receptors changed to screen out drone jamming out (like how subs can cancel out all other noises to get to one specific frequency) and focus entirely on the actual cruise missiles.

I really can't see Malatose getting out of this without heavy modification or a wipe.
[/quote]

They're not drones. They're modified/older cruise missiles with ECM warheads. Yes, I agree that the signals would cancel eachother out, when using older jamming devices. However, with the use of DRFM, that'd be pretty much impossible to do, as the signals are more attuned. Also, the technique I used isn't something out of the ordinary. One of NATO's biggest fears was an attack of this magnitude against their carrier battle groups and against specific targets in Europe incase WWIII were to erupt, as the Soviets had invested large amounts into offensive ECM weaponry. Also, no matter what, if his RADAR is jammed, no EOTS is going to have the range to engage those missiles in enough time to counter them. If EOTS had that kind of range, I don't think the U.S would have spent billions developing AESA for the F-35 if an EOTS suite could do the same job.

Edited by Malatose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Malatose' timestamp='1324497095' post='2883419']
They're not drones. They're modified/older cruise missiles with ECM warheads. Yes, I agree that the signals would cancel eachother out, when using older jamming devices. However, with the use of DRFM, that'd be pretty much impossible to do, as the signals are more attuned. Also, the technique I used isn't something out of the ordinary. One of NATO's biggest fears was an attack of this magnitude against their carrier battle groups and against specific targets in Europe incase WWIII were to erupt, as the Soviets had invested large amounts into offensive ECM weaponry. Also, no matter what, if his RADAR is jammed, no EOTS is going to have the range to engage those missiles in enough time to counter them. If EOTS had that kind of range, I don't think the U.S would have spent billions developing AESA for the F-35 if an EOTS suite could do the same job.
[/quote]
What you wrote:

[quote name='Malatose' timestamp='1323745557' post='2876005']
As they neared the border region, the doors on the bomb bays opened and unleased about twenty [b]small drone missiles[/b] a piece.

The only thing significant on the missile was the rocket propulsion system and electronic jamming warheads.[/quote]

Maybe you should have just left out the reference to drone.


Second, my main point is that given the appearance of an impossible amount of missiles, the AADN can be ordered to tune out the same/similar frequencies, leaving only the stronger true CM signals to be detected. Furthermore, even DRFM would face a lot of problems having to deal with emitting 96000 missiles signals, for there is only so much you have variate the frequencies. Basically, you overdid it, and not even the most advanced DRFM will be able to fool an AADN on Cochin's level. You should have launched only on ECM missile per bomber: that would have been a fool-proof job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...