| Return Create A Forum - Home | |
| --------------------------------------------------------- | |
| NeoConfederate States fo AMerica | |
| https://ncsa.createaforum.com | |
| --------------------------------------------------------- | |
| ***************************************************** | |
| Return to: Factbooks and National Information | |
| ***************************************************** | |
| #Post#: 72-------------------------------------------------- | |
| The Military Realism Thread, MK-1: The dummy stage | |
| By: Caos Date: May 2, 2015, 12:49 pm | |
| --------------------------------------------------------- | |
| [glow=red,2,300][shadow=red,left][font=times new roman]Welcome, | |
| one and all, to the Military Realism Thread, MK-1: The Dummy | |
| Stage![/font][/shadow][/glow] | |
| Hey! Welcome. | |
| First off, the title is not an insult. It's a joke. MK-1s are | |
| always the dummy stage. | |
| Anyway, lets get down to business. | |
| This is a thread where you, yes, you, the player can ask me, or | |
| ANYONE, about military. Whether it be anything from bullet | |
| caliber to nuclear weaponry, if you've got a question, ask it | |
| here, and we will do our best to answer truthfully and honestly. | |
| And also not spew out something really bad. | |
| So, hop right in, boys! | |
| #Post#: 94-------------------------------------------------- | |
| Re: The Military Realism Thread, MK-1: The dummy stage | |
| By: david090366 Date: May 3, 2015, 12:56 am | |
| --------------------------------------------------------- | |
| OK, I'll open with a concept I've been toying with for a while. | |
| Thermobaric MIRVs or ICBM. How heavy would a thermobaric warhead | |
| to make this idea worthwhile have to be and could it be launched | |
| on a conventional ICBM booster? FOAB was 15,650 lb, and Russia | |
| built 100 of them, however they were meant for delivery by | |
| bombers. | |
| #Post#: 95-------------------------------------------------- | |
| Re: The Military Realism Thread, MK-1: The dummy stage | |
| By: Caos Date: May 3, 2015, 1:12 am | |
| --------------------------------------------------------- | |
| [quote author=Confederate Missouri link=topic=21.msg94#msg94 | |
| date=1430632564] | |
| OK, I'll open with a concept I've been toying with for a while. | |
| Thermobaric MIRVs or ICBM. How heavy would a thermobaric warhead | |
| to make this idea worthwhile have to be and could it be launched | |
| on a conventional ICBM booster? FOAB was 15,650 lb, and Russia | |
| built 100 of them, however they were meant for delivery by | |
| bombers. | |
| [/quote] | |
| Good question. To answer this, I have to first note the purpose | |
| and meaning of Thermobaric. | |
| Thermobaric weapons are basically FAE, or Fuel Air Explosive. | |
| They work by dispensing a mist-like vapor of flammable chemicals | |
| throughout the air at high speeds, then igniting them at once. | |
| This is BEST for a large anti ship weapon, or a bunker buster, | |
| as it gets into nasty places and even if it doesn't explode, it | |
| sure messes people up by suffocating them in toxins. | |
| Unfortunately, this brings with it some issues, such as size, | |
| ratio of fuel to air, and the delivery of the fuel. For | |
| practical reasons, the FOAB will probably be the largest version | |
| of an FAE there is. As it stands, the present Trident II missile | |
| carries 11 800 pound thermonuclear warheads, around 8,800 pounds | |
| of warheads. So, unless you used Saturn V, using an FAE with the | |
| delivery of the FOAB (blast of about 1000 feet), you won't get | |
| MIRVs. You CAN, however, use a single warhead, but keep in mind | |
| that a lot of the FOAB focuses around the actual deployment of | |
| the weapon. Using the FOAB as an ICBM could be inefficient, if | |
| not perhaps slightly impossible, considering the heat it has to | |
| withstand, as well as how it would deploy the fuel and ignite | |
| it. Using a timed version, however, as a large bunker buster, | |
| would actually work well. Even launching it as a ballistic | |
| missile, and having it glide on it's way to the target might | |
| work. | |
| Now, as a MIRV, using Thermobarics would not be worth it. Using | |
| even conventional would not either, considering the fact that | |
| some might view launching ICBMs as an act of nuclear war, | |
| considering no one knows it's payload. With that in mind, this | |
| is the NCSA and we aren't dumb, but to get your bang out of your | |
| buck, use either MRV or MIRVs with cluster warheads. But not | |
| Thermobaric, unless you are targeting specific bunkers far away. | |
| #Post#: 96-------------------------------------------------- | |
| Re: The Military Realism Thread, MK-1: The dummy stage | |
| By: david090366 Date: May 3, 2015, 1:39 am | |
| --------------------------------------------------------- | |
| I've been trying to come up with a "replacement" for Nukes that | |
| might not be considered a WMD. This was the best thing I could | |
| come up with because it generates one heck of a nasty explosion, | |
| hence its use as a bunker buster, but doesn't leave radiation | |
| lying around for centuries. Interestingly I did find a canceled | |
| Supersonic Intercontinental Cruise Missile (SM-64 Navaho) that | |
| was actually designed to carry a nuclear warhead of similar | |
| weight. Now the question that begs to be answered is feasibility | |
| as a weapon system The reason the US didn't use these is that | |
| they could deploy many more lighter weapons for every one of | |
| these things. | |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-64_Navaho | |
| #Post#: 97-------------------------------------------------- | |
| Re: The Military Realism Thread, MK-1: The dummy stage | |
| By: Caos Date: May 3, 2015, 1:44 am | |
| --------------------------------------------------------- | |
| Many of these questions should be answered by your nation's | |
| doctrine. I, for example, might use them for long range | |
| precision strikes, terror bombing, or interdiction. Of course, I | |
| might also NOT use them because of the cost, the size, and the | |
| idea of using many smaller, and potentially more powerful or | |
| accurate weaponry for each one of those I launch. | |
| It's all preference. In my opinion, go for it. It's a good idea, | |
| and it could be extremely useful. | |
| #Post#: 190-------------------------------------------------- | |
| Re: The Military Realism Thread, MK-1: The dummy stage | |
| By: Caos Date: May 7, 2015, 10:13 am | |
| --------------------------------------------------------- | |
| Can I get this stickied? | |
| Also, here's an observation I have: | |
| If we have to conduct ourselves like we did in the other NCSA, | |
| and firs develop nuclear power, nuclear enrichment, etc., before | |
| we can get nuclear weaponry.... Then... | |
| No one here has nuclear power yet, or has the ability to enrich | |
| uranium. QED, no one has made depleted uranium, there are no | |
| nuclear submarines or nuclear aircraft carriers, and certainly | |
| no ballistic submarines or even cruise missile subs. | |
| QED no DU APFSDS, or long range projection. | |
| In other words... | |
| I have successfully become the first modern nation! :D | |
| Yay. DU APFSDS, and APDS! My tanks now are the strongest in | |
| terms of armor and weapons, as they utilize DU. :D | |
| #Post#: 193-------------------------------------------------- | |
| Re: The Military Realism Thread, MK-1: The dummy stage | |
| By: david090366 Date: May 7, 2015, 1:09 pm | |
| --------------------------------------------------------- | |
| Dang it Caos, I hadn't thought about that. I thought I thought I | |
| could just rest on my laurels! Guess I better get to building a | |
| nuclear station. Although I don't need subs or aircraft | |
| carriers, n o place to launch them. But the DU shells for tanks | |
| might come in handy. :P | |
| #Post#: 194-------------------------------------------------- | |
| Re: The Military Realism Thread, MK-1: The dummy stage | |
| By: Caos Date: May 7, 2015, 1:21 pm | |
| --------------------------------------------------------- | |
| I worded it rather confrontationally, but yeah. :P | |
| I was just confused because, why would I need to research | |
| nuclear weapon... If I had a nuclear power aircraft carrier? | |
| #Post#: 195-------------------------------------------------- | |
| Re: The Military Realism Thread, MK-1: The dummy stage | |
| By: david090366 Date: May 7, 2015, 1:48 pm | |
| --------------------------------------------------------- | |
| Although for tank armors you could use composite materials like | |
| the British and Japanese have. ;) | |
| #Post#: 196-------------------------------------------------- | |
| Re: The Military Realism Thread, MK-1: The dummy stage | |
| By: Caos Date: May 7, 2015, 1:51 pm | |
| --------------------------------------------------------- | |
| Well, I do. But I also use depleted uranium, depleted uranium | |
| mesh and ceramic tiles, as well as a few other things for armor. | |
| ***************************************************** | |
| Next Page |