Historical, Alternate History, Modern Era or Future Tech, Weapons, Vehicles, Equipment and Tactics

Hmm. In some ways, this is similar to discussions over RKV attacks against planets. Massive nuclear retaliation may overwhelm any defense, but its also likely to severly degrade the value of occupying the defending territory in the first place. If you are not willing to exterminate the opposing side's civilian population and reduce their cities to radioactve wastelands, your options for invading can become severly reduced.

As for the delivery systems, for defensive purposes this can be very low tech. The OP wasnt very clear how the portal tech worked, but if this is limited to a single, fixed location, a single atomic bomb next to the portal, rigged to explode by remote control, should do it.

If the portals can appear anywhere on the planet without warning, then yeah, the defenders are screwed. If its something in between then the OP will have to specify the details.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

the problem is that a 40’s era setting couldn’t really fight a nuclear war. They’d have, at best, a handful of bombs, and no way to rapidly restock their inventory. They wouldn’t be able to inflict any meaningful damage, and would open themselves up to a retaliation they couldn’t possibly defend against.

They should have sent a poet.

I guess Im not being clear. Im not suggesting that they fight a nuclear war. Im suggesting that they defend themselves with the equivalent of an atomic minefield. Its a form of assymetric warfare, writ large. Obviously, if the future tech forces are willing to slag the defending forces cities, nothing can stop them, but equally obviously, that has seldom been the case, esp if there is little chance of occupying the defending territory in a cost effective manner, for some sort of economic benefit.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

A 1940’s setting will have access to maybe a dozen working nuclear weapons at best, so there’s really no viable nuclear strategy for them.

If they’re using their nuclear weapons as planted mines and trying to lure enemies in they may be able to inflict damage, but that’s not going to be a sucessful warfighting strategy, and like I said it opens them up to a potentially apocalyptic retaliation.

Don’t forget they’re also fighting against a 21st century command and control infrastructure. We’ve spent the better part of a century making sure decapitation strikes won’t take us out of the fight.

If they can open portals to any location they have a lot of non-nuclear strategies that would work well without inviting a nuclear retaliation as well.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 7th 2018 at 7:01:59 AM

They should have sent a poet.

Depending on how the portal works, they may need only one.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Sorry about the long delay. Had some stuff to sort out.

The portals are medium sized buildings about the size of a smaller sized house in Australia. Due to their cost and size they're usually deployed inside bases, both on the surface and underground.

You've all mentioned pretty good points in the other areas though. The 2000's society has quite a large advantage and could be quite a significant threat, perhaps even if the alternate advanced society had a period of relative peace (just a few neutral blocks dominating the world) between the alternate 1900's to 2000's.

On another note, if body armor with toughness roughly equivalent to modern body armor had already existed for decades before the advent of automatic weapons, would that butterfly away the use of intermediate rounds for rifles?

It isn't necessarily an issue of toughness. You could make a really heavy suit using steel plate that could resist weapons fire but the trade off is said suit would be really damn heavy. The advantage of modern materials is high strength for comparatively lower weight. Pound for pound as a personal body armor, even with hard armor inserts, modern body armor is far more effective in large part because of the modern materials compared to straight up steel.

Intermediate ammo can defeat a variety of modern body armor so no it won't make intermediate ammo vanish either. Rounds like the 855A1 can defeat class three steel hard plate armor but the ceramic variant stops it cold. Black tip AP ammo can defeat a lot of types of body armor short of the heaviest and toughest body armor we can make. Which is some really damn heavy armor but can eat .30-06 AP ammo.

Who watches the watchmen?

As a general rule of thumb, any advance in either offensive or defensive technology implies an equivalent advance in the other one, at least over the long term.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Would be it be permissible to discuss some stuff im working on for a table top home brewed game ? Or is this thread deceased ?

I was tossing and turning, the nightmare I had was as bad as could be! Then I opened my eyes and the nightmare was ME!

Still active, just slow moving. Go ahead.

They should have sent a poet.

Which game?

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

I've been doing an Alternate History of the early parts of The New '10s with my friend, and we're trying to work out how this would work:

• General Motors and Mitsubishi team up to produce a van for the European market around the size of a Mercedes-Benz Sprinter, including a hybrid version, which launches around 2011-2012, and it's sold as a Chevrolet in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, Vauxhall in the United Kingdom, Opel in the rest of the world. Mitsubishi sell their version in the U.S, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

It's available with gasoline and turbodiesel engines as well as the hybrid, but the hybrid model gets a lot of media attention. (In this timeline, it launches at the same time as the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV, which launched in 2012 in our timeline).

Back in 2012, there were probably no hybrid vans in our timeline that were at least partially commercially successful, and only a few converted from gasoline to electric (like Smith producing Ford Transit electric vehicles).

Edited by Merseyuser1 on Jan 28th 2019 at 5:53:23 PM

It's my own creation, 10,000th scale and fleet based void combat.

I was wondering, in a close to hard sci fi world, would it be permissible to mix point defense weapons between ballistic (Gatling coil guns) and particle (charged particle beam) for both variety and to demonstrate species handle point defense differently? Specifically for a warship in a fleet air defence roll?

I ask here because it seems the most appropriate.

Thank you

I was tossing and turning, the nightmare I had was as bad as could be! Then I opened my eyes and the nightmare was ME!

This might work better in the sci-fi weapons and equipment thread.

Who watches the watchmen?

I just ask because it’s future tech weapons, also the other one is a little congested.

I was tossing and turning, the nightmare I had was as bad as could be! Then I opened my eyes and the nightmare was ME!

How have hybrid vans been faring IRL, anyway? I certainly haven't heard them being hyped up the way hybrid/all-electric SUVs/CUVs have been (though admittedly my family doesn't own a car, so...)

Echoing hymn of my fellow passerine | Art blog (under construction)

It is a thread not parking it can't be congested. You are also asking about the hard sci-fi option. You are far more likely to get your answer there because that is where the people who have that answer are more likely to respond.

Who watches the watchmen?

Like me and Tuefel. So go there.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

There haven't been many hybrid vans yet, although the Ford Transit launched in 2018 as a PHEV plug-in.

Of course, the van market is slower to launching hybrid or EV than cars.

There hasn't been any hype so far (outside of specialist magazines for business or fleet van buyers).

Edited by Merseyuser1 on Jan 31st 2019 at 12:35:35 PM

What we need are more hybrid SUV's.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

There are some interesting hybrids out there. Like motorcycles and even armored vehicle drives.

Who watches the watchmen?

Working on a wacky Cold War-era plane for something I'm doing with a friend. Say hello to the Blender◊ (working name), a ground attack-slash-sonic attack aircraft for all your ground-pounding needs.

Airframe

The Blender is a straight-winged, twin-boom aircraft. It is crewed by a pilot and a bombardier-navigator (BN), seated side-by-side in a titanium "bathtub". The craft's aerodynamics are enhanced by a pair of Fowler-type flaps that extend well behind the wings and large split ailerons that double as airbrakes. A set of boundary layer control (BLC) nozzles, drawing bleed air from the engines, are situated on the leading edge slats and just forward of the centreline engine. These smooth out airflow over their respective surfaces when activated, maximising lift. The engines and fuel tanks are armoured to withstand ground fire, with self-sealing foam and nitrogen tanks shielding the fuel tanks from fire. The control systems and fuel lines run through multiple redundant armoured ducts; if all else fails, both crewmembers can manually control the aircraft through a set of cables and pulleys.

Powerplant

Propfan technology is something of an '80s oddity. Born in the wake of the '73 oil crisis, it was envisioned as a way to match the performance of turbofans with the fuel efficiency of turboprops. The Blender's designers believed that the propfan's thrust capacity would maximise its payload and short-field performance, while the engine's efficiency would extend its reach.

Three propfans propel the Blender: two on the wings, and one in a pusher configuration on the aft fuselage. Each one drives a contra-rotating prop unit with 8/6 blades. The large number of prop blades is meant to maximise the thrust while limiting the RPM, though it doesn't help with the noise, which one test pilot described as "the sound babushka's cat made when I kicked her down the well." Finally, the two wing engines are equipped with afterburners for short bursts of speed.

Rumours that the entire project is an elaborate marketing campaign for Ivchenko-Progress' upcoming D-27 propfan is strictly unfounded. Workers of the Socialist Republic are advised to not spread talks of corruption, which does not exist in our glorious aviation industry.

Armament

The Blender carries a GSh-30-2-K cannon on a port side nose blister, fed from an armoured 750-round casket on the starboard side. The craft's underside is lined with 13 hardpoints, plus a pair of light outboard pylons for R-60 air-to-air missiles. Five centremost pylons are rated to carry rockets and guided missiles, as well as 1150 litre fuel tanks. The other eight are located behind or next to the propellers, limiting their ability to carry forward-firing weapons.^note Of course, as Soviet pilots learned in Afghanistan, SPPU-22 gun pods can be angled downwards for strafing, or even backwards to suppress the target area on egress. Fortunately, they can carry bombs and 820 litre tanks just fine.

Avionics

Fairly modest. A Klyon-PS laser rangefinder/designator is mounted on the nose and cued to a pair of ASP-17 gunsights. The navigation systems are augmented by a DISS-7 Doppler radar. If you're an export customer who happens to have bought a TRAM/LANTIRN pod from the US, then congratulations on being able to see in the dark, unlike the majority of attack aircraft in the '80s! You can hang that thing under the nose, like the booger that you are.

Countermeasures

A set of six ASO-2V flare/chaff dispensers are mounted on each wingtip and tail boom, giving the Blender an ample supply of decoys. The tails and wings also carry antennae for the SPO-15M Beryoza radar warning receiver (RWR), which feeds radar signals to a pair of SPS-141/142/143 jamming units on the wingtips.^note Each one transmits at a different band. During the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqis would send out three planes with three different jammers per flight for cross-band jamming. In response to the growing threat from infrared missiles, a L-116V-11E Lipa "disco light" IR jammer is also installed under the starboard tail boom.

Current Issues

The centreline engine is a source of headache for pilots and ground crews alike. Though it provides vital thrust, its pusher configuration makes it vulnerable to the debris kicked up by the landing gear, which makes the Blender unsuited for rough fields. Its efficiency is also reduced by the disturbed airflow, which BLC nozzles and experimental ventral strakes will hopefully fix. The different prop unit for the engine complicates maintenance as well.

Most complaints, however, come from the sheer noise generated by the propellers, which makes the craft easy to detect and causes substantial discomfort to the crew. Studies are underway on how to utilise the Blender as an omnidirectional sonic attack/voice communication jamming platform.

Blender-M: A Modest Proposal

A proposed "M" model will turn the Blender into a night/all-weather-capable aircraft, on par with the A-10 N/AW and the Su-25T. In many ways, the Blender is well-suited for night attack, given that it already has a second crewmember to operate the sensors. The upgraded version will replace the Klyon-PS with a Prichal laser unit and a Mercury electro-optical targeting system; a FLIR camera is also proposed, though Soviet electronics noticeably lagged in this regard. A digital nav/attack suite, including an autopilot, HUD, radio beacon navigation and automated weapons release will further enhance the craft's effectiveness. The addition of quad mounts for Vikhr missiles will further upgrade its lethality against armoured targets. Lastly, the aircraft can carry an Azaliya electronic warfare pod to provide standoff jamming capability.

Edited by eagleoftheninth on Jul 29th 2019 at 8:23:01 AM

Echoing hymn of my fellow passerine | Art blog (under construction)

Just out of curiousity, do you want us to try to fix the plane or leave it the quirky mess it is?

Anyhow, the design reminds me of the P-61 Black Widow night-time interceptor. Not necessarily a bad thing but kinda weird. On the other hand, you could likely fit another G Sh-30-2 in there as the P-61 had 4 20mms and 4 .50 cals.

Two contra-rotating propellers would be bad enough but with three the Blender is going to have a reputation for pilots that either can't hear orders or don't fear death ("If we die, we don't have to listen to the engines anymore").

I'm not sure if you need boundary layer controls as I don't see this aircraft going fast enough to need them. This being a soviet aircraft I also don't see the designers wanting to spend the money on them either.

It almost sounds like the XF-84H "Thunder Screech" and the Tu-95 "Bear" had a disturbing hybrid love child.

Who watches the watchmen?

Some suggestions on the name:

The traditional Soviet designation style is “bureau- sequential numeral”. For example, if this aircraft was built by Tupolev in the 80s it might be called the Tu-195. The reporting name for it would be a single-syllable word starting with F, since it’s a prop-driven fighter/attack aircraft.

They should have sent a poet.