Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Μilitary Questions & Answers

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25008
    Points : 25552
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:17 pm

    It is super Russian... if you set one off in san francisco they wouldn't be ashamed at all... they would probably make it a yearly event...

    That is probably why the only known development is American because they know their own liberal country would be immune... well there is the bible belt that would likely not enjoy it but they would probably be just as happy to eliminate them as they would the Russians...
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 676
    Points : 714
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:28 pm

    and get a nuclear response 30 minutes later.

    Now can someone give a serous answer for god sake I Have niether a dozen spare keyboards nor a waterproof keyboard and I hate cleaning up half digested food.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25008
    Points : 25552
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:39 am

    What level of defences will the enemy have?

    I would suggest airships of course... enormous airships, nuclear powered with a one thousand ton payload that could operate continuously... using dehumidifiers it could generate its own water ballast from thin air and with that water it could separate the hydrogen and the oxygen using electricity generated from solar panels or the nuclear power plant... the hydrogen and oxygen could be then used as lifting gas when needed or propellent for gas powered grenade launchers for firing projectiles of all types on unruly groups below. Such projectors would not be as high velocity as chemical propellent cannon, but just scooping up the necessary propellant when needed from the environment is more politically correct and ecologically sensitive.

    The water could be kept as water for ballast, which would also be useful for putting out fires or watering crops or unruly crowds...

    It could be used as a command centre that was highly mobile and offer ideal visual and radar vantage points in any given situation.

    It would be fully mobile with electric motors to propel it around the place.

    It could also be used as a cruise ship type vehicle as well...

    It would need some sort of defences from UCAVs that the enemy might decide to launch at it...
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 676
    Points : 714
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:02 am

    Enemy teck level would be bassicaly that of US civvies with maybe some salvadged military hardware that somehow evaded destruction or confiscation so nothing heavy.

    Most likely the a large amount of semi to full aout converstions of civvie rifles,hamomade smoothbore SMGs,technicals but fewer HMGs and various
    primative improvised gadgets suicide drones ect.


    As for your idea that sound about right, Although one would most certainly want (assuming one is Russian and not some retard trying to come up with a flashy presentation) some long range artillery, a vessel like that would want to stay as far away from the enemy as possible.

    Also scrap the solar pannels they are just usless weight where you least want it and since you already have an onboard NPP they are completely irrelevant.


    But I wonder is such a vessel possible? It should not be to mutch of a challeng to Russian designers to come up with some form of low recoiling artillery that does not blow a hole in the wall behind it, some kind of counterbalance like system firing rocket assisted glide bombs maybe?

    But could they build an ariship big enough?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25008
    Points : 25552
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:05 pm

    Why artillery?

    An airship was the first strategic bomber... in WWI...

    A modern airship could carry enormous weights of bombs and you could climb to any altitude you want to give them any level of velocity you need for penetrating ground cover... you could have ten FOABs or MOABs or whatever, plus hundreds of smaller bombs for various uses... from 2.5kgs through 10kgs, 20kgs, 100kgs, 250kgs, 500kgs, 1,000kgs, 1,500kgs, 3,000kgs, 5,000kgs, 9,000kgs, and then FOAB sized bombs... you could carry some as ballast... remain above 3km altitude and small arms fire wont be an issue.

    High power optics and various radar and night vision systems and you will literally be the eye in the sky, with the ability to obliterate anything you want.

    Running a dehumidifier to generate water means you can generate new ballast as you drop the bombs... you could operate inside rain clouds for the purpose... then fly to a friendly base and swap the water ballast for more bombs...

    Dropping really big bombs or large numbers of smaller bombs and you can deflate a few hydrogen bags to stop the airship leaping up to a much higher altitude...

    You could put it through a fuel cell and create water ballast so you lose lift and create weight at the same time would be the ideal way to compensate for the release of a few large bombs... having a fuel cell and large water ballast tanks and a dehumidifier gives precision control of lift on the air ship...
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 676
    Points : 714
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:44 pm

    GarryB wrote:Why artillery?

    An airship was the first strategic bomber... in WWI...

    A modern airship could carry enormous weights of bombs and you could climb to any altitude you want to give them any level of velocity you need for penetrating ground cover... you could have ten FOABs or MOABs or whatever, plus hundreds of smaller bombs for various uses... from 2.5kgs through 10kgs, 20kgs, 100kgs, 250kgs, 500kgs, 1,000kgs, 1,500kgs, 3,000kgs, 5,000kgs, 9,000kgs, and then FOAB sized bombs... you could carry some as ballast... remain above 3km altitude and small arms fire wont be an issue.

    Yes however, an airship will have a rather low maximuim speed as it is very large has to be made out of ulra lightwieght materials rather than materials that would be more durable.

    Having low speeds it would just not be practical unless your enemy relies primarily on large fortified super bases in whitch case you have the Smerch,Iskander and your nukes to erase it.

    Any resistance force that could pop up after a total Russian victory would have to be highly mobile in order to survive 10 miunutes and I just don't see a big slow bomber airship being able to resopond rapidly enough to deal with the threat, by the time it gets there they will just run into the nearest civilian settlement and wait as you circle round them unable to do anything about it.

    With low recoil 152mm guns firing rocket assisted glide bombs you the airship could fly to an altatude of 5km and easily fire guided munitions out to well over 100km thus exterminating the rebels without giving civilians reason to join them and keeping a good political image.

    If thats too mutch to read just play one of thoes damned c&c games, build a bunch of Kirovs and try and use them on mobile units. You will quicly realise why a bomber airship may not be the best choice.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25008
    Points : 25552
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:00 am

    Yes however, an airship will have a rather low maximuim speed as it is very large has to be made out of ulra lightwieght materials rather than materials that would be more durable.

    You are probably looking at a max speed of perhaps 80-100km/h at best but how fast does it need to be?

    Properly designed you should be able to take advantage of wind so ground speed could potentially be 80-100km/h plus wind speed.

    Modern materials like carbon fibre and fibreglass and other modern strong materials could make it the strongest airship ever built... in fact modern mathematics and computer design you could design an expandable structure that allows it to get bigger to increase the number of lifting gas bags you could fill to get more lift at the expense of slightly increased drag, while when operating at lower weights you could contract the structure and reduce the size to reduce drag and the amount of ballast you need to carry to stay buoyant...


    Having low speeds it would just not be practical unless your enemy relies primarily on large fortified super bases in whitch case you have the Smerch,Iskander and your nukes to erase it.

    Hang on... what are you wanting... I thought the requirement was a vehicle for patrolling captured territory with a generally hostile population... any land vehicle you develop could be slowed down with barricades and never reach speeds much beyond 50km/h... and of course there is the risk of IEDs and land mines to worry about. Aircraft of conventional types like helos or planes have very limited endurance and would not be able to hover over one location for days or weeks offering support.

    If you set the operational altitude of the airship at 5-6km, then there is very little most civilians could do from the ground... small arms... even 50 cal rifles wont reach, and nor will captured MANPADS like Stinger.... very simply the airship would not have the IR signature to get a lock with an IR guided missile anyway so even ground launched Sidewinders wont work... electric motors don't generate anywhere near enough heat for a lock...

    To herd the cattle an airship would be ideal.

    Any resistance force that could pop up after a total Russian victory would have to be highly mobile in order to survive 10 miunutes and I just don't see a big slow bomber airship being able to resopond rapidly enough to deal with the threat, by the time it gets there they will just run into the nearest civilian settlement and wait as you circle round them unable to do anything about it.

    Lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria show air power can't win a war on its own, but when used together with ground forces it can make all the difference.

    A ground force moves in to an enemy held area... they can form up and defend... and get obliterated from the sky by air power, or they can remain in little groups and be mopped up by ground forces, or they can run away... with aircraft and helos chasing them.

    With active colour camouflage people on the ground might not even know the airship is even there... it is just that occasionally important things like weapon caches and HQs suddenly explode...


    With low recoil 152mm guns firing rocket assisted glide bombs you the airship could fly to an altatude of 5km and easily fire guided munitions out to well over 100km thus exterminating the rebels without giving civilians reason to join them and keeping a good political image.

    If the target is small groups or individuals then a 152mm gun is overkill whether it is low velocity or not.

    The entire top of the airship could be flat and used for takeoff and landing of UCAVs... keep it always pointing into the wind whether the airship is stationary or moving... a few UCAVs armed with Shturm missiles, a 40mm grenade launcher, and up to 50kg bombs should be plenty to fly around chasing down elusive targets.

    BTW I am not suggesting the Airship is the only tool in the shed... a full range of fixed and rotary winged manned and unmanned aircraft would also be necessary too.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25008
    Points : 25552
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:01 am

    If thats too mutch to read just play one of thoes damned c&c games, build a bunch of Kirovs and try and use them on mobile units. You will quicly realise why a bomber airship may not be the best choice.

    Never played those games but would assume that having an airship type vehicle in a WWII type battlespace would leave the airship pretty vulnerable to enemy airpower without a serious anti aircraft force to protect it...
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 676
    Points : 714
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Wed Feb 20, 2019 7:30 am

    GarryB wrote:

    Never played those games but would assume that having an airship type vehicle in a WWII type battlespace would leave the airship pretty vulnerable to enemy airpower without a serious anti aircraft force to protect it...

    Yea well thoes games are made by retard who leave out Soviet artillery so its no wonder that they think airships should have the survivability of superheavy tanks.

    Anyway maybe it would be best to have both artillery and bomber/carrier airships.
    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 897
    Points : 1006
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty How do you learn to design a Precision Guided Munition?

    Post  jhelb on Fri Mar 01, 2019 6:25 pm

    How do you learn to design a PGM, for instance a KAB 500S or a P 800 Oniks?

    What are the things that you need to know in order to design such PGMs?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25008
    Points : 25552
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:27 am

    Well, you are unlikely to make an Onyx from scratch on your own, but you could buy a UAV from a shop and modify it... as we have seen with a few public attempts to kill politicians with bomb equipped UAVs.

    Basically you need an airframe or aircraft or weapon chassis, plus control surfaces, plus a control method, and sensors/guidance method.

    One of the simplest systems would be a Metis-M1 ATGM, which consists of a launch tube with a missile inside and a launcher that can be placed on the ground or fire from the shoulder.

    The missile is very simple and therefore very cheap... the sensors are in the launcher and the guidance system is in the launcher, the flight control commands for the missile are generated in the launcher and sent to the missile via wires.

    The missile is manually guided by the operator manually tracking the target, while the sensors in the launcher tracks the point of aim and the location of the missile and sends commands to the missile to bring it to the point of aim... if it stays on that point of aim and the point of aim is on the target then the missile will either run out of wire and crash into the ground or it will hit the target depending on the range to the target.

    The big brother of the Metis-M, the Kornet uses a laser beam from the launcher... the missile itself has a rear facing optical sensor and it can detect its position in the beam and can manouver itself to the point of aim so no trailing wire and so it can move much much faster.

    Later versions of the system can use an autotracker to automatically follow the target for the engagement... that basically involves a computer and a video processing unit that analyses the content of the view from the seeker and detects the target as an object to be tracked and followed.

    The missile is still reasonably simple and full control of the intercept is in the hands of the operator... the system normally aims the laser beam 5-10m high so the target wont detect it is being engaged until the missile is within a kilometre of the target... so the target gets less than three seconds warning of the attack.

    Simple face recognition software on a digital camera is similar... it is basically detecting a pattern and tracking it... changing the software to find tanks or cars or trucks should not be that hard, so your UAV can detect targets... some sort of control system that shows you what the drone sees... say on your cellphone... select the target and command the drone to dive and attack that target... easy... cheap... scary...

    New driverless cars are even more scary... you could buy a huge SUV and rip out the guts and harden up the suspension and put a ton of HE in the back and then give it the address of the target... a cell phone call to set off the bomb with those remote internet cameras so you can see what is happening all the way to the target.... boom.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25008
    Points : 25552
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:32 am

    Or do you mean what education do you need to get into designing high tech modern weapons?

    I would say engineering, technical drawing, electronics, but it would probably be better to go to websites of companies that make these weapons... they often have links for Careers... contact them and tell them what you want to do and what they want and are looking for.

    I had a friend who wanted to be an armourer and did a few courses before joining the Army.

    The courses were not cheap and put him in debt, and the Army didn't recognise the qualifications anyway so it didn't help him at all.

    The Army had their own courses, doing things the way they wanted them done and he got paid to do them... so trying to get prepared was not the best idea... he should have talked to them about what they wanted and what he needed to do... he would have been much better off paying more attention to fitness to get through basic training easier...
    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 897
    Points : 1006
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  jhelb on Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:28 am

    GarryB wrote:Or do you mean what education do you need to get into designing high tech modern weapons?

    Thanks GarrryB. Yes I meant both - what you have explained.

    For instance lets say I intend to develop the state of the art sensors for the P 800, how should I go about acquiring the knowledge?
    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1009
    Points : 1015
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  nomadski on Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:29 pm

    First you must know that you can do it .  It is ten percent intelligence and ninety  percent persistence . Second don't get stuck in high maths or physics . Don't be afraid of it either . First get the idea , then give it to scientist . Or do the maths later to see viability . Nature provides many of the answers . Applied and proven battle machines . Did you know that there is a Beetle ,  I think called a fire Beetle ,  can detect a forest fire from many kilometers distance . And escapes to safety . It does this by sensing rising fluid pressure in glands on legs . Fire or radiation emitted  then heats up fluid . Beetle escapes . Analog can be built . New sensor !
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2952
    Points : 3828
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:05 pm

    Get yourself an engineering degree in one of the subsystems of a missile, you will be qualified to work on whatever part your degree is in.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25008
    Points : 25552
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:44 am

    For instance lets say I intend to develop the state of the art sensors for the P 800, how should I go about acquiring the knowledge?

    I don't think anyone on this forum has any experience developing PGM sensors, let alone integrating them into a real weapon... my advise would be to pick a company that currently makes such products and look at the careers section of their website and contact them to talk about it.

    They should be able to tell you what sort of qualifications will be useful or required...
    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 897
    Points : 1006
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  jhelb on Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:58 pm

    Thanks nomadski.


    nomadski wrote:First you must know that you can do it .  

    This is the tough part isn't it...convincing yourself that you can do something that is otherwise considered difficult to do.
    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1009
    Points : 1015
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  nomadski on Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:09 pm

    You are welcome . But I always try to think of the little guy. The world's problems comes from the strong or wealthy nations that oppress the weak  . So in defence terms , anything that puts their expensive destructive machines beyond use ,  is my cup of tea !

    For example thinking about putting aircraft carriers beyond use ,  a UAV powered by hydrogen  fuel  cell  that powers a prop , would have no heat or chemical output that can  be detected from orbit . It can not be intercepted , if it has low rcs body . Bye bye aircraft carrier . Cost of UAV ,  one millionths  of carrier . Rich guy goes bye bye .  But you have to be obsessive . Thinking about things  24/7 .
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25008
    Points : 25552
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:59 am

    Also keep in mind that sometimes talent is born and sometimes it is learned via hard work and dedication.

    Sometimes learning about what people did before can avoid making the same mistakes that have been made previously, but sometimes people have given up too easily and didn't really try the right solutions.

    An example I have mentioned is gun launched anti tank missiles... the French and the Americans both tried and failed.

    The French made a 142mm calibre missile that didn't really make it inter service, while the Americans made a 152mm calibre missile that made it into service, went to war on several occasions with no credible evidence it was ever fired successfully at all.

    Logic would suggest the Soviets would be wasting their time trying to make gun launched guided missiles... especially when in the western view they are considered less capable in the area of miniaturised components and electronics.

    The results are clear for everyone... the soviets took a different approach, but it could be argued their original models were not very impressive at all, but with further development now offer capabilities no western equivalent system ever got near.

    Very simply the west wanted to make a missile firing super tank and ended up with tanks using guns that were useless as guns and pretty much only useful for launching missiles... they designed the missiles first and then built guns to fire them.

    With those goals they could much more easily have taken an APC chassis and put TOW missiles in a turret roof mounted launcher stored more missiles in the hull and saved a fortune and gotten a much more powerful and capable vehicle.

    For the Soviets it was about cheaply and easily extending the effective reach of all their tanks... the T-55s and T-62s got these missiles too... they developed missiles for existing tank guns of all calibres from 100mm and up... the Bastion system came in four different versions... one for the smoothbore 100mm gun of the MT-12, and one for the rifled 100mm gun of the T-54/55 tank, and one for the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3, and one with an adapter sleeve for the smoothbore 115mm gun of the T-62.

    They didn't want to create super missile firing tanks... they also had versions of that called the IT-1 and IT-2 that was a tank chassis and a lot flat turret with a launcher for the AT-3 ATGM... which was a failure too, but the idea for their gun launched missiles was to use existing guns and for tanks to carry a few missiles as a new type of ammo... good for specific jobs but not a replacement for all its ammo.

    The later rounds were much faster and with better range and performance and can be used against enemy helicopters or point targets at extended ranges where normal fire would not be so accurate or effective.

    Of course sometimes lack of knowledge can lead to innovative solutions, but it can equally result in repeating mistakes made before, so a healthy understanding of what has been tried and what has failed and why it failed is important too.
    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1009
    Points : 1015
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  nomadski on Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:08 pm

    Years ago I had this idea of using  metal mesh netting to protect against incoming missiles . To set them off early and protect land based facility . Or if placed over ground or underground , to protect against  earth peneterating warhead .  Since then , there has been the invention of jumping mines . Launching upwards when helicopter approaches . Against incoming missile , not effective  . Not fast enough .

    In Syria , we have had cruise missiles and ATGW , being used against mostly static ground targets . Planes in hangers.  Buildings . Vehicles . Some of these land based targets , are mobile . Any target that can not be moved quickly , and is heavy , and of military importance , should be moved to deep under mountain bunkers. But some equipment can not be moved permanently underground . Such as parked vehicles , artillery and aircraft in use and operations .

    Since we have seen that some yank cruise missiles and Usraeli  ATGW ,  can get through air defences ,  then I thought that as well as above ground concrete shelters ( for aircraft ) , that high metal mesh cages can be put around them . Since warhead size is relatively small , and building also concrete , then this stand off distance will , set off warhead . Protect against fragments and blast . A very simple and cost effective solution . What do you think ?

    An improved version , will use a witness plate or mesh at higher height . Followed by some claymore type devices pointing upwards , lower down . These are set off by the piercings of witness plate .In case of multiple rockets following each other , to get in . Then the fabric that is pierced or damaged , can be moved . To expose fresh sections .

    The second question , is , can stealth  body or chassis of light fighter plane be made in one or a few pieces . At once . Using injection moulding machines ? I grant you , you need some big moulds . But inserts of strong fabrics can be put in mould . Then liquid  is  injected . A fast and cheap way . Much better than hand fabrication and glueing  . What you think ?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25008
    Points : 25552
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 23, 2019 2:23 am

    The fence thing is not new... there are quite a few armies that put up a chain link fence type barrier around things they have dug in to positions... once the vehicle is dug in you put a chain link fence up around that to try to set off incoming missiles prematurely... the main problem is they are not generally very solid... I mean to get a fine weave so you are likely to hit metal rather than empty space then you need rather thin wire otherwise it will weigh several tons and be not only too heavy to carry around but also too heavy to set up whenever you stop.

    Probably the best thing most of the time is what they actually do... so for example with an air field you can dig a trench for troops so if you are out in the field and there is an attack you can jump in to them... obviously they need to be in very specific places because you don't want vehicles or aircraft accidentally running into these holes as that will likely trap them and make them sitting ducks until they can be lifted out.

    Larger trenches need to be made around the airfield for vehicles with a very specific depth based on the vehicles you operate at the base... it need to provide protection but also needs to allow the vehicle to fire its weapons so a hole up to turret level and then walls protecting it from specific directions and overlap those directions so there are no blind spots for the defence.

    For aircraft you can't dig holes because of their weight you would have difficulty getting them back up and out, so you use the spoil from the vehicle holes to build berms on three sides of the aircraft to the height of the aircraft which will stop one aircrafts exploding damaging other aircraft... if you imagine looking right down then you have the aircraft lined up side by side with the back a wall of dirt and walls between and to each side of them... the front has to be open so they can get in and out but a large dirt wall 20m in front of the open aircraft positions will stop anyone firing into the aircraft locations easily.

    Later on you can put tarps over top to reduce the heat inside the aircraft shelters and to make observation harder and make working on the aircraft more tolerable without making it too expensive.

    Most of the time that will be the solution... use local materials as protection... whether it is local sand in sandbags or rocks...
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25008
    Points : 25552
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 23, 2019 2:34 am

    BTW regarding getting a job in the missile making business, I had a few friends keen on the military and they went to university to do engineering degrees so they could join the army... when they went to the army they were told if they had just signed up to the army when they left high school they would have trained them up and then sent them to university and they could have done their university work on a soldiers salary instead of a students allowance, and all the costs would have been paid for by the army...

    My advice is to find the company webpage of at least three companies you would like to work for and talk to them... if you are too afraid to talk to them then don't expect to get any good job. Keep a separate note book about each company and make sure you know a bit about them before you contact them. One company wont appreciate you telling them how much you admire their products and then go on to name products they don't make. Learn as much as you can about them but admit to yourself and them that there is so much more for you to learn... no one likes a know it all...

    I say try several at a time because there are likely 100 other people doing the same so no matter how hard you try there are no guarantees any will say yes.

    If you want to focus then find three companies and find out if any are in the process of expanding... a new international contract will mean staff expansions, and focus on that company first. Try to evaluate how you did if you don't get a job or interest and do ask for honest feedback (it may not be honest however) and then learn from that for the next company you approach.

    Don't promise things you cannot deliver... be realistic... if they ask you what your weaknesses are and you say I work too hard then you had better be prepared to work all the over time they offer you...
    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1009
    Points : 1015
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  nomadski on Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:00 pm

    https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/59711/what-material-is-used-for-the-skin-of-a-modern-fighter-jet

    Have three questions. First can we estimate thickness of skin of F22 and F35, from published info, on weight empty of plane minus engine etc. This gives approx weight of skin and thickness. I think it is important to know, because we can choose right calibre for cannon and type of AA warhead.  Second question is about possibility of converting AA missile to low Rcs AA missile using composite frangible jacket. Will it work? Third question is can AA missile be guided by rear facing laser, helmet of pilot LOS directing to target. No need for RADAR or IR.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25008
    Points : 25552
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:20 am

    The purpose of a cannon round or AAM warhead or SAM warhead for that matter, is not just to penetrate the skin of the aircraft... you need fragments and a blast wave to damage structure and rip the aircraft apart.

    The skin thickness would be relatively inconsequential unless it is armour thick... and it wont be.

    You don't make things stealthy by making their skins radar transparent... that makes them less stealthy because it exposes the internal structure which has lots of corners and flat surfaces to return strong signals back to the radar.

    All that money designing that outer surface shape and all that money spend on materials and manufacturing processes to get the outer surface within a fraction of a mm and angles within a tiny fraction of a degree of what the design states would all be wasted if enemy radar just went through the skin and bounced everywhere...

    Third question is can AA missile be guided by rear facing laser, helmet of pilot LOS directing to target. No need for RADAR or IR.

    You mean like the Kornet ATGM or the Vikhr ATGM or the various ATGM from the Hind family and Havoc family with secondary air to air capability... ie Ataka and Krisantema and also the SOSNA-R SAM?

    Yes they can.

    There are also the SA-19 and SA-22 and other members of the Pantsir family and the TOR system that use command guidance.
    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1009
    Points : 1015
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  nomadski on Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:21 am

    @GarryB

    Thanks for reply. Agree about needing fragments. But what size or weight or numbers? Are Russian warheads in AA missile still the old soviet types? Used to puncture aircraft aluminium? How about modern materials in modern jet? And if accurate dimensional and weight analysis done, then we know also, if plane can be up armoured. I don't think we can simply say, it is not armoured. Because too heavy. About blast, this only important for direct or near impact. Since size of warhead in AA is relatively small. Can not rely on blast effect. Also fragmenting warhead with large radius gives more choice as to type of proximity fuse. Large frag radius more deadly than blast.

    Agree about thickness needed to act as RAM.  And we know what material used. So another way to estimate thickness. Good idea.  The weight and shape of internal component can be accurately worked out by looking at manufacturer using similar components in earlier model. Unlikely to be very different. Cost too high.

    About laser guided AA missile, then Russia in good position to manufacture new types. Since radar and IR becoming less effective against stealthy plane. Leading edge of F35 cooled. So IR head on shot more difficult.

    Lastly you did not mention conversion of existing AA missiles by jacket or coatings. I said this originally as a way of reducing the RCS of plane carrying them externally, before being fired.  Also for this purpose the AA missile could be carried inside composite RAM tubes. But a coating that fragments  while in flight makes design easier as resin used burns up at high temp Mach 4 flight. If coating burns and create plasma, even better more stealthy to RADAR!

    Sponsored content

    Μilitary Questions & Answers - Page 7 Empty Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:06 am