Technology Stats Help

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1315680169' post='2798209']
Even simple logic makes this clear: The Mk 41 VLS is a hot launch system. Try putting that on a submarine.
[/quote]
Hot launch systems are smaller than cold launch systems, which makes perfect sense for submarines. Now if you're firing big missiles or want to maintain stealth, you're an idiot if you try to use the hot launch system.

Edited September 10, 2011 by HHAYD

[Malatose]

Mk 41 VLS is a hot launch, but perhaps maybe he's using an indigenous design? Maybe you should take that into consideration. For example, Russia and China use a combination in a circular revolver type system. Seeing as how that's in modern times (RL), using a more sophisticated system (since most nations here are at 2017 - upwards) isn't that difficult to phantom.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Malatose

[Kankou]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1315689726' post='2798286']
Hot launch systems are smaller than cold launch systems, which makes perfect sense for submarines. Now if you're firing big missiles or want to maintain stealth, you're an idiot if you try to use the hot launch system.
[/quote]
Except that we have the problem of taking care of the missile's exhaust and heat as it leaves the cell, while UNDERWATER. We can't use the SLBM style of launching, because we could need to add another stage to get the missile out of the water before the original first stage (the MK-72 booster) gets the chance to go.


[quote name='Malatose' timestamp='1315690763' post='2798292']
Mk 41 VLS is a hot launch, but perhaps maybe he's using an indigenous design? Maybe you should take that into consideration. For example, Russia and China use a combination in a circular revolver type system. Seeing as how that's in modern times (RL), using a more sophisticated system (since most nations here are at 2017 - upwards) isn't that difficult to phantom.
[/quote]
The circular revolver is a cold launch system, meaning we're going to have a bit of trouble getting the missile fired up before the booster comes into action.



If we combine everything, we get this result: We really don't have a way to get an extended-range, hypersonic, underwater submarine-launched missile. If we drop at least one of the characteristics we can have that particular type of missile, bur for all to be combined we would need a large submarine capable of having canisters which can withstand the powerful burst from the MK-72 booster, or deep enough to have an extra stage installed in the missile system. The average attack subs that we tend to RP do not have the capacity for such technology.

[Triyun]

It is fortunate all my attack subs are now made in super secret underground bunkers in Korea with access to magic.

[Markus Wilding]

Why should it matter? This is meant to be fun, not a military simulator. You want realistic, go play Red Orchestra.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1315697810' post='2798352']
It is fortunate all my attack subs are now made in super secret underground bunkers in Korea with access to magic.
[/quote]
I thought it was Black Technology, not Magic


[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1315697874' post='2798353']
Why should it matter? This is meant to be fun, not a military simulator. You want realistic, go play Red Orchestra.
[/quote]
Think of what would happen if everyone had physically impossible missiles.

[Triyun]

No that's my new missile submarine that has the Black Technology

Edited September 10, 2011 by Triyun

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1315697617' post='2798349']
Except that we have the problem of taking care of the missile's exhaust and heat as it leaves the cell, while UNDERWATER. We can't use the SLBM style of launching, because we could need to add another stage to get the missile out of the water before the original first stage (the MK-72 booster) gets the chance to go.
[/quote]
Oh, I assumed the submarine would surface before firing.

If it's firing underwater, the only option would be to fire gigantic torpedoes that have missiles loaded in them or use missiles that have eject-able underwater motors.


The main issue is that the sub would be limited to one or two missiles/torpedoes and wouldn't have much room for other stuff if it wants to maintain its stealth. Such launch systems would also inflate the hypersonic missiles' cost from "an arm and a leg" to "all of your !@#$@#$ limbs and organs".

Edited September 11, 2011 by HHAYD

[king of cochin]

There is no reason why a submarine would not be able to use a VLS system. If the issue is launchability, use the same way as is used in SLBMs, launch the missile to the surface using pressurized air in the sub's ballasts and once it breaches the surface the motors kick in. Now weapons in a VLS being far more lighter than a SLBM, lesser air pressure is required and greater volume of fire is possible.

You guys have to realize that in in an SLBM propulsion from the submarine itself is not achieved through the rocket motors on the missile. Hell, no submarine could survive the torture of a rocket motor starting within it.

[TheShammySocialist]

Might I also add that you have to fire most missiles from a minimum safety depth (usually periscope depth), to avoid damage to both the missiles and the submarine, as well as have enough force from the air pressure left to get it above the water so that rocket engine can kick in, as Cochin was saying above.

In theory and practice, this makes launching missiles a dangerous affair if you do not have absolute control of the seas around you.

Edited September 11, 2011 by TheShammySocialist

[Voodoo Nova]

I'm sick of what this thread has turned in to in recent months. The original intent of this thread is to help people create their own military technology. The whining and complaining about other peoples technology in my thread is over. Take it to the OOC thread where it belongs. If you do not have technology you need help developing, do not post here.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1315748201' post='2798676']
I'm sick of what this thread has turned in to in recent months. The original intent of this thread is to help people create their own military technology. The whining and complaining about other peoples technology in my thread is over. Take it to the OOC thread where it belongs. If you do not have technology you need help developing, do not post here.
[/quote]

The Technology Stats thread is considered by many to be a common thread for discourse pretty much like the CNRP OOC thread. If you think that just because you started this thread 2 years ago it is [b]your[/b] thread, sorry , please ask the mods to lock this up. This is a venue where all things pertaining to technology can and should be discussed and that includes helping people with creating their own technology as well as discussing of technological feasibility of peoples' RP.

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1315748606' post='2798679']
The Technology Stats thread is considered by many to be a common thread for discourse pretty much like the CNRP OOC thread. If you think that just because you started this thread 2 years ago it is [b]your[/b] thread, sorry , please ask the mods to lock this up. This is a venue where all things pertaining to technology can and should be discussed and that includes helping people with creating their own technology as well as discussing of technological feasibility of peoples' RP.
[/quote]

The intent of this thread is still valid. It is intended to [u][b][i]help[/i][/b][/u] people. It is not intended to whine about someone else. This entire subforum could use less whining. If you want to make a "Tech Complaint" topic, go right ahead. Until then, if someone asks for help, we give it. If someone wants to complain, they can take it elsewhere.

As a side note, I can't request a lock on an OOC thread.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Voodoo Nova

[Centurius]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1315748606' post='2798679']
The Technology Stats thread is considered by many to be a common thread for discourse pretty much like the CNRP OOC thread. If you think that just because you started this thread 2 years ago it is [b]your[/b] thread, sorry , please ask the mods to lock this up. This is a venue where all things pertaining to technology can and should be discussed and that includes helping people with creating their own technology as well as discussing of technological feasibility of peoples' RP.
[/quote]

No it's not, the purpose and meaning of the topic is still the same and truly all else is off topic.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1315749192' post='2798682']
The intent of this thread is still valid. It is intended to [u][b][i]help[/i][/b][/u] people. It is not intended to whine about someone else. This entire subforum could use less whining. If you want to make a "Tech Complaint" topic, go right ahead. Until then, if someone asks for help, we give it. If someone wants to complain, they can take it elsewhere.[/quote]
If you want to split the thread, then please be the one to make the new thread.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Kankou

[Captain Enema]

I'm sick of all the whining about the original intent of the thread. Get back on topic or I will be forced to take sanctions.

[Michael McBride]

Let the !@#$%*ing begin. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105201

[Prime minister Johns]

Ok I am going to break the mold and actually ask before implementing an idea to see if it is feasible.

I am considering introducing an air-launched ICBM system for some of my nuclear capacity, I have done extensive research and discovered that in the 1970's the USAF successfully tested the idea of launching a minuteman ICBM out of the cargo hold of a C5 Galaxy . [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It7SQ546xRk"]link[/url]

[Zoot Zoot]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' timestamp='1316243569' post='2802126']
Ok I am going to break the mold and actually ask before implementing an idea to see if it is feasible.

I am considering introducing an air-launched ICBM system for some of my nuclear capacity, I have done extensive research and discovered that in the 1970's the USAF successfully tested the idea of launching a minuteman ICBM out of the cargo hold of a C5 Galaxy . [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It7SQ546xRk"]link[/url]
[/quote]

Well you just answered your own question. It can be done, it HAS been done. But just never made it to active service. So if its feasibility your after, that would be an obviously no.

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1316249845' post='2802151']
Well you just answered your own question. It can be done, it HAS been done. But just never made it to active service. So if its feasibility your after, that would be an obviously no.
[/quote]
That is because another system was chosen, I am thinking of going down the path not chosen. Stealth technology is also available and can and has been applied to vehicles as large as a naval vessel (Using the La Fayette class frigate (last ship inc class launched in 2002 IRL) as my guide & the B2 bomber (Introduced 1997 IRL), my tech covers everything up to and including 2007 (actually late November 2008 if you want to get technical)), so this leads me to part two of my idea. Making a stealth aircraft that will be a dedicated launch platform for a minuteman type missile. The concept will basically be a stealthy c5 galaxy.

I am not asking for tech that has not been already been proven to exist before my tech limit, just for a slightly different application of that tech.

[Kankou]

It's feasible, but the question would be "Why that path? What's the strategy?".

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1316255767' post='2802169']
It's feasible, but the question would be "Why that path? What's the strategy?".
[/quote]
Why this path? Why not? And this tech will be built on for other purposes such as air launched satellite delivery systems at a later point, but that is a whole other idea that I will explore in depth when the appropriate time comes.

What is the point?
Well OOC the advantages of this system are numerous but the most obvious ones are...
1: A highly mobile & elusive launch platform is a hard target to hit on a first strike.
2: A stealthy airborne launch platform would provide similar strategic & tactical advantages to a "boomer" submarine, with the added benefit of speed at the expense of endurance.
3: An air launched missile has many advantages over a free fall bomb, such as a vastly improved stand off range enhancing the survivability of the launch aircraft by enabling the weapon to be launched outside the range of anti-air defenses.

Of course this system will have disadvantages but on balance I feel the system is viable as part of a larger strategy of which this system would be part of a triad of launch systems which would include airborne nukes, nuclear missile submarines, and land based deep earth silos.

[king of cochin]

Some glaring doubts appear to me on an initial look:

1. How stealthy can C5 made for it to be a useful stealth launch platform?
2. Even in a stealth aircraft how can something as massive enough to carry a massive ICBM have thermal stealth?
3. Even if you have created a perfect stealth platform wont the measure of stealth be lost during the launch time when the cargo bays are opened for some time?
4. Submarine launched missiles serving its primary purpose of having secondary strike capabilities are employed so that even if primary land based missile silos are taken out, they provide a strike option that is harder to engage. What secondary strike capability can your system provide considering its very low endurance and obvious dependence on land?
5. Considering C5s primarily require land based runways and considering a strategic weaponry like this would operate most likely within friendly air space ( an assumption) how would they be more advantageous than a land silo launched or a mobile TEL launched ICBM in terms of reaction speed and flexibility?
6. Considering airborne platforms are more vulnerable to weather phenomena than land based or sea based platforms how useful would such a system be?

Of course these are issues regarding practical deterrence utilities, by all means the idea seems workable but does not look like its serves any purpose.

[Centurius]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' timestamp='1316253745' post='2802161']
That is because another system was chosen, I am thinking of going down the path not chosen. Stealth technology is also available and can and has been applied to vehicles as large as a naval vessel (Using the La Fayette class frigate (last ship inc class launched in 2002 IRL) as my guide & the B2 bomber (Introduced 1997 IRL), my tech covers everything up to and including 2007 (actually late November 2008 if you want to get technical)), so this leads me to part two of my idea. Making a stealth aircraft that will be a dedicated launch platform for a minuteman type missile. The concept will basically be a stealthy c5 galaxy.

I am not asking for tech that has not been already been proven to exist before my tech limit, just for a slightly different application of that tech.
[/quote]

Let's separate two concepts here first, you have stealth and you have reduced rcs. The latter influences the former but just a reduced rcs isn't stealth in its true sense. There also is a serious difference between the true stealth used on aircraft and the naval "stealth". A C5 simply is too big to have stealth in its true sense, it would be possible to have a reduced rcs however it will still be easily detected by any state that has worked on its air defenses. While there is technology to improve the stealthiness this is well beyond your tech cap and as such can not be used yet. So yes it is possible but nowhere as stealthy as a B-2 or F-22 and most CNRP countries have defenses to detect a system as you outlined.

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' timestamp='1316261309' post='2802185']
Why this path? Why not? And this tech will be built on for other purposes such as air launched satellite delivery systems at a later point, but that is a whole other idea that I will explore in depth when the appropriate time comes.

What is the point?
Well OOC the advantages of this system are numerous but the most obvious ones are...
1: A highly mobile & elusive launch platform is a hard target to hit on a first strike.
2: A stealthy airborne launch platform would provide similar strategic & tactical advantages to a "boomer" submarine, with the added benefit of speed at the expense of endurance.
3: An air launched missile has many advantages over a free fall bomb, such as a vastly improved stand off range enhancing the survivability of the launch aircraft by enabling the weapon to be launched outside the range of anti-air defenses.

Of course this system will have disadvantages but on balance I feel the system is viable as part of a larger strategy of which this system would be part of a triad of launch systems which would include airborne nukes, nuclear missile submarines, and land based deep earth silos.
[/quote]

1. That's why we invented SSBNs, also the moment you launch an ICBM the thing lights up like a christmas tree to anyone who bothers looking.
2. Unlike a SSBN however the plane is easier to detect and the speed advantage also counts for interceptor aircraft in the supersonic and hypersonic ranges whereas an attack submarine is much slower and ASW in general is not as quick. As you pointed out it also lacks the capability to stay in the air for longer durations whereas a SSBN can stay submerged for as long as it takes the crew to use up its resources.
3. They're however not protected against interceptor aircraft and fighters in general so the survivability is most likely smaller than that of a B-2.

[Prime minister Johns]

1. How stealthy can C5 made for it to be a useful stealth launch platform?
Low radar observability by replacing the structure & shell with composites is the possible limit. There is a difference between stealthy and true stealth. And low observability is enough of an advantage to be strategically useful.

2. Even in a stealth aircraft how can something as massive enough to carry a massive ICBM have thermal stealth?
At the range the weapon will be fired thermal stealth will be unnecessary. It will be firing over the horizon... way over the horizon, considering the weapon has intercontinental range. well beyond the maximum theoretical limit of IR detection.

3. Even if you have created a perfect stealth platform wont the measure of stealth be lost during the launch time when the cargo bays are opened for some time?
Going for perfect stealth would be over-engineering the problem. And a dedicated cargo hold for an ICBM could get the missile out of the aircraft in less than 20 seconds, and after the missile is in the air shooting the delivery vehicle will do nothing to stop the missile. The diminished stealth caused by deploying the missile is a moot point.

4. Submarine launched missiles serving its primary purpose of having secondary strike capabilities are employed so that even if primary land based missile silos are taken out, they provide a strike option that is harder to engage. What secondary strike capability can your system provide considering its very low endurance and obvious dependence on land?
Having a airborne platform would increase the elusiveness of the platform. It would be able to evade the "super" SOSUS networks in place by simply not being in the water to be observed by SOSUS.
I remember from playing previously the SOSUS grids that could diagnose engine faults in SSNs from across the planet by their sound and provide a pinpoint location of that sound with an exact description of the ship that made it. I would rather not have all my eggs in the one basket when it comes to secondary strike considering the ease at which SSNs can be countered.

5. Considering C5s primarily require land based runways and considering a strategic weaponry like this would operate most likely within friendly air space ( an assumption) how would they be more advantageous than a land silo launched or a mobile TEL launched ICBM in terms of reaction speed and flexibility?
There is always international airspace that the plane can loiter in, it would not be exclusively deployed in friendly airspace. It's probable deployment area would be with the other support aircraft such as AWACS & Airborne command posts near the theater of operations, and it would have fighter cover to counter the interceptor threat it would face.

6. Considering airborne platforms are more vulnerable to weather phenomena than land based or sea based platforms how useful would such a system be?
At high altitude most weather phenomena can be avoided, most commercial aircraft fly at 35k feet (well within the flight ceiling of a C5) and avoid most of the weather systems such as storms and phenomena such as supercells and hurricanes are easily observed and a course can be plotted around them. And the odds of a hurricane being present at the spot it needs to be during an operation that requires exact positioning are quite low.

The best way of not being observed is to be beyond the range of observation, which this aircraft will accomplish. It is a different design philosophy.