|
Post by the light works on Jan 26, 2019 5:37:49 GMT
so... how high does it "lob" this cluster bomb? how large is the blast radius? what is the launch vehicle for this weapon?
overall, it seems like a gimmick weapon that could be circumvented by a military that knew what its capabilities were.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 26, 2019 6:50:45 GMT
so... how high does it "lob" this cluster bomb? how large is the blast radius? what is the launch vehicle for this weapon? overall, it seems like a gimmick weapon that could be circumvented by a military that knew what its capabilities were. "Every day at XX:XX the OPFOR has such-and-such aircraft moving through this area at a low altitude because of _____. The plan is to rig a couple of these devices up in the native growth that's there and show them why it's such a bad idea to not vary your schedules." "The enemy commander has a pattern: if there's possible enemy contact, he'll send in his turboprops first to lay down some firepower. We've never seen them go higher than _____ while they're making their runs, so if we can get something to make some noise we'll have a perfect chance to take them out." Things like that. Basically, they'd be traps put in place when people know enemy aircraft are going to be stupidly in position.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 26, 2019 7:39:32 GMT
so... how high does it "lob" this cluster bomb? how large is the blast radius? what is the launch vehicle for this weapon? overall, it seems like a gimmick weapon that could be circumvented by a military that knew what its capabilities were. "Every day at XX:XX the OPFOR has such-and-such aircraft moving through this area at a low altitude because of _____. The plan is to rig a couple of these devices up in the native growth that's there and show them why it's such a bad idea to not vary your schedules." "The enemy commander has a pattern: if there's possible enemy contact, he'll send in his turboprops first to lay down some firepower. We've never seen them go higher than _____ while they're making their runs, so if we can get something to make some noise we'll have a perfect chance to take them out." Things like that. Basically, they'd be traps put in place when people know enemy aircraft are going to be stupidly in position. so basically a deterrent to people trying to fly below radar. the next question would be what is the targeting method? antiradar flight is usually accompanied by countermeasures - so you would have to decide whether to try to use the countermeasures as a trigger or make your system use a method there are currently no countermeasures for. if yuor opponent had sufficiently distinctive airframes, you could use an optical trigger on a fixed aim device. in that case, the deterrent might make it worth the investment whereas something that would work a few times and then become ineffective would be a waste of investment unless you could make it really cheap.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 26, 2019 13:09:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 26, 2019 13:19:41 GMT
Idea that came to me earlier. Basically, it would be for a type of anti-aircraft weapon. The device would lob large cluster munitions into the air. Once the munitions either impact something or hit a designated altitude, they'll explode and basically release giant metal shot. These would be a type of remote-activated unit, essentially an ambush or trap for passing aircraft. Isn't that pretty much what the German Flack guns of WW-2 did? As did Allied AA-guns as well. In fact with the addition of radar guidance and radio controlled fuses Amercian guns were able to shot down around 90% of V1 flying bombs sent against the targets they defended.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 26, 2019 15:42:46 GMT
what I am envisioning is somewhat different in design and function. whether it is the same as Ironhold is envisioning isn't certain, but I am envisioning something along the lines of an area denial mission, which is deployed something like mining a potential approach route.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 26, 2019 22:53:30 GMT
what I am envisioning is somewhat different in design and function. whether it is the same as Ironhold is envisioning isn't certain, but I am envisioning something along the lines of an area denial mission, which is deployed something like mining a potential approach route. Something like barrage balloons with an explosive payload.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 26, 2019 23:37:24 GMT
what I am envisioning is somewhat different in design and function. whether it is the same as Ironhold is envisioning isn't certain, but I am envisioning something along the lines of an area denial mission, which is deployed something like mining a potential approach route. Something like barrage balloons with an explosive payload. an explosive payload and an explosive deployment process. or, like a pop-up traffic bollard for airplanes.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 26, 2019 23:52:25 GMT
Something like barrage balloons with an explosive payload. an explosive payload and an explosive deployment process. or, like a pop-up traffic bollard for airplanes. Or an aerial Bouncing Betty mine. One problem might be f you are deploying this for aircraft at below radar height the explosive charge and shot could damage the ground installations you are trying to protect. You could belly them a distance from the targets but then it's difficult to ensure the enemy planes will take that route to the target, the number of times you'll be able to tell were enemy aircraft are coming from in time to deploy such device s is limited.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 27, 2019 0:06:30 GMT
an explosive payload and an explosive deployment process. or, like a pop-up traffic bollard for airplanes. Or an aerial Bouncing Betty mine. One problem might be f you are deploying this for aircraft at below radar height the explosive charge and shot could damage the ground installations you are trying to protect. You could belly them a distance from the targets but then it's difficult to ensure the enemy planes will take that route to the target, the number of times you'll be able to tell were enemy aircraft are coming from in time to deploy such device s is limited. yes. I was thinking they could be used in places where terrain might make it tempting to try to fly below radar. - and aren't a high enough value route to put manned antiaircraft weapons there. and yes, a high altitude bouncing betty is pretty much what I am thinking of.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 27, 2019 0:29:47 GMT
If we're talking open area, like jungle, forest, or mountain, the only thing you'd really risk is the launcher itself.
...They're also areas where flight crews would be flying low to the ground, mountains because even at altitude there's not a lot of clearance and the others for bombing runs or to try and conceal movement.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 27, 2019 12:43:31 GMT
To put it simply what you are describing is a very large unguided AA missile set off by an automated system that is useful in a very particular circumstance.
If it was a good idea why wouldn't the US and it's NATO allies, the Russians, Chinese have something similar in their inventories, it seems a retrograde step,compared to a man portable system like a guided AA weapon like a Stinger.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 27, 2019 15:51:36 GMT
To put it simply what you are describing is a very large unguided AA missile set off by an automated system that is useful in a very particular circumstance. If it was a good idea why wouldn't the US and it's NATO allies, the Russians, Chinese have something similar in their inventories, it seems a retrograde step,compared to a man portable system like a guided AA weapon like a Stinger. I'm thinking cheap and low maintenance. relatively low tech, too. or to put it in different terms, WE wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 27, 2019 17:01:38 GMT
To put it simply what you are describing is a very large unguided AA missile set off by an automated system that is useful in a very particular circumstance. If it was a good idea why wouldn't the US and it's NATO allies, the Russians, Chinese have something similar in their inventories, it seems a retrograde step,compared to a man portable system like a guided AA weapon like a Stinger. I'm thinking cheap and low maintenance. relatively low tech, too. or to put it in different terms, WE wouldn't. The Soviets liked rugged simple systems like the AK-47, they did not deploy something like this.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 27, 2019 17:10:00 GMT
I'm thinking cheap and low maintenance. relatively low tech, too. or to put it in different terms, WE wouldn't. The Soviets liked rugged simple systems like the AK-47, they did not deploy something like this. I was including them in "WE." think more of a group with a severe tech and material disadvantage.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 27, 2019 17:47:55 GMT
The Soviets liked rugged simple systems like the AK-47, they did not deploy something like this. I was including them in "WE." think more of a group with a severe tech and material disadvantage. Like the British after the retreat from Dunkirk, inventors came up with all sorts of crazy ideas to stop German tanks and aircraft only a very few of which actually worked. There comes a time when you have to cull those that won't work or will require too much effort compared to solutions that do the job.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 27, 2019 23:05:43 GMT
I was including them in "WE." think more of a group with a severe tech and material disadvantage. Like the British after the retreat from Dunkirk, inventors came up with all sorts of crazy ideas to stop German tanks and aircraft only a very few of which actually worked. There comes a time when you have to cull those that won't work or will require too much effort compared to solutions that do the job. but on the other hand, some ideas, like the dam buster bomb, worked quite well. and some of the others made great blooper reels.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 28, 2019 13:44:29 GMT
To put it simply what you are describing is a very large unguided AA missile set off by an automated system that is useful in a very particular circumstance. If it was a good idea why wouldn't the US and it's NATO allies, the Russians, Chinese have something similar in their inventories, it seems a retrograde step,compared to a man portable system like a guided AA weapon like a Stinger. I'm thinking cheap and low maintenance. relatively low tech, too. or to put it in different terms, WE wouldn't. If its a one shot weapon its expensive in terms of resources and manpower, as you would need to replace the deployed munitions afterwards and quickly. Or you have a gap in your defenses. If they are designed for multiple shots, well you still have to deploy troops to reload them at some point. If they are fixed you'd be better off using artillery AA guns which are mobile both in terms of deployment and in regards being able to redirect fire in different directions. They can also be used as conventional artillery in a pinch. Such a system may be useful for rapidly deploying barrage balloons. But said balloons would still need crews to work them. They would also need a lot of manpower to put in place as barrage balloons require a very secure base to keep them in place.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 28, 2019 14:00:55 GMT
I'm thinking cheap and low maintenance. relatively low tech, too. or to put it in different terms, WE wouldn't. If its a one shot weapon its expensive in terms of resources and manpower, as you would need to replace the deployed munitions afterwards and quickly. Or you have a gap in your defenses. If they are designed for multiple shots, well you still have to deploy troops to reload them at some point. If they are fixed you'd be better off using artillery AA guns which are mobile both in terms of deployment and in regards being able to redirect fire in different directions. They can also be used as conventional artillery in a pinch. Such a system may be useful for rapidly deploying barrage balloons. But said balloons would still need crews to work them. They would also need a lot of manpower to put in place as barrage balloons require a very secure base to keep them in place. so how many units and how many rapid acquiring AA guns are you going to have to cover remote locations that the enemy might or might not come flying in, in a low level sneak attack? now, look at the difference between what I described and what you described. you take the bouncing behemoth and bury it in the path of a potential low altitude invasion. or you dispatch an antiaircraft gun, and detail a crew to maintain it in a remote location. camouflage the emplacement in order to prevent the enemy knowing to avoid that approach, provide regular supply missions to feed your crew, establish forward lookout posts to assure readiness if there should be an approach. which defensive emplacement is going to be more useful to a small group expecting an attack by a larger better equipped army? a minefield or a maginot line? addendum: by which I'm saying, if you can't just whip out your credit card and buy job lots of antiaircraft guns and soldiers to create a manned defensive line, what is a relatively cheap unmanned system you can acquire to at least bloody the nose of an invader and force them to be careful?
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 28, 2019 15:25:35 GMT
How many people would you need to transport and set up the air-mines?
How many people would you need to keep an eye on the system, and ensure that it isn't activated by a recon flight or a flock of birds?
How many people are you going to need on hand to reload and reset the system? Invasions do not consist of a single wave of troops, there will be multiple waves of troops. Your system needs to be able to engage both of them as they come in.
You NEED to have personal and observers on hand to verify that any alerts are genuine and provide real time information. Along with maintaining the defensive systems and defending them from attacks. If an enemy knows you have some kind of military presence in that area they may well, and probably will, send in ground troops to disable those defenses in advance of any invasion.
You don't need state of the art artillery guns to provide low level anti-aircraft fire. You can drag older guns out of storage or training facilities. All those guns need are ammunition, which if you will either already have or be able to produce far more cheaply than the air mines. A 20mm cannon would only require a crew of two in a pinch (the gunner and someone to run ammunition to the gun) and even larger guns that lack an automatic loader would potentially only need two or three men (Gunner, loader and maybe someone to run the ammunition to the gun when immediate supplies are used up). Aircraft are fragile things and it doesn't take much to bring them down or cause them to abort and head for home. You only need very big guns to be able to throw shells to higher altitudes. Which is not an issue here.
The number of personal needed in total would depend on the number of guns, although more would be needed for the initial deployment you'd need those personal to set up an 'minefield' anyway - probably more of them as the gun crews themselves should be able to position the guns once they reach the location. They would also be able to redeploy their guns between waves. Preventing anti-air assets from being briefed on the exact positions of the defenses. You would probably be looking at 50-100 troops, none of whom have to be taken from the front lines.
These troops would have an additional level of deterrent; They have big guns, any invasion force would find them sitting behind them right on top of their supply line and of course they are literally holding the high ground. Such a force, small though it may be, would have to be dealt with sooner rather than later. Which means either attacking them before the invasion takes place, which will alert the enemy to your intentions, or deal with them afterwards. Which means redirecting some of your force from the invasion itself to deal with the annoyance.
A minefield doesn't STOP an enemy, it just slows them down, and once you get through it it becomes useless. The most effective minefields are those that are backed up by troops who can try and convince the minesweepers to go away or at least delay them long enough that your main force can conduct a counter-strike.
The system you are talking about would have its uses, IF part of a layered defensive system. In this case AA guns with the 'mines' being activated when you have a very large force overhead.
|
|