Μilitary Questions & Answers

What type of system would be best to supress large uprisings and patroll large teritorries? Empty What type of system would be best to supress large uprisings and patroll large teritorries?

I was just wondering what would be the best choice of vehicle to patroll conquered territories.

Ideally one could have a flying heli carrier with heavy artillery underneath but that would not really be practical.


Any ideas?

Maybe some sort of large nuclear powered helicopter?

It's a classic for a reason

Nothing undermines a protest rally like a sex bomb that turns it into a massive uncontrolled gay orgy.... yuk... when the effect wears off the men who don't kill themselves will go home in shame immediately...

thats not very Russian.

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...

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.

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...

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?

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...

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

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.

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...

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?

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 !

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.

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...

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.

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 .

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.

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 ?

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...