>>6021 >What's the prospect for mole drones/mines capable of autonomously drilling and digging around below enemy positions? Seems unlikely as digging takes a lot of energy and going to be rather noisy plus tunneling would probably be easy to detect with modern seismology equipment. I believe Israel has a system for detecting tunnels through (under) Gaza border and seems to be the only thing Hamas didn't cuck in the recent attacks.

>>6024 If you truly are a Greek then you must feel my immense pain. Our military is a total disaster. I have 0% doubt that if a PMC like Wagner was allowed to invade Greece with the support of the Russian air force (only for protecting them against our own air force, they wouldn't even have to do any ground strikes) they would roflstomp us all the way to Athens within 1 month. >Tanks Even the 2A6HEL is outdated because it has no addon side armor and obviously no APS. The 2A4 is outdated completely and everything else is only good for the museum. >Navy The 4 MEKO frigates are the only surface vessel worth talking about. But they too are outclassed by the Instanbul class frigates. The Type 214 submarines are good, but they don't have modern torpedoes, at least not enough of them. We also need more subs, especially new ones. The 214 are slowly becoming outclassed. >Air force The Hellenic air force may appear superb on paper but once you dig deeper, you realise that the only aircraft with stand-off weapons are the Mirages (SCALP missiles only, nothing else), the only aircraft with truly modern missiles are the Rafales (Meteors) and when it comes to the F-16s, they have no fucking modern missiles, no modern guided bombs and they don't even have modern RCS coatings because the Divided States of Amerilard refuse to sell us any (and we sold off the only Greek company that used to make them) >Air Defenses There's no point defense unless you count the outdated ASRAD (54 of them only, but I bet my left nut that there's less than 54 in working condition), 7 HAWKs (Good morning Vietnam!) and the 9 Crotale NGs. We only have 6 Patriot launchers. In all of Greece, we expect that 6 Patriot PAC3s will protect us from the Turkish air force and their missiles. Ahahahah, all 6 will be destroyed within 1 week. >Artillery There's 24 Pzh2000s. That's it. Whoever counts the M109s as artillery, still lives in 1980. Every last M109 will be blown apart by drones and Firtinas because they HAVE NO FUCKING AUTOLOADER YOU CANNOT HAVE SPGS WITHOUT AUTOLOADERS IN THE 2020s YOU FUCKING RETARDS WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >Infantry The absolute worst infantry in all of Europe. The worst training, the worst equipment, the worst officers, the worst everything. The female personnel will star in Turkish gangrape videos. It is the duty of every Greek man to "take care" of the women in his unit so they don't get captured and embarrass us all in the raw natural things that are bound to follow. >Special Forces There OYK and ETA, that's it. Will they even get to do anything? Will they be used to disable Turkish AA emplacements and harbors? Get real, they won't be used for anything like that. They will instead be shipped off into suicide missions at some island with 0 support to die to Turkish artillery and drones. >Electronic Warfare The very concept of EW to Greece is what clean toilets are to an Indian.

>>6026 At least we have Rafales and soon F-35, kek, plus a higher tonnage navy than Germany Plz disregard that it is "manned" predominantly by commies.

>>6022 For what? A column moving in range of enemy close air support? For defense of a front, density is per length of front. Air defense needs to resist saturation. Thus, be thick enough, in terms of total rate of fire within overlapping fields. Everywhere, since the other guy chooses time and place. For short-ranged effectively immobile weapons it’s rather straightforward and expensive. >>6023 > if they can spot a drone they should be able to also spot some enemy tanks and infantry. Depends on how they are placed. But yes. Detection of UAV, UGV and big targets obviously overlaps a lot. So it shapes to something like a mass produced forward spotter pod with light self-defense capability, given to small units and spread on the front much like MG nests for suppression (and with less variability, since small UAV can pop up everywhere).

> https://www.rbth.com/science-and-tech/334224-modified-tor-air-defense-system A curious mention here . The big waking call to try and intercept ever smaller loitering munitions was the re-ignited Caucasus mini-Balkans 2.0 2.0 >>7830 when they began to actually inflict major losses.

Imagine torpedoe made out of TOS missile. It would be ridiculous.

Are the kind of super elite tacticool snipers who can take out a random dude from 1-2km away actually useful if you are not fighting random insurgents? To me it seems like they are better used as scouts and observers nowadays.

>>6031 >they are better used as scouts and observers nowadays You just described the primary role of snipers in all "insurgent" combat. Modern snipers rarely even take a shot on most of their missions in view of recon instead, and sniping is really only reserved for taking out high value targets, for providing support to other units, and during open warfare as a way to stop/slow troop movement and reduce morale.

>>6030 >Imagine torpedoe made out of TOS missile. Wouldn't work underwater, thermobaric weapons rely on oxygen from surrounding air to make a boom.

Is an AAM/SAM that kills plen not by trying to crash into it and blowing itself up when reaching proximity but instead droppings a cluster of missilets with proximity sensors and minimal maneuvering capability in or along the target's flight path feasible outside of Belkan laboratories?

>>6034 You just described an anti-aicraft version of a Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicle. The answer is yes, it is feasible. But it would be utterly pointless.

bump

Russians are planning to replace KA-52s with helicopter drones, in no small part due to the cost of training pilots is way too high, and those drones should be able to fling missiles just the same.

>>6034 Starstreak is pretty similar to what you're describing.

>>6023 Russians already deployed a supply UGV. https://t.me/militarysummary/6752?single

>>6033 Make it an above water suicide katamarn ekranoplane . I want to see what happens to Nimitz class when shockwave resonates on every possible metal surface and suddenly sea temperature around the ship goes up to 100c >>6038 Starstreak has also a terrible track record in Ukraine.

How viable are rigid airships as high-altitude Carrier platforms for drones while doubling as Satellite relays/comm beacons/AWACs? They don't necessarily have to carry UCAVs, could just be recon/surveillance or civilian atmospheric survey drones. An airship's larger space+greater tonnage in combination with gentle, stable flight could also allow for installation of more sensitive high-powered electronics than on a conventional fixed-wing aircraft, at the cost of being slow and a big target though nobody said you can't mount CIWS on a skeleton kept aloft by helium tanks.

>>6040 That can mostly be attributed to Britain's weird aversion to IR guidance, though. Replace the convoluted laser arrangement with a central IR seeker with wire-guided submunitions, and you solve two of the biggest problems while keeping most of the benefits.

>>6041 I think the reasons you mentioned would be enough to stop it being viable. You have to remember that the moment CWIS is being used a missile will have to have typically penetrated several layers of defences. As a form of civilians transport and air freight shipping I reckon it would have taken the place of planes if the Hindenburg wasn't sabotaged, simply because it would have been so much cheaper and more efficient than aircraft in about every comparable way.

>>6042 Cost maybe? I know our special forces use the stinger instead and have been since the 80's.

>>6043 Except for the fact that the large surface area means that any kind of storm, any kind of high winds, either blows them three time zones away in a few hours or destroys them utterly. Look up the USS Akron disaster in 1933. They're utterly at the mercy of the winds, and extremely, extremely fragile.

>>6045 >not giving sailors on a Navy airship flying over the sea life jackets Burger/10 While the large surface area is indeed a problem, a modern day airship could and should make use of >Diesel/nuclear/greentard-electric drivetrain with lightweight prop nacelles capable of 3DOF movement for VTOL and precision maneuvering >Autistic lifting hull aerodynamics optimization like the Aeroscraft prototype >redundant flight control surfaces/canards >Redundant FBW coupled to the afroimentioned 3D pivoting nacelles and flight control surfaces to mitigate these problems to a degree unimaginable in the 1930s. It's honestly a miracle and testament to the superhuman efforts of airmen back then that airships worked as well as they did, with engine nacelle operators getting their ears shredded for hours while waiting for the throttle indicator from the bridge to change and crew manually shoving the tail control surfaces into place because the wires snapped/jammed but the ship still manages to dock safely somehow. Aeroscraft even developed a system of active buoyancy management using multiple variable pressure helium bags that largely negates the need for ballast, yet no one's stepped up to build a proper rigid airship with all this tech put into it which enrages me almost as much as the YF-23 cancellation and everything resulting from that. Large hangars that hopefully don't fold in on themselves will be necessary for safe storage though, wind is still wind.

Do airships even show up on radar?

>>6047 According to a quick search yes they do, but they give off a weaker signal due to their construction.

Would the reduced gravity+air resistance in the low-mid stratosphere make missile carrier airships viable for ballistic missile defense/offense, or alternatively annoying EW spammers with onboard hard-kill defense systems current SAM systems aren't designed to handle?

>>6046 Hydrogen cells I reckon would be most effective for civilian applications. It could serve a duel purpose of fuel for the engines and buoyancy for the craft.

>>6047 Gee I don't know, does a huge object reflect radar waves?

>>6041 About the same as naval aircraft carriers: works against peasants with rusty bootleg AKs and IEDs or at most military demoralized into complete lethargy, otherwise expected to go down in minutes (if the situation is less than ideal, even without high-end weapons, see Millen[n]ium Challenge). But even more so, due to shorter range of payload, inability to carry much weight in point defenses and being flimsier than anything else, even among the aircraft. Also, aircraft carriers have fire suppression systems and are not made of easily melted materials, so at least you need actual direct hits with actual warheads, rather than just dumping a bag of cheap fireworks more or less above it.

>>6046 >build a proper rigid airship Why make it rigid though? I am sure that with modern tech we could make an inflatable skeleton. I guess high flying zeppelins could act as satelites in case these go down and for smaller nations. A satelite is orbiting earth, obviously, so it is incapable of providing 24/7 coverage of the battlefield. Thats why you need entire spy networks up there. Zeppelin can just sit there above with cameras and monitor a single operational theatre pretty much 24/7. And if it somehow gets shot down through all of your air defenses, well, its a baloon with extra frills. >>6049 I dont think so. Limited cargo capacity (compared to ground) and possible arc of attack (baloon top) means it is easy to counter. >>6051 Does it in an useful manner? building sized object traveling at the speed of decently drunk pigeon which hardly emits any heat and is effectively a gas wrapped in oblong, thin sheet is something pretty likely to be interpreted as background noise. Besides, wasnt that a part of that (suspicious) chinese spy baloon story, that they did not catch it earlier because they did not detect it?

>>6053 You said it yourself, that was a balloon, not an airship. It is made out of materials thin enough that radar goes through them until it gets closer

>>6053 >inflatable skeleton Why? That seems to make attaching anything to the Ship's hull far more complicated than necessary and doesn't bode well for redundancy in case of a hit/leak, one of the natural advantages multi-bagged rigid airships have over single bag inflatable and semi-rigid designs. You can't even pump out helium in the hangar without the entire thing folding in on itself, did Andrew Dobson join Lockheeb? Also, >Zeppelin >balloon with extra frills Those are blimps, a proper Zeppelin better have some omnidirectional AESA radars and laser CIWS mounted on its hull. Outside of the large hangar space and amount of helium required would building a sub-Hindenburg sized Surveillance/pseudo-Satellite stratospheric airship really be that expensive compared to a single F-35? Up there Solar panels would work better than on the ground and the ship could spend a lot of time drifting with minimal engine power consumption in favorable weather conditions, and unlike Satellites it could be recovered and serviced on the ground while also being able to defend itself somewhat with hard-kill protection systems. Hell, at Hindenburg sizes it might even be possible to build a detachable steerable lifeboat that can glide down to the ground following the slow compared to fixed-wing aircraft collapse of the Airship itself from missile strikes.

>>6053 >>6055 How about putting a radar on one and using it to monitor air traffic during peace? If an enemy wants to attack you with planes or missiles the airship will notice it, and even if it gets shot down as part of the initial attack, it could at least warn you a bit ahead of time, and the enemy had to waste some missiles on shooting it down. Sure, sending up a new one once the war is on would be pointless, but knowing that a swarm of missiles is coming before they enter the range or ground-based radars would still give you extra time to prepare.

>>6054 Sorry, I fucked up, I was only able to see a rendition of my idea on application of this kind of vehicle. >>6055 >Why? Ease of storage when not deployed.

>>6056 Most likely because of the expense relative to a nations actual airspace borders and authority. Any civilian plane is marked by transponder so really doesn't need to be monitored by radar and it's an expensive one trick pony in war time.

>>6058 >Any civilian plane is marked by transponder so really doesn't need to be monitored by radar Transponder/ATC relay airships over the Atlantic/Pacific/Indian Oceans could greatly reduce the amount of time needed to find airplane wreckage after an MH370 AF447-style accident.

One aspect of trench warfare is that physically less capable people can still hold the ground from prepared positions, simply because they don't have to carry more than half of their body weight's worth of equipment, unlike in the sandbox. Of course, using them for an attack is not a good idea, but as long as they have the morale and discipline to keep firing they are still good enough. And the key here is that the positions have to be prepared, as digging trenches under enemy fire is significantly harder. Meanwhile if the area is still not on the front you can use civilian excavators, or a whole lot of random civilians.