Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Baffler]

-snip-

I like the generals' placements, but if they decide to attack more than one front we're going to have a really bad time. We should deploy the fighters in more distributed units so no region can be overwhelmed before reinforcements arrive.

Spoiler: Top Secret (click to show/hide)

Chinese Protection Force (Umar)
[6/20] J-31
[10/20] HQ-9

East Asian Protection force (Zhou)
[6/20] J-31
[8/20] HQ-9

Oceanian Protection Force (Mao)
[6/20] J-31
[6/20] HQ-9

Reaction Air Force  (Lin) -
[12/20] J-31

Naval detachment (Deng) -
Type 095 Nuclear Submarine

[Ukrainian Ranger]

+1 to baffler's distribution

I think production and revision phases and I hope to have something else to produce.

PS. You distrubuted 31 fighter, while we have 30.

[Baffler]

Fixed.

[Happerry]

+1 to baffler's distribution

I'll +1 this as well.

[10ebbor10]

Design Time Start

[Ukrainian Ranger]

We need either shoot down enemy droppods or boost land forces.

Main problem is lack of weapon to shoot through their shields. It is not surprising because human AA methods designed to deal with thin hulls of aircrafts and they use shrapnel.

Way to handle their droppods (not a vote yet):

Design new surface to air missile. Adapted for use from vertical launch system of the sub or from HQ-9 land vehicles. It uses a large HEAT warhead simmilar to one used to penetrate armor of tanks.

Alternatively this can be a revision for HQ-9 alone. Or we can revise armor peneteration missiles for J-31

[evilcherry]

I guess the easiest way to use HEAT to defeat those carapace balls is to mimic the TOW rockets.

That is, approaching them from the top.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I prefer aiming at their explosive rocket engines. It is enough to damage an engine of a dropship to make it fall. (In fact we prefer relatively intact dropships to capture and reverse engenieer) Besides striking from below is easier.

BTW, What naming scheme will we use?

[Baffler]

I prefer aiming at their explosive rocket engines. It is enough to damage an engine of a dropship to make it fall. (In fact we prefer relatively intact dropships to capture and reverse engenieer) Besides striking from below is easier.

If they can't do their burn they'll just smash into the ground and pulp everything inside. If we can get them to start tumbling on their way down that'd be even better. Maybe the missiles could lock onto a heat source, a big chemical rocket certainly fits the bill there. Targetting the top is a viable option too, if we can destabilize the things we'll get the same effect in the end, and we don't have to worry about targetting a specific section of the vehicle in the relatively narrow window they're burning.

Also, do we know how big the drop pods are?

[evilcherry]

I prefer aiming at their explosive rocket engines. It is enough to damage an engine of a dropship to make it fall. (In fact we prefer relatively intact dropships to capture and reverse engenieer) Besides striking from below is easier.

If they can't do their burn they'll just smash into the ground and pulp everything inside. If we can get them to start tumbling on their way down that'd be even better. Maybe the missiles could lock onto a heat source, a big chemical rocket certainly fits the bill there. Targetting the top is a viable option too, if we can destabilize the things we'll get the same effect in the end, and we don't have to worry about targetting a specific section of the vehicle.

1. From below isn't really easy because of high relative velocity. If we are approaching from the top they have to abort or be maimed.
2. From below doesn't mean we have to go personally above them. Just make sure we have time to lob our missiles above them, then we target them on the reentry.
3. What do do for design?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

My current preffered plan is

either
1) Design new advanced SAM for HQ-9 and Type 095 ( I think hit from above balistc\surface to air missile goes here)
2) Revise fighter for better jet engines
3) Research anti-laser armor

or
1) Design something for land combat
2) Revise less advanced SAM for HQ-9 only (direct hit HEAT SAM goes here)
3) Research anti-laser armor

[Kashyyk]

3) Research anti-laser armor

You mean wearing a load of mirrors right?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Ablative armor is way more practical. Smoke and fog generation is also useful but humans have this already.

[evilcherry]

Ablative armor is way more practical. Smoke and fog generation is also useful but humans have this already.

preferably something that vapourizes and absorbs lots of energy in process.

[Baffler]

Ablative armor is probably more useful, but we might be able to get something out of smoke. One of the biggest problems contemporary laser weapons have is thermal blooming, and theirs are probably no exception. Right now nobody really considers it as anything but a problem to get around, but if we were to deliberately increase blooming we could severely disrupt their weapons or at least reduce their effective range. Adding a conductive material, and one with a high refractive index, to existing smoke formulations would do the trick if anything would. Standing near the cloud while it's taking fire would also probably be a bad idea.