NationStates

Tule wrote:

North Arkana wrote:Well, kinetic orbital bombardment would work on a ship. Punch a hole right through it, and it would create a massive void beneath the ship from the cavitation effect on the water.

There is no good reason to put anything in space that you plan on using to bombard the ground. None.

FOBS?

Atomic Utopia wrote:

The Corparation wrote:Why bother with nukes? Just take the 747 AAC concept and ditch the pilots of the micro fighters.In flight refueling is also a lot cheaper and easier than dealing with a nuclear plant. Then again you are Atomic Utopia.

The idea was to make a in air refuling vessel capable of also re-arming my drones, not a flying air craft carrier. I think I will drop the reactor due to the fact that it costs a lot more (dependent upon design) and will increase the size of the plane quite a bit.

However on the subject of AACs, how much would one of those cost compared to a conventional carrier, and what would the advantage be. Currently I think the reaction time of it would be a decent advantage, however the need for constant refueling would be a problem.

The 747 AAC is hardly in the same category as the more commonly depicted (And significantly less plausible) Shield Helicarrier and UNIT Valiant style carriers.It's literally just a 747 crammed full of parasite fighters. Swap the parasite fighters for drones, and you pretty much have exactly what I think you're going for. Price wise, I have no idea, but not including the cost of R&D or the cost of the parasite drones, I don't see it as costing much more than a few hundred million each.

Krazakistan wrote:

Tule wrote:

There is no good reason to put anything in space that you plan on using to bombard the ground. None.

FOBS?

That's not meant to stay in space for any appreciable amount of time, it was meant to go over the south pole and hit the US from behind its radar coverage.

Actually putting a weapon into space and keeping it there in orbit until ordered to strike is just asking for it to be shot down.

The Corparation wrote:

Atomic Utopia wrote:The idea was to make a in air refuling vessel capable of also re-arming my drones, not a flying air craft carrier. I think I will drop the reactor due to the fact that it costs a lot more (dependent upon design) and will increase the size of the plane quite a bit.

However on the subject of AACs, how much would one of those cost compared to a conventional carrier, and what would the advantage be. Currently I think the reaction time of it would be a decent advantage, however the need for constant refueling would be a problem.

The 747 AAC is hardly in the same category as the more commonly depicted (And significantly less plausible) Shield Helicarrier and UNIT Valiant style carriers.It's literally just a 747 crammed full of parasite fighters. Swap the parasite fighters for drones, and you pretty much have exactly what I think you're going for. Price wise, I have no idea, but not including the cost of R&D or the cost of the parasite drones, I don't see it as costing much more than a few hundred million each.

But the question remains, would it be a good idea today?

I did the basic calculations after reading more about it, except I intend to use an AN-124 for cost reasons, however I wonder how having a comparable amount of firepower using this system would compare to a conventional carrier.

If I were to use an AN-124 the carrier would cost about 200 million assuming the price of 100 million per airplane and another 100 for the upgrades like the flight deck, this is a conservative estimate because the largest cost of an airplane is the engines from what I understand. The fighters should cost about 60 million each assuming a cost half that of the f-35. That should give a cost of 800 million per unit assuming that you have 10 fighters per carrier as per the original concepts, how does this compare to a regular aircraft carrier?

EDIT: Does anyone know the cost of an AN-225 because I am thinking of using that instead.

Tule wrote:

The United Remnants of America wrote:Are we back to kinetic orbital bombardment now?

I'm sensing the cycle in this thread that goes between super-duper aircraft, megaships, and nukes.

Though I still haven't figured out if we're cycling or swirling down a toilet.

Dear god no. I'm talking about ICBM's in sub-orbital flight.

Their re-entry speed is roughly Mach 20.

North Arkana wrote:Well, kinetic orbital bombardment would work on a ship. Punch a hole right through it, and it would create a massive void beneath the ship from the cavitation effect on the water.

There is no good reason to put anything in space that you plan on using to bombard the ground. None.

There is if you have an established space industry and can manufacture the stuff up there.

(of course, if you're able to utilize the resources available in space, one questions why you care about getting into wars on Earth at all)

My navy has a many amount of ships.
Also, I'm in the hospital recovering from a ruptured appendix and poisonous bacteria, so don't expect a normal posting habits. Maybe I can be useful in some way to the thread if there ever comes about a question about field appendix removal or why Morphine sucks

Axis Nova wrote:

North Arkana wrote:
There is no good reason to put anything in space that you plan on using to bombard the ground. None.

There is if you have an established space industry and can manufacture the stuff up there.

(of course, if you're able to utilize the resources available in space, one questions why you care about getting into wars on Earth at all)

Unless as you mentioned, your entire nation is located exclusively in space, (In which case, why bother attacking a planet), ICBMs and other more conventional weapons systems will be cheaper, more effective, and more survivable than anything that has to sit there in orbit until needed. Especially if you have to setup a fairly large logistics train to build such weapons in space. Or at least to build a fancy guided weapon such as rods from god. It doesn't take much to nudge an asteroid, but it's still easier to just lob a missile from somewhere else on the planet.

Atomic Utopia wrote:

The Corparation wrote:
The 747 AAC is hardly in the same category as the more commonly depicted (And significantly less plausible) Shield Helicarrier and UNIT Valiant style carriers.It's literally just a 747 crammed full of parasite fighters. Swap the parasite fighters for drones, and you pretty much have exactly what I think you're going for. Price wise, I have no idea, but not including the cost of R&D or the cost of the parasite drones, I don't see it as costing much more than a few hundred million each.

But the question remains, would it be a good idea today?

I did the basic calculations after reading more about it, except I intend to use an AN-124 for cost reasons, however I wonder how having a comparable amount of firepower using this system would compare to a conventional carrier.

If I were to use an AN-124 the carrier would cost about 200 million assuming the price of 100 million per airplane and another 100 for the upgrades like the flight deck, this is a conservative estimate because the largest cost of an airplane is the engines from what I understand. The fighters should cost about 60 million each assuming a cost half that of the f-35. That should give a cost of 800 million per unit assuming that you have 10 fighters per carrier as per the original concepts, how does this compare to a regular aircraft carrier?

EDIT: Does anyone know the cost of an AN-225 because I am thinking of using that instead.

1) I think it being a good idea depends on the level of NS in your nation's expected RPs.
2) It shouldn't really be compared to a regular aircraft carrier. They're different craft for different tasks. There's overlap, but they're not going to be used in the same way.
3) Not sure, but the AN-225 is over-rated in my opinion. Its just a slightly larger AN-124 with a new tail and extra engines.

The Corparation wrote: 1) I think it being a good idea depends on the level of NS in your nation's expected RPs.
.

Currently modern tech is what I intend to RP and expect to RP as, so do you or anyone else on this thread think it would be practical?

The Corparation wrote:Unless as you mentioned, your entire nation is located exclusively in space, (In which case, why bother attacking a planet), ICBMs and other more conventional weapons systems will be cheaper, more effective, and more survivable than anything that has to sit there in orbit until needed. Especially if you have to setup a fairly large logistics train to build such weapons in space. Or at least to build a fancy guided weapon such as rods from god. It doesn't take much to nudge an asteroid, but it's still easier to just lob a missile from somewhere else on the planet.

Speed and difficulty to detect the launch. If you need a freaking kinetic strike right then.

An airborne aircraft carrier is a totally useless idea.

Questers wrote:An airborne aircraft carrier is a totally useless idea.

That implies there is no use for it. But the US military is looking for an aircraft that can launch and retrieve drones.

Naturally parasitic aircraft programs were very difficult.

Parasitic fighters existed in the 20s

There is a use - but you have to find the niche for it.
UAVs, sure, quite possible. The USAF is looking to have recoverable UAVs launched/recovered from C-130s.

EEvidence of an irl military doing something means its possible, not useful.

A small correction on the above thing: I'm talking about a nation that has space industry established to the point where it can manufacture stuff up there, -not- just a nation that is entirely in space.

That being said large scale resource extraction of a lot of stuff will tend to wither on the vine in one's nation if you import massive amounts of resources from space. But that's outside the scale of this thread.


As far as an airborne UCAV carrier goes, well, keep in mind that to have a UCAV that's as capable as a military aircraft it's going to be replacing, it's going to be of similar size and armament (somewhat less due to not needing a pilot though, but most likely not enough to reduce the size THAT much).

Pharthan wrote:There is a use - but you have to find the niche for it.
UAVs, sure, quite possible. The USAF is looking to have recoverable UAVs launched/recovered from C-130s.

Currently what I am thinking of is a fast response craft. It would be capable of reaching anywhere in the globe within 24 hours and then be capable of using built in RADAR to identify enemy aircraft and ground targets. After identification it could deploy strike craft while remaining at standoff distances from the targets. This would also be beneficial in dealing with insurgents in other countries as it could attack terrorists quickly without needing to have a carrier or an airbase in the region.

Like I said, useless. Rapid response options exist already. And they can deploy more ordnance at a greater speed. There is some small niche about being able to do recce in force but it unnecessarily risks the carrier itself.

Why would you want to attack terrorists in a part of the world you have no interests (and therefore bases) in?

Well...when you put it that way I guess I should reconsider my naval needs. Though, for some reason I thought given NS' ridiculousness thousands of ships didn't feel so farfetched. :<

Grand Britannia wrote:Well...when you put it that way I guess I should reconsider my naval needs. Though, for some reason I thought given NS' ridiculousness thousands of ships didn't feel so farfetched. :<

9001 boghammars.

Old Questers maintained a 2 power standard
It had like 100k ships iirc and no army LoL

Questers wrote:EEvidence of an irl military doing something means its possible, not useful.

Forgive me if I trust DARPA over anyone on NS.

Doesn't mean you're wrong, I'm just going to be very skeptical.

As far as Rods from God, they've a far larger niche in NS than they do in the Real World. Uselessness IRL =/= Uselessness NS.

Pharthan wrote:

Questers wrote:EEvidence of an irl military doing something means its possible, not useful.

Forgive me if I trust DARPA over anyone on NS.

Doesn't mean you're wrong, I'm just going to be very skeptical.

As far as Rods from God, they've a far larger niche in NS than they do in the Real World. Uselessness IRL =/= Uselessness NS.

If you have an infinite improbability retcon space launch system, then yes. Then they're useful.


Remember that you need to get those rods up there, and you need to give them that kinetic energy.

Its also important to note for Rods from God to get its mythical fast response time requires that the satellite be at an exact location in its orbit to hit the target. The weapons satellite will only be in a position to fire at a given target once every couple of days. So basically you can use the sattilite to attack someone really quickly for a very brief period of time every 3-4 days. This can be partially remedied by adding more satellites, but I doubt even with NS-budgets that getting a system with full coverage of the earth would be practical or cost effective. And of course the second you use it every satellite you operate within range of whoever you hit's ASAT weapons should be just written off for insurance money. You'll likely only have one chance to use the system, better make it count.

The Corparation wrote:Its also important to note for Rods from God to get its mythical fast response time requires you to the satellite has to be at an exact location in its orbit to hit a target that fast. The weapons satellite will only be in a position to fire at a given target once every couple of days. This can be partially remedied by adding more satellites, but I doubt even with NS-budgets that getting a system with full coverage of the earth would be practical or cost effective. And of course the second you use it every satellite you operate within range of whoever you hit's ASAT weapons should be just written off for insurance money. You'll likely only have one chance to use the system, better make it count.

They'll be in range once every 90 minutes, actually, for many LEO.

ASATs? Throw your satellites into an orbit 2,000km up, which means they'll be in range every 127 minutes and still be outside of pretty much any IRL ASAT. It's still even considered LEO at that point.

Questers wrote:Like I said, useless. Rapid response options exist already. And they can deploy more ordnance at a greater speed. There is some small niche about being able to do recce in force but it unnecessarily risks the carrier itself.

Why would you want to attack terrorists in a part of the world you have no interests (and therefore bases) in?

Presuming the terrorists have already stated to be against you, the mere existence of the terrorists in that part of the world is an interest/concern that would demand a response.

Re: orbital weaponry, they should probably be built up there in space if you want to minimize the problem of launch costs. Of course, this is probably an extremely expensive undertaking in and of itself, although it could be mitigated (at least marginally) if one has made the necessary investment in spaceborne infrastructure for commercial or other purposes.

That said, Rods from God as a concept is very much a first-strike system, which someone here has already noted is perfectly fine and good only for global policemen bombing ebul moslem terrorists and dirty korean communists who have no ASAT weaponry (either ground-based or space-based) to respond. In any symmetrical war scenario Rods is too vulnerable and too inflexible to be of use.

Re: airborne carriers - they're purely rule of cool; they are cool but not only impractical but unnecessary. For land attack there's already long-range ALCMs, for air combat, there's heavy fighters with in-flight refuel capability. Recalling issues for the land-attack can be solved by simple self-destruct codes/safeties... besides if you're gonna attack, attack with conviction and with unflinching determination, don't pussy-foot and recall