Karagin
01/01/16 04:55 PM
70.195.207.49
|
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i0b3K7kNoZg&list=PL860E10EA1765D2CE&index=15
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
01/01/16 05:44 PM
98.150.102.177
|
I think that video misses a few points.
First is range of the weapons. There is a limit to how far out they can do damage, would determine how effective it would be to have fighters.
Second, how effective would be the weapons on fighters.
If they are the same range as the big ships, I would be more willing to send at least drones out in large numbers to overwhelm an enemies ship while bringing up the big expensive ships into range to destroy the other while the are dealing with my fighters.
Third ties into the second.
If I can send the inexpensive little drones against the enemy and destroy it without risking my ship, that would be much better then losing the larger ship. This also makes it sound like you will hit anything you target, which makes me think it inaccurate for a corkscrewing fighter. Yes speed of light if fast, but keeping your target lock in the first place would be the question. So targeting would be a question.
Using the fighters to screen shots that would hurt the larger ship would make them worth while if they can prevent losing the large ships.
As presented, it would be mutual annihilation on both ships. Not sure damages taken or done, but that is a big factor if a space fighter would be effective or not.
|
Retry
01/01/16 07:09 PM
68.103.19.152
|
1.Why would there be a limit to how far weapons do damage? Other than lasers which might dissipate/become "unfocused" with distance, projectile weapons will still have the same amount of kinetic energy at the barrel as they will a couple lightyears away. Chemical energy based weapons like explosives would be similar. The absence of fluid friction allows for interesting things.
2.Logically, larger craft will retain the capability of housing more effective/destructive weapons than smaller craft.
|
Akirapryde2006
01/01/16 09:22 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
Retry writes:
1.Why would there be a limit to how far weapons do damage? Other than lasers which might dissipate/become "unfocused" with distance, projectile weapons will still have the same amount of kinetic energy at the barrel as they will a couple lightyears away. Chemical energy based weapons like explosives would be similar. The absence of fluid friction allows for interesting things.
2.Logically, larger craft will retain the capability of housing more effective/destructive weapons than smaller craft.
Retry, I do agree with you in concept. Yes, the round of a kinetic energy weapon would continue to travel along its path at the same velocity that it had once it was fired. Newtons Laws support your concepts. However their usefulness in space combat is not as assured as you might think. You have to look at the ranges in space combat and travel times of your projectile.
Consider for this post my example, the massive 16"/50 Caliber Mark 7 Naval Rifle. One of the best naval rifles ever made throughout history. It has a muzzle velocity of 2,690 ft/s (820 m/s) on the upper end and a maximum range of 23.64 mi (38 km). (So lets have some fun with math shall we?) 38,000meters / 820meters per second. That is a flight time of about 45 seconds. (Am I right?)
Now lets look at the International Space Station. It orbits the earth at a speed of 4.76 miles per second or 25,132ft per second. (Did I ever tell you how much I love math lol)
So if our attacking ship fielding our example weapon fires on a ship traveling like the ISS, then long before our kinetic projectile can score a hit the ship has moved from its current position. Given modern radar technology we have right now, we can track incoming artillery shells. This means that our target ship could spot the danger coming and avoid being hit long before the shell travels its full range. So even firing at where the target should be in 45 seconds is nowhere a for sure hit.
Even for all you Rail Gun (Cannon/Rifle) supporters out there. The current technology we have in Rail Gun designs have our rail guns firing at seven times the speed of sound or roughly 7,882 feet per second. Using the range above you are still looking at a flight time of around 15 seconds. Still, more than enough time to move the target just enough to avoid taking damage.
Sometimes I hate to admit it, but the mechanics of the game actually got this right when talking about Naval Autocannons (Though they got it completely wrong in terms of Naval Gauss Rifles). They are only useful at shorter ranges as the speed of the projectile would limit their usefulness (not their damage capabilities but their ability to score a successful hit on a target at ranges).
As for your second point, I completely agree with you. There is no point to further that conversation.
Akirapryde
Cited Source: [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16"/50_caliber_Mark_7_gun]16"/50 caliber Mark 7 Naval Rifle[/url]
Cited Source: [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound]Speed Of Sound[/url]
Cited Source: [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2600567/Navy-unveils-latest-killing-machine-The-electromagnetic-railgun-shoot-seven-times-SPEED-OF-SOUND.html]Navy's Rail Gun Fires at Seven Times the speed of Sound[/url]
Cited Source: [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun]Rail Guns[/url]
That's strange in the preview my links above worked fine. But now they don't?
Edited by Akirapryde2006 (01/01/16 09:23 PM)
|
ghostrider
01/02/16 12:24 AM
98.150.102.177
|
I stated the range of the weapons as they were discussing lasers in the video. Nothing else. Technically, any projectile could damage things in other systems given enough time to get there. The game mass effect actually had an example of a Mass Driver weapon that inflicted damage to a planet that had missed it's original target. It is why they do NOT fire those weapons if it is not guaranteed to hit. Something that isn't taken into account in most games. An ac, gauss, or even bullets fired in space could possibly destroy buildings and such on the ground. The thicker the atmosphere, the less likely that is to happen.
On a star ship, how fast can you move the weapons to keep a target lock? You can hit pluto with a laser since it's speed and range is known, and doesn't vary. A ship flying in a straight line at you would be more then stupid.
But I do agree ranges are much greater then most give them credit for.
As with the larger ship having more/bigger weapons, that is true, but how much more effective are they? Firing the 16 inch guns on a battle ship against even a car, if fine. And you can load up your ship with say 12 of them. All's I can mount on a fighter is a simple say 50 caliber machine gun. If both can damage armor, what is more effective to use? I can send a swarm of cheap fighters in to destroy your big slow maneuvering and highly expensive ship, I can do more damage and even take out your ship with them. Lasers are alot harder to dodge, so this will change the outcome some.
But it comes down to armor. The fighters can fire off the shots and move out of the way of incoming shots from your large ship better then your large ship can.
So even if you are lucky as hell, and hit all 12 fighters on the first volley, I still have the chance of taking out the big ship. You have large areas of vulnerable things like fuel tanks, ammunition stores, turrets, thrusters, and possibly even living quarters. It is possible to get a shot into a break in the armor in a larger ship. And if your shot does not destroy the fighter in one shot, that makes it even more likely I will get in closer to make your targeting of my ships that much harder.
But then the video was about someone's opinion on wiether fighters would be useful. I don't think they actually thought about it seriously. Right now, how much power comes from the best laser, and would it destroy the armor fast enough on other ships before burning out or running out of power?
Effectiveness is the issue.
One more thing. We have not really tested lasers against targets in space to destroy them yet, or that I know of. Until they do, how can they make the assumption it would be worthless?
|
Cray
01/02/16 11:23 AM
184.89.66.202
|
Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:
Consider for this post my example, the massive 16"/50 Caliber Mark 7 Naval Rifle. One of the best naval rifles ever made throughout history. It has a muzzle velocity of 2,690 ft/s (820 m/s) on the upper end and a maximum range of 23.64 mi (38 km). (So lets have some fun with math shall we?) 38,000meters / 820meters per second. That is a flight time of about 45 seconds. (Am I right?)
Yes, you are. It takes a 20th Century cannon shell 45 seconds to cover 2 BT aerospace hexes.
Quote:
Now lets look at the International Space Station. It orbits the earth at a speed of 4.76 miles per second or 25,132ft per second. (Did I ever tell you how much I love math lol)
So if our attacking ship fielding our example weapon fires on a ship traveling like the ISS, then long before our kinetic projectile can score a hit the ship has moved from its current position.
Nitpick: Yes, the target moved, but big guns with long ranges never aimed where the target was at the moment of firing. They aimed where the target would be.
Even in WW2, battleship targeting computers accommodated their target's velocity, not just their position. They aim where the target will be when the target arrives. The USN's Mark I targeting computer accepted information including: the attacking ship's roll and pitch; the attacking ship's velocity; the target ship's motion; muzzle velocity of the shells (varying between shells and even gunpowder temperatures); wind speed and direction; gravity, relative wind, magnus effect of the spinning shells; and even Coriolis factors.
The Mark I couldn't run its calculations on its gears fast enough to keep up with jets (or a passing space station), but that wasn't because velocity was ignored. Later targeting computers also dealt with the velocity of the target and did so fast enough to address jets and (now) hypersonic targets like satellites and MIRVs.
Quote:
Given modern radar technology we have right now, we can track incoming artillery shells. This means that our target ship could spot the danger coming and avoid being hit long before the shell travels its full range. So even firing at where the target should be in 45 seconds is nowhere a for sure hit.
A critical factor in BattleTech is that even "sluggish" WarShips like the Aegis can out-accelerate any real jet fighter. A spacecraft like the Aegis can see incoming shells as you suggest, plot their interception, and then apply up to 1.5Gs. With up to 60 seconds (a full turn) to respond, an Aegis could change its velocity by 882m/s (almost mach 3) and its position by 26,460m (1.5 aerospace hexes) from where the guns originally aimed. Given shorter flight times (like 10 seconds), an Aegis can still manage a 147m/s velocity change and 735m distance change - it's own length, at least.
Such maneuverability does complicate targeting at 900km with unguided ballistic weapons.
Quote:
Sometimes I hate to admit it, but the mechanics of the game actually got this right when talking about Naval Autocannons
Nuclear propulsion charges FTW!
Quote:
(Though they got it completely wrong in terms of Naval Gauss Rifles).
You're not using real world Gauss rifle velocities to estimate BT Gauss rifle performance, are you?
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
ghostrider
01/02/16 01:02 PM
98.150.102.177
|
The fact that a target can dodge the shot needs to be emphasized.
Not just a turn, but in space, side motion (strafe for most games) is possible. And with the third dimension, (up and down) you have more possibilities then a ship on the sea. It would be more like firing at a sub then a surface vessel.
And with the large bulky ships, firing where they should be is easier then say a pt boat.
The movie Battleship had an interesting take on how to avoid incoming shots. I am sure the anchor chain would have snapped if they really tried it, but it did show some thought.
|
Akirapryde2006
01/03/16 11:13 AM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
Cray writes:
Yes, you are. It takes a 20th Century cannon shell 45 seconds to cover 2 BT aerospace hexes.
I wasn't completely sure about the actual ranges to BT Aerospace Hexes. But I think my point is clear. The longer the distance the harder it will become for direct fire kinetic weapons to score hits. I am not saying that they don't have their place on warships and such. I am saying that as the range grows, their effectiveness will diminish greatly.
Quote:
Cray writes:
Nitpick: Yes, the target moved, but big guns with long ranges never aimed where the target was at the moment of firing. They aimed where the target would be.
Even in WW2, battleship targeting computers accommodated their target's velocity, not just their position. They aim where the target will be when the target arrives. The USN's Mark I targeting computer accepted information including: the attacking ship's roll and pitch; the attacking ship's velocity; the target ship's motion; muzzle velocity of the shells (varying between shells and even gunpowder temperatures); wind speed and direction; gravity, relative wind, magnus effect of the spinning shells; and even Coriolis factors.
The Mark I couldn't run its calculations on its gears fast enough to keep up with jets (or a passing space station), but that wasn't because velocity was ignored. Later targeting computers also dealt with the velocity of the target and did so fast enough to address jets and (now) hypersonic targets like satellites and MIRVs.
Yes you are correct, some of the most modern targeting computers can hit a satellite moving at hypersonic speeds. However, these computers are being used with Lasers, not direct fire kinetic weapons. Thus this furthers my point.
Quote:
Cray writes:
A critical factor in BattleTech is that even "sluggish" WarShips like the Aegis can out-accelerate any real jet fighter. A spacecraft like the Aegis can see incoming shells as you suggest, plot their interception, and then apply up to 1.5Gs. With up to 60 seconds (a full turn) to respond, an Aegis could change its velocity by 882m/s (almost mach 3) and its position by 26,460m (1.5 aerospace hexes) from where the guns originally aimed. Given shorter flight times (like 10 seconds), an Aegis can still manage a 147m/s velocity change and 735m distance change - it's own length, at least.
Such maneuverability does complicate targeting at 900km with unguided ballistic weapons.
LOL I am not sure if you supporting my point or trying to counter it. Either way, I can agree with what you are saying here.
Quote:
Cray writes:
Nuclear propulsion charges FTW!
So what????
Quote:
Cray writes:
You're not using real world Gauss rifle velocities to estimate BT Gauss rifle performance, are you?
I am. Because it gives a solid base to build the comparison. It really doesn't matter how fast a person will claim the velocity of a BT Gauss Rifle is. When you are talking about these kinds of ranges the point is still valid. Unless the round is traveling at or very close to light speed, travel time of the round will still play a very real factor in scoring that hit. And this is my point about range degradation.
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
The fact that a target can dodge the shot needs to be emphasized.
Not just a turn, but in space, side motion (strafe for most games) is possible. And with the third dimension, (up and down) you have more possibilities then a ship on the sea. It would be more like firing at a sub then a surface vessel.
And with the large bulky ships, firing where they should be is easier then say a pt boat.
I am not so sure the authors want to go down that road. The ability to dodge an incoming shot would open up so many debates. Such debates of what rounds can be dodge and what can't be. Or what kind of dice rolls would be needed to successful conduct the dodge. Seeing how my thread regarding Rules over Range and Fire Control has been pretty much ignored, I don't see this concept gaining traction.
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
The movie Battleship had an interesting take on how to avoid incoming shots. I am sure the anchor chain would have snapped if they really tried it, but it did show some thought.
Not even going to touch this.
|
ghostrider
01/03/16 01:04 PM
98.150.102.177
|
I understand that dodging rules would slow the game dramatically. Honestly, they could say that is why the to hits are harder for space. Kind of blend it in there. But that should mean lasers would have no range modifiers. It should all be considered short for them, and that opens up issues as well.
A ppc is questionable as to what it actually fires. At those ranges, I think there is a slight delay, making it border line on if you can dodge.
But dodging isn't just moving out the line of fire, but also anticipating WHEN the shot will be fired. Move just before it goes off is easier then moving as the shot heads towards you.
Though this discussion is making me wonder if there should be a penalty for projectiles fire in space on their to hits. The longer the range, the harder it is to hit.
Now the examples of being able to hit things in orbit and on sea is missing one key factor, besides being able to maneuver. Changing speed needs to be addressed. A constant speed and direction on a target is much easier to target, then one that changes speed and even direction. Satellites don't do that often. The lack of fuel keeps it limited.
|
Cray
01/03/16 01:17 PM
72.189.109.30
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
The fact that a target can dodge the shot needs to be emphasized.
It's built into the to-hit numbers and weapon ranges. They suck at long and extreme aerospace ranges not just because it's hard to target at hundreds of kilometers distance, but because the targets have time to avoid ballistic threats.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cray
01/03/16 01:59 PM
72.189.109.30
|
Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:
LOL I am not sure if you supporting my point or trying to counter it. Either way, I can agree with what you are saying here.
I was expanding on your point.
Quote:
Yes you are correct, some of the most modern targeting computers can hit a satellite moving at hypersonic speeds. However, these computers are being used with Lasers, not direct fire kinetic weapons. Thus this furthers my point.
Well, if by "lasers" you mean "guided missiles like the SM-3," sure. 
Quote:
Quote:
Cray writes:
Nuclear propulsion charges FTW!
So what????
It felt like a good time to endorse the method NACs use to get their shells up to tens of kilometers per second. Nuclear explosions are cool, and cannon shells propelled by nuclear explosions are k3wler. 
Quote:
Unless the round is traveling at or very close to light speed, travel time of the round will still play a very real factor in scoring that hit. And this is my point about range degradation.
It's a real point, but you're working the issue from the wrong angle if starting with reality instead of available canon. Reality is a source of last resort in BT discussions because you're no longer discussing the same, shared fictional universe.
Quote:
Quote:
Cray writes:
You're not using real world Gauss rifle velocities to estimate BT Gauss rifle performance, are you?
I am.
During BT's reviewing process, the priority list for settling continuity disputes is:
1) The rules and stats
2) Rule book / TRO fluff
3) Novels / fiction
4) Artwork
5) Real world, and only if utterly necessary and it doesn't contradict any obscure fluff, art, or line developer's opinions
If you have a news article saying EADS got a railgun to fire at 7213.7 feet per second, and Battlespace/AT2/Total Warfare saying that aerospace hexes are 18km across, turns are 60 seconds long, and naval Gauss rifles have 50-hex ranges, then the correct place to start is the rules data for figuring our NGR muzzle velocities (15,000m/s minimum). This means that, when discussing cannon, the news article (or wiki article, or DoD report) is only useful for going, "Wow, look how much BT improved on the [insert item under discussion.]"
The moment you start pushing reality over canon, that should be a flag that you're working a BT discussion from the wrong angle. I mean, it might feel better for you to start with reality, but starting with the rules, then fluff, then reality is the pattern followed during the reviewing process for new publications. You'll get different answers, non-canon answers, if you work it from a different starting point.
And that means you're no longer talking canon, you're talking about a home game and personal opinions rather than what everyone else is discussing. Which is cool, it's just drifting off topic from the shared universe.
Moving on to BT aerospace guns, there's a point: naval lasers, naval Gauss rifles, and naval autocannons have the same basic target numbers at the same ranges. There are some situation-specific modifiers (e.g., naval lasers have an anti-fighter mode lacking in their ballistic counterparts), but the rules and fluff say target numbers are about the same. Starting with reality to say "that's not right" is avoiding the challenge of making canon work.
And if you want to make canon BT fyzics work, there are options out there. For example, GURPS:Transhuman Space (which uses science so hard that you can break your teeth on it) had a great explanation for laser to-hit numbers and speed of light delays: sure, you can almost always get a laser to connect with a target. But between beam jitter and focus issues at hundreds of kilometers range, it's a work of skill and art to get it to connect solidly with one part of the target long enough to make it really sting. Otherwise you're just scribbling doodles in the target's paint. Getting a solid connection with a laser is just about as hard as getting a slower guided missile or hyper-velocity railgun slug to connect.
If you're trying to fill in the blanks to explain canonical target numbers, why not start with that idea? It's not far off from the experience of the Airborne Laser, either.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Akirapryde2006
01/03/16 02:46 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
Cray writes:
I was expanding on your point.
Fair enough, though I will admit you raise some good points. Points I really don't mind engaging with.
Quote:
Cray writes:
Well, if by "lasers" you mean "guided missiles like the SM-3," sure.
Actually I was talking about the Boeing YAL-1 Programmed which has been cancelled. I had to actually look up what you were talking about and discovered it. I saw the test you are talking about. Where a RIM-161 Standard Missile-3 shoot down a satellite in low orbit. So......I stand corrected.
Quote:
Cray writes:
It felt like a good time to endorse the method NACs use to get their shells up to tens of kilometers per second. Nuclear explosions are cool, and cannon shells propelled by nuclear explosions are k3wler.
LOL Well if you say so. Allow us to agree to disagree on this one lol
Quote:
Cray writes:
It's a real point, but you're working the issue from the wrong angle if starting with reality instead of available canon. Reality is a source of last resort in BT discussions because you're no longer discussing the same, shared fictional universe.
During BT's reviewing process, the priority list for settling continuity disputes is:
1) The rules and stats
2) Rule book / TRO fluff
3) Novels / fiction
4) Artwork
5) Real world, and only if utterly necessary and it doesn't contradict any obscure fluff, art, or line developer's opinions
If you have a news article saying EADS got a railgun to fire at 7213.7 feet per second, and Battlespace/AT2/Total Warfare saying that aerospace hexes are 18km across, turns are 60 seconds long, and naval Gauss rifles have 50-hex ranges, then the correct place to start is the rules data for figuring our NGR muzzle velocities (15,000m/s minimum). This means that, when discussing cannon, the news article (or wiki article, or DoD report) is only useful for going, "Wow, look how much BT improved on the [insert item under discussion.]"
The moment you start pushing reality over canon, that should be a flag that you're working a BT discussion from the wrong angle. I mean, it might feel better for you to start with reality, but starting with the rules, then fluff, then reality is the pattern followed during the reviewing process for new publications. You'll get different answers, non-canon answers, if you work it from a different starting point.
And that means you're no longer talking canon, you're talking about a home game and personal opinions rather than what everyone else is discussing. Which is cool, it's just drifting off topic from the shared universe.
Moving on to BT aerospace guns, there's a point: naval lasers, naval Gauss rifles, and naval autocannons have the same basic target numbers at the same ranges. There are some situation-specific modifiers (e.g., naval lasers have an anti-fighter mode lacking in their ballistic counterparts), but the rules and fluff say target numbers are about the same. Starting with reality to say "that's not right" is avoiding the challenge of making canon work.
And if you want to make canon BT fyzics work, there are options out there. For example, GURPS:Transhuman Space (which uses science so hard that you can break your teeth on it) had a great explanation for laser to-hit numbers and speed of light delays: sure, you can almost always get a laser to connect with a target. But between beam jitter and focus issues at hundreds of kilometers range, it's a work of skill and art to get it to connect solidly with one part of the target long enough to make it really sting. Otherwise you're just scribbling doodles in the target's paint. Getting a solid connection with a laser is just about as hard as getting a slower guided missile or hyper-velocity railgun slug to connect.
If you're trying to fill in the blanks to explain canonical target numbers, why not start with that idea? It's not far off from the experience of the Airborne Laser, either.
Listen I get what you are saying and understand. And truthfully, reality can prove a lot of the tech in the Battletech Universe to be viable and sound. I don't want to be a nah sayer here. This is not my intention. More closely to the fact, I want to show why Naval Lasers and NPPC's in the game should and often do outclass their direct fire naval cousins. I am not saying that direct fire weapons in battlespace are useless. Just that their effectiveness would be reduced as the range increases.
I do think that mechanics get in the way of creating technologies that should reflect the future of warfare, but that is a conversation for another day.
Cray, I want you to know that I have come to respect and value your opinion. But what do you do when the rules and stats, Rule book / TRO fluff, Novels / fiction, and Artwork all contradict themselves? Which has happened many times through the game's history.
BTW I have played GRUPS and had really enjoyed the four campaigns that I was part of. Just like with Mechwarrior, for me it's all about the story and to hell with the rest. Lol
Akirapryde
|
Karagin
01/03/16 07:20 PM
72.176.187.91
|
Jerry Pournell had this idea for a missile called THOTH, it was nothing more then a cargo carrying missile that would enter orbit and blowup scattering debeir in the path of the satellite and blowing it up. Simple cheap and used off the shelf items. Similar idea I believe to Casters and other close in PDWS.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
01/03/16 07:22 PM
98.150.102.177
|
So why do ballistic weapons have the same targeting ranges and to hits as the lasers?
If they are more likely to be dodged or even fooled by speed or direction changes, why isn't there any difference between them?
I have a question that maybe someone can answer.
Wouldn't a shell fired from space burn up in an atmosphere on the way down?
Don't know why but thought about it when thinking of orbital bombardments.
|
ghostrider
01/05/16 12:47 PM
98.150.102.177
|
So the missiles are basically large pop up mines?
Now with all the discussion in the thread, I believe I have been the only one to actually put in an opinion on if space fighters are a go/no go.
Though it has been interesting to learn some of the facts that have been presented.
|
Akirapryde2006
01/05/16 05:07 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Are Fighter a go or no go?
I would have to say that with the advancing technology (are you paying attention Cray? lol) I can't imagine that Fighters would be any less effective as they are today. Regardless of other technologies and their own advances. You have to think of it like an arms race.
Look at the large battleship. Many of us think that it is a ship class that has out lived its usefulness. Because of the Aircraft Carrier, the role of the battleship has been deleted. However I challenge that the battleship has just been transformed in to what the Aircraft carrier is today. Doesn't make sense? Here, allow me to explain.
Take the mounted soldier of the Dark Ages. He rode a horse with his sword (or lance or bow) in to combat. He was mobile unit on the battlefield that could out flank the enemy. As time passed, his weapons got more deadly and his horse took on the shape of a Tank. But this was not the end of his evolution. In the Vietnam era, the mounted soldier was also the attack helicopter pilot. The mounted soldier of today looks nothing like the Horse riding soldiers of the dark ages, but their role is still the same. To be highly mobile on the battlefield and hunt down heavy units to be killed (or to scout).
The battleship didn't go away. Its weapons were transformed in to longer ranging harder hitting fighters. Its frame took on the shape of the Aircraft carry. While the two units look nothing a like, they are in fact the evolution of the same unit carrying out the same role.
The fighter is much the same.
Look at the fighters of Battletech. While to us they look like normal fighters of our imagination. Cray is right about the march of technology. The "fighter" could look completely different than what we see today but the role of close in support would be the same. Or carrying a nuclear or conventional tipped weapon up close and personal with a large lumbering warship. If this conversation has proved anything. The greater the ranges are, the less likely hits will be scored. Thus making Fighters a key role in any battlefield of the future.
Akirapryde
|
Karagin
01/05/16 11:37 PM
72.176.187.91
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
So the missiles are basically large pop up mines?
Now with all the discussion in the thread, I believe I have been the only one to actually put in an opinion on if space fighters are a go/no go.
Though it has been interesting to learn some of the facts that have been presented.
Saturday January 9, 1999
THOTH Missiles were an invention by Cob Beum, R P Zieke, Jim Beebe, and myself some years ago as part of a Boeing weapons system proposal. I have used them in stories. A reader reports that DARPA toys with the idea, but puts up and takes down the information at whim:
Jerry,
It looks like that Neo-Thoth briefings page is back up on the DARPA site.
The following link will take you to the page:
http://www.darpa.mil/tto/briefings/afssbi1.html
Regardless of whether the link works, I already sent you a hard copy of the briefing via snail mail.
Trent J. Telenko [trent_telenko@hotmail.com]
Thanks for the pointer! Maybe it will stay up this time.
The above is from Pournelle's page, he uses the missile a lot in his different novels, most of the usage being in the Co-Dominon and Flakenberg books.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Edited by Karagin (01/05/16 11:39 PM)
|
Karagin
01/05/16 11:43 PM
72.176.187.91
|
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/empire.html
There is a bit more about the Thoth after the long commentary about Gen. Zunni's farewell speech.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
01/07/16 12:22 PM
98.150.102.177
|
I can see there being one major shift in fighter designs for space. The lack of a human pilot in them.
The thought that drone fighters would probably be the way to do came to mind just before I logged in.
That would mean more room for fuel and other things in a smaller fighter. Don't need air or other things since no human would be in there.
It would give the fighter an advantage over a normal one in the amount of thrust it could have, since humans are still vulnerable to g force black outs.
It would also allow a carrier to either carry more, or be smaller since it would not need the pilots either.
Now some downsides that would needs to be worked out.
Ecm. If they are not fully robotic craft, but need someone flying them remotely, this would be a huge issue. Yes, you would need the people on the carrier, but they do not need to be only pilots, but could be other crewmembers and maybe even the techs to work on them as well.
If they are robotic, I would say all programs needed to use it be burned into a chip, without any ram programs in them. That would make them so much harder to hack, since inputting information is not how they would work, so any incoming commands could be 'ignored'. Yes, changing the orders would be input, but there are a few things that could be done to avoid someone hacking into them. The lack of ram limits how much could be hacked.
|
Reiter
01/08/16 10:01 AM
45.48.53.140
|
Quote:
Cray writes:
Quote:
Quote:
Cray writes:
Nuclear propulsion charges FTW!
So what????
It felt like a good time to endorse the method NACs use to get their shells up to tens of kilometers per second. Nuclear explosions are cool, and cannon shells propelled by nuclear explosions are k3wler. :
2 things:
Have NACs always been "controlled plasma explosions" for propulsion? Or was it retcon at some point, way back I don't remember reading that. I just assumed it fired like a normal cannon, firing a handful of shots with multiple shells to fill space per cannon built into the ship...single gun in BT fires maybe 6 shells since its "Naval Auto Cannon" if not "Naval ARTILLERY Cannon" and author error, would not firing a single shell would make more sense. Iowas fired 3 shells per turret to fill a given space (low probability of hit given the tracking of the time), a Navel autocannon would each fire multiple shells from each gun (assume the ship has 1 gun in that arc, on that turret to fire 6 shells, then it would be an AUTOCANNON, if not its Naval Artillery for single shot). God that is a confusing paragraph.
Second, given a size of a hex, Iowas fired in arcs towards the horizon (first up, then down), BT universe would essential be flat arcs in multiple planes in space (no up or down), ect ect could not the 16 inch guns cover at least 3 hexes in 45-60 seconds? Food for thought.
All in all, space warfare in the BT universe would best be used for PPC and gauss given their size + ammo constraints (Gauss does the same damage almost, better ranges, lower heat, only twice the weight of comparable damage to a NAC damage of the gun, and the ammo is lighter for a Gauss assuming you are using a lot of NAC ammo on the ship) . PPC, heatsinks are cheaper then ammo and support the reduction of heat for any weapon system. NAC/Laser/Missile are just redundant outside of flavor.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
1 registered and 71 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 7777
|
|
|
|
|
|
|