|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 27, 2019 13:16:07 GMT -6
The anti-ship missiles that were developed in WW1 were radio guided by a crewmember in a bomber, with a control stick. He was looking out the bottom of the aircraft, watching the missile as it flew to enable him to guide it. The guidance system is what we called a manual command to line of sight control system and it made the bomber very vulnerable to AA fire and fighters. It also requires a lot of practice. The missile usually had a magnesium flare to enable the controller to see it, if that failed, it was over. They were no good in bad weather or cloud so you had to be closer to the ground.
You could also use a wire-guided missile like the RK-344. It never saw combat though. You could equip it with a proximity fuse and use it against bombers or even ships but the warheads are usually too small. It could also be used against armored vehicles.
Now, the only way to design and built a decent air to air missile or any self-guiding missile is to have transistors or integrated circuits. Small tubes have to be soldered in the PC board, anchored with putty to prevent them from moving around. However, they are very susceptible to vibrations. The first patent for an integrated circuit was in 1949 by a German engineer Werner Jacobi working for Siemens. It was a five transistor amplifier.
You can also develop transistors to work as amplifiers, oscillators, discriminators, ac to dc power suppliers, and all the other functions you need to build a guidance system for a missile. You will need a fire control radar to illuminate the target, the missile will detect the reflections from the bogie and convert to a signal that will give it range due to the time from the firing of the pulse to its receive time and the angle of the seeker head. The resultant range and angle will be converted to a DC signal and sent to the tail fin's to guide the missile. It will try to keep the signal strength the same and that will keep on the intercept path. However, you will need to find a way to determine whether the bogie is friendly or foe. Good luck with that.
How's that, need any more.
|
|
|
Post by dougphresh on May 27, 2019 13:30:25 GMT -6
I'm all on-board with a Cold War DLC and a 1950 start date.
Having said that,
Helicopters, supersonic aircraft, missiles, advances in subs and ASW, sensors, those are all pretty big changes.
It would be like bolting CMANO on to a game that also has to simulate Tsushima and Jutland.
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on May 27, 2019 18:22:43 GMT -6
Harpoon's an advanced missile, but guided surface-to-surface missiles existed since the V-1 and the guidance systems needed for naval targeting were also present before 1950 (MCLOS and beam-riding systems being developed by both the axis and allies, and the ASM-N-2 Bat being active radar homing). Again, it'd be very easy to conceive of a situation where a combination of the two technologies is developed before 1950 in a situation where there are still large warship battles. Well the V1s couldn't even hit a target the size of London properly, so I don't see how much use it could be against a warship to be honest and it was not guided as much as it was pre-aimed. Re-emphasized the relevant bits, since you seemed to miss it. The V-1 wasn't inherently inaccurate, as can be demonstrated by the attempts to get the Fi 103R working as an equivalent to the Ohka. It simply lacked guidance whatsoever beyond basic point-and-shoot systems. Meanwhile, there were extant homing systems that worked in air-to-ground weapons for similar ranges involved. The anti-ship missiles that were developed in WW1 were radio guided by a crewmember in a bomber, with a control stick. He was looking out the bottom of the aircraft, watching the missile as it flew to enable him to guide it. The guidance system is what we called a manual command to line of sight control system and it made the bomber very vulnerable to AA fire and fighters. It also requires a lot of practice. The missile usually had a magnesium flare to enable the controller to see it, if that failed, it was over. They were no good in bad weather or cloud so you had to be closer to the ground. You could also use a wire-guided missile like the RK-344. It never saw combat though. You could equip it with a proximity fuse and use it against bombers or even ships but the warheads are usually too small. It could also be used against armored vehicles. Assuming you mean WW2, in which case there weren't exclusively MCLOS systems. The Axis used both MCLOS and beam-riding SACLOS for missile guidance, and the Allies used those as well as passive, semi-active, and fully active homing systems such as on the ASM-N-2 and VB-6 ASM-N-4 that required no input from the release platform.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 27, 2019 19:09:23 GMT -6
Well the V1s couldn't even hit a target the size of London properly, so I don't see how much use it could be against a warship to be honest and it was not guided as much as it was pre-aimed. Re-emphasized the relevant bits, since you seemed to miss it. The V-1 wasn't inherently inaccurate, as can be demonstrated by the attempts to get the Fi 103R working as an equivalent to the Ohka. It simply lacked guidance whatsoever beyond basic point-and-shoot systems. Meanwhile, there were extant homing systems that worked in air-to-ground weapons for similar ranges involved. The anti-ship missiles that were developed in WW1 were radio guided by a crewmember in a bomber, with a control stick. He was looking out the bottom of the aircraft, watching the missile as it flew to enable him to guide it. The guidance system is what we called a manual command to line of sight control system and it made the bomber very vulnerable to AA fire and fighters. It also requires a lot of practice. The missile usually had a magnesium flare to enable the controller to see it, if that failed, it was over. They were no good in bad weather or cloud so you had to be closer to the ground. You could also use a wire-guided missile like the RK-344. It never saw combat though. You could equip it with a proximity fuse and use it against bombers or even ships but the warheads are usually too small. It could also be used against armored vehicles. Assuming you mean WW2, in which case there weren't exclusively MCLOS systems. The Axis used both MCLOS and beam-riding SACLOS for missile guidance, and the Allies used those as well as passive, semi-active, and fully active homing systems such as on the ASM-N-2 and VB-6 ASM-N-4 that required no input from the release platform. Yes, I meant WW2. The British did experiment in 1944 with a simple missile guidance system using radar. The ASM-N-2 was the US Navy Bat TV. There were others using semi-active radar homing. But except for the BAT, none were ever put into production and deployed. The Sparrow was a semi-active radar homing missile with its origin from a Navy program to develop a beam rider missile. The Sparrow II wasn't deployed until around the end of the 1950's. It was not a fire and forget missile as the CW transmitter had to be illuminating the target continuously for the missile seeker to maintain lock. If the pilot had to maneuver, there was a good chance the missile would break lock. So there was other technology but none was really deployable during the 1940's however, it might be interesting to at least pursue the technology. The fire control radars in the early 1950's and into the early 1960's were single target track systems. They did not actually track multiple targets until the AWG-9 and AWG-10 in the F-14 and F-4J. The AWG-9 and AWG-10 were both track-while-scan systems. Initially the AWG-9 was designed for the Navalized version of the F-111 but never purchased.
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on May 27, 2019 19:23:31 GMT -6
[...] Yes, I meant WW2. The British did experiment in 1944 with a simple missile guidance system using radar. The ASM-N-2 was the US Navy Bat TV. There were others using semi-active radar homing. But except for the BAT, none were ever put into production and deployed. The Sparrow was a semi-active radar homing missile with its origin from a Navy program to develop a beam rider missile. The Sparrow II wasn't deployed until around the end of the 1950's. It was not a fire and forget missile as the CW transmitter had to be illuminating the target continuously for the missile seeker to maintain lock. If the pilot had to maneuver, there was a good chance the missile would break lock. So there was other technology but none was really deployable during the 1940's however, it might be interesting to at least pursue the technology. The fire control radars in the early 1950's and into the early 1960's were single target track systems. They did not actually track multiple targets until the AWG-9 and AWG-10 in the F-14 and F-4J. The AWG-9 and AWG-10 were both track-while-scan systems. Initially the AWG-9 was designed for the Navalized version of the F-111 but never purchased. You're incorrect about the ASM-N-2, it used an active radar homing system. The TV-guided version was cancelled earlier in development, although there are a plethora of attempts to get TV guidance to work from all sides if you want to dig. It was also fielded operationally, although in low numbers. Sparrow's an AAM (with related SAMs), which isn't really what I was getting at. AAMs lagged behind AShMs due to planes being harder to track than boats and the need for miniaturization. Again, it's also worth noting the ASM-N-4, which was operational and was passive infra-red homing. Given the precedent set by the inclusion of 19" and 20" guns, which were never placed into service, it's also possible to add in a lot of systems which were pursued but never operationally deployed.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 27, 2019 19:37:23 GMT -6
[...] Yes, I meant WW2. The British did experiment in 1944 with a simple missile guidance system using radar. The ASM-N-2 was the US Navy Bat TV. There were others using semi-active radar homing. But except for the BAT, none were ever put into production and deployed. The Sparrow was a semi-active radar homing missile with its origin from a Navy program to develop a beam rider missile. The Sparrow II wasn't deployed until around the end of the 1950's. It was not a fire and forget missile as the CW transmitter had to be illuminating the target continuously for the missile seeker to maintain lock. If the pilot had to maneuver, there was a good chance the missile would break lock. So there was other technology but none was really deployable during the 1940's however, it might be interesting to at least pursue the technology. The fire control radars in the early 1950's and into the early 1960's were single target track systems. They did not actually track multiple targets until the AWG-9 and AWG-10 in the F-14 and F-4J. The AWG-9 and AWG-10 were both track-while-scan systems. Initially the AWG-9 was designed for the Navalized version of the F-111 but never purchased. You're incorrect about the ASM-N-2, it used an active radar homing system. The TV-guided version was cancelled earlier in development, although there are a plethora of attempts to get TV guidance to work from all sides if you want to dig. It was also fielded operationally, although in low numbers. Sparrow's an AAM (with related SAMs), which isn't really what I was getting at. AAMs lagged behind AShMs due to planes being harder to track than boats and the need for miniaturization. Again, it's also worth noting the ASM-N-4, which was operational and was passive infra-red homing. Given the precedent set by the inclusion of 19" and 20" guns, which were never placed into service, it's also possible to add in a lot of systems which were pursued but never operationally deployed. The BAT was an active homing radar guided bomb. It used elevons connected through servo motors and the autopilot system. The Radar was an early S-band set. It was not a missile, it was a guided bomb not a missile. I've actually seen the BAT. The problem with the active homing radar guided bombs was that the homing system could and did home in on almost anything in the area. It was not successful near land. The bomb was attached to the wing of a Privateer. It was not declared combat ready until January 1945. It was used against Japanese shipping but it was not very successful. Sorry for the mistake. I have worked on semi-active and active radar systems for fighters and bombers. I was relating all the information from memory.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 28, 2019 2:32:14 GMT -6
i think what we are going to see is termit missiles at best which was built mid 1950s maybe further designs but even this would basically be an insanely stupidly overpowered weapon being able to one shot destroyers and do insane damage to battleships
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 28, 2019 8:53:20 GMT -6
i think what we are going to see is termit missiles at best which was built mid 1950s maybe further designs but even this would basically be an insanely stupidly overpowered weapon being able to one shot destroyers and do insane damage to battleships With the addition of aviation into the game, you now need base support for your naval bases. That base support has to be fortifications with AA support along with AA support for the dockyards and supply network. You can't avoid it. You will also need the search radar capability to monitor ships passing your port. So, you need surface radar and air search radar, along with fire control radars for AA support.
|
|
|
Post by Procopius on May 28, 2019 9:20:12 GMT -6
I'd like to see large beam-riding antiship missiles. They might not have much time to mature before the end of the 1950s, but if you play on, I'd like the challenge of an environment where they'd advanced enough to add a new dimension to surface combat in the game. Launching SSMs at a radar contact, stuff like that. A need to build large, cruiser-sized ships dedicated to carrying SAMs to protect against modern attack aircraft. Stuff like that.
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on May 28, 2019 9:37:10 GMT -6
I think both P-15s and beam-riding AShMs could be relatively easily abstracted under RtW's system. AShMs are basically just one-way strike wings - you launch them off a missile rail (which we already have a mechanic for with torpedo tubes, although having more than one reload would be a nice option and there should be a way to spam fixed tubes like the Soviet CxGs), they fly towards a selected target, they do an AA check, and then they hit or miss the target and disappear. The big difference between something like a P-15 and a beam-rider (or something that's SARH) would be that you'd need a spotted target for the latter whereas the former could be launched blind on the very slim chance that it got a lock on its own (much the same as current airstrikes, although presumably with a much lower detection range). Overall, they seem very similar to a floatplane strike just without the need to ever recover the planes.
I imagine ASMs would actually be the hardest to add in - you'd need to launch a strike, that would then need to drop a payload at long range (but still within heavy SAM range), and that payload would then need to go through the short range AA checks.
|
|