Technology Stats Help

[Uberstein]

What tech level is needed for those UAV Helicopter-snipers?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/91275-U-S-Army-Tests-Flying-Sniper-Rifle

[Markus Wilding]

[quote name='king of cochin' date='09 April 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1270833946' post='2254419']
The weapon seems pretty straight forward, and there is no reason why you should not be able to use it at your tech level.
[/quote]
Now for my next brilliant question; would I be able to utilize an auto-aim system to identify enemy targets and engage them? Or is that something I'd need to employ another nation to help with?

[Executive Minister]

I'd feel much safer if you used an operator located several hundred miles away instead. Killer robots going on a rampage frighten me.

[JerreyRough]

If you want a turret that shoots any moving target in sight, then [url="http://www.paintballsentry.com/index.htm"]here is a good example[/url] of a fully autonomous turret. However, it may or may not have a chance of shooting your own men; but if their statement "advanced filtering ensuring only true targets are detected while filtering out false targets" is true, then there should be a way to make it ignore friendlies. It is a robot though. It may have errors and target your own troops, shoot rooming cattle, birds, etc. I wouldn't suggest it unless you have a human operator watching over a group of such turrets: that way, they can alert the operator of movement and then the operator can respond and either control or turn on the turret.

Just remember that its still a turret; ranged explosives can more than likely take out a turret limited to a small camera.

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='BaronUberstein' date='09 April 2010 - 12:47 PM' timestamp='1270842423' post='2254542']
What tech level is needed for those UAV Helicopter-snipers?

[url="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/91275-U-S-Army-Tests-Flying-Sniper-Rifle"]http://www.escapistm...ng-Sniper-Rifle[/url]
[/quote]
I dunno how to answer this, But I thought the people who can should be reminded of Uber's question...

[Markus Wilding]

[quote name='JerreyRough' date='09 April 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1270856810' post='2254747']
If you want a turret that shoots any moving target in sight, then [url="http://www.paintballsentry.com/index.htm"]here is a good example[/url] of a fully autonomous turret. However, it may or may not have a chance of shooting your own men; but if their statement "advanced filtering ensuring only true targets are detected while filtering out false targets" is true, then there should be a way to make it ignore friendlies. It is a robot though. It may have errors and target your own troops, shoot rooming cattle, birds, etc. I wouldn't suggest it unless you have a human operator watching over a group of such turrets: that way, they can alert the operator of movement and then the operator can respond and either control or turn on the turret.

Just remember that its still a turret; ranged explosives can more than likely take out a turret limited to a small camera.
[/quote]
They will have operators, like I said in the post they'll have to be maintained by engineers so that they won't either

A: Go on a rampage and kill everything in sight or
B: Not engage targets at all.

The way I see these turrets being used is as a static defense, mainly for important cities or holding anything of value where offensive operations won't be needed to minimize the risk of friendly fire from said turrets.

[The FSM]

HHAYD, EARS (if I recall correctly) was intended to locate snipers based on the sound of them shooting. So long as there is not alot of ambient or background noise then it should work fine for this purpose. However, it wouldnt do you much good in the middle of a firefight.

Markus, while at 50 tech Im sure you can have sentry guns, Im not sure you are at a high enough tech level to have sentry guns with computerized auto-aim controls and advanced IFF recognition capabilities.

Uberstein, that seems like a 1500+ tech thing to me since the military is only in the early prototype stage with that thing. (Thats just my opinion though)

[Uberstein]

How long should the development time be of a 8.56mm semi-automatic 690mm-barrel-length sniper rifle?

[iKrolm]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='27 April 2010 - 08:38 AM' timestamp='1272382709' post='2277349']
*The following weapons will be replace the recalled weapons for all infantry men
--The MR-C/PAPOP Fusion (hereby named the D71-M) will replace the XM-8 AR with the following specs:
-->
[Quote]
Weight: 5.5 kg unloaded; 7 kg with ammunition
Length: 830 mm
Width: 120 mm
Height: 30 mm
Diameter: 5.56 mm 30 mm
Calibre: 5.56 NATO 35mm
Muzzle velocity: 1500 to 1800 m/s
Effective range: 600 metres
Feed system: removable magazine
Sights: targeting computer
Filling weight: 43g[/Quote]
[/quote]

Hey SOM, I'm assuming you mean the 5.56x[i]45[/i] NATO round?

If so, I don't think you could get that [url="http://counterstrikefox.freeservers.com/mv.htm"]muzzle velocity with the 5.56[/url] in a battle rifle.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='iKrolm' date='27 April 2010 - 03:55 PM' timestamp='1272398092' post='2277531']
Hey SOM, I'm assuming you mean the 5.56x[i]45[/i] NATO round?

If so, I don't think you could get that [url="http://counterstrikefox.freeservers.com/mv.htm"]muzzle velocity with the 5.56[/url] in a battle rifle.
[/quote]


I think you misread it. If you aren't savvy with the way wikipedia does it, it separates the bullet and grenade calibers. The PAPOP is a 5.56 NATO bullet that uses (in addition) a 35 mm programmable grenade in its grenade launcher.

[quote]
The rifle fires sub-calibre ammunition with a 5.56 NATO sabot with a muzzle velocity of 1500 to 1800 metres per second. The new ammunition offers an enhanced range, and increases the penetrability enough to defeat individual armour of the PASGT type even at great distance.[/quote]
[quote]
The second tube is a semi-automatic 35 mm grenade launcher with programmable shells. A large selector switches from rifle to grenade.

Three grenades are carried in a tubular magazine. They can be programmed to explode near the target, with two selectable yields; pre-cut shrapnels can be projected either towards the front, the side or the rear of the projectile, depending on how the charge is activated, which are lethal in a 5-metre radius. The 35 mm calibre was selected as to offer capabilities to penetrate flak vests.[/quote]

Likewise, the main AIF-PAPOP site can be found at: http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/sof/sofpapop.html
That link is in French so beware if you aren't savvy with French, but that's the main source for it. Sorry for the mix up, and also I do not believe there is even a 5.56 x 35 mm NATO round.

Edited April 27, 2010 by SpacingOutMan

[iKrolm]

Ok, got it. Might want to put a line break in your post before the grenade calibre.

[HHAYD]

Is it possible for me to place high air pressure nozzle or mini rocket boosters on the side, top, and bottom of a jet fighter to increase maneuverability? Or would that trash the aircraft?

For my heavy fighters and bombers (both are missile spammers, is it possible for them to drop the missiles and then the missiles behave like AA or anti-ground unit missiles instead of dumb bombs?

Edited May 23, 2010 by HHAYD

[Malatose]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='22 May 2010 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1274577067' post='2308615']
Is it possible for me to place high air pressure nozzle or mini rocket boosters on the side, top, and bottom of a jet fighter to increase maneuverability? Or would that trash the aircraft?

For my heavy fighters and bombers (both are missile spammers, is it possible for them to drop the missiles and then the missiles behave like AA or anti-ground unit missiles instead of dumb bombs?
[/quote]

1. For the high air pressure nozzles..you'd totally screw over the aircraft.

2. That is possible

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Malatose' date='22 May 2010 - 08:27 PM' timestamp='1274578014' post='2308626']
1. For the high air pressure nozzles..you'd totally screw over the aircraft.
[/quote]
And the mini-rocket boosters would cause even worse damage to the aircraft than the high air pressure nozzles?...

[Fizzydog]

Question: I want to create a B-2 Spirit stealth aircraft, which was first flown in 1989. So, since that is maximum time for third world tech age, would I be allowed to build it?

Dirty Bombs: Can I build?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit

Edited May 23, 2010 by Fizzydog

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Fizzydog' date='23 May 2010 - 09:48 AM' timestamp='1274622498' post='2309034']
Question: I want to create a B-2 Spirit stealth aircraft, which was first flown in 1989. So, since that is maximum time for third world tech age, would I be allowed to build it?


[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit"]http://en.wikipedia....wiki/B-2_Spirit[/url]
[/quote]

Of course. Although its advantages would be drastically reduced compared to modern or first world RPers, naturally.

[Fizzydog]

Well I know that. And just in case you didn't see my edit, do dirty bombs count as nuclear weapons or CMs?

[Zoot Zoot]

WMD's, so cruise missiles.

But dirty bombs are just the equivilant of for example, a carbomb, packed with radioactive material.
All a dirty bomb does is send radioactive debris over an area of the explosion.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Fizzydog' date='23 May 2010 - 09:53 AM' timestamp='1274622789' post='2309036']
Well I know that. And just in case you didn't see my edit, do dirty bombs count as nuclear weapons or CMs?
[/quote]


[quote name='Zoot Zoot' date='23 May 2010 - 10:01 AM' timestamp='1274623248' post='2309040']
WMD's, so cruise missiles.

But dirty bombs are just the equivilant of for example, a carbomb, packed with radioactive material.
All a dirty bomb does is send radioactive debris over an area of the explosion.
[/quote]

Not necessarily a cruise missile. We've had yet to have a ruling on non-Nuclear tactical weapons == IG CM's yet... but its been in the running for sometime. I'd imagine that if it was a nuclear device of any sort, that they'd say its an IG nuke. I may be wrong.

[iKrolm]

Got a question: Lets say I launch a couple of small military satellites into LEO. Unless I paint my flag or something on them, is there an accurate way for another nation to determine that the satellites do belong to me?

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='iKrolm' date='27 May 2010 - 01:57 PM' timestamp='1274983054' post='2313679']
Got a question: Lets say I launch a couple of small military satellites into LEO. Unless I paint my flag or something on them, is there an accurate way for another nation to determine that the satellites do belong to me?
[/quote]

Satellites always have unique orbits as a means to avoid collision, so if you have your orbit publicly known, then it would be fairly easy to know whose is what via high-powered telescopes.

[king of cochin]

Unless the satellite's launch and subsequent orbiting is tracked or its published orbit is known I dont think there is anyway to find out whose satellite it is. Most RL satellites do have flag boards attached to them, but I am assuming you are asking about a situation where no such identifier is built in prior to launch.

[iKrolm]

So spy roll to locate the satellites before you start launching missiles?

(Or just hit LEO with a bunch of hydrogen bombs. )

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='iKrolm' date='27 May 2010 - 10:04 PM' timestamp='1275023058' post='2314307']
So spy roll to locate the satellites before you start launching missiles?

(Or just hit LEO with a bunch of hydrogen bombs. )
[/quote]
You do the last, you'll have a bunch of nations pissed at you.

[king of cochin]

Since IRL all satellites have their orbiting information displayed publicly to avoid collision it is reasonable to assume that there is such a hypothetical system in CNRP too. By this we can know which satellites are whose but their roles could be open for interpretation. It could just be a commercial communications, remote sensing or military reconnaissance.